EPTThreads that turn into a random maniac trolling idra are always fun reads though
U.S. soldiers being injected with WHAT? - Page 13
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Zurles
United Kingdom1659 Posts
Threads that turn into a random maniac trolling idra are always fun reads though | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On May 10 2009 01:29 Biochemist wrote: Could you clarify some of the issues you have? I'm just curious. Mainly the air of self righteousness a lot of people associated with it have. And the marines part is probably a more limited view based on people I knew /know who joined the marines(they're assholes and completely lacking anything that could be considered an intellect.) I know that all military people and marines are not like this, I'm sure many are excellent people(I even know some). But I have noticed a patern. | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On May 10 2009 02:20 travis wrote: The point is that it's recommended to ingest(swallow) the fluoride to help keep teeth healthy. You don't have to swallow something for it to touch your teeth. I mean fuck, toothpaste has fluoride - isn't optional shit with fluoride in it enough? No, it isn't - instead it's mandatory for fucking everyone like it or not. How can people not see there is something shady going on there? Absolutely ridiculous. Again, the entire point here is that it ISNT OPTIONAL And finally - I am not saying they are trying to poison people. Really that doesn't seem impossible but I don't know. What I am saying is that the system is corrupt and people in power pretty much never give the tiniest fuck about the general populous. It is optional..buy bottled water. However I agree with you about the other part of your argument. There really is no reason to put it in water when so many easily affordable flouride products exist. I wouldn't call it "shady" though, at worse, misinformed. They mean well, its not like they are out to get you or make you "a little less healthy". | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On May 10 2009 01:46 Shizuru~ wrote: uhm... let me repeat my points.... currently, they put fluoride into our water, so that when we drink it, it would touches our teeth and benefits our oral heatlh... my points is, since u don have to ingest(IE:DRINK) the fluoride for it to have it benefits, why put that thing into our drinking water when there's known side effects.... most of european countires doesn't have fluoride in their water supplies... and yet they don't have as much of an oral health issues as people who had fluoride in their water did. To increase the topical exposure. Site your sources about european countries not having as much oral health issues as people who had fluoride? I call bullshit. Not only that, there is no way you can prove that the two have anything to do with fluoride at all. Talk to a dentist. The dentists I've had say there is nothing wrong with it. Now some professionals apparently disagree but this happens in almost all fields of study. PS. British people are reknowned for having very very bad teeth. This could be/is a sterotype and is probably the result of bad dentral professionals in the country, genetics, or its completely fabricated. But most stereotypes come from somewhere  This brings me back to my point about the video in the op. People are making a big deal out of something that is most likely a non issue. | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On May 10 2009 10:41 Kashll wrote: Hmm if people would call you a nut job for sharing a ton of the views that you hold, maybe you should re-examine or rethink some of your views. Lol..ya, have you considered the possible fact that you really are a nut job? | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
| ||
|
CombatV
United States4 Posts
Also, just a quick mention to everyone, please don't use the term "soldier" to describe anyone except the US Army. I didn't get it before I became a Marine, but trust me. We have a title, use it correctly please. | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
http://www.cdc.gov/FLUORIDATION/ Even you Doc. Because your post earlier in this thread is extremely misleading and biased. Something a good scientist wouldn't do. http://www.cdc.gov/FLUORIDATION/safety/nrc_report.htm | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On May 10 2009 12:52 travis wrote: This isn't even a question, it's a fact. hydrofluorosilicic acid - waste from fertilizer. sodium fluoride - neutralized hydrofluoric acid(waste from fertilizer) these are what is used in fluoridation of water. there aren't my opinions, this is just easily verifiable fact. http://www.solvaychemicals.us/static/wma/pdf/5/1/4/9/HFS.pdf Travis..sorry to say this but sometimes you come dangerously close to being a conspiracy nut. Granted a much more intelligent one, but the irrational fear and distrust is still apparent. Read through that site. Its a scientic analysis of the compounds you listed. Yes they are used in fluroidizing water but none of them are toxic(other than the fluroide itself in very high levels, or extremely high levels in general...just like many other readily available substances) and none of them help dispose of industrial waste. In fact they are manufactured, a reference for you...with additional information: "It is manufactured in modern rubberlined equipment producingan acid of high commercial purity. Commercial water solutions of the acid are available, having concentration of between 20% and 25% H2SiF6. Fluorosilicic acid is generally believed not to exist in the vapor phase, but only in solution. Upon vaporizing, it decomposes into hydrofluoric acid (HF) and silicon tetrafluoride. This equilibrium exists at the surface of strong solutions of fluorosilicic acid and if stored in glass containers, the small concentration of hydrofluoric acid may very slowly attack the glass above the solution level. For this reason, it is generally shipped in polyethylene containers rather than glass carboys. A 23% fluorosilicic acidwater solution weighs 10.2 pounds per gallon at 60ºF, and has a fluoride (F) content of 17.41%.". It's really easy to be sure of yourself when you don't bother to ever check if you're wrong. Waste from fertilizer lol...good stuff. | ||
|
Biochemist
United States1008 Posts
On May 11 2009 07:26 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: Mainly the air of self righteousness a lot of people associated with it have. And the marines part is probably a more limited view based on people I knew /know who joined the marines(they're assholes and completely lacking anything that could be considered an intellect.) I know that all military people and marines are not like this, I'm sure many are excellent people(I even know some). But I have noticed a patern. I was just curious, having been a Marine for 5 years. It's true that the military and the Marines in particular tends to attract a certain type of personality, but for every "stupid asshole" in the Marines, I can show you five who aren't. Most of them grow out of it after a couple years. You find those personalities there because it's a military... they're all like that to a degree. Don't take it out on the service, everyone is still an individual and responsible for their own personality. CombatV, what unit are you with? | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On May 11 2009 08:04 CombatV wrote: Marines stationed in 29 Palms? Oh shit... That's me... Also, just a quick mention to everyone, please don't use the term "soldier" to describe anyone except the US Army. I didn't get it before I became a Marine, but trust me. We have a title, use it correctly please. See what I mean biochemist? lmao. I INSIST YOU CALL ME SIR! ...get over yourself. If I work at a labortory I don't insist everyone call me Scientist Zach. Jesus.. If you fight for an army, any branch...you're a soldier. It's not disrespectful, it's the english language. A soldier is someone trained to kill. Simple as that. He's probably just trolling but I have no way of knowing for sure | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On May 11 2009 08:18 Biochemist wrote: I was just curious, having been a Marine for 5 years. It's true that the military and the Marines in particular tends to attract a certain type of personality, but for every "stupid asshole" in the Marines, I can show you five who aren't. Most of them grow out of it after a couple years. You find those personalities there because it's a military... they're all like that to a degree. Don't take it out on the service, everyone is still an individual and responsible for their own personality. CombatV, what unit are you with? I know..I even said the exact same thing in my post. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 11 2009 05:35 Kwark wrote: Holy shit those were some bad posts. Thanks IdrA for defending rationality but he's beyond help. There has been fluoride in the water supply in this country for decades with the only long term effect being an improvement in the teeth. I find it amazing that when the debate is (from like page 2 of the topic at least) how there is fluoride in drinking water and has been for decades you insist you don't trust it because it's untested on a large group of people for 10-20 years. Are you serious? We're talking about a sample size of hundreds of millions of people over several generations and you're saying the sample size isn't big enough to satisfy you that it's safe? Water will kill you if you drink too much. Chocolate is known to be toxic (everyone knows not to feed dogs chocolate because it's poisonous), it's just the lethal dose is more than any human generally consumes. The fact that an unsafe dose exists doesn't make the safe dose any less safe. Jeez. There has been no such experiments. An experiment has to be made in a controlled environment where you know all the variables involved. Just dumping fluoride in the water supply and waiting to see what happens is not an experiment. The reason why you are OK with it is because you are invested in this lie, as many others are. I'm not. I can safely say fluoride is highly toxic. Can you prove that fluoride can't build up and do harm in your system, with a scientific experiment? You can't, because no such experiment exists. All you can do is perpetuate the lie that it's harmless. | ||
|
Shizuru~
Malaysia1676 Posts
On May 11 2009 07:39 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: To increase the topical exposure. Site your sources about european countries not having as much oral health issues as people who had fluoride? I call bullshit. Not only that, there is no way you can prove that the two have anything to do with fluoride at all. Talk to a dentist. The dentists I've had say there is nothing wrong with it. Now some professionals apparently disagree but this happens in almost all fields of study. PS. British people are reknowned for having very very bad teeth. This could be/is a sterotype and is probably the result of bad dentral professionals in the country, genetics, or its completely fabricated. But most stereotypes come from somewhere This brings me back to my point about the video in the op. People are making a big deal out of something that is most likely a non issue. http://www.fluoridealert.org/govt-statements.htm government statements on their stance on fluoride... http://www.who.int/oral_health/media/en/orh_report03_en.pdf WHO report on dental health worldwide, page11 apparently, u have no problem with fluoride in ur water supply at all... and thats fine, u should have it if u wanted it, but what about the people who doesn't want it? what about the people who would rather take care of their own dental health without the need of the government to put stuff into the water supply and force it on us? ever thought of it that way? | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On May 11 2009 08:28 Yurebis wrote: There has been no such experiments. An experiment has to be made in a controlled environment where you know all the variables involved. Just dumping fluoride in the water supply and waiting to see what happens is not an experiment. The reason why you are OK with it is because you are invested in this lie, as many others are. I'm not. I can safely say fluoride is highly toxic. Can you prove that fluoride can't build up and do harm in your system, with a scientific experiment? You can't, because no such experiment exists. All you can do is perpetuate the lie that it's harmless. It has been studied extensively though. They have done controlled experiments, not on hundreds of millions but definitely on a statistically relevant number of subjects and with reletively large sample size. | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On May 11 2009 08:29 Shizuru~ wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQFWUYJKt8w http://www.fluoridealert.org/govt-statements.htm government statements on their stance on fluoride... http://www.who.int/oral_health/media/en/orh_report03_en.pdf WHO report on dental health worldwide, page11 apparently, u have no problem with fluoride in ur water supply at all... and thats fine, u should have it if u wanted it, but what about the people who doesn't want it? what about the people who would rather take care of their own dental health without the need of the government to put stuff into the water supply and force it on us? ever thought of it that way? Ya nice video...cable news stations reposted on youtube are not exactly strong evidence for a case. For example, the news anchor talks about a crown he had done that was once 30 pounds now costing 300 pounds and how "rediculous" it is. Crowns in the US can be close to a thousand dollars. I would know, I had a genetic fracture in my tooth and had to pay for one out of pocket. Luckily my parents were nice enough to help(maybe they felt responsible ). The point is the video is bullshit. Its not the most expensive. Theres probably more variation from dentist to dentist than from country to country.The bottom line is , all dental care is extremely expensive because of the extreme amount of education necessary to be a competent dentist. Ya a website called fluoridealert...that shouldn't be biased at all right?...please. If you want the governments own stance officially. Visit the cdc or NRC website and read it yourself. I just did after viewing this thread. Theres a lot of conflicting information between the too. | ||
|
Wohmfg
United Kingdom1292 Posts
On May 11 2009 08:29 Shizuru~ wrote: apparently, u have no problem with fluoride in ur water supply at all... and thats fine, u should have it if u wanted it, but what about the people who doesn't want it? what about the people who would rather take care of their own dental health without the need of the government to put stuff into the water supply and force it on us? ever thought of it that way? That's the only valid argument you've made so far. But seeing as the levels of fluoride in the water supply are not toxic, there would be no reason not to force it on people. Just like there would be no reason NOT to enforce seatbelt wearing. It's sensible, even though it infringes on your freedom. | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On May 11 2009 08:29 Shizuru~ wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQFWUYJKt8w http://www.fluoridealert.org/govt-statements.htm government statements on their stance on fluoride... http://www.who.int/oral_health/media/en/orh_report03_en.pdf WHO report on dental health worldwide, page11 apparently, u have no problem with fluoride in ur water supply at all... and thats fine, u should have it if u wanted it, but what about the people who doesn't want it? what about the people who would rather take care of their own dental health without the need of the government to put stuff into the water supply and force it on us? ever thought of it that way? I have thought of it that way actually. Instead of trying to be a pompous smart ass why dont you read the response I made to travis on the subject. I clearly state my position that it IS silly and unnessary to add fluoride to water when so many products are available. Not only that but people have the option of buying very affordable bottled water. | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On May 11 2009 07:33 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: It is optional..buy bottled water. However I agree with you about the other part of your argument. There really is no reason to put it in water when so many easily affordable flouride products exist. I wouldn't call it "shady" though, at worse, misinformed. They mean well, its not like they are out to get you or make you "a little less healthy". Here I'll help you find it. | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On May 11 2009 08:36 Wohmfg wrote: That's the only valid argument you've made so far. But seeing as the levels of fluoride in the water supply are not toxic, there would be no reason not to force it on people. Just like there would be no reason NOT to enforce seatbelt wearing. It's sensible, even though it infringes on your freedom. Except not even that is a valid argument because no one is arguing about that fact. Merely the safety/severity of the practice. | ||
| ||
