U.S. soldiers being injected with WHAT? - Page 7
Forum Index > General Forum |
Frits
11782 Posts
| ||
![]()
Bill307
![]()
Canada9103 Posts
On May 09 2009 14:37 travis wrote: you think that fluoride is very bad for you at high levels, but at lower levels there are no negative consequences to anyone, even though fluoride can potentially build up over time in a person's system? Why not? Water is like that, for example. So are many nutrients (e.g. where greatly exceeding the daily recommended intake = very bad for you). | ||
kaleidoscope
Singapore2887 Posts
| ||
![]()
Bill307
![]()
Canada9103 Posts
On May 09 2009 14:40 HeadBangaa wrote: The fluoridists can say, at best, that at low levels, we do not know the consequence. Worst argument ever? Essentially everything we are exposed to that we deem safe is "safe" because there are no problems as far as we've seen. E.g. does anyone know the negative consequences of eating a small amount of apples? | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42689 Posts
On May 09 2009 10:26 Shizuru~ wrote: they've been doing this for decades now, people just lived so blissfully ignorant to see what is actually going on around them, check all the shots u received when u were born, most of them contained high concentration of thimerosol(ie:a compound of mercury), most of your drinking water contains fluoride (there's a reason why Hitler put fluoride into the drinking water of the concentration camps,) i pity this guy though. not sympathetic, but pity, he's so brainwashed that he still wants to go back to the military. Erm, dentists are constantly recommending that we put more fluoride in the drinking water because it stops your teeth from rotting. Saying it was bad because apparently Hitler used it is like saying toothpaste is bad because Hitler used it. Fluoride in the water supply is far below the safe dose. Jeez. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42689 Posts
On May 09 2009 14:40 HeadBangaa wrote: The fluoridists can say, at best, that at low levels, we do not know the consequence. We have become non-consenting participants in a drug experiment. No, we do know the consequencess. It protects your teeth. That's why they put it in water. Jeez, this isn't difficult guys. Please try to keep up. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42689 Posts
The Times is the most reputable paper in Britain, everything it writes is fully sourced and considered balanced. The author of this article is a guest commentator, Dr Nigel Carter. Dr Nigel Carter is a registered dentist and chief executive of the British Dental Health Foundation, in short, he knows his shit. And then there are a load of people on the comments going "itz eval!!!!" | ||
Mania[K]al
United States359 Posts
| ||
Mikeho
Canada1 Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_biological_weapons_program Start reading part 7...and If you think its fake then check out the sources at the bottom | ||
seppolevne
Canada1681 Posts
On May 09 2009 16:12 Mikeho wrote: Heres some more food for thought: http://en.wikipedia.org/wikiUS_Biological_Weapon_Testing#Entomological_testing Start reading part 7...and If you think its fake then check out the sources at the bottom scratch that | ||
Physician
![]()
United States4146 Posts
On May 09 2009 16:22 seppolevne wrote: uhh I get 404, the sources must have been good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Biological_Weapon_Testing | ||
Railz
United States1449 Posts
Also for you paranoid folks, look up chem-trails. | ||
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On May 09 2009 14:43 Jibba wrote: Get your water elsewhere. There's plenty of things we don't directly consent to. EDIT: If your history is right (I'm too lazy and indifferent to check) then it certainly does raise alarms for future policies, but the point I'm making is that at some point, usually at the city/county level, we did become consenting participants even if you didn't give direct consent, probably because you were just a sperm back then. There are some policies choices that have never been presented to us, but I don't think this is one of them. Through representative democracy, we did give our consent. Representative democracy as a euphemism for special interest lobbying? Come now, don't be so naive. And "Get your water elsewhere?" That's your answer to contamination concerns? Why not just stop polluting our existing supplies? The government should rather provide fluoride to citizens individually. Then you can drink all the fluoride you want, and I get clean tap water. Why do you liberals so despise self-determination? Stop imposing on me, Man. | ||
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On May 09 2009 15:46 Kwark wrote: No, we do know the consequencess. It protects your teeth. That's why they put it in water. Jeez, this isn't difficult guys. Please try to keep up. As if British people know anything about that, shhh. OK, sorry. That was my answer to your condescending tone. To answer your content, the claim you make is questionable: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-03-22-fluoride-water_x.htm + Show Spoiler + Report raises flag on fluoride By Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY Government limits on fluoride in drinking water aren't protecting the public from possible tooth and bone damage, a prestigious advisory panel says. The Environmental Protection Agency allows so much fluoride that some children in areas with unusually high natural fluoride levels are developing discolored teeth and weakened tooth enamel, according to the report from the National Academies' National Research Council. The council notes that municipalities in areas with low or no fluoride in their water add low levels of the compound to drinking water to help prevent tooth decay, but water supplies in some areas have much higher amounts of naturally occurring fluoride. Industrial pollution also can increase the levels. The EPA's ceiling on fluoride in drinking water is 4 milligrams per liter, or 4 parts per million. That's four times the concentration recommended to fight cavities, which is 0.7 to 1.2 parts per million, the American Dental Association says. "Fluoride is nature's cavity fighter," the ADA said in a prepared statement. "Fluoride makes the entire tooth structure more resistant to decay." Drinking water presents the greatest exposure to fluoride, says John Doull, chairman of the panel and emeritus professor of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City. States that have regions with levels of natural fluoride at or above the EPA's maximum containment level include Colorado, Indiana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. About 200,000 Americans live in areas where drinking water contains fluoride levels over the EPA standard, the report says. At those levels, 10% of children younger than 8, whose adult teeth are still developing, get severe enamel fluorosis. The condition is characterized by discoloration and pitting of the teeth and loss of enamel, the panel says. The report notes that infants and young children are exposed to three to four times as much fluoride as adults because of their low body weight. But adults are vulnerable because of fluoride accumulation in bones. People exposed to water at or above the EPA's upper limit over a lifetime are at increased risk for bone fractures and a rare, crippling bone-and-joint condition called skeletal fluorosis, the panel finds. Though a few studies appear to show a connection between fluoride and bone cancer, the National Academies committee called the results "tentative and mixed." A large study at the Harvard School of Dental Medicine is expected to shed some light on the subject this summer. Tim Kropp of the Environmental Working Group, a research organization based in Washington, D.C., says fluoride should be limited to toothpaste. "It really only makes sense to put it where it works and don't put it where it can cause harm," he says. The study was sponsored by the EPA. The council is the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering, advising the government on science and technology. Secondly, even if the benefits are reaped, we do not know what kind of collateral damage we are doing. It's a large-scale drug experiment, plain and simple. There is no fathomable reason to not simply provide fluoride to individuals to use at their own discretion. Water, as a fundamental resource, shouldn't be tainted. | ||
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On May 09 2009 15:08 Bill307 wrote: Worst argument ever? Essentially everything we are exposed to that we deem safe is "safe" because there are no problems as far as we've seen. E.g. does anyone know the negative consequences of eating a small amount of apples? Worst counterargument ever. People have been consuming apples throughout history. That was a really poor example. We already know fluoride is detrimental when consumed. | ||
yobifox
Korea (South)4 Posts
| ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42689 Posts
On May 09 2009 18:17 HeadBangaa wrote: As if British people know anything about that, shhh. OK, sorry. That was my answer to your condescending tone. To answer your content, the claim you make is questionable: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-03-22-fluoride-water_x.htm + Show Spoiler + Report raises flag on fluoride By Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY Government limits on fluoride in drinking water aren't protecting the public from possible tooth and bone damage, a prestigious advisory panel says. The Environmental Protection Agency allows so much fluoride that some children in areas with unusually high natural fluoride levels are developing discolored teeth and weakened tooth enamel, according to the report from the National Academies' National Research Council. The council notes that municipalities in areas with low or no fluoride in their water add low levels of the compound to drinking water to help prevent tooth decay, but water supplies in some areas have much higher amounts of naturally occurring fluoride. Industrial pollution also can increase the levels. The EPA's ceiling on fluoride in drinking water is 4 milligrams per liter, or 4 parts per million. That's four times the concentration recommended to fight cavities, which is 0.7 to 1.2 parts per million, the American Dental Association says. "Fluoride is nature's cavity fighter," the ADA said in a prepared statement. "Fluoride makes the entire tooth structure more resistant to decay." Drinking water presents the greatest exposure to fluoride, says John Doull, chairman of the panel and emeritus professor of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City. States that have regions with levels of natural fluoride at or above the EPA's maximum containment level include Colorado, Indiana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. About 200,000 Americans live in areas where drinking water contains fluoride levels over the EPA standard, the report says. At those levels, 10% of children younger than 8, whose adult teeth are still developing, get severe enamel fluorosis. The condition is characterized by discoloration and pitting of the teeth and loss of enamel, the panel says. The report notes that infants and young children are exposed to three to four times as much fluoride as adults because of their low body weight. But adults are vulnerable because of fluoride accumulation in bones. People exposed to water at or above the EPA's upper limit over a lifetime are at increased risk for bone fractures and a rare, crippling bone-and-joint condition called skeletal fluorosis, the panel finds. Though a few studies appear to show a connection between fluoride and bone cancer, the National Academies committee called the results "tentative and mixed." A large study at the Harvard School of Dental Medicine is expected to shed some light on the subject this summer. Tim Kropp of the Environmental Working Group, a research organization based in Washington, D.C., says fluoride should be limited to toothpaste. "It really only makes sense to put it where it works and don't put it where it can cause harm," he says. The study was sponsored by the EPA. The council is the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering, advising the government on science and technology. Secondly, even if the benefits are reaped, we do not know what kind of collateral damage we are doing. It's a large-scale drug experiment, plain and simple. There is no fathomable reason to not simply provide fluoride to individuals to use at their own discretion. Water, as a fundamental resource, shouldn't be tainted. That article says it's very good for the teeth and recommended but in areas where it occurs in doses far higher than normal due to polution it isn't so good. Basically you're agreeing with me that the recommended amounts of fluoride are good and the excessive amounts are bad. Thank you. | ||
deathgod6
United States5064 Posts
![]() This is the result of Operation Walrus, a military project using soldiers as test sublects. | ||
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
| ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42689 Posts
Still tastes pretty good. | ||
| ||