EPTU.S. soldiers being injected with WHAT? - Page 24
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Gray[FH
152 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28825 Posts
but to me, grand-scale scientific consensus has appeared trustworthy on every issue I've attempted to research myself. I see no reason to doubt it in this case. | ||
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
Dr. William Marcus, Ph.D, Environmental Protection Agency Scientist, Food & Water Journal, Summer 1998 "Fluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use. I believe EPA should act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity, and other effects." "I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable." Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association "fluoridation ... it is the greatest fraud that has ever been perpetrated and it has been perpetrated on more people than any other fraud has. " Professor Albert Schatz, Ph.D. (Microbiology), Discoverer of streptomycin & Nobel Prize Winner (- another one, go figure). Dr. Robert Carton, Ph.D, former Environmental Protection Agency Scientist (20 years), Food & Water Journal, Summer 1998 "The level of fluoride the government allows the public is based on scientifically fraudulent information and altered reports. People can be harmed simply by drinking water." Dr. Hardy Limeback, biochemist and Professor of Dentistry, University of Toronto, former consultant to the Canadian Dental Association. "Children under three should never use fluoridated toothpaste. Or drink fluoridated water. And baby formula must never be made up using Toronto tap water. Never. In fluoridated areas, people should never use fluoride supplements. We tried to get them banned for children but (the dentists) wouldn't even look at the evidence we presented" (- a pro-fluoridation guy, waking up) | ||
|
Railxp
Hong Kong1313 Posts
| ||
|
Infundibulum
United States2552 Posts
| ||
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On May 13 2009 09:49 Yurebis wrote: so how can you ever get more than the 1000mg+/kg from toothpaste in your saliva when you can't even have like 400mg in your bloodstream without potentially dying? edit: To be clear, I mean that, even if you could, it would still be less effective than brushing your teeth. How much fluoride was in that chink's saliva anyways... lol @ random racial slur. From what I've been reading (The Google books link as well as various studies found through Google Scholar), it's clear that the action of fluoride is not as simple as applying it to your teeth, and there's no reason why applying a higher concentration should be proportionally more effective than a lower concentration. Fluoride evidently fights cavities via the demineralization and remineralization processes of your enamel. These take place while / after you eat, not while you're brushing. And the fluoride concentration in your saliva may come into play here. The concentration in toothpaste wouldn't really matter, beyond how much of that fluoride is actually absorbed into the enamel. This pretty much defeats your concentration-based arguments comparing toothpaste to fluorinated drinking water. | ||
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On May 14 2009 05:04 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote: The fact that Fluoride was (is) an industrial byproduct, with no real method of safe disposal, is a hint here But aren't we, as a species, continually finding uses for our "wastes"? Such as all our recycling efforts. Or nuclear fuel reprocessing. Our efforts to make our "waste" useful are advances in our knowledge and technology. I don't see how you can suddenly turn it into evidence of wrongdoing. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 14 2009 07:17 Bill307 wrote: But aren't we, as a species, continually finding uses for our "wastes"? Such as all our recycling efforts. Or nuclear fuel reprocessing. Our efforts to make our "waste" useful are advances in our knowledge and technology. I don't see how you can suddenly turn it into evidence of wrongdoing. can you come up with a comparable example? where we are consuming a chemical waste product. I do agree with your general message, but I think it is important to note that there are technological advances that are good for mankind, and technological "advances" that were agendized from the start and only good for select groups. There are plenty of examples of each. | ||
|
CursOr
United States6335 Posts
Jensen writes about how our whole "civilization" is just a fluke of very very recent human history. the vast majority of our history is classified as "pre-history" which goes on for 900,000 years before we start to develop poisons and "waste" and all things like that. so, i woudlnt say that we are continualy finding uses for our waste- i think its more accurate that we just recently started producing deadly chemicals on a large scale like this. and in any event, i dont think drinking them qualifies as sufficently dealing with the problem. | ||
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On May 14 2009 07:21 travis wrote: can you come up with a comparable example? where we are consuming a chemical waste product. I don't feel like looking into it, but I don't see why it's a big deal. So chemical waste happens to be a cheap source of fluorine atoms. So what? I bet there are all kinds of useful atoms or metals in chemical waste that aren't taken advantage of because it's too costly to isolate them compared to mining them from other sources. Bear in mind we are NOT using "chemical waste". We are using ONE SPECIFIC element, among myriad others, that can be obtained from it. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 14 2009 07:27 Bill307 wrote: I don't feel like looking into it, but I don't see why it's a big deal. So chemical waste happens to be a cheap source of fluorine atoms. So what? I bet there are all kinds of useful atoms or metals in chemical waste that aren't taken advantage of because it's too costly to isolate them compared to mining them from other sources. the big deal is that we can't look into nature and see the effects of consuming it, because it isn't something that naturally occurs like that in the first place. so if we are going to be mass consuming something that doesn't even biodegrade in nature then there should be extremely extensive testing. | ||
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On May 14 2009 07:26 cUrsOr wrote: i think its more accurate that we just recently started producing deadly chemicals on a large scale like this. "Deadly chemicals"? Like what, Chlorine? Which is also 50% of table salt? Seriously, this is ridiculous. You can't refer to a single element as "chemical waste" or a "deadly chemical". Chlorine is the easiest example of an element that's both "deadly" (Chlorine gas, or Chlorine in water as an anti-septic) and an integral part of our diet. The fact that two substances share an element in common is meaningless. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 14 2009 07:34 Bill307 wrote: "Deadly chemicals"? Like what, Chlorine? Which is also 50% of table salt? Seriously, this is ridiculous. You can't refer to a single element as "chemical waste" or a "deadly chemical". Chlorine is the easiest example of an element that's both "deadly" (Chlorine gas, or Chlorine in water as an anti-septic) and an integral part of our diet. The fact that two substances share an element in common is meaningless. I am pretty sure he was referring to toxic waste in general. | ||
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On May 14 2009 07:31 travis wrote: the big deal is that we can't look into nature and see the effects of consuming it, because it isn't something that naturally occurs like that in the first place. so if we are going to be mass consuming something that doesn't even biodegrade in nature then there should be extremely extensive testing. Did you miss the posts about how the Colorado river and other natural sources of water are already naturally-fluroidated? "doesn't even biodegrade in nature" - how the fuck can an ELEMENT "biodegrade"? Having a single element is like the definition of something having degraded. And if you put Sodium Fluoride in water, I'm sure it will dissolve just like Sodium Chloride. Does that not count as biodegrading? | ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
*Sigh* I guess I'll have to look into this more thoroughly after all :/ | ||
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On May 14 2009 07:49 KlaCkoN wrote: Physician's series of posts right now were surprisingly convincing. *Sigh* I guess I'll have to look into this more thoroughly after all :/ Convincing? It's common to find people with impressive(-looking) degrees who are wrong about something. Not to mention how many other people with equivalent degrees disagree with them. If he wants to be convincing then he should post actual research, not people's opinions. | ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On May 14 2009 07:59 Bill307 wrote: Convincing? It's common to find people with impressive(-looking) degrees who are wrong about something. Not to mention how many other people with equivalent degrees disagree with them. If he wants to be convincing then he should post actual research, not people's opinions. Yeah good point, but the fact that some of the people on that list seem to be so very much against it is enough for me to bother looking into it. It's different than some random maniac shouting something. Travis's article was alarming as well, it seemed to be well referenced though I haven't bothered to look through them, yet. (Need to find a list of credible medical journals first =p) | ||
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 14 2009 07:39 Bill307 wrote: Did you miss the posts about how the Colorado river and other natural sources of water are already naturally-fluroidated? correct me if I am wrong, but natural water fluoridation comes from fluorine, whereas human fluoridation is done through various fluorine compounds, which are just believed to dissolve with no ill effects. "doesn't even biodegrade in nature" - how the fuck can an ELEMENT "biodegrade"? I wasn't talking about fluorine I was talking about the waste sources that the fluorine compounds we use come from. I guess that is misleading on my part. But my point is that sodium fluoride, as well as the other compounds we use, are derived from hazardous waste. Having a single element is like the definition of something having degraded. And if you put Sodium Fluoride in water, I'm sure it will dissolve just like Sodium Chloride. Does that not count as biodegrading? I am sure that almost all of it dissolves. But what about the bit that doesn't? And what about all the other possible chemical processes that can occur in our water thanks to the introduction of various fluoride compounds? And what about potential radioactivity? I really don't know, this is pure speculation. But do you know? I really am not trying to support my argument here..I really don't have much knowledge of chemistry. Just trying to introduce ideas. My argument is centered around the fact that the whole process was clearly an agenda to make money and remove waste, and for that reason alone we shouldn't be inclined to trust it. fluorine, sodium fluoride, hydrosiloflouoricicic acid, fluoridation, fluoride, this whole thing is starting to confuse me now | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 14 2009 08:08 Bill307 wrote: In that case, you might want to try Google Scholar. It shows how many other papers have cited each paper in the search results. how would you go about using this function? like, what purpose does it have for you? | ||
| ||
