View Full Version : Genuine factual arguement thread NEW TOPIC july 4!!
driftke70
17th June 2009, 02:06 PM
This thread is for a weekly discussion on one topic, there are to be no derogatory comments at other users, not attacks, replys with have at least on source of refernce that is not wiki or a gov body (unless siting something for an arguement about road rules or something).
Get one thing clear firstly, im a tripper and look way too deeply into way too many things.
This weeks topic - fluoride in drinking water.
Now people shrug this off without thinking about it, but the only way fluoride is benificial to the human body is teeth, less than 0.1% of the water comes into contact with your teeth. Its benefits are questionable in regards to teeth, never mind the fact that its an accumulative substance that lives in your bones.
It is recorded and stated in many places, that pregnant woman who are drinking fluoridated water produce children with much lower iqs.
It is recorded and stated in many places that it has effects on peoples personalities, makes them less violent, less aggressive and more passive.
It is fact that it causes bone brittleness and early onset of arthritis.
It is known in high concentrations to cause lesions and brain tumors. (5-10ppm) our drinking water is supposedly 1ppm. Which is rarely tested and does not take into account what you encounter when you brush your teeth, mouth wash, what you inhale from steam in a hot shower etc.
It is known to cause early onset of Alzheimer disease
It is the main ingredient in ALL rat poison
here is a quote to make you think a little
“No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has
never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which
is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: ‘Take as much as
you like, and you will take it for the rest of your life, because some
children suffer from tooth decay.’ It is a preposterous notion.”
and a link regarding lowered iq studies
http://fluoridealert.org/iq.studies.html
stupid posts will be removed.
rthy
17th June 2009, 02:33 PM
i use to work at a dental hostpital, the science is proven that fluoride helps your teeth...
all the other stuff isn't proven.
dustyae86
17th June 2009, 02:39 PM
with the way things are at the moment, people need to be less agressive, so put more in I say :P
AJPS
17th June 2009, 02:51 PM
I believe the human bodies are incredibly adaptive things. They change to suit their surrounds. My dad smokes and drinks very heavily, also eats poorly (started young too), except looks younger, out runs all his mates in all sports
I dont think its a health risk based on the dosage and the fact it has been in our water the generation before, perhaps we can 'tolerate' it better. Unsure?
sun_moon
17th June 2009, 04:16 PM
is fluride in bottled water ??
i make sure to NEVER drink tap water.... have not had tap water in at least 10 years.
by the way Beally... good idea to make this thread. too many people make personal attacks as they can not win me in an arguement he he ^_^
ae86hachiroku
17th June 2009, 04:30 PM
sun_moon, surely you are broke by now buying so much bottled water?
Supposedly the tap water is just as clean if not cleaner as the bottled counterparts. Something I heard though, can't say I've tested it for myself.
all torque
17th June 2009, 04:56 PM
My reply is based on approx. 10 minutes of internet research after reading driftke70's post.
In short, I agree with this: "dental health was an issue to be dealt with at the level of the individual, rather than a solution to be imposed en masse." - http://www.fluoridealert.org/govt-statements.htm
And, surely encouraging a healthier diet is a far better solution.
Also, " In the democracies of Western Europe, water fluoridation has been almost unanimously rejected. Countries there that have rejected fluoridation include Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden. For explanations of why these countries chose not to fluoridate, visit www.fluoridealert.org/govt-statements.htm. Of particular interest in this respect is that according to World Health Organization figures (see http://www.fluoridealert.org/WHO-DMFT.htm) their children’s’ teeth are just as good, if not better, than the teeth of children in fluoridated countries."
From: http://www.fluoridealert.org/RFW-nations.htm
AJPS
17th June 2009, 05:43 PM
is fluride in bottled water ??
i make sure to NEVER drink tap water.... have not had tap water in at least 10 years.
by the way Beally... good idea to make this thread. too many people make personal attacks as they can not win me in an arguement he he ^_^
tap water is in the food you eat
seek
17th June 2009, 06:11 PM
is fluride in bottled water ??
i make sure to NEVER drink tap water.... have not had tap water in at least 10 years.
can you elaborate on why you dont drink tap water? you relise it comes from sources that contain volumes way up in the MegaLitres and any such "outbreak" would simply dilute itself to a highly insignificant amount?
on an offtopic note: how much on average do you spend on buying "non-tap" water? your aware you shower with tap water, cook with tap water, drink drinks that no-doubt have tap water involved in its processing etc etc ?? edit: what ajps said too
now, Flouride, i believe the issues surrounding its effects are largely proportional to the total amount of flouride that is consumed within a 12'ish hour period. The issues Driftke70 talks about are of the result of heavy concentrations of flouridated water. Examples of this are usually found in mexico and china, which have concentrations averaging around the "3.15 ± 0.61 mg/L [ppm] region (Fluoride Vol. 33 No. 2 74-78 2000 Research Report (http://www.fluorideresearch.org/332/files/FJ2000_v33_n2_p74-78.pdf)) and is one of the major causes to dimentia etc and other illnesses Driftke70 discusses. Its not from australian water. its from mexican water. i dare say there is more then just flouride in the water.
At present, statistically speaking, water naturally fluoridated at 0.4 mg/L, This is water that we all consume every day, brush our teeth with etc. The planned flouridation levels (in Australia atleast) are apparently to be limted to a level of 1 mg/L.
We should note that at current, for the total amount of flouride that enters our body on a given day, 60% of it is from brushing our teeth, and up to 40% is by other means (drinking water, possibly something else too)
Also, and just cus i feel like critisizing somebody, Driftke70, that link you posted, on the first line it says:
In the summer of 2008, the following two reports reviewed the published studies reporting an association of high fluoride exposure and reduced IQ. The fluoride levels in water in these studies range from 0.88 – 9.4 ppm.
that range is so large that its blatently obvious someone consuming water with a flouridation level of 9.4ppm (maximum) will no doubt have serious concerns. Looking at that table, results vary so much its hard to conclude anything other then the obvious.
It should be said that effects of excess quantities of flouride (and many other similiar substances) is non linear, and as such grows exponentially, so its largely innacurate to just "guess" possible outcomes based on extreme minima and maxima values.
personally, i havent had the time to decide my oppinion, the above is what ive picked up from causal reading, with a link or two to prove it.
meh.
biggo
17th June 2009, 08:11 PM
You hurt my brain guys
i honestly dont care what water i drink usually because im thirsty. Flouride makes no difference but i can go to bed after a sesh on the turps with out brushing my teeth hehehe.
I do wanna know, how can there be inflation in a recession tho?
--Redwork--
17th June 2009, 09:46 PM
Don't forget the old LEAD pipes to fellas....
I personally don't care what they put in the water...
How many of you actually drink the right amount of water in the first place.?
Most of use drink WAY to much soft drink or evan bottled juice.. which even though you think its good for you is still full of sugar and preservatives...
And Sun Moon.... Are you serious.?? What you reasons for not drinking tape water.?
I understand that some places have terrible tap water.. O personally have stayed at various places where the tap water is visably dirty...
But are you aware that PURE water is actually poisenos to humans.
driftke70
17th June 2009, 09:47 PM
i use to work at a dental hostpital, the science is proven that fluoride helps your teeth...
all the other stuff isn't proven.
being good for your teeth wasnt proven when it was first introduced, studies were not completed and since then, studies have not been taken into other effects until recently.
if it is in contact with your teeth, and less than 0.01% of the water comes into contact with your teeth. It does not need to be taken. It does not need to be put into all water sources. Brushing your teeth twice a day with fluoride tooth paste is more than adequate.
Since more woman are using formula instead of breast feeding rates of flurosis have increased where fluoride is used.
When I talk about lowering of IQs im talking about fluoride intake of early children from passage in the whom till the age of about 3 the growth of the brain is effected by excess fluoride. Which is regarded as above 3.0ppm.
heres something to think about, not only are the water sources poorly monitored when they are you get problems and coverups, heres on for instance.
"Ms Bligh initially said the water contained 31mg/L of fluoride – the maximum is 1.5mg/L – but the new details have put the level of the chemical at 19.6mg/L."
So if your in brisbane, and your drinking tap water, you have been drinking over 18ppm for some time. Thats taking into account there is no smearing of evidence from the bligh government, it probably still is at 30ppm, as its quite hard to remove.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25520822-421,00.html
Also, something to think about,calcium fluoride is a natural occuring substance, found in humans bones at birth etc, in various water sources in ireland and mexico, china etc, but what is placed into water ways including australias is sodium fluoride, which is a waste product from the production of aluminium and fertilizer. The likelihood of heavy metals being present within this sodium fluoride mix is very high.
coinciding with the introduction with fluoride introduction was a better market for teeth care all round, better tooth brushes and pastes, more awareness and care taken by people, more trips to the dentist etc.
The reason the studies are taken in places like china and mexico is because in other countries the water is controlled by governing bodies who dont have to publish their results and give the go ahead for studies, which they never let happen.
The 1984 issue of Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products lists fluoride as more poisonous than lead and just slightly less poisonous than arsenic.
Sodium fluoride is classed as toxic by both inhalation (of dusts or aerosols) and ingestion.In high enough doses, it has been shown to affect the heart and circulatory system, and the lethal dose for a 70 kg human is estimated at 5–10 g. Taking into account that fluoride is an accumulative substance in the body and it is difficult for it to leave the body, so as seek said over a 12 hour period is incorrect, it settles in bones, and can calcify in other regions of the body causing hardening of cartilage.
Aigueperse, Jean; Paul Mollard, Didier Devilliers, Marius Chemla, Robert Faron, Renée Romano, Jean Pierre Cuer (2005), "Fluorine Compounds, Inorganic", in Ullmann, Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, Weinheim: Wiley-VCH
One of the largest producers of fluorides as a hazardous waste by-product was ALCOA
Behavioural Effects of Fluorides On Mass Populations by Valdamar Valerian, February 3, 1997
Andrew Mellon was Secretary of the US Treasury, with jurisdiction over the US Public Health Service. He also founded ALCOA.
ALCOA's "chief attorney Oscar R. Ewing took a senior public health job in Washington in 1946 to promote water fluoridation."
Fluoridated water causes diseases such as Down's syndrome, heart, kidney, cancer, bone, and liver problems. Eleven European countries and 200 U.S. cities have banned its use. ... The U.S. hip-fracture rate is now the worlds highest and even the Journal of the American Medical Association magazine on August 12, 1992 blamed water fluoridation
p 254-255 Treason: The New World Order. Gurudas, Cassandra Press, 1996
In 1990 Dr. John Colquhoun was forced into early requirement in New Zealand after he conducted a study on 60,000 school children and found no difference in tooth decay between fluoridated and unfluoridated areas. He additionally found that a substantial number of children in fluoridated areas suffered from dental fluorosis. He made the study public.
Leading Edge International Research Group. The Toxic Effects of Fluoride.
In a number of small villages in Sicily, Turkey and India there is naturally occurring fluoride in the water ranging from 0.7 to 5.4 ppm. Here the villagers and their livestock are chronically ill, while neighbouring villages with no fluoride have no such illnesses. Premature aging is the overall effect. Children have brown decaying teeth; young adults often have none. Young men are bent over and crippled with pain in their joints and hips. Their skin is wrinkled and they look 60 at age 30 to 40. There is premature hardening of the arteries, loss of appetite & sex drive by age 30. The rate of stillborn miscarriages by 4 months is extremely high.
Wholly Water Purification Service. Toxic Effects of Fluoride. This information is based upon the book Fluoride, The Aging Factor by Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, Health Action Press, 1993.
The "optimum level" for water fluoridation is set at 1ppm.
Levels above 1ppm are dangerous.
Mouth rinses contain 230-900 ppm (3d) .
Store-bought juices can contain 2.8 ppm fluoride
Former promoters of fluoridation have since found that fluoridation does not reduce tooth decay (1987-1988). Scientist at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989-1993) have come out against fluoridation because they have confirmed that it does not reduce tooth decay and that there is clear evidence that fluoride causes cancer.
Wholly Water Purification Service. Toxic Effects of Fluoride. This information is based upon the book Fluoride, The Aging Factor by Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, Health Action Press, 1993.
It is a little known fact that fluoride compounds were added to the drinking water of prisoners to keep them docile and inhibit questioning of authority, both in Nazi prison camps in WWII and in the Soviet gulags in Siberia.
"Charles Perkins was sent to Germany by the U.S. to help run I.G. Farben, the giant chemical corporation, after World War II. In 1954 he wrote "The German chemists worked out an ingenious and far-reaching plan of mass control . Sodium fluoride occupied a prominent place . The real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistance of the masses to domination, control, and loss of liberty."
off the shelf tooth paste contains between 1000 and 1500ppm of fluoride.
did i mention anna bligh is poor and gets paid from various companies to get rid of their sodium fluoride.
shift_rook
17th June 2009, 09:57 PM
well there's somethin i didn't know, yeah i drink an absolute bucket load of everything else, mainly made up of iced tea, which has a shit load of sugar in it but i don't care caus eit tastes good and i work the excess sugar off with my job:D but yeah i'll think more the next time i condemn myself by drinking tap water haha
driftke70
17th June 2009, 10:14 PM
http://www.ada.org.au/newsroom/article,documentid,173462.aspx
basically comes down to they want to make money for getting rid of the shit for companies, and the added benefit of making people slower and less aggressive.
--Redwork--
17th June 2009, 10:20 PM
Holly crap.... I'm never goin to drink again.. EVER.. Might become a koala and just eat gum leaves for hydration.
shift_rook
17th June 2009, 10:23 PM
isn't that why koala's are dopey? to do with shit in gum leaves?? next weeks topic definately haha
driftke70
17th June 2009, 10:23 PM
worldwide goal of most countries is lower easier to control populations,
you might say australia is paying people to have kids, but thats making a less intelligent country and australia is a rare case with so many fucking old people
--Redwork--
17th June 2009, 10:29 PM
If fluoride causes soo many health problems why would the government introduce it.?
Saving kids teeth could be not be financially cheaper than having to fix all the long term affects that fluoride appently creates. ??
I would think that reducing health costs would be a high prority for every government.
driftke70
17th June 2009, 10:35 PM
companies have a hard time getting rid of the stuff, hence payment to government if they use it. Its just how it is,
even IF, it did have some kind of awesome effect on teeth, if they wern't paid to use it, theres no way in hell it would be put in the water, hell the government fund much more in the way of health benefits, like this of something else the government does reguarly to aid something, might say flu shots or something but thats still paid for by your tax and is insignificant in comparison of the scale of fluoridating water.
Konakid
17th June 2009, 10:36 PM
very interesting, had always heard the rumours, never any facts tho.
I assume all water has this that comes from a pura tap even?
Breaka
17th June 2009, 10:37 PM
This weeks topic - fluoride in drinking water.
Now people shrug this off without thinking about it, but the only way fluoride is benificial to the human body is teeth, less than 0.1% of the water comes into contact with your teeth. Its benefits are questionable in regards to teeth, never mind the fact that its an accumulative substance that lives in your bones. There's cold hard evidence that Fluoridated water greatly reduces tooth decay, I'm not even going to go there. There's no evidence that it is stored in the body, if it does (which I'm not debating it doesn't/can't/won't) then the amount of fluoridated water you'd have to consume for skeletal fluorosis to occur would be obsurd. It's only found in developing countries such as India and China where workers/labourers are exposed to dusts and shit which contain silica, large consumption of foods/drinks which contain reasonable amounts of fluoride e.g. fish and tea aswell as drinking water which naturally contains high amounts of -F. Fluoridating water which has high levels of -F occuring naturally would be stupid, as it happens we don't have to take that into consideration here so it's nothing we should be worrying about.
It is recorded and stated in many places, that pregnant woman who are drinking fluoridated water produce children with much lower iqs. I'd love to see some evidence of this. Sounds rediculous but that's not to say there's no link
It is recorded and stated in many places that it has effects on peoples personalities, makes them less violent, less aggressive and more passive.
I've heard the same theory but I'm highly sceptical in it's ability to 'dull' one down a bit. Once again, love to see some science behind this. I hope it's true because I've got 2T of the shit sitting at work, it'd sell like shit if people found out it had some sort of tranquilising affect...and I'd be riiiiich!! :DD
It is fact that it causes bone brittleness and early onset of arthritis. This would be refering to mild Skeletal Fluorosis? Fluouridated water would be unlikely to be a result of fluoridated water alone. Other things like diet and exposure to silica etc in the work place would have to be taken into consideration
It is known in high concentrations to cause lesions and brain tumors. (5-10ppm) our drinking water is supposedly 1ppm. Which is rarely tested and does not take into account what you encounter when you brush your teeth, mouth wash, what you inhale from steam in a hot shower etc. At work we are required to test the fluoride in the water daily. A report is filed monthly containing our daily test results and sent to NSW Health for analysis. Also, our water is sampled throughout the reticulation system (at res's, house taps etc.) and tested by a NADA accredited lab. We haven't fucked up once. Sabotage is seriously the only way levels of 5-10ppm would occur, especially for any prolonged amount of time. For example we dose anywhere from 30-50kg of NaF (60% -F content) per day (depenind on how much water we produce), the hopper which we load for our dry screw feeding system is only capable of holding 100kg. So for some retarded reason the screw feed dosed the entire available stock into 20ML (average daily production) of treated water, we'd only still be seeing levels of ~2ppm-3ppm for one day at the max. Procedure if that were to occur would be to not dose -F for day/s following so it could dilute properly
It is known to cause early onset of Alzheimer disease Not familiar with this. Keen to look into it
It is the main ingredient in ALL rat poison That doesn't mean anything. Taken straight from Wiki aswell. "Calciferols (vitamins D), cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) and ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) are used as rodenticides. They are toxic to rodents for the same reason they are beneficial to humans: they affect calcium and phosphate homeostasis in the body." Is Vitamin D bad because it's also found in rat poisons?
here is a quote to make you think a little
“No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has
never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which
is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: ‘Take as much as
you like, and you will take it for the rest of your life, because some
children suffer from tooth decay.’ It is a preposterous notion.”
and a link regarding lowered iq studies
http://fluoridealert.org/iq.studies.html
Good response from seek on this one
Right I'll start up with a little introduction. I work in the Water Industry as a Water Filtration Plant Operator (to put it simply I make reticulated water), albeit not very long but I'm pretty well informed and think I'm in some sort of position to comment on it. I've done the appropriate training and authorised to dose it into our drinking water.
There's no doubt it's benificial when trying to treat tooth decay. This shouldn't be argued as there are countless studies which find a correlation between the reduction in DMFT's (Decayed, Missing, Filled Teeth) and the fluoridation of water.
First up, the water in the catchment that my plants draws from has a natural Fluoride (-F) level of ~0.17ppm or 0.17mg/L. The fluoride which occurs naturally will vary from catchment to catchment. Our goal is to bring the fluoride level in the water to 1ppm or 1.0mg/L. Now there's no known minimum dosage which can cause death in an adult human but there has been a death recorded where some dude ingested 4g of NaF which contains roughly %60 -F so ~2.4g of -F. So to die of a lethal dose you'd have to drink 2.4kL (2400L) of water!
Yes, it's only natural people question and debate fluoridation of drinking water and I'm glad they do. It's proof we don't live in a deadshit society and willing to accept everything imposed on us. What get's my goat is when un-informed and over opinionated tools make irrational assumptions and other bullshit up based on non-factual material and plain old hear-say.
As far as fluoridated water goes I guess the main debate lies in not knowing it's long term affects aswell as it being what some would say forced upon the populace and it's disruption of 'free will' if you wish.
I'm for fluoridation. Good/bad Dental health and hygien is closely related to a good heart of bad heart disease. If -F in our water means a great reduction in DMFT's and our overall health (read heart) then the tiny risks of things like mild skeletal fluorosis and mottled is completely outweighed by its benifits.
At the end of the day I guess I've got better things to worry about. When I write myself off pretty well every weekend, drive a car fast, ride moto's and take a whole heap of other risks a tiny bit of fluoride in our water means sweet fuck all to me.
And Sun_Moon, just point out bottled water doesn't meet Australian Drinking Water guidelines. Not necassarilly a good or a bad thing, just felt like pointing that out to you.
If anyone wants to ask us any questions regaurding the handling, loading, equiptment, set up rah rah rah feel free to ask.
Cool thread btw, I'll be watching this space.
--Redwork--
17th June 2009, 10:39 PM
Greedy governments...
Take like 80% of our hard erned cash and then try and poisen us to boot..Just so they can make some extra cash...
I'll still be drinking the water though...
Think my chances of gettin lung cancer from my job far outway the chances of gettin ill from tap water..
Breaka
17th June 2009, 10:49 PM
Between doing other things it took me ages to respond to the original post. Reading posts in between now.
As for that incident in QLD, that WAS a major fuck up and something to worry about. I don't think they've figured out the cause but I think it'll be heading towards sabotage...it was even too retarded to be a really bad fuck up/human error.
Yep, it is a by product of Aluminium (not sure of it's actual relation) and it can't be easily put to land fill. But that doesn't mean heavy metals are present, as I said our water is tested daily by us operators (Aluminium and Iron levels are checked Daily, mainly because Aluminium Sulphate is a coagulant used in the flocculation/coagulation part of the treatment process) and levels are always >0.01ppm (for technical reasons we can't say 0 in our lab at work because the machines don't aren't accurate enough). And we've never received any indication back from our test lab to say that there is any trace of heavy metals. They aren't an affeliation of my work, so a cover up isn't likely either.
fantapants
17th June 2009, 10:49 PM
awesome call on the thread :)
only, please dont make it a conspiracy theory thread :)
my 2c.
point 1. The concept of dental care through flouride is to deal with the population that doesnt have the appropriate access to care. Its there to give assistance to the lower class people as they grow. This will, accoriding to plan, improve their quality of life with minimal government "hands on" intervention.
Point 2. Drink heaps of water fellas. I just spent 8 hours in ER with "minor obstruction" kidney stones. Everything your moma told you about giving birth. Same shit, out your dick! Minimum 2 l a day. If you do sport or workoutside, cloer to 3 litres. Avoid coke when dehydrated.
As to the effectiveness of flouride. My parents, my wifes parent, all have massive dental problems. My wife and i both grew up in Darwin. Flourided water. I have PERFECT teeth. Been to a dentist 3 times in my life. No fillings, no cracks, no lost, blah blah blah. My wife.... better than her folks, but still problems. There are two major differences. I eat cheese with EVERY meal - im lactose intolerant so its my only source of calcium. By chewing it, it gets absorbed straight into the teeth, not through the body then shared. She also drinks LITRES of iced coffee :)
Axentrik
17th June 2009, 10:55 PM
im going to get a big glass of water, its ok cuz i have puratap.
Breaka
17th June 2009, 11:00 PM
awesome call on the thread :)
only, please dont make it a conspiracy theory thread :)
my 2c.
point 1. The concept of dental care through flouride is to deal with the population that doesnt have the appropriate access to care. Its there to give assistance to the lower class people as they grow. This will, accoriding to plan, improve their quality of life with minimal government "hands on" intervention.
Point 2. Drink heaps of water fellas. I just spent 8 hours in ER with "minor obstruction" kidney stones. Everything your moma told you about giving birth. Same shit, out your dick! Minimum 2 l a day. If you do sport or workoutside, cloer to 3 litres. Avoid coke when dehydrated.
As to the effectiveness of flouride. My parents, my wifes parent, all have massive dental problems. My wife and i both grew up in Darwin. Flourided water. I have PERFECT teeth. Been to a dentist 3 times in my life. No fillings, no cracks, no lost, blah blah blah. My wife.... better than her folks, but still problems. There are two major differences. I eat cheese with EVERY meal - im lactose intolerant so its my only source of calcium. By chewing it, it gets absorbed straight into the teeth, not through the body then shared. She also drinks LITRES of iced coffee :)
1. It's an affective way to implement some sort of change because no one has to do shit to see the benifits, all they have to is drink the water.
2. Sounds mega bad. I'm loling at you. :DD
3. I laughed at this one. I'm lactose intolerant too and I feel your pain brother. But, I'm a dickhead and still have lots of dairy. I fart like a motherfucker, get mad pains in the guts or shit my hole out when convenient. As for those stuides though, things like diet and general dental hygein really need to be taken in consideration before any sort of conclusion can be made. All things taken into consideration though and fluoride still proven to prevent tooth decay.
driftke70
17th June 2009, 11:08 PM
never had fluoride and i have perfect teeth, a little mis aligned here and there, but healthy, I also smoke a fair bit.
there are too many variables to say, my folks had fluoride and their teeth are sweet, my gf's mum didnt and her teeth are fucked ( i know thats not what you said exactly but im making a point)
the heavy metal side of it doesnt come from the alloy production but the fertilizer side.
people can say all they like that it is proven to help teeth, but show me evidence thats not a government page, not australian dental association, but a proper study.
to give you an idea of how sus it is have a look at the australian dental website, its like propaganda levels, read the faq, everything is like twisted, stuff like, is fluoride actually good for my teeth? studies SUGGEST that TOPICAL treatment with fluoride CAN be benificial.
Why do i need to ingest it if topical treatment is what make my teeth good? Think of ingestion as a quick fluoride treatment a few times a day,
seriously thats the shit it says to a certain extent, ill grab the link so you can check yourself.
also in relation to the thread, at the end of the week or if this topic gets stale before hand just have a few suggestions about what the next topic will be, and fantapants saying not a conspiracy thread, would like our next topic to be, how I love paying tax, and i pray every night for k rudd. I know i said no personal attacks, so dont take it as one, just saying, in this day and age, with so much media wash all over everything, its hard for the other side of the argument to not be a conspiracy.
Breaka
17th June 2009, 11:33 PM
the heavy metal side of it doesnt come from the alloy production but the fertilizer side. Ah, thanks for the clarification. Either way test results show no trace of heavy metals. The lab which our testing gets done at is indepently run aswell so covering our arse and covering up or changing test results is no perogitive of theirs
to give you an idea of how sus it is have a look at the australian dental website, its like propaganda levels, read the faq, everything is like twisted, stuff like, is fluoride actually good for my teeth? studies SUGGEST that TOPICAL treatment with fluoride CAN be benificial. I'm a pretty cynical bastard and whilst that does sound rather sus, they've probably chosen those words quite wisely to help cover their arses when fingers start getting pointed in their direction if shit goes wrong.
Why do i need to ingest it if topical treatment is what make my teeth good? Think of ingestion as a quick fluoride treatment a few times a day,
Once again man, it's the best way of delivering the benifits to those who can't/won't take care of their teeth themselves e.g. Aboriginal communities. So, fair debate in whether or not it's necassary in areas where dental hygein/care is on par.
also in relation to the thread, at the end of the week or if this topic gets stale before hand just have a few suggestions about what the next topic will be, and fantapants saying not a conspiracy thread, would like our next topic to be, how I love paying tax, and i pray every night for k rudd. I know i said no personal attacks, so dont take it as one, just saying, in this day and age, with so much media wash all over everything, its hard for the other side of the argument to not be a conspiracy.
Sweet as mate. Good to see some serious discussion going on here.
*bj*
17th June 2009, 11:38 PM
Conspiracies are convenient for ruling powers because they draw attention away from the real 'evil', which is extremely subtle and lives mostly in the bureaucratic structures which maintain yet control society.
I'm sorry, but you're all really badly missing the point. Who cares about a bit of flouride?
driftke70
18th June 2009, 12:01 AM
5. There is a continued need for some children to avoid excessive intake of fluoride
from discretionary sources of fluoride such as infant formulae, toothpaste and
inappropriate use of fluoride supplements.
3. Promote the practice for all children to brush their teeth twice daily with an
appropriate low fluoridated toothpaste.
4. Confirm the results from studies reporting high levels of fluoride in infant
formulae consumed in Australia then develop a strategy to reduce excessive intake
of fluoride from this source.
5. Develop a strategy to reduce the possibility of excessive ingestion of fluoride from
toothpaste by young children. Toothpaste should be clearly labelled suitable for
adult or child use, with the fluoride level, and be used under parental supervision.
The label of toothpaste for adults should draw attention to the fact that overuse of
the product by children under the age of seven may result in dental fluorosis.
6. Fluoride supplements should not be recommended for children under the age of
three years of age. In fluoride-deficient areas, childrens’ intake of fluoride should
be assessed on an individual basis from a knowledge of sources of water, other
beverages, diet, use of fluoridated toothpaste and mouthrinses, use of topical
fluoride applications by dental therapist. Only then, should fluoride supplements
be supplied according to the schedule below.
4. Fluoride supplementation within the intended normal range of daily intake is
safe in human populations. However, the need for ongoing attentiveness to the
possibility of increased risk of bone neoplasms and other possible adverse
effects was highlighted.
7. If there were any future need for a community-wide reduction in long-term exposure
to fluoride, this would be best achieved by a reduction in the concentration of
fluoride in drinking water.
4. Conduct a public and professional education campaign about the appropriate use
of discretionary fluoride supplements (other than toothpaste) in the presence of a
fluoridated water supply.
6. Monitor adult intake of fluoride with a view to estimating levels of deposition in
bone.
the prevalence and risk factors for dental fluorosis and
the effects of long term exposure to fluoride on bone and other tissues.
2. Actual water fluoride levels have not been reported in all studies, with most
reporting target water fluoride levels. It has been shown that water fluoride levels
achieved may differ considerably from the target.
3. Fluoridated areas and non-fluoridated areas may not be comparable in all respects
eg socio-economic status, urban and rural areas and access to dental services.
Some papers have also raised the issue of selection bias where non-fluoridated high
caries areas are chosen rather than low caries areas (eg Christchurch in New
Zealand, Merton and Surrey in UK) or a non-fluoridated low caries area compared
with a fluoridated area (eg Napier and Hastings in New Zealand).
7. It has been suggested that fluoride exposure may delay tooth eruption and therefore
studies should be designed to allow for comparisons of children who are one year
younger in non-fluoridated areas than the fluoridated area.
Fluoride compounds in the air rank third among
the air pollutants. They originate from the dusts of soils that contain fluoride,
industrial gaseous effluents, the burning of coal and from volcanic gases and
particulates (Whitford GM, 1996). The most prevalent form of atmospheric fluoride
is hydrogen fluoride (HF), which is rapidly absorbed from the lungs. In spite of
this, fluoride exposure from the atmosphere makes only a small contribution to the
total daily intake of persons who are not in heavily polluted areas ( Hodge and
Smith, 1977; Smith and Hodge, 1979).
Fluoride passes through the placenta and is found in lower concentrations in
milk, the saliva and sweat than in plasma. Approximately 99% of the body burden
of fluoride is concentrated in calcified tissues ( Whitford, 1994). Dentin and bone
appear to have similar fluoride concentrations (estimated at 1000 times that of
plasma) which increase with age, while that of enamel is markedly lower. The rate
of uptake by bone depends on the level of fluoride intake, age, hormonal status and
other factors, and can be modeled mathematically, based on fluoride availability,
bone remodeling rate and the fluoride binding characteristics of bone (Rao et al.,
1995). The capacity of the bone compartment to take up and store fluoride
longterm seems fairly unlimited, according to animal data.
During early infancy, 90% of a fluoride dose is taken up by calcified tissue,
but this declines steadily during the growth phase (Ekstrand et al. (a), 1994). The
major proportion of fluoride bound in teeth and the skeleton has a biological halflife
of several years. Mineralizing bone tissue will not only take up and accumulate
fluoride, but also releases fluoride during the process of bone remodeling.
Fluoride accumulates in bone and has a biological half-life of several years
in this tissue. It is well established that fluoride stimulates bone growth,
although it does not directly stimulate osteoblastic activity, and in vivo, there
is a lag time of months to years before the onset of osteoblastic activity (Johnson, in
Shupe 1992). When fluoride replaces the hydroxyl ion in apatite, the crystal
becomes more stable. This enhanced stability renders the skeletal structures more
resistant to osteoblastic resorption, which alters the normal bone remodeling cycle.
Because bone remodeling appears to be an integral part of skeletal health, the two
properties of fluoride, increased formation of bone and a greater resistance to
resorption and remodeling, are in conflict, leading to the production of bone that is
quite abnormal.
thats all ill show for now, all available from a document on this page
http://www.ada.org.au/oralhealth/fln/flinaust.aspx
which is the australian dental ass, which is funny because they show different information in their health guides than they have in their accredited studies,
also fantapants im following a train, looks like fluoride is present in some salt sold in australia and can cause early stones,
also mexico has an advertently high amount of fluoride in their water (around 2.5-4ppm) and they are still putting as much as 35% NaF into their salt compounds sold around america and canada, so they are trying to get rid of the shit anyway they can.
resol
18th June 2009, 01:44 AM
something to make you think, slightly off topic.
carbon footprint, know of it. have a think about how much a bottle of imported water costs. then thing why the fuck are you drinking it. do you have any idea how much energy and money it cost to ship 1kg of water over seas....
-dan
driftke70
18th June 2009, 02:30 AM
Conspiracies are convenient for ruling powers because they draw attention away from the real 'evil', which is extremely subtle and lives mostly in the bureaucratic structures which maintain yet control society.
I'm sorry, but you're all really badly missing the point. Who cares about a bit of flouride?
As stated in the first post, im a tripper, look way to much into things.
In relation to the theories, the american gov especially is good at this, doing crazy things to make people go, "oh here we go again, so and so with his crackpot theory about area 51" or some shit. They also use words and phrases and make things sound much more complicated and boring than they actually are, took me a while to get into this kinda genre but you learn to skim through the skin and get to the custard. One recent showing of this, is the blight gov using the traveston dam as a distraction to people in the area around where I live, while they quickly built a piping system from the sunshine coast to brisbane, which didnt get so much as a whisper in the media. Also rudd of late has been skimping media outlets so he doesnt have to do interviews, usually the gov has a person who hangs out with them and organizes the press conferences and notify the press when and where to be, rudd has been telling the media only half an hour in advance meaning only one or two people from the media can be there and are rushed and have no good questions, and dont get the situation where they can force through the use of interrogation details that would otherwise go un-noticed.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2580370.htm
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/rudds/
http://www.auspolitics.net/rudds-media-honeymoon/
About not caring about fluoride specifically, the more you take every little thing for granted, the more there are going to be little things to take for granted and shrug off, then they become bigger and bigger, then its too late. I have a pretty interesting topic to bring into this thread in a couple of days that is sort of about that, makes you think twice sorta stuff.
driftke70
18th June 2009, 02:46 AM
also finding some studies at the moment that show crops grown in fluoridated water have high concentrations of fluoride, all the sites i find say the average is 1.9ppm or so, but when you look at the list theres like 6 with less than 1ppm and a few over 5 or 6ppm.
One thing also, going from fluoride to not fluoride in some instances is far worse than never having fluoride in the first place.
AJPS
18th June 2009, 11:17 AM
call me crazy and a little OT, but i drink tap water, cos it has crap in it (its beautiful compared to many parts of the world) i think metals, crap, flouride etc in water stops us from getting sick as the body builds its immune system. My opinion.
driftke70
18th June 2009, 02:52 PM
haha dude your sick all the time
Micknofx
18th June 2009, 07:30 PM
It's a pity underdeveloped countries are so.... underdeveloped. Are there any places that have health systems as good as ours or better to compare stats with on the effects later in life? Sorry if it's been covered already but I only skimmed the heavier posts.
AJPS
18th June 2009, 07:39 PM
haha dude your sick all the time
mostly self inflicted injuries from skateboarding and riding
Sickness, happens once a year since i moved in here
dusty and it drops 10c in about a 2 hour period. Its not good for anything!
Breaka
18th June 2009, 07:51 PM
It's a pity underdeveloped countries are so.... underdeveloped. Are there any places that have health systems as good as ours or better to compare stats with on the effects later in life? Sorry if it's been covered already but I only skimmed the heavier posts.
Being the cynical bastard I am, no it's not. Inequity in the world is why we're so lucky to be born in a rich/er country such as Aus. As jharsh at it may sound, it's true.
About not caring about fluoride specifically, the more you take every little thing for granted, the more there are going to be little things to take for granted and shrug off, then they become bigger and bigger, then its too late. I have a pretty interesting topic to bring into this thread in a couple of days that is sort of about that, makes you think twice sorta stuff.
I like this train of thought and the idea that world news, politics and other current affairs are actually important. Not necasarrilly talking about fluoridated water here (because clearly there are valid arguements which oppose the fluoridation of drinking water) but I believe getting hyped up and worried about silly little things may only often detract your attention from the things that may actually matter.
Micknofx
18th June 2009, 07:54 PM
Cynical bastard, right got it :P But are there any developed nations who don't use fluoride?
seek
18th June 2009, 08:00 PM
call me crazy and a little OT, but i drink tap water, cos it has crap in it (its beautiful compared to many parts of the world) i think metals, crap, flouride etc in water stops us from getting sick as the body builds its immune system. My opinion.
i agree. your better off around everything then living in a climate controlled bubble.
I'm still interested to know how much it would cost per week to drink only bottled water..
AJPS
18th June 2009, 08:03 PM
at the rate COKE (perhaps another factual thread topic) is buying companies and pushing the price on bottled drinks up
2l per day accepted minimum for healthy active adults
@ $2.90 per 600ml x 3 or 4 x 7 x 52........
Frak
18th June 2009, 10:32 PM
I quite like Adelaide water..................it took a while as it's an aquired taste!
all torque
18th June 2009, 10:36 PM
But are there any developed nations who don't use fluoride?
Yes.
"In the democracies of Western Europe, water fluoridation has been almost unanimously rejected. Countries there that have rejected fluoridation include Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden. For explanations of why these countries chose not to fluoridate, visit www.fluoridealert.org/govt-statements.htm. Of particular interest in this respect is that according to World Health Organization figures (see http://www.fluoridealert.org/WHO-DMFT.htm) their children’s’ teeth are just as good, if not better, than the teeth of children in fluoridated countries."
fantapants
18th June 2009, 10:55 PM
wasnt pointing the finger bealy :)
My frustrations with conspiricy nuts.... not you in particular :)... is the simple single level thinking that it promotes.
Along the lines of "politicians are soo stupid...." They are anything but. But These stereotypes are propogated to allow greater depth of deception.
As to the train of flouride adding to stones.... could be a point, but my main problem is the 35 hours of excersise i do a week with a steady supply of coke to keep me bouning at work and a family history of extreme succeptability.
I grew up in darwin with highly clorinated and treated water. Not sure of the reasons why as we have regular and steady supplies of fresh rain water, but anyway... love the taste of it, and really dislike the heavy metalic taste of almost all bottled water i have tried. Adelaide water and alice springs boar water is soooooo shit :) but i doubt is going to be bad for you. Not sure why the bottled waters seem to be soo heavy with metalic taste, or why i notice it soo much. Tap water, 4 different bottles. All day.... sooo sucky.
rambling... apologies for waddling off topic... looking for the next one :)
night
enigma
18th June 2009, 11:03 PM
i dont see what the big deal is about fluoride in the water. alot of people seem to be strongly against it. but you never hear them say anything about all the other stuff thats put in our water. like chlorine. not that fake hydrachloride stuff that goes in your pool. real chlorine that kills you. go check out a msds site. type in any chemical and see what it does to you. too much of anything will kill you.
and also its no good comparing people in different countries cos that doesnt take into consideration different diets.
on the central coast we have two councils which look after the water supply. in wyong shire they have fluride in the water. in gosford they dont. it was found that the kids in wyong have much better teeth than those in gosford.
id like to add that even though i cant say i agree with forced medication i dont believe we have much choice. like now our bread is being dosed with folic acid.
enigma
18th June 2009, 11:06 PM
can our next topic be folic acid in our bread?
Breaka
18th June 2009, 11:33 PM
i dont see what the big deal is about fluoride in the water. alot of people seem to be strongly against it. but you never hear them say anything about all the other stuff thats put in our water. like chlorine. not that fake hydrachloride stuff that goes in your pool. real chlorine that kills you. go check out a msds site. type in any chemical and see what it does to you. too much of anything will kill you.
Man, chlorine is added for a reason. It acts as a disinfectant, killing 99% of the nasties which our bodies would have a real problem dealing with aswell as it's residual affect in killing any bugs in the reticulation infrastructure eg. pipes, reserviors etc. In a liquid form it can burn/irritate skin, it'll punish your eyes, mouth or any other sensitive type of areas (read anus, vagina, dickhole lol). It's most dangerous for is when it's a gas. And guess what, I'm the bastard who will be handling it before too long.
As for other chemical used in the water filtration process, sodium hydroxide or commonly known as caustic soda is also gnarly stuff. It's used to correct pH as the waters pH is reduced b chemcial/s during the coagulation/flocculation process. This stuff will cause insane chemical burns when it comes in contact with bare skin, it will more or less burn your skin off.
Just because these things are dangerous in a concerntrated state doesn't mean they'll pose any real threat to us when added to our drinking water. However, studies are being carried out on the gases (trihalomethane) that are produced when chlorine comes into contact with organic matter and are thought to be carcinogenic.
There may be a few reasons why the water in Darwin tastes like pool water. One could be the type of treatment process used. I know in some smaller towns there is actually no filtration as such going on, meaning the water doesn't pass through any sort of filtering membrane/media as such and large quanitities of chlorine are added to make up for any short falls in having no filter.
Another reason would be the high water temperature. High water temp = more bugs = more chlorine needed.
Micknofx
18th June 2009, 11:33 PM
Cheers all torque.
dave2221
18th June 2009, 11:36 PM
i have one of the reverse osmosis filters next to my sink for drinking water, it does taste better than normal tap water......
but at night and shit i just drink from the tap in the bathroom......
Breaka
18th June 2009, 11:46 PM
but at night and shit i just drink from the tap in the bathroom......
I swear to god it always tastes better from the bathroom tap. After a night on the piss I'll gussle that shit for 5mins.
dave2221
18th June 2009, 11:46 PM
I swear to god it always tastes better from the bathroom tap. After a night on the piss I'll gussle that shit for 5mins.
agreed
enigma
18th June 2009, 11:52 PM
i know chlorine is added for a reason. when i worked in a water filtration plant we used the gas type. and we used soda ash too. my point was people complain about fluride being the only thing in the water thats bad for you
driftke70
19th June 2009, 04:07 PM
yeah but its a choice ingredient, which not many people get to choose.
enigma you say comparing other nations cant be done because of diet, then compare two different regions with different socio-economic situations. Its what happens, people pick and choose statistics to suit them when its beneficial. I think youll find the area you mentioned with the fluoride most likely has a bigger industrial area, probably with a fertilizer production company, or close to one.
Breaka
19th June 2009, 05:34 PM
I think youll find the area you mentioned with the fluoride most likely has a bigger industrial area, probably with a fertilizer production company, or close to one.
That's not always the case. The stuff we use is sourced from all over the place, often it'll be freighted right across Australia. Supplies in Australia doesn't even meet demand sometimes, when my boss commented on the slow arrival of new stock he said 'it's on the slow boat from China' and to my surprise he meant it quite literally.
enigma
19th June 2009, 06:44 PM
there would not be much socio-economic difference between wyong shire and gosford city council. have you ever been there? they are pretty much all bogans
Wally
19th June 2009, 06:55 PM
I prefer tap water.
Flouride + Cheaper = win for me.
Crazy how some people live of bottled water...
skaney
21st June 2009, 02:00 PM
Clearly the communists are putting it in our water to control us and keep us docile. People have been having lolz at this topic for years.
Just be thankful we have drinkable tap water fullstop. Ive lived in a western developed country in which you couldnt.. little bit of flouride is better than cryptosporidiosis
driftke70
21st June 2009, 03:55 PM
yeah your right, just cause other countries are worse we shouldn't strive to make our country better.
anyhoo new topic.
MOBILE PHONES CAUSING BRAIN CANCER
What got me thinking about this some time ago, I was watching andrew dentons enough rope, and they had basically one of the best brain surgeons who has ever lived on the show, and he said he has not a doubt in his mind that mobile phones do cause brain tumors and that he predicts a wave of them forming in a decade or two.
yes/no/what you do to help stop it etc
personally i try to speak on the mobile very little and when i do hold it with a gap between my head and phone so im not pushing it right up to my head.
Axentrik
21st June 2009, 04:16 PM
Speakerphone yo
driftke70
21st June 2009, 04:26 PM
not many people are going to think it doesnt i guess,
but its interesting to think how many waves are passing through the air at any given time, like radio, tv, sat, mobile etc, each one has various effects, radio and tv are pretty minor but sat and mobile waves, the shear number of them.
ive noticed if i have my phone in my pants pocket and sit for too long, my leg goes warm and i sort of have to strain to move my legs
Mickey H
21st June 2009, 04:35 PM
I've heard keeping a phone in your front pocket can lower your sperm count, but It's too hard to know what's fact and what's fiction these days...
focus_7
21st June 2009, 07:58 PM
I think that the microwaves that the phones emit, even though they are low power can definately cause damage. But I guess it's just a matter of timebefore we see the effects of it.
Breaka
21st June 2009, 08:52 PM
Once again, time will tell. I'm pretty open to the idea that the waves mobile phones etc. emit may be harmful.
As for experiencing any sort of effects, nope. I'm seriously not buying into one having to 'strain to move' their legs as a result of a mobile sitting in their pocket even if it was for a considerable amount of time.
driftke70
22nd June 2009, 01:20 PM
when i say strain i dont mean like a groan and roll around the floor, just harder than usual.
same with when your on a long call, your arm gets tired quick holding the phone compared to say just holding your hand near your head.
Moebius
22nd June 2009, 08:26 PM
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25670355-421,00.html
This wasn't you was it driftke70? :yeah:
todd
23rd June 2009, 09:33 AM
when i say strain i dont mean like a groan and roll around the floor, just harder than usual.
same with when your on a long call, your arm gets tired quick holding the phone compared to say just holding your hand near your head.
i can +1 to this driftke70.
i have found if i sit around for ages with it in my pocket (always my right front) my whole thigh starts to ache kind of. used to happen pretty bad with my old old motorola razr, but since changing to samsung jobbie, its not quite as bad but definately still noticeable.
and i thought i was the only one...
seek
23rd June 2009, 12:11 PM
guys, radiowaves and signals are everywhere. EVERYWHERE. they are not, and do not cause adverse effects to the degree that it would be detrimental to a human.
The reason why sometimes mobiles might get warm, or ache your hand or leg (im struggling to understand how this happends) would not be because of the fact it is transmitting at high frequencies. It would be because each mobile emmitts a certain level of EMF (electromagnetic field), how this is caused within a mobile, im not entirely sure.
Although i've never expeirenced any of what some of you guys say, i reckon its probably more down to 'how' the mobile was manufactured, and its operations... instead of the 'technology' of a mobile phone.
if the RF signals / radiowaves personally effect you, you couldnt live a day on this planet.
in saying all this, i do agree extensive and prolonged periods of EMF caused by a mobile cant really be good for you.
driftke70
23rd June 2009, 01:37 PM
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25670355-421,00.html
This wasn't you was it driftke70? :yeah:
hehe nar, but good on em. Not many australians stand up for anything, gotta keep the pollies on their toes. Also i doubt that was real anyhoo, me thinks it was just an attempt to make people against fluoride look like phycos.
Breaka
24th June 2009, 12:24 AM
guys, radiowaves and signals are everywhere. EVERYWHERE. they are not, and do not cause adverse effects to the degree that it would be detrimental to a human.
The reason why sometimes mobiles might get warm, or ache your hand or leg (im struggling to understand how this happends) would not be because of the fact it is transmitting at high frequencies. It would be because each mobile emmitts a certain level of EMF (electromagnetic field), how this is caused within a mobile, im not entirely sure.
Although i've never expeirenced any of what some of you guys say, i reckon its probably more down to 'how' the mobile was manufactured, and its operations... instead of the 'technology' of a mobile phone.
if the RF signals / radiowaves personally effect you, you couldnt live a day on this planet.
in saying all this, i do agree extensive and prolonged periods of EMF caused by a mobile cant really be good for you.
Just like the fluoride thing mate, I couldn't agree with you more.
I seriously struggle to understand how this can happen. If those claim to be affected by a phone idling in ones pocket, why doesn't their head explode when standing by a microwave oven which is in operation? Exageration I know, but as seek has pointed out we're surrounded by the shit and if you think you're feeling the effects of a mobile then you'd be feeling pretty lousy when sitting in front of your computer (like you are right now), my limitied knowledge on the subject tells me that PC's (screen in particular) emit EMF radiation.
hehe nar, but good on em. Not many australians stand up for anything, gotta keep the pollies on their toes. Also i doubt that was real anyhoo, me thinks it was just an attempt to make people against fluoride look like phycos.
http://www.ae86drivingclub.com.au/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4399&stc=1&d=1245763676
Man, honestly. Even if you have no clue about what you're trying to broadcast to us, pick a story and stick to it. First you say that we need to step up as a collective and take some sort of action, stick it to the man and keep the pollies clued up that we're not a bunch of dumbfucks. Then you go on to state that it could be a scam, as if those debating the addition of fluoride in drinking water aren't capable of these type of actions! (which seems odd, because I think what you're trying to say is that people who don't stand for fluoridation of water are also those who pipe up and make noise to the guzzerment). Or, are you implying that you're even skeptical that the fluoride skeptics exist?!?!
driftke70
24th June 2009, 12:32 AM
two wrongs dont make a right, and you dont hold your screen next to your head
Breaka
24th June 2009, 12:46 AM
two wrongs dont make a right, and you dont hold your screen next to your head
Lol what? I don't even know what to say to that?
'I know you are I said you are, so what am I?' Is that the type of childish answer you're looking for?
No, but if you're like me you'll spend anywhere between 2-3hrs+ infront of a computer screen per day and if you're doing it right you'll have your face pointing directly at the screen. So even if the emissions are low, the exposure is still going to be far greater than the 30 odd minutes you might hold the phone to your ear per day.
driftke70
24th June 2009, 02:10 PM
so what your saying is, because we spend more time in front of computer screens, which can be worse, mobile phones are ok.
computer screens are just at the distance where emf doesnt penetrate too well, mobile phones are at a distance of zero.
there are reported effects from computer screens, apparently stop people from sleeping for one
driftke70
24th June 2009, 02:16 PM
Man, honestly. Even if you have no clue about what you're trying to broadcast to us, pick a story and stick to it. First you say that we need to step up as a collective and take some sort of action, stick it to the man and keep the pollies clued up that we're not a bunch of dumbfucks. Then you go on to state that it could be a scam, as if those debating the addition of fluoride in drinking water aren't capable of these type of actions! (which seems odd, because I think what you're trying to say is that people who don't stand for fluoridation of water are also those who pipe up and make noise to the guzzerment). Or, are you implying that you're even skeptical that the fluoride skeptics exist?!?!
what are you on about dude, i havnt changed my stance once, never mind loudly, your not making any sense, i do think people should be collective and knowledgeable about things, this is part of sticking it to the man.
im saying the article about death threats and shit could be a scam, dont know how you could have taken that the wrong way, basically saying that it is possible anti fluoride people sent those death threats and the likes, but the likelihood that the pollies did it to make it look like people who are anti it are phsyco is just as likely.
if your going to pipe up so strongly, get some evidence and sense into your posts, out of everyone in this thread your posts are consistently opinions and not facts.
Clinton
24th June 2009, 07:05 PM
so what your saying is, because we spend more time in front of computer screens, which can be worse, mobile phones are ok.
You know he isn't saying that.
You'd be pretty a good employee at a current affair or today tonight though. Even your ever so hated government. Very good at trying to distract the major and manipulate what Mathew is trying to say in a loose summary of what he wasn't saying...
DAMO46
24th June 2009, 07:11 PM
shit thats a whole lot of reading.
shift_rook
24th June 2009, 08:26 PM
what i do is never buy mobile credit, and becaus ei never call anyone, no one calls me caus ei have a lack in friends:D in all seriousness i only use a phone if i really have to, i prefer wasting my eyes away on msn and through e-mails
fantapants
24th June 2009, 10:52 PM
as to the effect of prolonged exposure to mobiles....
personal anecdotal experiance.... train between 25 - 30 hours a week. Mobile is in back pocket of gay lyrca shirt. It also plays music for me the whole time, so working the whole time. No differences in performance when its there or not. This goes for ipods et all. There is no muscular effect that is percievable. I have questioned about 25 people in th elat few days who have similar patterns. No effect. This could also be a result of the muscles in movement, or use. Both you fellas have stated it happens when sitting for a period of time? maybe the static muscular blood pooling and the toxins that are in the muscles have a exagerated effect?
Same topic, more empirical result. Professional cyclst. These guys take sport soo seriously they will spend $35000 us a year on "gear" of the injectible kind. The WONT allow for any hinderances to performance. Every single professional cyclist in every single devision 1, 2 and 3 will be using race radios. Most are in the same back pocket we keep our phones in - handy buggers - but many are helmet based or chest based or even back of the neck. These have NO measurable effect on power production or muscular efficiency. And these guys often race with $5000 worth of "engine dyno" on the bike all year... they know when shit effects them. Again this may be a result of the working muscle over the static muscle.
Hope it adds :)
Kid Karola
25th June 2009, 06:22 AM
here in Norway we have glacial spring water on tap! so drinking or bathing water are proabaly purer than even most bottled water around lol also there are no water restrictions like in Aust. Most of the countries electricity is generated from Hydro power stations too.
Other local hobbies besides skinny dipping in the lake are taking saunas, seal clubbing and whaling.
driftke70
4th July 2009, 06:49 PM
new topic,
do you think that modern medicine has gone too far.
in relation to people saying hostpitals are over crowded etc,
do you think 70 year old people should be getting transplants and such,
is this a big drain on the rest of society etc.
me, yes
shift_rook
4th July 2009, 06:54 PM
yes, i believe people younger really should be getting in first, if i was a 70 year old man i'd most certainly prefer for a 20 year old to get a liver over me
Gunner
4th July 2009, 06:55 PM
it hasnt gone far enough, still a long way to go.
I do believe that giving a frail old person a transplant unfair when there are kids that need theme, as for it being a drain on society, yes i believe it is
08ftwyo
4th July 2009, 07:00 PM
No? Everybody has a right to live. I would rather our health resources go toward a 70 year old who can have their life saved, than some drug fucked person who has placed themself in the state they are in. Even though thats not really the question, sorry. My answer to the actual question is no, I would have thought that any advances in medical technology should be welcomed with open arms. There is a line to be drawn when someone is too unhealthy, but as long as they are healthy enough, why not save their life?
driftke70
4th July 2009, 07:05 PM
people can be healthy, but mentally un healthy, i see it pretty often, people are are in and out of hostpital but dont even know where they are.
druggos are something different all together.
my point is where are you going to draw the line, various people get far too carried away, i know people that pop panadol like theyre mentos, and take antibiotics when they FEEL like they are going to be sick and stuff.
going to have a world of people with no immune systems etc.
some stuff is getting out of hand, i think if you have kids, and they are at an age that they can look after themselves, thats your life obligation over, anything above and beyond is a bonus.
08ftwyo
4th July 2009, 07:10 PM
people can be healthy, but mentally un healthy, i see it pretty often, people are are in and out of hostpital but dont even know where they are.
druggos are something different all together.
my point is where are you going to draw the line, various people get far too carried away, i know people that pop panadol like theyre mentos, and take antibiotics when they FEEL like they are going to be sick and stuff.
going to have a world of people with no immune systems etc.
some stuff is getting out of hand, i think if you have kids, and they are at an age that they can look after themselves, thats your life obligation over, anything above and beyond is a bonus.
Yea thats fair enough, mentally ill (i.e dimentia (sp?)), is a totally different story and it's painful to watch people who have it, i guess there is guidelines and rules for all other things like priority patients.
I agree, society is getting softer haha. People stay home because they coughed twice when they got out of bed in the morning :|
seek
4th July 2009, 11:27 PM
No? Everybody has a right to live. I would rather our health resources go toward a 70 year old who can have their life saved, than some drug fucked person who has placed themself in the state they are in. Even though thats not really the question, sorry. My answer to the actual question is no, I would have thought that any advances in medical technology should be welcomed with open arms. There is a line to be drawn when someone is too unhealthy, but as long as they are healthy enough, why not save their life?
i agree with you.
driftke70: who should be first in line (either the 70yr old or the 20yr old) i believe should depend on what is the root cause for a required transplant.
If the 20yr old had a breathing problem due to a birth issue.. then sure i agree, i'd like to see the 20yr old get some sort of preference. However, if it was because this 20yr old can no longer breath because of downing acid everyday, then well, sorry sir, gtfo ... first in, best-dressed.
how can advances in modern medicine go too far? development in medicine can only be good? Unless your talking about how every fuckstick thinks its their damned right to be able to walk into a hospital willy-nilly and get fixed up instantly and unquestionably... and thus have the idea that "whatever, hospital will take care of it... i dont need to think"
edit: i saw your reply above... you reckon this is an issue thats in dire need of attention? seems kinda petty in the whole 'scheme of things?
driftke70
5th July 2009, 01:27 PM
where did i say dire need,
i just think the worlds populations are getting to great and too old, its like taking 3 steps back before you take one step forward.
50 years ago people would have thought you were lucky to hit 65, these days people take 65 as a given. hell you cant even get your pension till after that.
Australia especially has a lot of old people.
Also the hospitals arnt too bad, just the employees inside them, the amount of nurses and doctors and stuff that just stand around all day, like you go there, it takes them like 45 minutes to process you through sitting at a computer typing, what more do they need other than your name, address, medicare/medibank details, any alergys and previous records. Take 5 mins max if you work slowly. Doctors all walk around talking jive to each other. No body really knows what they are doing except for like 1 person on a floor. usually indian.
Zach
5th July 2009, 03:52 PM
any smokers should give up their right to any medical treatment. period.
I don't think so, because they smoke, but they are still human.
Its like saying your a homosexual, we're not giving you a transplant.
08ftwyo
5th July 2009, 10:38 PM
^^hahaha i like your arguement made me lol, smoking is unecesary and is done by choice and ends up costing money to themselves, the community and probably will kill you.
Agreed
fantapants
12th July 2009, 01:11 PM
mediacal advances have gone too far in my opinion. but mainly from a natural selection point of view.
for whatever reason, i have a scewed view of the world. I thought it was normal, but the older i get, the more poeple i talk to the more i realise i have a "special" view on the world. Mainly on the so called sanctity of human life.
Western civilisation has become too dependant on medicine. As a species we have become physically dependant on outside sources of protection. We are growing weaker and more fragile by the generation. Age expectancy has nothing to do with. Yes we live longer. But skip back through human evolution for a bit. Since humanity shifted on mass to a collective community, farming and trading in towns or cities... about 4000 bc, it has taken till the mid 20th century to gain back the health and stregnth of our forefathers. it is only in the last 60 odd years we have gone past our hunter gatherer ancestors in health respects.
Natural selection wouldnt allow weaker or deformed members of the species to breed UNLESS they have something to offer an advantage. Humanity has "chosen" intellect as a natural advantage, and fair enough, it seems to be working for us. But through the sanctity of human life argument, we also have a devestatingly fragile grip on the world around us. By the advances in technology and medicine specifically, we have a steadily aging population and an increasingly fragile younger generation. With more medicine and technology to perpetuate the cycle.
Auto immune diseases are rife. They will continue to develop within humanity in the near future due to our obsession with germ killing. You can pop down the shop and get hospital grade disinfectant for washing dishs. We evolved to eat food stuffs in a non frigerated and poorly sanitised world. Now millions die of "food poisoning" ( broad sweeping term for various infections caused by unclean food and water sources :)) and we look for better ways to disinfect stuff.
A freind at work has some young kids. His wife got a charming letter of reproach from the local member of parliament recently after complaints from local families that she was organising pox parties. Yeah dont worry about your immune system billy... the doctors will fix it.
But at the heart of it, the moral quandry facing humanity is, like any inteligent being, the reproduction and continuance of the species is a hard wired evolutionary necessety. It has to be for the species to continue. Medicine will only continue to be leaned upon as a crutch to allow humans lo live longer and more numerous lives.
driftke70
12th July 2009, 03:58 PM
pretty much the exact point i was trying to get accross,
like people that spend 5 years and 10s of thousands of dollars trying to get ivf, if you cant have kids theres a reason for it, go adopt. Ivf kids then cant have kids etc.
i get arguements from people all the time like oh you wouldnt be saying the same thing if you couldnt have a kid, and no, i wouldnt. There are down syndrome people having down syndrome kids, they cant look after themselves never mind kids.
the baby bonus is making the wrong kind of people have kids too. i got 3rd degree burns all over my hand recently and was standing outside the hostpital waiting for a lift, these two guys were having a conversation that went.
how much was it this time?
350
350! how could you pay that much, i would have kept it and got the bonus
yeah i thought about it, it was only 250 last time/
in roman times, they used to leave children out for a night after they were born if they died they died, if they lived they were well cared for.
society is not only making the weak survive, thus leading to weaker generations in the future, but its deliberately encouraging it.
fantapants
12th July 2009, 10:28 PM
hey beally... ever watched idiocracy.... funny shit but scary in a wacky future not so far from the truth kinda way :)
driftke70
13th July 2009, 12:30 AM
nar will download it tomorrow
biggo
13th July 2009, 08:14 PM
I was going to write something about obesity but it came out a bit to harsh.
never mind my opinion on important matters, the world is not ready for them yet.
fantapants
13th July 2009, 09:47 PM
yet????
ever???
fuck it... go for it :)
driftke70
14th July 2009, 02:01 PM
its what this threads for biggo,
sick of having conversations with people when they are in groups and just agree with each other
enigma
14th July 2009, 06:41 PM
i know what you mean biggo. i think it was in supersize me about how its socially acceptable to tell off a smoker for smoking. but you are the worst person in the world if you tell a fat person that its not ok to eat 4 big macs.
fantapants
14th July 2009, 08:46 PM
its what this threads for biggo,
sick of having conversations with people when they are in groups and just agree with each other
its like people think you cant have different opinions than your mates... or you cant argue without it turning to shit :)
fucking love a good argument :)
as you were boys :)
Zach
14th July 2009, 09:07 PM
i know what you mean biggo. i think it was in supersize me about how its socially acceptable to tell off a smoker for smoking. but you are the worst person in the world if you tell a fat person that its not ok to eat 4 big macs.
Yeah no shit. but its not so bad if a male has a bit of gut. but if its a woman completely different story. Not that i care but i notice it.
hope this made sense
driftke70
14th July 2009, 11:08 PM
sometihng i was thinking about today is, if they really wanna get the message of speeding across and no just the revenue raising, why dont they make it community service and not fines, like ive paid almost 2k in fines over 6 years of driving, its bullshit.
me being a hobo uni student getting fines 275 bucks for doing 121 in a 110 zone is NOT the same as 45% of the rest of the population or more. Its not adjudicated what the fine should be, so it effects different people much differently. Then if you have money and a business you can just pay for points all day long. Bull shit. absolute bullshit.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.