Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Bad Boy Dazza on August 17, 2013, 01:28:25 AM
-
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court in Israel has ruled that all public water fluoridation in the state of Israel must cease by 2014.
http://www.hotpress.com/news/Israeli-Supreme-Court-Backs-Work-of-Irish-Scientist-on-Fluoride/10088280.html
-
Who gives a shit.
-
Who gives a shit.
Your brain damaged children?
-
(http://cs306806.vk.me/v306806825/7dcf/-vqiCI5DTbU.jpg)
-
Somebody finally gave General Ripper the respect he deserved for his courage to speak out on this.
(http://badskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/SL.jpg)
-
I don't know how true all the fluoride hysteria is, as I haven't honestly looked into it to much. I do drink bottle water a lot, not for any other reason than my beautiful child knocks over my drinking glasses on a regular basis.
-
I don't know how true all the fluoride hysteria is, as I haven't honestly looked into it to much. I do drink bottle water a lot, not for any other reason than my beautiful child knocks over my drinking glasses on a regular basis.
Then may I ask you consider why Israel is banning it, and also consider this article:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/
-
Who gives a shit.
lol cmon man flouradation is no joke actually
-
Then may I ask you consider why Israel is banning it, and also consider this article:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/
Send info my way, dude. I admit my ignorance on this topic. Ill be happy to read any info you pass along. Thanks!
-
*shakes head*
There has been no evidence that fluoridation, at the levels used in water, causes anything except healthier teeth. But the nutjobs need to bitch about something... contrails, wifi, fluoride in the water, etc.
-
*shakes head*
There has been no evidence that fluoridation, at the levels used in water, causes anything except healthier teeth. But the nutjobs need to bitch about something... contrails, wifi, fluoride in the water, etc.
I'm no conspiracy theorist...but I've read things that say otherwise regarding fluoride. Why should I believe you vs scientists/doctors who disagree with you?
-
*shakes head*
There has been no evidence that fluoridation, at the levels used in water, causes anything except healthier teeth. But the nutjobs need to bitch about something... contrails, wifi, fluoride in the water, etc.
what about calcification of the pineal gland?
-
what about calcification of the pineal gland?
You'd imagine that with fluoride in the water for decades we'd be hearing about calcified pineal glands left and right if that were there the case... and yet, this is the first I've heard of it. That's not to say its not possible. Which brings us to a simple question:
Are there any scientific studies which show a statistically siginificant relationship between fluoride and "calcification of the pineal gland"?
-
You'd imagine that with fluoride in the water for decades we'd be hearing about calcified pineal glands left and right if that were there the case... and yet, this is the first I've heard of it. That's not to say its not possible. Which brings us to a simple question:
Are there any scientific studies which show a statistically siginificant relationship between fluoride and "calcification of the pineal gland"?
Pineal glands do calcify....I'd like to hear more reasons other than aging that cause this though. I've seen studies showing that the better teeth argument is also correlated with overall better hygiene in modern society, not strictly to the fluoridity.
Either way, I'm keeping an open mind but I'd like to hear more info.
-
I'm no conspiracy theorist...but I've read things that say otherwise regarding fluoride. Why should I believe you vs scientists/doctors who disagree with you?
Don't believe me - I never asked you to. The evidence for the safety of fluoridated water is available for inspection. I am curious, what possible reason could dentists today have to support fluoridation if it doesn't help? Are they all stock holders in Fluoride Inc.?
-
Don't believe me - I never asked you to. The evidence for the safety of fluoridated water is available for inspection. I am curious, what possible reason could dentists today have to support fluoridation if it doesn't help? Are they all stock holders in Fluoride Inc.?
Im not attacking you bro...I'm just asking if you have any concrete arguments, I'm genuinely interested in learning more.
-
Im not attacking you bro...I'm just asking if you have any concrete arguments, I'm genuinely interested in learning more.
It's not my area of expertise but I'd suggest checking out Wikipedia; my position is that water has been fluoridated for many years and few if any documented side-effects have been noted, except in places where too much fluoride was used (either because of crappy equipment or naturally highly fluoridated water) and the fact that experts - including the ADA - continue to support fluoridation despite deriving no financial advantage from doing so.
-
It's not my area of expertise but I'd suggest checking out Wikipedia
Bro I don't think Wikipedia is all that reliable.
-
Bro I don't think Wikipedia is all that reliable.
It should be taken with a grain of salt (coincidentally, table salt contains fluoride!) and not accepted uncritically, but it is an excellent resource that frequently includes quite useful links to reliable sources.
Plus, I doubt that everyone is as lucky as me to have available, for unlimited use, a major University library at all hours of the day, and the ability to consult with University Professors in the field of dentistry by sending a quick inter-department message.
-
There's nothing wrong with being a conspiracy theorist and yes, as I and others have been saying, fluoride is bad for you. There have been plenty of studies as I've posted in the past showing its long term effects.
Another one for Wiggs and CSWOL.
-
It should be taken with a grain of salt (coincidentally, table salt contains fluoride!) and not accepted uncritically, but it is an excellent resource that frequently includes quite useful links to reliable sources.
Plus, I doubt that everyone is as lucky as me to have available, for unlimited use, a major University library at all hours of the day, and the ability to consult with University Professors in the field of dentistry by sending a quick inter-department message.
My wife is a dentist.....
-
My wife is a dentist.....
Great. What's her professional view on water fluoridation?
-
Fresh spring water is best.
-
Professors in the field of dentistry
Bro nobody is saying it hurts your teeth.
-
Bro nobody is saying it hurts your teeth.
Actually, it can. In large amounts it can cause fluorosis.
-
Great. What's her professional view on water fluoridation?
Huh, don't know! I'll ask when she gets back from the GYM......now this thread is BB related. :D
-
I grew up on well water. When you get older, drink beer. Ask Arnold (bb related).
-
At the very minimum, fluoride is "forced medication." Fuck that.
(http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Sodium-Fluoride-Toxic.jpg)
-
(http://craftyreporting.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/gc-sodium-fluoride.jpg)
(http://www.casescorner.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/Fluoride_Bag_ToxicPoison_197x288.jpg)
-
You'd imagine that with fluoride in the water for decades we'd be hearing about calcified pineal glands left and right if that were there the case... and yet, this is the first I've heard of it. That's not to say its not possible. Which brings us to a simple question:
Are there any scientific studies which show a statistically siginificant relationship between fluoride and "calcification of the pineal gland"?
I think that they are studying it...and if it found to be bad, then there will be studies funded by lobbyists that say the opposite...dentists are always pushing fluoride treatment, and it's in our toothpaste and drinking water
But
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineal_gland (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineal_gland)
-
I think that they are studying it...and if it found to be bad, then there will be studies funded by lobbyists that say the opposite...dentists are always pushing fluoride treatment, and it's in our toothpaste and drinking water
But
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineal_gland (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineal_gland)
Bro dentists just know teeth. They don't know what it does to the rest of the body.
-
At the very minimum, fluoride is "forced medication." Fuck that.
(http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Sodium-Fluoride-Toxic.jpg)
Water is also toxic to humans... at the right amount.
Oxygen is also toxic to humans... at the right amount.
Your point?
-
Water is also toxic to humans... at the right amount.
Oxygen is also toxic to humans... at the right amount.
Your point?
The point is water H2O and O are naturally occurring. Sodium Fluoride is not. and we don't have water and oxygen forced down our throats.
-
Water is also toxic to humans... at the right amount.
Oxygen is also toxic to humans... at the right amount.
Your point?
Surely you are not this obtuse, and are simply being disingenuous.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/KoMAmc4.jpg)
(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/2961477632/h28DBDA92/)
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/6b33b04bd8931f5e963f60e31038aaf5/tumblr_mpjjifiMHo1ryxzr3o1_500.jpg)
-
The point is water H2O and O are naturally occurring.
Right, and? Hydrogen cyanide is also naturally occurring.
Sodium Fluoride is not.
Not true - sodium fluoride is naturally occurring. Sorry to burst your bubble. Also – and this may blow whatever you have in your head instead of a mind – fluoridated water is also naturally occurring. Oh, the horror. The horror!
and we don't have water and oxygen forced down our throats.
Uhm... unless you breathe air and drink water, you will die. I'd say that qualifies as having them forced down your throat. LITERALLY.
Surely you are not this obtuse, and are simply being disingenuous.
Why would you say that? You provided pictures showing something was a toxic poison. And? Just about anything can be toxic, in the right amount, and in the amounts presented in properly fluoridated water, you'd die of water toxicity long before you suffered any ill effects from the fluoride.
-
what kills more people and ruins societies and is not naturally occurring?
phaggotry
-
How about at least giving people a choice to weather or not they want to be medicated with added fluoride?
So people like avox who feel they need to be medicated with extra fluoride should be able to buy such water for themselves.
Forced medication is fundamentally wrong.
-
How about at least giving people a choice to weather or not they want to be medicated with added fluoride?
So people like avox who feel they need to be medicated with extra fluoride should be able to buy such water for themselves.
Forced medication is fundamentally wrong.
That is a sensible approach – certainly forcing people to be medicated against their will, especially in the absence of a compelling public health rationale is bad. If people don't want the cavity protection fluoride affords them, that's fine; only their teeth are at risk.
Unfortunately, instead of stopping there, you felt it necessary to spout that I "feel the need to be medicated." You don't know that, and it's stupid to make that statement because all it does is serve to detract from your valid point. For all you know, I neither like nor consume fluoridated water. That wouldn't prevent me from having this discussion and adopting the position I have.
Sheesh, it's like the average I.Q. on here is potato...
-
That is a sensible approach – certainly forcing people to be medicated against their will, especially in the absence of a compelling public health rationale is bad. If people don't want the cavity protection fluoride affords ten, that's fine; only their teeth are at risk.
Unfortunately, instead of stopping there, you felt it necessary to spout that I "feel the need to be medicated." You don't know that, and it's stupid to make that statement because all it does is serve to detract from your valid point. For all you know, I neither like nor consume fluoridated water. That wouldn't profound me from having this discussion and adopting the position I have.
Sheesh, it's like the average I.Q. on here is potato...
HAHA, You're mad! :D
You correctly stated everything even water in high enough amounts can reach toxic levels, yet you say adding extra fluoride is no big deal because it is a naturally found compound?
Why is adding fluoride past natural amounts a good idea when it as with everything else increases toxicity?
-
If your system is kickin back toothpaste you are a manly man...
-
HAHA, You're mad! :D
You correctly stated everything even water in high enough amounts can reach toxic levels, yet you say adding extra fluoride is no big deal because it is a naturally found compound?
Why is adding fluoride past natural amounts a good idea when it as with everything else increases toxicity?
Come on... seriously? You are this fucking stupid?
I'll repeat what I wrote before – if the amount of fluoride present in water (either naturally or by supplementation) is at the recommended level then you will be dead by the toxicity of the water itself (regardless of the fluoride) long before you accumulate a clinically significant amount of fluoride in your body.
Let's play math and consider a worst-case scenario: the maximum recommended amount for fluoride is 1 milligram per liter of water. Let's assume that your water has twice that much. Let's also assume that all of it is sodium fluoride. Let's also assume that 1 gram of sodium fluoride will kill you – in reality you need about 10. Our simple equation is:
(2 milligrams of NaF per liter of water) * (1 gram per 1000 milligrams) * (x liters of water) = 1 gram of NaF
In other words, you'd need to drink 500 liters of water – that's over 132 gallons of water, or over 5 gallons an hour for 24 hours straight. Please remember that the human stomach can hold (on average) just over a gallon and the average human can excrete a maximum of a quarter gallon per hour under ideal circumstances.
It should be clear as day that short of eating a spoonful or two of NaF powder, consuming enough sodium fluoride is just not doable.
To address your other question, which seems to be "if water is toxic why add more toxic stuff to it?" well... the answer to that is that scientists who know this stuff much better than you have determined the benefits of fluoridating water by helping improve the dental health of the population at large outweigh the realloy small risks.
If you disagree with their assessment – and you can – buy a water pitcher and filter your water. Or don't drink water at all. But don't pretend that your disagreement has a basis in science. It doesn't.
-
*shakes head*
There has been no evidence that fluoridation, at the levels used in water, causes anything except healthier teeth. But the nutjobs need to bitch about something... contrails, wifi, fluoride in the water, etc.
So a country that is full of Hierarchy bloodline who control the world banks(meaning everything) is banning fluoride yet you believe that said country is run by tin foil hats? WTF
-
Right, and? Hydrogen cyanide is also naturally occurring.
Not true - sodium fluoride is naturally occurring. Sorry to burst your bubble. Also – and this may blow whatever you have in your head instead of a mind – fluoridated water is also naturally occurring. Oh, the horror. The horror!
Uhm... unless you breathe air and drink water, you will die. I'd say that qualifies as having them forced down your throat. LITERALLY.
Why would you say that? You provided pictures showing something was a toxic poison. And? Just about anything can be toxic, in the right amount, and in the amounts presented in properly fluoridated water, you'd die of water toxicity long before you suffered any ill effects from the fluoride.
Rofl wiggs getting bent over here. Wiggs tell us more about the "olive skinned" blacks :D
For all you anti-fluoridists......what is the motive for putting it in drinking water, if not for public health? Do the producers of sodium fluoride have that much influence over legislators?
-
So a country that is full of Hierarchy bloodline who control the world banks(meaning everything) is banning fluoride yet you believe that said country is run by tin foil hats? WTF
The hierarchy? World banks? Huh? I'm a scientist. I crunch numbers and look at quantifiable facts. Come back when you have some.
-
Come on... seriously? You are this fucking stupid?
I'll repeat what I wrote before – if the amount of fluoride present in water (either naturally or by supplementation) is at the recommended level then you will be dead by the toxicity of the water itself (regardless of the fluoride) long before you accumulate a clinically significant amount of fluoride in your body.
Let's play math and consider a worst-case scenario: the maximum recommended amount for fluoride is 1 milligram per liter of water. Let's assume that your water has twice that much. Let's also assume that all of it is sodium fluoride. Let's also assume that 1 gram of sodium fluoride will kill you – in reality you need about 10. Our simple equation is:
(2 milligrams of NaF per liter of water) * (1 gram per 1000 milligrams) * (x liters of water) = 1 gram of NaF
In other words, you'd need to drink 500 liters of water – that's over 132 gallons of water, or over 5 gallons an hour for 24 hours straight. Please remember that the human stomach can hold (on average) just over a gallon and the average human can excrete a maximum of a quarter gallon per hour under ideal circumstances.
It should be clear as day that short of eating a spoonful or two of NaF powder, consuming enough sodium fluoride is just not doable.
To address your other question, which seems to be "if water is toxic why add more toxic stuff to it?" well... the answer to that is that scientists who know this stuff much better than you have determined the benefits of fluoridating water by helping improve the dental health of the population at large outweigh the realloy small risks.
If you disagree with their assessment – and you can – buy a water pitcher and filter your water. Or don't drink water at all. But don't pretend that your disagreement has a basis in science. It doesn't.
Well... professor avxo. It's not whether or not it is biologically toxic, or at what amounts, it is more about it's potential adverse effects on the human body that is still under dispute.
-
-
Well... professor avxo. It's not whether or not it is biologically toxic, or at what amounts, it is more about it's potential adverse effects on the human body that is still under dispute.
Such as? At the amounts we are talking about, the only documented side effect is dental fluorosis, which is a relatively mild and easy to treat side-effect and which usually indicates that the water isn't fluoridated properly (either because of equipment failure or because of not accounting for natural fluoride).
Please, by all means, cite one study published in a peer-reviewed journal that discusses other side-effects of water fluoridation. Just one.
I haven't been able to find any, but maybe you'll have better luck. All I found were sites run by crackpots who advocate "natural this" and "herbal that" and some conspiracists who claim the fluoride makes the population. Sterile or docile (they can't agree on which).
-
Fibra myalgia. Death of us all.
-
Russell Blaylock says many things, but he hasn't published anything in a peer reviewed journal and can't provide any evidence to substantiate his assertions. All he publishes (for a small fee) is his wellness reports where he tells laypeople to not get vaccinated and to take fish oils as a way of preventing the flu.
Here's another recording of Russell Blaylock and one of the people who get his report:
-
Peer reviewed ::)
As in published only if the study coincide with the bought and paid for consensus?
How many drugs have been approved, through extensive peer-reviewed research and studies, only to later be found harming people before the consensus was changed.
This happens again and again. I guess I'm just not the type of person who have blind trust in scientists who base their world view on "peer reviews". ::)
::)
::)
-
yah peer reviewed is kinda like when 2 agree and tap eachother on the shoulders.
with all the dishonesty in society and govts, i dont know what to believe.
and the issue is too cokmplicated to judge for laymen, so yeah, fucked up.
but flurido or not our water in the west society is better than afric, no question
Yes common sense. Scientists uses peer review as a crutch for their insecurities. They feel alright with the world only if there is an official truth that shall not be infringed or changed because you see, it was peer-reviewed!
-
Peer reviewed ::)
Yes. Like it or not, it's the best thing we've got. People who are experts in their fields studying data, coming up with theories and seeing how well those theories fit the facts and work in predicting the future or explaining some unknown or previously fully or partially unexplained event.
As in published only if the study coincide with the bought and paid for consensus?
No. Spoken like somebody who's never published an article in a peer-reviewed journal nor served as a reviewer or a referee. Sheesh...
Peer-review doesn't aim to suppress views that are inconsistent with those of some hypothetical consensus. It only serves to ensure that papers and studies published conform to accepted practices and meet the standards of publication.
How many drugs have been approved, through extensive peer-reviewed research and studies, only to later be found harming people before the consensus was changed.
That's how science works. We don't know everything. We use the best knowledge available to us to make the best decisions we can. But we aren't omniscient and ometimes our decisions turn out to be based on bad data. That isn't a bad thing. And that the consensus was, eventually, changed proves that your point about peer-reviews being a tool of suppression is bogus.
What's your counter-proposa? That we do nothing, hoping the knowledge will magically happen? That random, unsubstantiated claims be the basis by which we decide what to do in the future?
Sorry... that just won't work.
This happens again and again. I guess I'm just not the type of person who have blind trust in scientists who base their world view on "peer reviews". ::)
Scientists don't ask for your blind trust. They lay their theories and their data out for you to examine yourself and make your own decisions. That's the cornerstone of science. It doesn't involve appeals to authority. Einstein was a vociferous opponent of quantum mechanics and even when he was at his zenith, papers on quantum mechanics were published all the time and eventually even he was convinced.
Whether you're qualified to examine the data is another topic. But the data is there for you to examine and you don't need blind faith.
The studies on water fluoridation are out there. Please point to one study that has evidence that water fluoridation has been correlated with any specific illness or malady except for fluorosis.
-
Yes. Like it or not, it's the best thing we've got. People who are experts in their fields studying data, coming up with theories and seeing how well those theories fit the facts and work in predicting the future or explaining some unknown or previously fully or partially unexplained event.
No. Spoken like somebody who's never published an article in a peer-reviewed journal nor served as a reviewer or a referee. Sheesh...
Peer-review doesn't aim to suppress views that are inconsistent with those of some hypothetical consensus. It only serves to ensure that papers and studies published conform to accepted practices and meet the standards of publication.
That's how science works. We don't know everything. We use the best knowledge available to us to make the best decisions we can't. But we aren't omniscient and ometimes our decisions turn out to be based on bad data. That isn't a bad thing. And that the consensus was, eventually, changed proves that your point about peer-reviews being a tool of suppression is bogus.
What's your counter-proposa? That we do nothing, hoping the knowledge will magically happen? That random, unsubstantiated claims be the basis by which we decide what to do in the future?
Sorry... that just won't work.
Scientists don't ask for your blind trust. They lay their data out for you to examine yourself and make your own decisions. That's the cornerstone of science. It doesn't involve appeals to authority. Einstein was a vociferous opponent of quantum mechanics and even when he was at his zenith, papers on quantum mechanics were published all the time and eventually even he was convinced.
Whether you're qualified to examine the data is another topic. But the data is there for you to examine and you don't need blind faith.
The studies on water fluoridation are out there. Please point to one study that has evidence that water fluoridation has been correlated with any specific illness or malady except for fluorosis.
Good gracious.
You have your fluoridated, peer-reviewed, crutch water.
I will have non fluoridated, non peer-reviewed water.
And we will live happily ever after.
Peer-review approved!
-
perhaps they will get around to banning phosphorous in public places as well