451
Off Topic / Re: Change one word in the above user's sentence
« on: April 12, 2014, 03:26:40 PM »
I was loving for mondays stuff in my body.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I can't see anything methodologically flawed about giving an organism with like 2% the body-weight of an adult human-being large amounts of fluoridated water until it shows up in their bone-cultures. There's a reason LD50 values are measured in mg/kg of weight.Just because it could accumulate so easily in a small human brown townog over weeks doesn't mean it couldn't build up slowly for weeks, months, and years in a human being that has been drinking water mixed with fluoride since their childhood. It was done like this to accelerate the effect. Also, a PDF of one study on accumulation on one particular organ, the pineal gland.
Okay yeah, that's a megadose of sodium fluoride. Basically every organ in your body is gonna fail if you start shoveling handfuls of chemically-pure sodium fluoride down your throat. I'm talking about the lower-range of harmful doses where you can get dental fluorosis, ulcers, etc.I saw this one coming from a mile away.
What you're missing here is that the fluoride put in tap water is really really dilute. Like, there's probably only a milligram or so of it in several liters of tap water. To get the same amount of fluoride found in tooth paste, you'd have to extract fluoride from like tens of gallons of tap water.
It's easy to make the mistake of thinking that if a chemical is harmful at one dose, it's harmful at all doses. This is not the case. In fact, for any chemical you can think of, there is both a safe dosage and an unsafe dosage. It's like the first rule of toxicology.
Yeah, I don't even see why he's citing that as evidence against water-fluoridation when we still have populations with dental hygiene issues.
The sodium fluoride in tap water is found in trace amounts and doesn't pose any risk to human health. On the contrary, it actually improves dental health in populaces that rely heavily on municipal water supplies for drinking water.http://d65852kwq1u8u.cloudfront.net/uploads/179_bag-of-sodium-fluoride.jpg
Its always been this way. Besides, revolutions always have power vacuums, of course there's going to be a few dumbass extremists. Not every Ukranian is a neo-national socialist.Firstly, as you can see here, there are multiple articles on this issue. It doesn't seem rational that a plethora of websites would overhype a small case of a "few dumbass extremists" causing change in a collapsing country.
Net Neutrality laws weren't around in early 2000's, yet the internet was fine with minimal government oversightYou do have a point, but that doesn't mean that the situation has not at all changed with corporations and the mass popularity of the Internet. Something as extremely popular as YouTube can now, unlike what would happen back in the same years when dial-up was still a thing, be profited off of. The Internet has been dramatically commercialized since then, simply because of the mass potential of extreme growth since then.
Hasn't fluoride always been added to water? Besides, I wouldn't trust a website devoted to being against fluroide as my only source for the dangers of fluoride. Go watch Dr. Strangelove or something.Again, you have made a point, and I could've gotten more than one source. However, though, you are making another assumption. Things have definitely changed since more than half a century ago, just as the Internet has morphed past its infancy since more than a decade ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usB-FDET3dsThat's actually where I first heard about it.