Author Topic: Water Consumption  (Read 10404 times)

Offline Artisticflow87

  • Guenons
  • **
  • Posts: 78
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Water Consumption
« Reply #20 on: October 25, 2010, 11:41:36 AM »
Im glad you at least agree that water is better when filtered, but sorry nothing against you sir, but I AM ABSOLUTELY villianizing tap water for reasons given above. There is no hoax, these are not misplaced fears, my conclusions are well researched observations of whats actually going on, with personal experience backing it, I couldnt make this stuff up myself. Your attempts to invalidate anything I am saying is done by discrediting and lack of investigation to my claims,which is typical, were as I am being very clear and detailed in all of my responses... So lets try this, view this link which is one of the links I posted earlier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bqW0Hu3yGY&feature=related

-and then in your 'opinion' give a point by point rebuttal about whats wrong with the information discussed in the link.
This is so at least we are looking at the same target to continue this discussion because so far you've been looking past everything Im saying...

**Example of the type of response Im looking for; according to this lone link, tell me how whats being put in the water is either
A.) Not really being put into the water, its all lies, conspiracy theories or made up.
B.) Not in any way harmful, or as Ill put it, poison, and that tap water is still not bad for you even with it in there.
c.) Ok that its being put into the water, no need for filtration, everyone should just shut up and accept it.

And that goes for anyone else who disagrees, I want to hear why ^...
« Last Edit: October 25, 2010, 12:03:03 PM by Artisticflow87 »

Offline Chris Salvato

  • Moderator
  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Karma: +327/-64
  • Eat. Move. Improve.
    • View Profile
    • Chris Salvato
Re: Water Consumption
« Reply #21 on: October 25, 2010, 12:09:10 PM »
I am not convinced - this is a news/radio/web cast that is clearly rooted in fear mongering.

Sodium fluoride is toxic - but so is water.  Water is brutally toxic if you overconsume, just like sodium fluoride.  Most anything is toxic if you overconsume.  You would find similar warning labels on pure sodium, as well, as that can be toxic if consumed directly in concentrations that are too high.  That doesn't mean that sodium or water are harmful, though.

There is no proof here.  There is no proof that these compounds, in these concentrations is so unhealthy that it will kill you.  10 point IQ drop?  I don't see see the data or our methods.  Truth is, religiosity is more of a predictor of IQ than tap vs. filtered water.

Truth is, filtering doesnt even really fix the "problems" you are putting on the table.  Activated charcoal only really gets rid of chlorine, IIRC.  More advanced filtering (that includes heavy metals such as silver) is necessary to get rid of other impurities.

I understand your concern but your sources are not compelling to me.  The guy in this broadcast claims there is a lot of science to back it up but pubmed and google scholar don't agree...so if you have other sources, bring them forward.

Offline Daniel Arroyo

  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 1022
  • Karma: +123/-9
    • View Profile
Re: Water Consumption
« Reply #22 on: October 25, 2010, 03:45:57 PM »
WOW you guys really dont understand what Artistic is trying to say.. It is not about the quantity of anything but rather the quality. why settle for something that is only 70% when you can get the full 100% somewhere else.

Chris you are trying to justify consuming Fluoride, after reading your last post it is equivalent to saying if you only consume teaspoon of bleach you wont necessarily die. BUT, don't forget that your body doesn't need bleach. Sodium Fluoride is not needed by the body however you may be mixing up Sodium Fluoride with Calcium Fluoride which is produced naturally.

Here
http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2010/08/calcium-fluoride-vs-sodium-fluoride/

Now if that doesn't change your mind or let you at the very least reconsider the quality of your body-intake then I definitely refuse to respond to any rebuttal, because most of everything you are saying is conjecture.
"The only boundaries you have are the ones that are present with in the constraints of your mind" My quote!

Offline Chris Salvato

  • Moderator
  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Karma: +327/-64
  • Eat. Move. Improve.
    • View Profile
    • Chris Salvato
Re: Water Consumption
« Reply #23 on: October 25, 2010, 04:05:36 PM »
Yet another site that is dedicated to conspiracy theories and propaganda.

Do you guys seriously not have one single source that is respectable?  Surely, if it was so easy to poison people with these compounds  in the quantities that are put into our water then somewhere, someone must have this documented.  What are you guys posting?  News articles from shady sites that are dedicated to conspiracy theories.

Now don't get me worng, I am not saying tap water is some godsend sent to us from the heavens to cure our diseases or something obscure.  (Both of) you are making extremely strong claims with zero credible evidence.  Where is the evidence?  Politriks and YouTube?  All of these videos are making bold claims but no one has cited a single source...

Doesn't it alarm you that you have been convinced to change your life, actions and line of thinking without any sort of credible backup?  You are taking these people's word for it without any proof.

If that is how you choose to life your life, then go for it.  That is not how I choose to live mine.  I don't really care if you respond because of my "conjecture".  I am saying that I am refusing to be of any opinion that strays from what is reasonable - you are the one who is conjecturing - making a bold claim with incomplete information that is provided by fear mongering websites and propaganda machines.

Seriously, this conversation is a bit ridiculous -- it reminds me of this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3qFdbUEq5s

Offline Artisticflow87

  • Guenons
  • **
  • Posts: 78
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Water Consumption
« Reply #24 on: October 25, 2010, 04:20:50 PM »
Quote
I am not convinced - this is a news/radio/web cast that is clearly rooted in fear mongering.

That radio show has numerous guest of different levels of credibility and expertise regularly discussing real issues outside of the controlled paradigm of the dumbing down mainstream news sources... Youd do good investing time in alternative media.

As far as not being convinced, In the last link I posted ( if you actually watched the whole thing) it even goes to a mainstream news clip at the water treatment facility and discusses 'that the sodium fluoride is being imported from China, and it has so many other additional chemicals and compounds mixed in it that they cant even call it sodium fluoride anymore'.  Not to mention its admittedly toxic by ingestion.. I mean it doesnt get anymore clearer than that, you have to be literally shutting off all your logic and discernment to not understand, unless you have become too determined to simply prove me wrong
.
Quote
Sodium fluoride is toxic - but so is water.  Water is brutally toxic if you overconsume, just like sodium fluoride.  Most anything is toxic if you overconsume.  You would find similar warning labels on pure sodium, as well, as that can be toxic if consumed directly in concentrations that are too high.  That doesn't mean that sodium or water are harmful, though.

I feel like this is a weak attempt to try to justify something that is wrong, instead of just admitting in the first place that it should not be in our water or going into our bodies, especially without full public consent, which fall under the category of forced medication.

Quote
There is no proof here.  There is no proof that these compounds, in these concentrations is so unhealthy that it will kill you.  10 point IQ drop?  I don't see see the data or our methods.  Truth is, religiosity is more of a predictor of IQ than tap vs. filtered water.

There are many other studies regarding that, but you probably wont look for them anyways.
There is so much opposing information out against fluoride now days as many people have awoken to these truths that its not even funny-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ys9q1cvKGk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP7IPDfC3yg&feature=related
http://www.google.com/search?q=fluoride+truth&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Fluoride truth hits Australia-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZBRBPgTOt0

Quote
Truth is, filtering doesnt even really fix the "problems" you are putting on the table.  Activated charcoal only really gets rid of chlorine, IIRC.  More advanced filtering (that includes heavy metals such as silver) is necessary to get rid of other impurities.

Reverse osmosis, or distillation, which is the only kind of filtering ive ever mentioned in this thread. Are you now claiming that they do not work...

Quote
I understand your concern but your sources are not compelling to me.  The guy in this broadcast claims there is a lot of science to back it up but pubmed and google scholar don't agree...so if you have other sources, bring them forward.

Maybe Iam wrong to assume this but it appears that no matter what I post its obvious your only going to say that your not convinced or that its not credible... At what point does your own conscious intuition kick in and you realize something is wrong here on your own. At this point, I feel nothing will be credible with you unless its what you want to believe, and for someone in such strong opposition, I have seen nothing from you arguing against the post Ive made, other than your personal disagreement...
« Last Edit: October 25, 2010, 04:25:44 PM by Artisticflow87 »

Offline Sparklefish

  • EAF!
  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 1323
  • Karma: +147/-16
    • View Profile
    • San Francisco Parkour
Re: Water Consumption
« Reply #25 on: October 25, 2010, 04:42:50 PM »
Maybe Iam wrong to assume this but it appears that no matter what I post its obvious your only going to say that your not convinced or that its not credible... At what point does your own conscious intuition kick in and you realize something is wrong here on your own. At this point, I feel nothing will be credible with you unless its what you want to believe, and for someone in such strong opposition, I have seen nothing from you arguing against the post Ive made, other than your personal disagreement...

You've posted a lot of youtube videos and news articles.  Chris is asking for peer-reviewed scientific studies.

Offline Happy Fries

  • Mangabey
  • ****
  • Posts: 300
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Water Consumption
« Reply #26 on: October 25, 2010, 04:55:18 PM »
The Internet is truly a wonderful thing. It can cater to everyone, and really democritizes the flow of information. EG, google something, and it will point you to what you want to see. Want to see evidence that tap water kills? Google it and bingo. Want to find scientific studies regarding "x"? You can find it.

Anyone can post anything they want on the Internet. But, that doesn't mean it's correct or right.
I stepped into a new world. I watched you fly, saw you as a friend, the spirit of dreams. I imagined a new world, lands far away and imagined those faces as you hung in their sky. I'm leaving ground, stepping into a new world.
- Airships

Offline Chris Salvato

  • Moderator
  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Karma: +327/-64
  • Eat. Move. Improve.
    • View Profile
    • Chris Salvato
Re: Water Consumption
« Reply #27 on: October 25, 2010, 04:57:25 PM »
I really am not trying to be a dick, but the sources you keep posting (youtube videos, news broadcasts, propaganda machines) are not credible at all.  Mainstream news media is fear mongering, too, probably just as badly as the propaganda machines you keep posting.

I did some google scholar searches for peer reviewed articles.  Really I dont care much about this topic, I just hate when people villainize something that isnt evil.  If you want to villainize HFCS, then go ahead, but tap water?  Thats a little absurd.  Here, look at these scholarly articles that are peer reviewed and you will see the difference between these and your hysterical/radical videos.

A Quantitative Look at Fluorosis, Fluoride Exposure, and Intake in Children Using a Health Risk Assessment Approach
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253719/

This study looks at fluorosis (adult staining of the teeth) and proves inconclusive that drinking water (As well as being compounded by other sources) has any effect on flurosis.  If you don't want to read the whole thing, the methods are sound.  Just look at the abstract if you like.  At worst, some children appear to be at an increased risk of stained teeth.  I am not exactly shuddering.

From the other studies I have read, the toxic for fluoride is 5-10 mg/kg.  The lethal dose is 500 mg in infants or 5-10 g (32-64 mg/kg) in humans. If you consume water with an absurdly high amount of flouride (5 ppm, lets say, thats .0005% of your water) you would need 1,000,000 g of water to read a 5 g lethal dose.  For TOXICITY (negative effects) you would need 1000g of water, which is about 1 liter per KILOGRAM.  That means I would need to drink about 90 liters a day.  If I am mistaken, correct my math...but that is the toxicity levels that are published.

EDIT: Math error...

BTW, whenever someone compares something to the Nazis, I am immediately turned off...
« Last Edit: October 25, 2010, 04:59:08 PM by Chris Salvato »

Offline Chris Salvato

  • Moderator
  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Karma: +327/-64
  • Eat. Move. Improve.
    • View Profile
    • Chris Salvato
Re: Water Consumption
« Reply #28 on: October 25, 2010, 05:20:30 PM »
Just found this on wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride_poisoning#Chronic_toxicity


A weakening of bones, leading to an increase in hip and wrist fracture. At the level used in fluoridated water, decreased fractures are expected,[10] but the U.S. National Research Council found the overall evidence "suggestive but inadequate for drawing firm conclusions about the risk or safety of exposures at [2 mg/L]", but states that fractures do seem to increase as fluoride is increased from 1 mg/L to 4 mg/L, suggesting a "continuous exposure-effect" dose-response relationship at these levels.[12]:170


This states that you get an increase of negative effects as you go from 1-4 mg/L -- thats 1 ppm to 4 ppm.  If this is a true dose response curve, the LOGEC50 should be somewhere at about 2 ppm.  So the negative effects kick in probably between 1 ppm and 4 ppm depending on your unique self with 2 ppm producing a  reliable change in most people.


Adverse effects on the kidney. Within the recommended dose, no effects are expected, but chronic ingestion in excess of 12 mg/day are expected to cause adverse effects, and an intake that high is possible when fluoride levels are around 4 mg/L.[12]:281 Those with impaired kidney function are more susceptible to adverse effects.[12]:292

12 mg/day would be 3 liters at 4 ppm or 12 liters at 1 ppm.  Thats a lot of water - unless you have a lot of fluoride in your water.  So how many of us have over 4 ppm in our water?  Get it tested and find out....i guess.  I am not too sure that I should be scared about that though.

Little research has been done on possible liver damage, although some studies suggest negative effects at chronic ingestion of 23 mg/day.[12]:292

23 mg/day?  I'm not snorting this stuff.  Thats a lot of fluoride.  Not even touching that one.

Chromosomal damage and interference with DNA repair.[12]:304 Overall, the literature from in vitro and rodent studies does not indicate genotoxicity, but the in vivo human studies are inconsistent.[12]:316

No doses are listed so I can't comment on this at all...and neither can you. :P  For all we know, these studies were done by people using 100 g/kg or something.

Four epidemiological studies have noted a correlation between increased fluoride and low IQ.[12]:205-223 The most rigorous of these compared an area with mean water concentration of 0.36 ± 0.15 mg/L (range 0.18–0.76 mg/L) to an area with 2.47 ± 0.79 mg/L (range 0.57–4.50 mg/L). Most of these studies did not publish important details, making them difficult to evaluate. If these correlations are caused by fluoride, the mechanism is not known, but the National Research Council speculates that effects on the thyroid could lead to poor test results.[12]:208 Two Chinese meta-analyses which included the previously mentioned studies have also noted this correlation.[16][17] The high-fluoride areas studied had fluoride levels above those used in water fluoridation.

Epidemiological studies are f#cking worthless, especially in a domain such as this.  These data and studies are worthless.  Like I said, religiosity is more closely correlated to IQ than tap water consumption.  Correlations do not imply causation, especially when used in studies such as these.  I can correlate car accidents in the US to annual lemon imports with an r=.99.  Just sayin.

The NRC report stated that "many of the untoward effects of fluoride are due to the formation of AlFx [aluminum fluoride] complexes".[12]:219 This topic has been identified previously as cause for concern.[18] The NRC noted that rats administered fluoride had twice as much aluminum in their brains.[12]:212 When water (1 ppm fluoride) is boiled in aluminum cookware more aluminum is leached and more aluminum fluoride complexes are formed. However, an epidemiological study found that a high-fluoride area had one-fifth the Alzheimer's that a low-fluoride area had,[19] and a 2002 study found that fluoride increased the urinary excretion of aluminum.[20]

If you don't understand this - it's ok.  Its practically meaningless to this discussion.  High Fluoride areas in the brain actually reduced alzheimers and it causes aluminum to excrete in higher quantities.  Big deal.  I don't understand the implications of this and therefore cannot comment and since it is wikipedia, if there were known implications, I feel as though they would be listed.

Fluoride's suppressive effect on the thyroid is more severe when iodine is deficient, and fluoride is associated with lower levels of iodine.[18] Thyroid effects in humans were associated with fluoride levels 0.05–0.13 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was adequate and 0.01–0.03 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was inadequate.[12]:263 Its mechanisms and effects on the endocrine system remain unclear.[12]:266

This is somewhat compelling.  Make sure you get your iodine and this shouldn't be something to worry about.  .05 mg/kg is about 3 mg/day for a 155# male.  If you have water with even 1 ppm this is still a factor in your thyroid function - but the effects of a fluorid and what it means to have a suppressed thyroid are not listed.  I can only assume that metabolic regulation is suppressd in some way, but the data is still listed as "unclear" which means it can't be so significant that we are dropping like flys.  I am still not seeing the cause for alarm.

---------------

I guess this was the kind of list I was expecting form you, as opposed to links from the propaganda machine.  Even with all of these points, I am not really convinced there is anything wrong with tap water.  I guess it is worthwhile to get tested to see if you have absurdly high amounts (3-5 ppm in your water).  Even then, your risk is related to kidney function and weaker bones.  Since I dont have weak bones (i dislocate joints more than break bones bc my bones are so strong) and have had no kidney problems, I am personally not too worried.  It may be worthwhile to get a few cheap testing strips just to be sure I am not being OMGOVERDOSED but I am not too alarmed.

Offline Artisticflow87

  • Guenons
  • **
  • Posts: 78
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Water Consumption
« Reply #29 on: October 25, 2010, 07:38:15 PM »
Quote
“The Internet is truly a wonderful thing. It can cater to everyone, and really democritizes the flow of information. EG, google something, and it will point you to what you want to see. Want to see evidence that tap water kills? Google it and bingo. Want to find scientific studies regarding "x"? You can find it.

Anyone can post anything they want on the Internet. But, that doesn't mean it's correct or right.”

Im kind of tired of talking about this also but im going to respond in full anyways.  The internet catering to everyone searching for what they want to see, yes that is very true, you cant help that. Which is why I originally included my personal experience with water analysis being done on my tap, and why I choose filtered water. I KNOW as a fact that I get a bad headache anytime I drink tap, which Ill also add that the same thing happens to my close friends whom also avoid tap.. Thus a water analysis, nor information from the internet is not needed to tell me anything my body didnt already know was bad for it in regards to tap water...I am very in tuned with my body, and not numb to the poisons (wont even eat fast food), and I feel that any conscious, open minded human being should generally be able to literally feel for himself what is right or not right for their body with out government think tanks, scientist, doctors, media outlets, or his peers thinking for him, but its sad that most of the public doesnt even know when they are being deliberately poisoned through various methods...

Quote
I really am not trying to be a dick, but the sources you keep posting (youtube videos, news broadcasts, propaganda machines) are not credible at all.  Mainstream news media is fear mongering, too, probably just as badly as the propaganda machines you keep posting.

I didnt go into this conversation thinking the debate would go this far to begin with, youtube videos, and quick internet searches detailing a certain point of view are a easy way to communicate information, especially when the average person is not going to sit and read a large document or ‘peer edited review’, especially when the OP of the thread has already said he drinks filtered water. But just because it’s a youtube video or a website not promoted by the establishment does not void it of truth, because that is the oldest and most commonly used trick by the establishment to discredit alternative media sources by attacking their credibility, and training people to believe that only large government funded institutions are correct, especially in these types of issues.. Im not trying to just void out everything you are saying but I want it to be said that not everything needs 'credibility' to be the truth, the truth can be in a minority of one and still be the truth...

Quote
I did some google scholar searches for peer reviewed articles.  Really I dont care much about this topic, I just hate when people villainize something that isnt evil.  If you want to villainize HFCS, then go ahead, but tap water?  Thats a little absurd.  Here, look at these scholarly articles that are peer reviewed and you will see the difference between these and your hysterical/radical videos.

Well I think its absurd; that you find my supported views of tap water not being healthy- to be absurd. You havent posted anything to support the claims that tap water is not bad, which is what started my rant. Also dont forget, we only discussed a couple reasons of why not to consume unfiltered tap, there are numerous other components that could be added to this conversation to further weaken the original point that tap is not bad. Fluoride is one example out of many, and to make it worse, there are known knowns, and known unknowns, we are only talking about what we KNOW thats in the tap water, which is usually less than what we do not know, especially with so many different chemicals and pharmaceuticals finding their way through into the water supply reacting with each other daily...

Quote
A Quantitative Look at Fluorosis, Fluoride Exposure, and Intake in Children Using a Health Risk Assessment Approach
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253719/

Im going to have to say, I personally dont trust this link; just as you decided not to trust mines, and its simply because I understand that Gov funded studies on something that the government is doing, is self regulation, to say the least.. We dont live in a world were you should just automatically trust anyone, or any source of info, most especially not from the government... And I can tell the link is meant to compartmentalize its reader into only being concerned about dental fluorosis, even though it says that the CDC ( Centers for disease creation) claims that the scientific community agrees with water fluoridation for prevention of cavities which is not true anymore either, so why is it still in the water... Also if I was to use your way of thinking I have to say that your two links are about as credible as the two doctors videos I posted from youtube...Though Im glad that you tried to respond fully this time, with something to support your counter argument.

Quote
This study looks at fluorosis (adult staining of the teeth) and proves inconclusive that drinking water (As well as being compounded by other sources) has any effect on flurosis.  If you don't want to read the whole thing, the methods are sound.  Just look at the abstract if you like.  At worst, some children appear to be at an increased risk of stained teeth.  I am not exactly shuddering.

From the other studies I have read, the toxic for fluoride is 5-10 mg/kg.  The lethal dose is 500 mg in infants or 5-10 g (32-64 mg/kg) in humans. If you consume water with an absurdly high amount of flouride (5 ppm, lets say, thats .0005% of your water) you would need 1,000,000 g of water to read a 5 g lethal dose.  For TOXICITY (negative effects) you would need 1000g of water, which is about 1 liter per KILOGRAM.  That means I would need to drink about 90 liters a day.  If I am mistaken, correct my math...but that is the toxicity levels that are published.

I never tried to talk about fluoride and teeth, but let me point out the insanity if that is the claimed reason of fluoridation of the public water supply in the first place, umm because its good for your teeth.... Laughable, even if it was good for your teeth would you drink your toothpaste? The same toothpaste that has the active ingredient sodium fluoride, the same toothpaste that says contact poison control if swallowed, and you keep reading youll find the amount they are talking about is a pea sized amount. Also why would you put something in your mouth that youd have to contact poison control for? The mouth is a high absorption area, and what kids dont swallow their tooth paste almost daily. Come on people use reason, think past the mindwash... Even if it was good for your teeth which it is not, would you drink cologne to make you smell better? Would you drink sun tan lotion to protect your skin? What is the logic of fluoridating the water supply anyways, you tell me?

Maybe thats what shouldve been said in the first place, because even with everything you just posted, it still doesnt speak for any of the simple points that my links or I have brought up, like also why are we drinking sodium fluoride imported from f#cking China? Do you really think there is nothing wrong with that? What is your opinion of what was being said in the video at the water treatment facility? And once again, why are they putting it in the water ?
Maybe I should dig up governments own admission that they want to do ' behavior modification' to the public, in their own words. What does that mean to you? Even if you assume the amount of fluoride being put into the water is not a large enough amount to have any negative side effects,then why would they put it in the water at all or talk about behavioral modification?

And your wikipedia reference lightly admits in toxicity, and rambled off numbers of what would be considered toxic levels. Well wouldnt it be a massive assumption to assume that the amount going into the water is A.) the same mixture,batch- of fluoride used in their studies, and B.) A safe amount actually being dumped into the water supply.
I mean seriously, how do any of YOU know how much is in actuality reaching you at your faucet? I mean shit, even if the studies you posted are not fraudulent and accurate, why are we being forced medicated anyways, why is a large amount of money being spent by the governments to fluoridate its population, especially during an economic recession. Stop and think about that simple basic question a little...

Quote
BTW, whenever someone compares something to the Nazis, I am immediately turned off...

There is nothing to say about that other than- To study history, you can also understand the present...

Peer edited reviews, whatever, the information is out there that is not sugar coated, and I stand by my point that the population is being poised by forced medication of fluoride in its municipal water supply, which at a basic level explains one of the many reasons why I disagree with you about tap water not being bad...

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/
http://www.fluoridation.com/calgaryh.htm
http://www.fluorideresearch.org/391/files/3911-2.pdf


« Last Edit: October 25, 2010, 08:40:29 PM by Artisticflow87 »

Offline Chris Salvato

  • Moderator
  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Karma: +327/-64
  • Eat. Move. Improve.
    • View Profile
    • Chris Salvato
Re: Water Consumption
« Reply #30 on: October 25, 2010, 08:31:23 PM »
If you are seriously comparing American drinking water to Nazi war/genocide tactics, then this conversation is over.

I am upset that you will likely have a lifetime filled with fear and worry about smoke and mirror shows.  Be sure to stay away from the Dihydrogen Monoxide too...its scary stuff.

If you read the studies and facts I posted, they are based in truth, with real solid methods.  If you read a paper and don't like its findings, you need to have a reason why.  For example, I dont like studies that "prove" vegetarianism is healthy because their statistical analysis is shabby and the links are not proved causal by any means.  You don't like my studies because you want to be right.  I don't like your "proof" because it doesn't prove anything reliably.

Apparently, in your opinion, for one to be correct, one just needs to be the first person to tell you something.  Preferably mix a lot of fearful, doomsday rhetoric in there.

Offline Artisticflow87

  • Guenons
  • **
  • Posts: 78
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Water Consumption
« Reply #31 on: October 25, 2010, 09:01:38 PM »
If you are seriously comparing American drinking water to Nazi war/genocide tactics, then this conversation is over.

I am upset that you will likely have a lifetime filled with fear and worry about smoke and mirror shows.  Be sure to stay away from the Dihydrogen Monoxide too...its scary stuff.

If you read the studies and facts I posted, they are based in truth, with real solid methods.  If you read a paper and don't like its findings, you need to have a reason why.  For example, I dont like studies that "prove" vegetarianism is healthy because their statistical analysis is shabby and the links are not proved causal by any means.  You don't like my studies because you want to be right.  I don't like your "proof" because it doesn't prove anything reliably.

Apparently, in your opinion, for one to be correct, one just needs to be the first person to tell you something.  Preferably mix a lot of fearful, doomsday rhetoric in there.

Dont be upset because I wont live a lifetime filled with fear and worry, Im not worried about my water, its filtered. YOU should be worried smart guy.
And your telling me that if I read a paper and dont like its finding that I need to have a reason why, well um I did have a reason, and its funny that you say that because you have been dodging key points in almost every post Ive made thus far. And you dont like my proof because it doesnt prove anything? Ok whatever no proof.
I could post a link that the Epa headquarts professionals oppose fluoride, but its not credible so f#ck the Epa right?
http://www.fluoridealert.org/hp-epa.htm
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/health/flouride090105.html
http://skyfind.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/water1.jpg?w=400&h=423

Or that sodium fluoride was used as rat poison, but dont believe in any of numerous hits you can easily find on google about it, out of the numerous different links that pop up none of them are true, so no point looking in any of them for yourself.
http://www.google.com/search?q=sodium+fluoride+rat+poison&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
http://www.google.com/images?q=sodium+fluoride+rat+poison&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1680&bih=858
Or that sodium fluoride causes calcification of the pineal gland in the brain, but who cares about that stupid thing anyways.
You said fluoride has no affect on the brain according to the studies you've read, well this disagrees-
http://www.fluoride-journal.com/00-33-2/332-74.pdf

But it wouldnt matter to you because none of it is credible and supposably theres no proof just because you dont want to believe its out there.
You said im just trying to be right? I dont even have to be right about 50% of what I said to still prove the point that tap water is not ok to drink...
For there to even be such a massive debate on the subject youd be naive to blindly consume this stuff.
Whos to assume whats actually credible anyways? How about you answer the simple questions I asked in my last posts, screw posting links, a lot of stuff I said only requires common sense. But if your done with the convo because you dont like something I said then thats fine also, I think enough has been said here...
« Last Edit: October 25, 2010, 09:14:10 PM by Artisticflow87 »

Offline Kyle

  • Mangabey
  • ****
  • Posts: 361
  • Karma: +4/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Water Consumption
« Reply #32 on: October 25, 2010, 09:11:06 PM »
First off, calm down.

Secondly, Chris doesn't have to prove anything. You do. He's in the situation where, "He'll believe it when he see's it." It's a understandable and logical position of someone who has something put before him that doesn't have solid proof. You really might be right, the issue is that the research you've found is either unreliable or exaggerates the potential risk behind tap water. It's certainly not healthy. I'd agree with you there - survival training has made me very paranoid of ALL water sources. The issue is that if tap water really was as bad as you say it is, it would have very obvious effects that would have already been a global truth backed by many acclaimed scientists.

It isn't, though, and until it is we will remain skeptical. I promise that you are allowed to say, "I told you so," if that day comes.

Offline Artisticflow87

  • Guenons
  • **
  • Posts: 78
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Water Consumption
« Reply #33 on: October 25, 2010, 09:21:45 PM »
First off, calm down.

The issue is that if tap water really was as bad as you say it is, it would have very obvious effects that would have already been a global truth backed by many acclaimed scientists.


Just because you dont look for those people willing to speak out and oppose it doesnt mean they arent there. Ive already posted more than a handful, and even a link how fluoride truth has hit Australian Tv. I wouldnt have any of this information Ive been posting since my first post if it wasnt being violently opposed, but truth is always surpressed, thus why its not well known... Whatever im done here, im not going to run in circles enough has been said. I dont care what people believe, nor do I feel I have to prove anything. I was only directing people to the information,  I made my points, Chris made his people can digest it how they want. Nuff said.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2010, 09:25:14 PM by Artisticflow87 »

Offline Chris Salvato

  • Moderator
  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Karma: +327/-64
  • Eat. Move. Improve.
    • View Profile
    • Chris Salvato
Re: Water Consumption
« Reply #34 on: October 25, 2010, 09:25:34 PM »
You convinced me that I needed to look into it.

I looked into it, and still haven't found anything alarming.

You have not presented me with anything alarming.

I am confused as to how you think I should be alarmed when no alarming evidence has been put forward.

Please link me to the EPA.  There was a rather long paper on the drawbacks of Fluoride that I found compelling.  It was linked from Wikipedia.  It had many considerations and there was suggestive evidence.  However, the scientists still said the results were inconclusive.  If you have found some evidence that is not inconclusive, then please post it as I would be eager to read it.  If you read my posts above, I even said that checking the concentration of fluoride in your tap water would be worthwhile if you had a reason to believe the concentrations were too high.

Until you present something to me that is downright alarming, I will not be alarmed.  Filtering your water is of course ideal (distilling is not filtering, btw...its distilling) but it isn't necessary.

No truth is being suppressed.  Don't you see that you aren't presenting truth?  You are presenting hysteria.

Offline Kyle

  • Mangabey
  • ****
  • Posts: 361
  • Karma: +4/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Water Consumption
« Reply #35 on: October 25, 2010, 09:31:13 PM »
Just because you dont look for those people willing to speak out and oppose it doesnt mean they arent there. Ive already posted more than a handful, and even a link how fluoride truth has hit Australian Tv. I wouldnt have any of this information Ive been posting since my first post if it wasnt being violently opposed, but truth is always surpressed, thus why its not well known... Whatever im done here, im not going to run in circles enough has been said. I dont care what people believe, nor do I feel I have to prove anything. I was only directing people to the information,  I made my points, Chris made his people can digest it how they want. Nuff said.

You've found a lot of theories. Not proof. Proof is a different animal.

Offline Artisticflow87

  • Guenons
  • **
  • Posts: 78
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Water Consumption
« Reply #36 on: October 25, 2010, 09:31:53 PM »
You convinced me that I needed to look into it.

I looked into it, and still haven't found anything alarming.

You have not presented me with anything alarming.

I am confused as to how you think I should be alarmed when no alarming evidence has been put forward.

Please link me to the EPA.  There was a rather long paper on the drawbacks of Fluoride that I found compelling.  It was linked from Wikipedia.  It had many considerations and there was suggestive evidence.  However, the scientists still said the results were inconclusive.  If you have found some evidence that is not inconclusive, then please post it as I would be eager to read it.  If you read my posts above, I even said that checking the concentration of fluoride in your tap water would be worthwhile if you had a reason to believe the concentrations were too high.

Until you present something to me that is downright alarming, I will not be alarmed.  Filtering your water is of course ideal (distilling is not filtering, btw...its distilling) but it isn't necessary.

No truth is being suppressed.  Don't you see that you aren't presenting truth?  You are presenting hysteria.

Kangaroo's poisoned by fluoride, ABC news...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/23/2827687.htm
or
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/health/flouride090105.html
But your just going to say its not credible and its inconclusive. Nothing I posted was inconclusive or I wouldnt have posted it.
And just because a couple of unknown scientist in your link said something was inconclusive doesnt mean they were right. Expand your search..
Or better yet believe what you want, you obviously will not be alarmed on this subject so Im not trying to "Alarm you" whatever that means.
If you want to continue talking about this answer my questions I asked you like why is it in the water, do you not agree this is forced medication on the public, do you trust the people force medicating the public? Any of the various questions I presented which were meant for you to answer them and think for yourself. Other wise Im not going in circles on this and theres no reason to continue.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2010, 09:40:05 PM by Artisticflow87 »

Offline Kyle

  • Mangabey
  • ****
  • Posts: 361
  • Karma: +4/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Water Consumption
« Reply #37 on: October 25, 2010, 09:34:14 PM »
He already stated the problem with the news. Yet you still site the news. Surely you should see the problem with this. The news likes to blow EVERYTHING out of proportion.

Also, the kangaroo's were obtaing that level of fluoride from things that weren't tap water.

Offline Artisticflow87

  • Guenons
  • **
  • Posts: 78
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Water Consumption
« Reply #38 on: October 25, 2010, 09:45:24 PM »
He already stated the problem with the news. Yet you still site the news. Surely you should see the problem with this. The news likes to blow EVERYTHING out of proportion.

Also, the kangaroo's were obtaing that level of fluoride from things that weren't tap water.

Who cares how it got in the Kangaroos, thats not the point, the point is that its evidence that fluoride IS poisoning them.There was nothing inconclusive at all about what the EPA said.
Who cares that it came from the news, I understand that news can be a propaganda machine but in this scenario the first headline shows that its actually the EPA's call, damn you guys are dense. What about the other link I posted about the EPA scientist and workers call for end of water fluoridation because of cancer risks.
Honestly theres obviously nothing I could post that you people wont try to discredit or say is not worthy information, when ALL of it is and Im not even trying hard to find it, so this convo with you guys has became pointless. Be happy believing what you believe Ill believe what I know and anyone else can believe what they want to, and enjoy your government forced medication of fluoride and whatever else through your tap water..


Offline Kyle

  • Mangabey
  • ****
  • Posts: 361
  • Karma: +4/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Water Consumption
« Reply #39 on: October 25, 2010, 10:04:10 PM »
Who cares how it got in the Kangaroos, thats not the point, the point is that its evidence that fluoride IS poisoning them.There was nothing inconclusive at all about what the EPA said.
Who cares that it came from the news, I understand that news can be a propaganda machine but in this scenario the first headline shows that its actually the EPA's call, damn you guys are dense. What about the other link I posted about the EPA scientist and workers call for end of water fluoridation because of cancer risks.
Honestly theres obviously nothing I could post that you people wont try to discredit or say is not worthy information, when ALL of it is and Im not even trying hard to find it, so this convo with you guys has became pointless. Be happy believing what you believe Ill believe what I know and anyone else can believe what they want to, and enjoy your government forced medication of fluoride and whatever else through your tap water..



I believe the lack of fluoride in your diet has made you excitable.
(Sorry. Resistance failure.)