Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34
Thanks Tree19Thanks

Thread: It's in the Water...

  1. #1
    Bizarroland Observer Thx1138's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    21,235
    Thanks
    12434

    From
    aMEEErica

    It's in the Water...



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4eiwbJmp9k

    I would simply ask, that before you write this off as a conspiracy theory and bombard us with 9,000 internet links that "confirm the additive is perfectly safe!!!" that you actually watch the video, I hope that's not too much to ask of you before you make your comment...

    Thx

  2. #2
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    50,498
    Thanks
    23920

    From
    Vulcan
    This 1-1/2 hour extravaganza - which I have no intention of watching - is not another form of the dihydrogen monoxide hoax, is it?
    Thanks from Friday13

  3. #3
    Above the FRAY Friday13's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    11,194
    Thanks
    13459

    From
    SoCal
    The "your water contains water" hoax still active? Stupid humans.

    dihydrogen monoxide hoax

    Last edited by Friday13; 17th October 2017 at 10:37 PM.

  4. #4
    Bizarroland Observer Thx1138's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    21,235
    Thanks
    12434

    From
    aMEEErica
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    This 1-1/2 hour extravaganza - which I have no intention of watching - is not another form of the dihydrogen monoxide hoax, is it?
    Well, if you are not willing to watch the video, why hazard a guess?

    No, I don't believe it is...

    (And thanks for not making puns about how "absorbing" it was or "Dr. Strangelove" references!)

    But no Ian, I wish they had an abridged version...

    Still, a hazardous by-product from the aluminum industry added to so many households (banned in much of Europe) probably just isn't the kind of thing that can be covered in ten minutes...

    Thx

  5. #5
    Bizarroland Observer Thx1138's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    21,235
    Thanks
    12434

    From
    aMEEErica
    Quote Originally Posted by Friday13 View Post
    The "your water contains water" hoax still active? Stupid humans.

    dihydrogen monoxide hoax

    Did you watch the video?

    (Um, at least 25 minutes of it?)

    Thx

  6. #6
    Above the FRAY Friday13's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    11,194
    Thanks
    13459

    From
    SoCal
    Quote Originally Posted by Thx1138 View Post
    Did you watch the video?

    (Um, at least 25 minutes of it?)

    Thx
    Waiting for the 'condensed' version...
    Thanks from NightSwimmer

  7. #7
    Bizarroland Observer Thx1138's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    21,235
    Thanks
    12434

    From
    aMEEErica
    Well there you are... it's just not enough to put in a nice disclaimer like this... oh no...


    I would simply ask, that before you write this off as a conspiracy theory and bombard us with 9,000 internet links that "confirm the additive is perfectly safe!!!" that you actually watch the video, I hope that's not too much to ask of you before you make your comment...

    You can put it in giant bold, whatever...

    The first posts will be from people who "will not watch the video," but will go ahead and post anyway, never mind the request, it was just too tempting...

    Thanks guys...

    Thx

  8. #8
    Bizarroland Observer Thx1138's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    21,235
    Thanks
    12434

    From
    aMEEErica


    Thx

  9. #9
    Above the FRAY Friday13's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    11,194
    Thanks
    13459

    From
    SoCal
    Quote Originally Posted by Thx1138 View Post
    Well there you are... it's just not enough to put in a nice disclaimer like this... oh no...


    I would simply ask, that before you write this off as a conspiracy theory and bombard us with 9,000 internet links that "confirm the additive is perfectly safe!!!" that you actually watch the video, I hope that's not too much to ask of you before you make your comment...

    You can put it in giant bold, whatever...

    The first posts will be from people who "will not watch the video," but will go ahead and post anyway, never mind the request, it was just too tempting...

    Thanks guys...

    Thx
    1...you know that this is something that I don't normally do
    2...it would have been nice if you had at least posted a synopsis or commentary on the video contents so that we would know it was serious
    Thanks from Thx1138

  10. #10
    Bizarroland Observer Thx1138's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    21,235
    Thanks
    12434

    From
    aMEEErica
    Quote Originally Posted by Friday13 View Post
    1...you know that this is something that I don't normally do
    2...it would have been nice if you had at least posted a synopsis or commentary on the video contents so that we would know it was serious
    Yes, in review I probably should have made my position more clear, or just the starter more clear...

    I mean, for all anyone knew, this was a test to see if people will "poo-poo" something without even watching it...

    But I am serious here, there is not enough reason, "health benefits" to warrant something like this, one person described as "mandated medicating."

    And here are a few reasons why...

    1) Fluoride is the only chemical added to water for the purpose of medical treatment. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classifies fluoride as a drug when used to prevent or mitigate disease (FDA 2000). As a matter of basic logic, adding fluoride to water for the sole purpose of preventing tooth decay (a non-waterborne disease) is a form of medical treatment. All other water treatment chemicals are added to improve the water’s quality or safety, which fluoride does not do.

    2) Fluoridation is unethical. Informed consent is standard practice for all medication, and one of the key reasons why most of Western Europe has ruled against fluoridation. With water fluoridation we are allowing governments to do to whole communities (forcing people to take a medicine irrespective of their consent) what individual doctors cannot do to individual patients.


    Put another way: Does a voter have the right to require that their neighbor ingest a certain medication (even if it is against that neighbor’s will)?

    3) The dose cannot be controlled. Once fluoride is put in the water it is impossible to control the dose each individual receives because people drink different amounts of water. Being able to control the dose a patient receives is critical. Some people (e.g., manual laborers, athletes, diabetics, and people with kidney disease) drink substantially more water than others.

    4) The fluoride goes to everyone regardless of age, health or vulnerability. According to Dr. Arvid Carlsson, the 2000 Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology and one of the scientists who helped keep fluoridation out of Sweden:

    5) People now receive fluoride from many other sources besides water. Fluoridated water is not the only way people are exposed to fluoride. Other sources of fluoride include food and beverages processed with fluoridated water (Kiritsy 1996; Heilman 1999), fluoridated dental products (Bentley 1999; Levy 1999), mechanically deboned meat (Fein 2001), tea (Levy 1999), and pesticide residues (e.g., from cryolite) on food (Stannard 1991; Burgstahler 1997). It is now widely acknowledged that exposure to non-water sources of fluoride has significantly increased since the water fluoridation program first began (NRC 2006).

    6) Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. No disease, not even tooth decay, is caused by a “fluoride deficiency.”(NRC 1993; Institute of Medicine 1997, NRC 2006). Not a single biological process has been shown to require fluoride. On the contrary there is extensive evidence that fluoride can interfere with many important biological processes. Fluoride interferes with numerous enzymes (Waldbott 1978). In combination with aluminum, fluoride interferes with G-proteins (Bigay 1985, 1987). Such interactions give aluminum-fluoride complexes the potential to interfere with signals from growth factors, hormones and neurotransmitters (Strunecka & Patocka 1999; Li 2003). More and more studies indicate that fluoride can interfere with biochemistry in fundamental ways (Barbier 2010).

    7) The level in mothers’ milk is very low. Considering reason #6 it is perhaps not surprising that the level of fluoride in mother’s milk is remarkably low (0.004 ppm, NRC, 2006). This means that a bottle-fed baby consuming fluoridated water (0.6 – 1.2 ppm) can get up to 300 times more fluoride than a breast-fed baby. There are no benefits (see reasons #11-19), only risks (see reasons #21-36), for infants ingesting this heightened level of fluoride at such an early age (an age where susceptibility to environmental toxins is particularly high).

    8 ) Fluoride accumulates in the body. Healthy adult kidneys excrete 50 to 60% of the fluoride ingested each day (Marier & Rose 1971). The remainder accumulates in the body, largely in calcifying tissues such as the bones and pineal gland (Luke 1997, 2001). Infants and children excrete less fluoride from their kidneys and take up to 80% of ingested fluoride into their bones (Ekstrand 1994). The fluoride concentration in bone steadily increases over a lifetime (NRC 2006).

    9) No health agency in fluoridated countries is monitoring fluoride exposure or side effects. No regular measurements are being made of the levels of fluoride in urine, blood, bones, hair, or nails of either the general population or sensitive subparts of the population (e.g., individuals with kidney disease).

    10) There has never been a single randomized controlled trial to demonstrate fluoridation’s effectiveness or safety. Despite the fact that fluoride has been added to community water supplies for over 60 years, “there have been no randomized trials of water fluoridation” (Cheng 2007). Randomized trials are the standard method for determining the safety and effectiveness of any purportedly beneficial medical treatment. In 2000, the British Government’s “York Review” could not give a single fluoridation trial a Grade A classification – despite 50 years of research (McDonagh 2000). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to classify fluoride as an “unapproved new drug.”

    Fluoride Action Network | 50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation

    That's the first ten of 50 reasons.^

    Now these seem like credible HC professionals, it would be nice if someone here could refute this on a scientific level.

    I guess I'm past the point of just going along with something because it is established and because "everyone says so"... industry says so, and it is not like it is something that is not a part of our daily lives... we consume this substance, I can't think of any more close relationship than that.

    So, perhaps I didn't make it abundantly clear enough: serious inquiries welcome, I'll set another thread for making sport of the concept some other time...

    Thx
    Last edited by Thx1138; 17th October 2017 at 11:48 PM.
    Thanks from Friday13 and Hollywood

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 23rd April 2016, 07:34 PM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 19th May 2015, 07:21 PM
  3. Is there something in the water in MI-11, or what?
    By bonncaruso in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 23rd August 2012, 08:04 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 29th November 2007, 08:27 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed