PDA

View Full Version : Fuken science pricks and shit



Akzle
15th February 2014, 15:04
so, havard and shit have done a study. NOW (as opposed to before science), flouride is a neuro development inhibiting fuken thing, ie makes people stupid. (and docile and easy to police/control)

Who'd have thought.

Im looking at you, auckland.

MVnut
15th February 2014, 15:07
Why do you have to swear in every one of your posts?

Akzle
15th February 2014, 15:15
Why do you have to swear in every one of your posts?

i dont. Some might argue its symptomatic of brain damage or mental illness, but being that none of them know me, nor are doctors, that falls squarely in the realms of speculation.

Perhaps its poor impulse control or failings of my limbic system? Maybe an unresolved desire to be controversial, attention craving?
Maybe i dont possess a wide enough vocabulary to effectively express myself, and am basically frustrated at my own illiteracy.

I guess what im trying to say is:
fuck knows.

MVnut
15th February 2014, 15:27
i dont. Some might argue its symptomatic of brain damage or mental illness, but being that none of them know me, nor are doctors, that falls squarely in the realms of speculation.

Perhaps its poor impulse control or failings of my limbic system? Maybe an unresolved desire to be controversial, attention craving?
Maybe i dont possess a wide enough vocabulary to effectively express myself, and am basically frustrated at my own illiteracy.

I guess what im trying to say is:
fuck knows.

Fair enough

Maha
15th February 2014, 15:32
Some might argue its symptomatic of brain damage.



Shaun is that you?

FJRider
15th February 2014, 15:44
Some of us like to type just the way we fucking talk.

Fuck that ... :facepalm:

rustyrobot
15th February 2014, 15:52
Why do you have to swear in every one of your posts?

AH, now you see, you're reading it the wrong way. Akzle is a comic genius. He's the KB version of Ali-G. Only there's a chance he's not Jewish. All those people who have him on ignore are missing some comedy fucking gold.

Virago
15th February 2014, 15:54
http://elsiep291.edublogs.org/files/2012/02/Look-at-Me-29mc3sv.jpg

bogan
15th February 2014, 16:28
This just in, dihydrogen monoxide also harmful in large doses.

And flouride is delivered with a vast amount of dihydrogen monoxide, coincidence? :innocent:

akxle you might get a bit further if you posted the goddamn article or whatsit that harvard wrote...

Crasherfromwayback
15th February 2014, 16:31
Did you know if you drink too much cunting water you can die! Who'd had thought it...

Akzle
15th February 2014, 16:42
akxle you might get a bit further if you posted the goddamn article or whatsit that harvard wrote...
is google that hard, son?
(the 12 acknowledged neurodevelopment inhibitors, includes mercury and lead, go figure.)

Fuken watch the news tonight, it'll probably be on.

Still cant believe theyre allowed to sell shampoo.

cunting water

well, theres your problem.
That shit's icky.

bogan
15th February 2014, 16:45
is google that hard, son?
(the 12 acknowledged neurodevelopment inhibitors, includes mercury and lead, go figure.)

Fuken watch the news tonight, it'll probably be on.

Still cant believe theyre allowed to sell shampoo.

I did, and found shit from a 2012 study (which was inconclusive), and while 2012 is the year of our doom, I'm not sure that it works retroactively like that...

Is it really so fucking hard to post a link that you have just read?

Akzle
15th February 2014, 17:05
I did, and found shit from a 2012 study (which was inconclusive), and while 2012 is the year of our doom, I'm not sure that it works retroactively like that...

Is it really so fucking hard to post a link that you have just read?

i didnt read any link. This came up in polite conversation with a close friend and ally.
Searching the net i find a meta study of 37 studies and involving the chineses. Posted 4 days back but leaning on the 2012 you found.

Akzle
15th February 2014, 17:07
wait. Heres one.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/02/toxic-chemicals-linked-to-brain-disorders-in-children/

ellipsis
15th February 2014, 17:20
...living causes death, it seems...

mashman
15th February 2014, 17:57
Ze fucker is... given that this fuckin fluoride issue has been in tin foil feckin hat territory for many fookin years (decades) and refuted by the farkin (govt) scientific community as nothing more than fuggin bullshitty fuck, then it hardly comes as a fornicating surprise that there's some form of effin truth to it. Why would they do such a thing? It's like the prohibition argument... the side that's "trusted" must stick to their story irrespective of any truths that are later revealed... whereas the tin foil hatters will always just be the sky is falling muthafuckin cunts.

According to wikiworld, there's a study back in 2001 that showed that the pineal gland stores more and more fluoride as one gets older. I guess that explains a lot.


...living causes death, it seems...

Oh shit, I thought death was caused by traveling at 105kph.

bogan
15th February 2014, 18:12
wait. Heres one.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/02/toxic-chemicals-linked-to-brain-disorders-in-children/


Ze fucker is... given that this fuckin fluoride issue has been in tin foil feckin hat territory for many fookin years (decades) and refuted by the farkin (govt) scientific community as nothing more than fuggin bullshitty fuck, then it hardly comes as a fornicating surprise that there's some form of effin truth to it. Why would they do such a thing? It's like the prohibition argument... the side that's "trusted" must stick to their story irrespective of any truths that are later revealed... whereas the tin foil hatters will always just be the sky is falling muthafuckin cunts.

According to wikiworld, there's a study back in 2001 that showed that the pineal gland stores more and more fluoride as one gets older. I guess that explains a lot.

:facepalm::facepalm: Have you fuckers been taking 'research' lessons from Ed? Nowhere does it say they have concluded fluoride is harmful, much less establishing levels of toxicity.

Akzle
15th February 2014, 18:43
:facepalm::facepalm: Have you fuckers been taking 'research' lessons from Ed? Nowhere does it say they have concluded fluoride is harmful, much less establishing levels of toxicity.

righto. Correlation isnt causation. Its just a coincidence that city kids are fucking retards and that they add even more flouride to water in prisons... Because theyre worried about their dental health you see.

mashman
15th February 2014, 18:49
:facepalm::facepalm: Have you fuckers been taking 'research' lessons from Ed? Nowhere does it say they have concluded fluoride is harmful, much less establishing levels of toxicity.

So it's not toxic then.

bogan
15th February 2014, 18:57
righto. Correlation isnt causation. Its just a coincidence that city kids are fucking retards and that they add even more flouride to water in prisons... Because theyre worried about their dental health you see.

All the data in that stuff was gathered from china, where fluoride is present in groundwater. Got fuck all to do with cities and prisons.


So it's not toxic then.

Needs more research.

If you are concerned about what they add to water here, your first step should be to compare concentrations of what they add here, with what was present in the chinese studies. Instead of flying off the handle down the conspiracy theory path with no evidence whatsoever; cos that just makes you look silly.

mashman
15th February 2014, 19:27
Needs more research.

If you are concerned about what they add to water here, your first step should be to compare concentrations of what they add here, with what was present in the chinese studies. Instead of flying off the handle down the conspiracy theory path with no evidence whatsoever; cos that just makes you look silly.

My first step is to be skeptical because fluoride has been in the water supply since before I was born... and if more research is still needed, then I will fly off the handle in the negative direction should I choose... and as there is no evidence i.e. one side says yes it does and the other says no it doesn't, I shall put my trust in the tin foil hat "experts" as they have nothing to gain by claiming that fluoridation could cause health problems. I want a definitive answer before I change my mind.

Til then, I shall run the risk of looking silly, meh.

Akzle
15th February 2014, 19:27
All the data in that stuff was gathered from china, where fluoride is present in groundwater. Got fuck all to do with cities and prisons.



So. Flouride as a toxic chemical in ground water differs from Flouride as a toxic chemical in tap water... How?

bogan
15th February 2014, 20:03
My first step is to be skeptical because fluoride has been in the water supply since before I was born... and if more research is still needed, then I will fly off the handle in the negative direction should I choose... and as there is no evidence i.e. one side says yes it does and the other says no it doesn't, I shall put my trust in the tin foil hat "experts" as they have nothing to gain by claiming that fluoridation could cause health problems. I want a definitive answer before I change my mind.

Til then, I shall run the risk of looking silly, meh.

Third side (and it is the one with the experts on) says more research is needed.


So. Flouride as a toxic chemical in ground water differs from Flouride as a toxic chemical in tap water... How?

What else is in that ground water? or in fact anywhere near that location, how much is in that ground water compared to how much is in our tap water. I mean you should take a hint when the guy who writes the report doesn't draw such conclusions, that maybe they are not there to be drawn :scratch: Although, I guess you sheeple don't like to actually do the whole thinking/logic thing.

mashman
15th February 2014, 20:14
Third side (and it is the one with the experts on) says more research is needed.

Is that "experts" from both sides working side by side, funded equally and open minded? Or is that govt approved "experts" only?

Akzle
15th February 2014, 20:16
so teh dose makes teh poison?
Why has science added it to the list of shit that fucks you up?

bogan
15th February 2014, 20:22
Is that "experts" from both sides working side by side, funded equally and open minded? Or is that govt approved "experts" only?

Peer reviewed experts, it makes sure they have actually read the fucking article :facepalm: you have one of the most biased fucking views out there, but I can assure you, many many people in the scientific community do focus on evidence rather than towing the govt line.


so teh dose makes teh poison?
Why has science added it to the list of shit that fucks you up?

Yeh, like pretty much anything.
Not quite sure how widely recognized or peer reviewed that list is, but as there are indications it could be a neuro-inhibitor, better safe than sorry I guess.

mashman
15th February 2014, 20:32
Peer reviewed experts, it makes sure they have actually read the fucking article :facepalm: you have one of the most biased fucking views out there, but I can assure you, many many people in the scientific community do focus on evidence rather than towing the govt line.

So not the anti brigade and their research? Where's my bias? especially as I require both pro and anti to come to conclusions by reviewing each others findings and not the bias of only "accepted experts". Where did I mention toeing the govt line? Stop making things up bro, it makes you look silly.

Akzle
15th February 2014, 20:32
so shit's only right if you can get peer rejews to agree with you?
Howd that go for lead and radium based makeup? Or the sun revolving around the earth? Or jesus?

bogan
15th February 2014, 20:38
So not the anti brigade and their research? Where's my bias? especially as I require both pro and anti to come to conclusions by reviewing each others findings and not the bias of only "accepted experts". Where did I mention toeing the govt line? Stop making things up bro, it makes you look silly.

Who the fuck is this anti-brigade? are they science types or just ignorant government hating sheep like you?


so shit's only right if you can get peer rejews to agree with you?
Howd that go for lead and radium based makeup? Or the sun revolving around the earth? Or jesus?

Sort of, the peer review process is to ensure you have taken due diligence with your research so it is not misleading or otherwise flawed. This allows people who read it to build upon the sciency stuff in their own work, or see how the conclusions were reached and become more educated themselves.

mashman
15th February 2014, 20:48
Who the fuck is this anti-brigade? are they science types or just ignorant government hating sheep like you?

:killingme... go get a hardon elsewhere.

bogan
15th February 2014, 20:51
:killingme... go get a hardon elsewhere.

Strike a nerve did I? :innocent:

mashman
15th February 2014, 20:54
Strike a nerve did I? :innocent:

:rofl: Like I said, go get a hardon elsewhere :bleh:

bogan
15th February 2014, 21:07
:rofl: Like I said, go get a hardon elsewhere :bleh:

Lol, telling someone to fuck off cos you don't like their reasoned opinion is a bit hypocritical wouldn't you say?

Akzle
15th February 2014, 21:11
well. At least 3 people agree with me. So i must be on to something...
The more followers i have, the righter i am, yeah?

mashman
15th February 2014, 21:12
Lol, telling someone to fuck off cos you don't like their reasoned opinion is a bit hypocritical wouldn't you say?

Who says I didn't like/agree with your opinion? Keep making shit up though, it's highly entertaining.

bogan
15th February 2014, 21:13
well. At least 3 people agree with me. So i must be on to something...
The more followers i have, the righter i am, yeah?

Sort of, the peer review process is to ensure you have taken due diligence with your research so it is not misleading or otherwise flawed. This allows people who read it to build upon the sciency stuff in their own work, or see how the conclusions were reached and become more educated themselves.

mashman
15th February 2014, 21:13
well. At least 3 people agree with me. So i must be on to something...
The more followers i have, the righter i am, yeah?

Well you need sheeple in order to lead, so you're defo on to something there.......... master.

bogan
15th February 2014, 21:31
Who says I didn't like/agree with your opinion? Keep making shit up though, it's highly entertaining.

You know what would actually be entertaining? If you could hold a reasoned discussion.

mashman
15th February 2014, 21:40
You know what would actually be entertaining? If you could hold a reasoned discussion.

I fail to see where I was being unreasonable. You're the one that threw bias into the equation by deciding that my motives were driven by anything other than reason. At that point we enter into bogan fantasy land and I just ain't gonna stroke that thing for ya. Reasoned discussion, that's fuckin priceless.

bogan
15th February 2014, 21:44
I fail to see where I was being unreasonable. You're the one that threw bias into the equation by deciding that my motives were driven by anything other than reason. At that point we enter into bogan fantasy land and I just ain't gonna stroke that thing for ya. Reasoned discussion, that's fuckin priceless.

The mythical anti-brigade is where you diverged from logic. The name of which suggests a lot of bias, feel free to resume the discussion from that point, instead of telling me to fuck off.

Oh, and if you want evidence of your bias "farkin (govt) scientific community" says it all really

mashman
15th February 2014, 22:09
The mythical anti-brigade is where you diverged from logic. The name of which suggests a lot of bias, feel free to resume the discussion from that point, instead of telling me to fuck off.

Oh, and if you want evidence of your bias "farkin (govt) scientific community" says it all really


Is that "experts" from both sides working side by side, funded equally and open minded? Or is that govt approved "experts" only?

So not the anti brigade and their research? Where's my bias? especially as I require both pro and anti to come to conclusions by reviewing each others findings and not the bias of only "accepted experts".


There is no mythical anti-brigade, they are very real. They are "experts" who have looked at the issue of fluoridation from many view points and understand that fluoride can pose a potential health danger. So as I said earlier, there's pro and anti fluoridation sides of the argument, both "expert" in their opinion. If you want to deny their existence, then indeed by all means fuck off. Ok? I want an answer, not guesswork... and until then, the anti brigade have my "vote".

It's not a bias, it's a reasoned conclusion. Quite simply I don't trust any agency that would allow a substance to be put into the water that hasn't been fully researched. Given that this comes under the remit of the govt, then they get the mention. But by all means read it as an unfounded bias, coz that's all you seem to be looking for.

bogan
16th February 2014, 11:02
There is no mythical anti-brigade, they are very real. They are "experts" who have looked at the issue of fluoridation from many view points and understand that fluoride can pose a potential health danger. So as I said earlier, there's pro and anti fluoridation sides of the argument, both "expert" in their opinion. If you want to deny their existence, then indeed by all means fuck off. Ok? I want an answer, not guesswork... and until then, the anti brigade have my "vote".

It's not a bias, it's a reasoned conclusion. Quite simply I don't trust any agency that would allow a substance to be put into the water that hasn't been fully researched. Given that this comes under the remit of the govt, then they get the mention. But by all means read it as an unfounded bias, coz that's all you seem to be looking for.

Ok, so they too are scientists with every right to go through the peer reviewed process and publish their findings, so they are most certainly included in (and in fact required by) the process. It begs the question though, why haven't they?

The scientific community is not part of the government, the govt takes their findings and makes a decision. There is not some evil bias (govt or otherwise) in the scientific community, so stop trying to insinuate there is, instead explain why those experts who are sure fluoride poses a hazard have been unable to prove it?

Woodman
16th February 2014, 11:36
so, havard and shit have done a study. NOW (as opposed to before science), flouride is a neuro development inhibiting fuken thing, ie makes people stupid. (and docile and easy to police/control)

Who'd have thought.

Im looking at you, auckland.

So is THC so maybe you should lay off that and just drink water. Same fucken result.

Akzle
16th February 2014, 11:49
So is THC so maybe you should lay off that and just drink water. Same fucken result.

educate yourself.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4

Woodman
16th February 2014, 11:58
educate yourself.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4

Who the fuck was talking about cancer???.

Your post was about flouride making people stupid and docile and easy to manage.

Ironic really.

mashman
16th February 2014, 11:58
Ok, so they too are scientists with every right to go through the peer reviewed process and publish their findings, so they are most certainly included in (and in fact required by) the process. It begs the question though, why haven't they?

The scientific community is not part of the government, the govt takes their findings and makes a decision. There is not some evil bias (govt or otherwise) in the scientific community, so stop trying to insinuate there is, instead explain why those experts who are sure fluoride poses a hazard have been unable to prove it?

I'd love an answer to that question too.

50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation (http://fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/) is good enough for me. Make sure you validate every source in the biblio. If there isn't any bias, why aren't they working together? I'll insinuate what I like until they are working together, coz that doesn't happen by accident.

bogan
16th February 2014, 12:09
I'd love an answer to that question too.

50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation (http://fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/) is good enough for me. Make sure you validate every source in the biblio. If there isn't any bias, why aren't they working together? I'll insinuate what I like until they are working together, coz that doesn't happen by accident.

I'll use 22) Fluoride may damage the brain, and 23) Fluoride may lower IQ as examples. Firstly, note the may used in each, because it has not been proven one way or another. Secondly, note the references used in those passages, clearly they are working together. Yet, neither the scientific community, nor the author of that article can say if fluoride damages the brain or lowers IQ.

mashman
16th February 2014, 12:23
I'll use 22) Fluoride may damage the brain, and 23) Fluoride may lower IQ as examples. Firstly, note the may used in each, because it has not been proven one way or another. Secondly, note the references used in those passages, clearly they are working together. Yet, neither the scientific community, nor the author of that article can say if fluoride damages the brain or lowers IQ.

Is Fluoride still in the water? Coz there's only 1 side asking for that. That'll remove any ambiguity and remove the other 48 reasons from having any significance.

bogan
16th February 2014, 12:42
Is Fluoride still in the water? Coz there's only 1 side asking for that. That'll remove any ambiguity and remove the other 48 reasons from having any significance.

Which side is that?

mashman
16th February 2014, 13:04
Which side is that?

Those who want fluoride removed from the water supply.

bogan
16th February 2014, 13:06
Those who want fluoride removed from the water supply.

The 1 side asking for it to still be in the water. Which side is that? It appears you have a lot of rage directed towards them, so if you could be specific about who they are, it'd go a long way to clearing up any disagreements...

Akzle
16th February 2014, 13:41
Who the fuck was talking about cancer???.

Your post was about flouride making people stupid and docile and easy to manage.

Ironic really.

huh. Click 3 pages ahead, where it says 'adverse effects'
i realise that would have been terribly hard for you to work out, but shit, chill honbre.

oldrider
16th February 2014, 13:54
Which side is that?

That will be me ... I am not against flouride or anything else ... I am against compulsary mass medication!

I am for personal choice, if I want flouride I should be free to make that choice!

I add things to my water for my perceived benefit at my own cost, I do not demand that you should be forced to accept the same shit!

Fuck compulsary mass medication ... period! :oi-grr:

mashman
16th February 2014, 14:01
The 1 side asking for it to still be in the water. Which side is that? It appears you have a lot of rage directed towards them, so if you could be specific about who they are, it'd go a long way to clearing up any disagreements...

If you could stop projecting, in this instance rage, then you might have already seen the answer. But here's a hint.


Those who want fluoride removed from the water supply.

I don't know them personally so I can't be any more specific. If you had have asked, "which group do they belong to?", I would have responded with, those who want fluoride removed from the water.

bogan
16th February 2014, 14:12
If you could stop projecting, in this instance rage, then you might have already seen the answer. But here's a hint.



I don't know them personally so I can't be any more specific. If you had have asked, "which group do they belong to?", I would have responded with, those who want fluoride removed from the water.

Do try and read mashy, I'm not asking who wants it removed, I'm asking who wants it in there. You say there's only one side who wants that, so who are they?


That will be me ... I am not against flouride or anything else ... I am against compulsary mass medication!

I am for personal choice, if I want flouride I should be free to make that choice!

I add things to my water for my perceived benefit at my own cost, I do not demand that you should be forced to accept the same shit!

Fuck compulsary mass medication ... period! :oi-grr:

I largely agree with that, and as per my answer to mashy, I wasn't asking who doesn't want it in there, but who does? I take issue with the slander people like to dish out against the smarter people in socienty who work pretty damn hard to give the whole lot (including the lazy/ignorant fucks) a better standard of living.

puddytat
16th February 2014, 14:21
And....what about chlorine in drinking water?
Murchison for example has so much chlorine in it that it smells like a public swimming pool.
the local environmental care group is funding a water testing regime to check the levels.
Dunno why we arnt switching to a U.V system...no doubt its because the T.D.C needs to pay for its new offices.
And the fuckers are going to close the Information centre, in an area that brings in close to 40 mill a year in tourism revenue in a town that relies on it.
But hey...the poor fucks at the cafes, petrol station, local supermarket will no doubt be really happy having loopies clogging up their counters asking where the Loos are, the camp grounds, Motels, B&B's,....
Rate revolt anyone...? Nah.

luckily my water comes of my Hills, but for how much longer will they allow me to drink my own water without fucking it with U.V? Im a firm believer that what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger.

Laava
16th February 2014, 15:53
And....what about chlorine in drinking water?
Murchison for example has so much chlorine in it that it smells like a public swimming pool.
the local environmental care group is funding a water testing regime to check the levels.
Dunno why we arnt switching to a U.V system...no doubt its because the T.D.C needs to pay for its new offices.
And the fuckers are going to close the Information centre, in an area that brings in close to 40 mill a year in tourism revenue in a town that relies on it.
But hey...the poor fucks at the cafes, petrol station, local supermarket will no doubt be really happy having loopies clogging up their counters asking where the Loos are, the camp grounds, Motels, B&B's,....
Rate revolt anyone...? Nah.

luckily my water comes of my Hills, but for how much longer will they allow me to drink my own water without fucking it with U.V? Im a firm believer that what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger.

True dat. You have to admit tho that if they do not treat the water they bear responsibility for any consequences. Thus the treatment. We looked into the UV system for our new water supply but opted for the simple paper filter type. So what if a few chunks of bird poo go through it!

mashman
16th February 2014, 17:05
Do try and read mashy, I'm not asking who wants it removed, I'm asking who wants it in there. You say there's only one side who wants that, so who are they?

Figure it out. It's not hard. If there are those who want to remove it, then those who................ else it would be removed.

mashman
16th February 2014, 17:09
luckily my water comes of my Hills, but for how much longer will they allow me to drink my own water without fucking it with U.V? Im a firm believer that what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger.

My old mans' water used to come off the hill filled with peat and most likely sheep piss. Fuckin delicious it were too and it was a shock to the system when I went city livin again.

bogan
16th February 2014, 17:30
Figure it out. It's not hard. If there are those who want to remove it, then those who................ else it would be removed.

Obviously someone does, but you keep insinuating they have their tendrils in the scientific community, as you are quick to blame sciency types for this possible trouble. Are you just having a wee tanty by chance? or do you actually plan on effecting some change?

mashman
16th February 2014, 22:22
Obviously someone does, but you keep insinuating they have their tendrils in the scientific community, as you are quick to blame sciency types for this possible trouble. Are you just having a wee tanty by chance? or do you actually plan on effecting some change?

You said that the govt listens to the scientists. It would stand to reason that there are scientists that are pro-fluoridation would it not? They are who I refer to as "they". The pro mob. Those who greet noises about removing fluoride from the water with stern finger wagging and furrowed brow beating. The change I will attempt will allow for the pro and anti mobs to work together and come up with a solution that is the best for the peeps of the land... primarily as funding won't be a problem. Til then, I guess it's up to community's to rattle their sabres in regards to getting what they want. I chortled at tanty.

bogan
16th February 2014, 23:11
You said that the govt listens to the scientists. It would stand to reason that there are scientists that are pro-fluoridation would it not? They are who I refer to as "they". The pro mob. Those who greet noises about removing fluoride from the water with stern finger wagging and furrowed brow beating. The change I will attempt will allow for the pro and anti mobs to work together and come up with a solution that is the best for the peeps of the land... primarily as funding won't be a problem. Til then, I guess it's up to community's to rattle their sabres in regards to getting what they want. I chortled at tanty.

What do you mean stands to reason? either there are or there aren't, all this stuff is published if you want to look for it.

Again, who greets such noises with stern finger wagging?

You gotta stop with the pro and anti bias, it just isn't there. Anyone can use the findings or data from one study/article in their own work, that is how sciency types work together, and it works pretty damn good.

Sabre rattling is well and good when it is done with a coordination/direction, what you're doing is more like somebody carrying a bucket of sabres who has just fallen down a very long flight of stairs.

mashman
17th February 2014, 07:15
What do you mean stands to reason? either there are or there aren't, all this stuff is published if you want to look for it.

Again, who greets such noises with stern finger wagging?

You gotta stop with the pro and anti bias, it just isn't there. Anyone can use the findings or data from one study/article in their own work, that is how sciency types work together, and it works pretty damn good.

Sabre rattling is well and good when it is done with a coordination/direction, what you're doing is more like somebody carrying a bucket of sabres who has just fallen down a very long flight of stairs.

So, we're back to you pleasuring yourself. Meh.

bogan
17th February 2014, 10:04
So, we're back to you pleasuring yourself. Meh.

There were plenty of reasonable questions there you've left unanswered. See this is why you guys are not taken seriously, your crap just doesn't stand up to a reasoned analysis. The shitter of it is, you do have a point that fluoride shouldn't be in the water supply; but you go and fuck it up by blaming the wrong people, and leaving other gaping holes in your argument.

mashman
17th February 2014, 12:21
There were plenty of reasonable questions there you've left unanswered. See this is why you guys are not taken seriously, your crap just doesn't stand up to a reasoned analysis. The shitter of it is, you do have a point that fluoride shouldn't be in the water supply; but you go and fuck it up by blaming the wrong people, and leaving other gaping holes in your argument.

"You guys"? That's where you came at this from :facepalm:... I had already answered your questions, but as seems to constantly be the case, you aren't happy with the answers you receive. Moreover I don't think they're the answers you expect, which would only lead me to the conclusion that you're being deliberately obtuse or, with lashings of irony, you've come into the discussion with your position cemented firmly and refuse to accept anything other than the answers you want.

Firstly you stated that my only foundation for entering the discussion was the Chinese study. Secondly you stated that I was flying off the handle. Thirdly you decided that I was biased. Fourthly you decided that I was a hateful sheep for daring to state that the anti-brigade existed. Filthy you thought you decided that I was telling you to fuck off. Sixthly you said I wasn't being reasonable. Seventhly you decided that my language suggested bias. Eighthly you seemed to think that I was proposing that there was conclusive evidence. Ninthly you said that scientists were smarter than those who use their findings (stupidest comment you've made in a while). Tenthly you decided that me questioning the pro brigade was tantamount to me dismissing their abilities. Eleventhly you decided that I had no right to "blame" (you could have read question, but that didn't suit) sciency types. Twelfly
you decided I was having a tanty. Thirteenthly you told me that I had to stop the pro and anti (you could have read for and against) even though you obviously didn't comprehend how and why I was using those terms and that I had decided that science was uselss. Fourteenthly you made a funny, compeltely out of context, but funny. Fifteenthly you decided that I had directed rage towards the scientific community.

To that end, your analysis isn't reasoned, some might take it as insulting, but given where it came from.... Meh.

bogan
17th February 2014, 12:33
"You guys"? That's where you came at this from :facepalm:... I had already answered your questions, but as seems to constantly be the case, you aren't happy with the answers you receive. Moreover I don't think they're the answers you expect, which would only lead me to the conclusion that you're being deliberately obtuse or, with lashings of irony, you've come into the discussion with your position cemented firmly and refuse to accept anything other than the answers you want.

Firstly you stated that my only foundation for entering the discussion was the Chinese study. Secondly you stated that I was flying off the handle. Thirdly you decided that I was biased. Fourthly you decided that I was a hateful sheep for daring to state that the anti-brigade existed. Filthy you thought you decided that I was telling you to fuck off. Sixthly you said I wasn't being reasonable. Seventhly you decided that my language suggested bias. Eighthly you seemed to think that I was proposing that there was conclusive evidence. Ninthly you said that scientists were smarter than those who use their findings (stupidest comment you've made in a while). Tenthly you decided that me questioning the pro brigade was tantamount to me dismissing their abilities. Eleventhly you decided that I had no right to "blame" (you could have read question, but that didn't suit) sciency types. Twelfly
you decided I was having a tanty. Thirteenthly you told me that I had to stop the pro and anti (you could have read for and against) even though you obviously didn't comprehend how and why I was using those terms and that I had decided that science was uselss. Fourteenthly you made a funny, compeltely out of context, but funny. Fifteenthly you decided that I had directed rage towards the scientific community.

To that end, your analysis isn't reasoned, some might take it as insulting, but given where it came from.... Meh.

Heh, showing a profound lack of logic in you estimations of my points, but I guess you like to change the focus to fit your ideals wherever possible. So I'll clarify things.


Ze fucker is... given that this fuckin fluoride issue has been in tin foil feckin hat territory for many fookin years (decades) and refuted by the farkin (govt) scientific community as nothing more than fuggin bullshitty fuck, then it hardly comes as a fornicating surprise that there's some form of effin truth to it.

Where/when has the scientific community said that fluoride is nothing more the 'fuggin bullshitty fuck'? This is a simple, reasonable, completely not insulting question you have failed to answer so far. Fobbing it off with, 'well the govt listens to them so it must be a thing' is inadequate, as we all know how the scientific community's findings can be twisted into something they do not mean (see post 1 in this thread).

The tin-foil hat territory is that some muppets seem to think it is a deliberate plot to make the populace stupider, which is best not brought up at all as it removes weight from any legit arguments on the subject.

mashman
17th February 2014, 12:53
Heh, showing a profound lack of logic in you estimations of my points, but I guess you like to change the focus to fit your ideals wherever possible. So I'll clarify things.

:killingme... yeah, that's the way it went down.



Where/when has the scientific community said that fluoride is nothing more the 'fuggin bullshitty fuck'? This is a simple, reasonable, completely not insulting question you have failed to answer so far. Fobbing it off with, 'well the govt listens to them so it must be a thing' is inadequate, as we all know how the scientific community's findings can be twisted into something they do not mean (see post 1 in this thread).

The tin-foil hat territory is that some muppets seem to think it is a deliberate plot to make the populace stupider, which is best not brought up at all as it removes weight from any legit arguments on the subject.

Dropping the (govt) doesn't help. Given that fluoride is still in the water and given that there are sciency types who say it doesn't need to be there, and given that there are potential health risks, then what else other than fuggin bullshitty fuck is being given as a reason to leave it in the water?



The scientific community is not part of the government, the govt takes their findings and makes a decision

So you're saying that the govt don't listen to the sciency community? The entire scientific community is anti? If either of those answers is no, then why is there still fluoride in the water? Not exactly a large jump to go all tin foil hatty is it. Sure it removes weight from the argument, but if there isn't any evidence to suggest that that isn't happening, then shouldn't that be taken seriously? Have govts ever suppressed medical findings before?

Of the tin foil hatters I've spoken with in regards to water fluoridation, they all bring up the pineal gland and its reaction to fluoride as the primary reason for the dumbing down argument. A cursory read over the pineal gland and its reaction to fluoride, coupled with its importance to our well being (supposedly) doesn't do anyone any favours either... but it's still a consideration (don't read direct consequence if you can help it.) There's an interesting paper out there somewhere from the 90's that highlights this concern, as well as the concern that was no research being undertaken in that direction.

bogan
17th February 2014, 13:02
Dropping the (govt) doesn't help. Given that fluoride is still in the water and given that there are sciency types who say it doesn't need to be there, and given that there are potential health risks, then what else other than fuggin bullshitty fuck is being given as a reason to leave it in the water?

So, sciency types are saying it doesn't need to be there; yet you still blame the scientific community for it being there despite only having evidence to the contrary?


So you're saying that the govt don't listen to the sciency community? The entire scientific community is anti? If either of those answers is no, then why is there still fluoride in the water? Not exactly a large jump to go all tin foil hatty is it. Sure it removes weight from the argument, but if there isn't any evidence to suggest that that isn't happening, then shouldn't that be taken seriously? Have govts ever suppressed medical findings before?

Of the tin foil hatters I've spoken with in regards to water fluoridation, they all bring up the pineal gland and its reaction to fluoride as the primary reason for the dumbing down argument. A cursory read over the pineal gland and its reaction to fluoride, coupled with its importance to our well being (supposedly) doesn't do anyone any favours either... but it's still a consideration (don't read direct consequence if you can help it.) There's an interesting paper out there somewhere from the 90's that highlights this concern, as well as the concern that was no research being undertaken in that direction.

They don't listen to them all the time. And sometimes how they listen is similar to how post #1 fucked it up. Ie, govt asks for risk analysis, scientist come back with, we recommend a longer term study, but so far cannot conclude there are any significant health risks. Govt then takes that and goes, fuck the long term stuff, they didn't find any risk, put all the fluoride in the water.
You getting the picture yet?

Akzle
17th February 2014, 13:21
jesus fucking fuck, you two are still going!!

bogan
17th February 2014, 13:25
jesus fucking fuck, you two are still going!!

Teaching conspiracy theorists to use logic is hard work...

mashman
17th February 2014, 13:44
So, sciency types are saying it doesn't need to be there; yet you still blame the scientific community for it being there despite only having evidence to the contrary?

Am I blaming the entire scientific community? No bro... you be seeing things that just ain't there.



They don't listen to them all the time. And sometimes how they listen is similar to how post #1 fucked it up. Ie, govt asks for risk analysis, scientist come back with, we recommend a longer term study, but so far cannot conclude there are any significant health risks. Govt then takes that and goes, fuck the long term stuff, they didn't find any risk, put all the fluoride in the water.
You getting the picture yet?

Oh I understand how it works, have done since before you started, mentioned as much too... I guess you missed it, or at least decided to translate it into something entirely different.


jesus fucking fuck, you two are still going!!

I'm all for helping people get their jolly's.

bogan
17th February 2014, 13:48
Am I blaming the entire scientific community? No bro... you be seeing things that just ain't there.

I think it pretty obvious you were to begin with, but now you aren't. So I feel I have made a difference here, whether you admit it or not, you're obviously slightly better educated now than you were at the start :2thumbsup

HenryDorsetCase
17th February 2014, 14:25
so, havard and shit have done a study. NOW (as opposed to before science), flouride is a neuro development inhibiting fuken thing, ie makes people stupid. (and docile and easy to police/control)

Who'd have thought.

Im looking at you, auckland.

Clearly not you big boy.

Is "Havard" anywhere near "Harvard"? Do they have a medical school or School of Public Health?

Did this study appear in a respectable, peer reviewed academic journal, or some fucking loony corner of the internet that only you, and you handful of gun nut, bigoted idiotic friends hang out in? Put up a link and let me mock you.

mashman
17th February 2014, 14:56
I think it pretty obvious you were to begin with, but now you aren't. So I feel I have made a difference here, whether you admit it or not, you're obviously slightly better educated now than you were at the start :2thumbsup

:rofl:... I had a dig and rightly so as far as I'm concerned. The are "experts" on both sides (i.e. those who want it in the water and those who don't... no other nefarious or malevolent intention is meant by that statement). They are my public health official when it comes to the fluoridation of water. And to that end I will apportion some "blame" to the scientific community for not being able to conclusively prove either way and still allow that the water be fluoridated. Yes, that's a bit harsh (more research being required, bloody politics, lack of funding etc... yet plenty of reasons for fluoride not to be in the water), but it's far from tin foil hattery and it's a military mile away from the slandering of the entire establishment that you seem to have me pegged for. Did I learn anything new......... no, not really as I will still use the same language, I will still have a dig where I see fit, I will still be misinterpreted, I will still misinterpret others... I'm a cunt, I expect more.

Banditbandit
17th February 2014, 15:05
so, havard and shit have done a study. NOW (as opposed to before science), flouride is a neuro development inhibiting fuken thing, ie makes people stupid. (and docile and easy to police/control)

Who'd have thought.

Im looking at you, auckland.

Isn't that why the powers that be want to put it in the water ???

Banditbandit
17th February 2014, 15:06
Did this study appear in a respectable, peer reviewed academic journal, or some fucking loony corner of the internet that only you, and you handful of gun nut, bigoted idiotic friends hang out in? Put up a link and let me mock you.

There's a difference ???

"Some respectable peer reviewed academic journal" is just a flash way of saying "some fucking looney corner" ... who says peer reviewed is better than looney on the net ?? Only those who benefit from peer reviewed journals ..

Maha
17th February 2014, 15:08
Isn't that why the powers that be want to put it in the water ???

They need to add a spermicide agent to the water around the Mangapai area.

Akzle
17th February 2014, 15:16
Put up a link and let me mock you.
i did. About 2 posts later.
:facepalm:

They need to add a spermicide agent to the water around the Mangapai area.

err. Derp derp.
It comes from teh sky. Also, ive already been born. And had kids. So....

Away with you, peasant.

bogan
17th February 2014, 15:17
There's a difference ???

"Some respectable peer reviewed academic journal" is just a flash way of saying "some fucking looney corner" ... who says peer reviewed is better than looney on the net ?? Only those who benefit from peer reviewed journals ..

Anyone with half a brain knows we all benefit from peer reviewed journals. Have you guys been snorting fluoride by the pound or something? :whistle:

bogan
17th February 2014, 15:18
Put up a link and let me mock you.

He did, and I did. Too slow bud :chase:

Scuba_Steve
17th February 2014, 15:31
so, havard and shit have done a study. NOW (as opposed to before science), flouride is a neuro development inhibiting fuken thing, ie makes people stupid. (and docile and easy to police/control)

Who'd have thought.

Im looking at you, auckland.

thought this was old news, 1st recorded use of Fluoride was in Nazi camps... & it weren't for the prisoners teeth



Teaching conspiracy theorists to use logic is hard work...

I imagine it would be, sort like "preaching to the choir" thing

bogan
17th February 2014, 15:33
I imagine it would be, sort like "preaching to the choir" thing

Yeh choir boys aren't that well know for their logic skills either :bleh:

mashman
17th February 2014, 16:53
Yeh choir boys aren't that well know for their logic skills either :bleh:

Allegedly...

Akzle
17th February 2014, 17:00
Yeh choir boys aren't that well know for their logic skills either :bleh:

but but, he gave me five quid and a bag of chippies,
he said its what jesus would do..!

unstuck
17th February 2014, 17:12
Change that to KB. :motu:

http://www.rottenecards.com/ecards/rottenecard_89638898_dzcz5vcwhz.png

HenryDorsetCase
17th February 2014, 19:58
There's a difference ???

"Some respectable peer reviewed academic journal" is just a flash way of saying "some fucking looney corner" ... who says peer reviewed is better than looney on the net ?? Only those who benefit from peer reviewed journals ..

Oh dude. seriously?

Its supposed to be science. you know, that stuff that gets you clean water, electricity, food you can eat and all the wonders pretty much of the modern world. And in that context, I suggest, a peer reviewed academic journal is infinitely better than looney tunes on the net. I'm talking NATURE or SCIENCE or something. One of the Epidemiological journals. Actual science.

my tolerance for crystal spinning "alternative" "medicine" holistic New Age vegetarianist bullshit is pretty thin these days.

Know what they call "alternative medicine" that actually works?

medicine.

Laava
17th February 2014, 20:28
They need to add sperm to the water around the Mangapai area.

Open wide! Here comes a train!
Chuff chuff chuff chuff... Woooooooooo. Ooooooo!

Banditbandit
18th February 2014, 10:29
Oh dude. seriously?

Its supposed to be science. you know, that stuff that gets you clean water, electricity, food you can eat and all the wonders pretty much of the modern world. And in that context, I suggest, a peer reviewed academic journal is infinitely better than looney tunes on the net. I'm talking NATURE or SCIENCE or something. One of the Epidemiological journals. Actual science.

my tolerance for crystal spinning "alternative" "medicine" holistic New Age vegetarianist bullshit is pretty thin these days.

Know what they call "alternative medicine" that actually works?

medicine.


Hmmm ... I disagree. Science is no more grounded on anything real any more than "crystal spinning' (which, incidentally, I do not subscribe to.)

Lakatos (one of the more recent philosophers of science, and an empiricist) tried to defend science because "it is getting closer to the truth" .. However - how do we know that? If there is a "truth" out there, and we know we are getting closer to it then why not just go there ... we must know what "truth" is if we are getting closer ... actually we do not know that at all ..

Lakatos then says "well, science is getting better" At which point Feyerabend and myself fall about laughing and say "how the hell do you know that?" and "Are you seriously grounding science on a value judgement?" (the debate between Feyerabend and Lakatos is interesting and raises many issues for science - in the end, Lakatos pretty much agrees that Feyerabend's Anarchic philosophy of science is probably correct)

Science only has more credibility because people like you (and in some sense people like me, as I'm a peer reviewer for a couple of journals and I've published in such journals - yeah I know - but it amuses me and it pays me what I regard as shitloads of money) give it credibility ... "The role of the Intellectual is to justify the role of the Intellectual" (to paraphrase Marx).

But peer reviewed journals and "science" are not the only places that knowledge resides .. and in fact some journals are definitely NOT the place where knowledge resides ...

bogan
18th February 2014, 10:40
Hmmm ... I disagree. Science is no more grounded on anything real any more than "crystal spinning'

Neat! (http://phys.org/news/2013-09-quantum-simulation-physicists-crystal-spin-swapping.html)

Quantum entanglement should lead to a heap more <s>advances for humanity</s> words in a book and jobs for sciency types :innocent:

Banditbandit
18th February 2014, 10:44
Neat! (http://phys.org/news/2013-09-quantum-simulation-physicists-crystal-spin-swapping.html)

Quantum entanglement should lead to a heap more <s>advances for humanity</s> words in a book and jobs for sciency types :innocent:

Yeah ... Quantum and particle physics are probably the messiest areas ... when "just looking" changes things how can you know what is going on?

bogan
18th February 2014, 10:48
Yeah ... Quantum and particle physics are probably the messiest areas ... when "just looking" changes things how can you know what is going on?

You sure about that?

Akzle
18th February 2014, 10:55
You sure about that?

as sure as science!

Banditbandit
18th February 2014, 10:55
You sure about that?

:killingme Shit no .. I'm not sure about anything ('cept it's a great day outside and my bike is in the parking lot - and I'd rather be riding ..

ellipsis
18th February 2014, 11:32
...why cant someone put lots and lots of LSD in our town supply, it wouldn't fuck their teeth I'm sure...it would also make looking at a glassful of the green tinged microbial soup the locals pay their rates for, a hell of a lot more interesting...

Banditbandit
18th February 2014, 15:35
...why cant someone put lots and lots of LSD in our town supply, ...

How do you know they didn't ??? 't'would explain a lot of things ..

mashman
18th February 2014, 16:11
How do you know they didn't ??? 't'would explain a lot of things ..

If they have, it's fuckin shit.

ellipsis
18th February 2014, 17:08
...maybe they do...we have our own water...I must sample some of the town supply, just in case...

Akzle
18th February 2014, 17:33
...maybe they do...we have our own water...I must sample some of the town supply, just in case...

itll fuck you up, but it aint for lsd.

newbie2012
21st February 2014, 20:59
Um ... doesn't the fact that 1/3 of the population want to live in a small part of our fantastic country and spend hours each week commuting in cars already make them nuttier than the other 2/3, so the whole toxins and stuff in water is a coincidence ? Bike riders excluded of course, but then car drivers think riders are mostly nutty as fuck as well.

Crasherfromwayback
24th February 2014, 15:00
...why cant someone put lots and lots of LSD in our town supply, it wouldn't fuck their teeth I'm sure...it would also make looking at a glassful of the green tinged microbial soup the locals pay their rates for, a hell of a lot more interesting...

Been done before Bro...

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/SX7m4fqTLKU?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

ellipsis
24th February 2014, 17:28
...i did a fair bit of research myself way back then...similar results...i reckon it would still be a good idea...was quite entertained by Abbie Hoffman at the time...he had some fairly good non scientific theories that i found a hoot...

Tazz
24th February 2014, 19:13
In the name of science! (honest!)


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

Scuba_Steve
13th March 2014, 18:25
Meh, Just to stoke the fire a little

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/t1/q71/s720x720/1926768_612167668866151_362017853_n.jpg
The Lancet, the world's oldest and most prestigious medical journal, recently published a report classifying Fluoride as a dangerous neurotoxin. The report puts Fluoride in the same category Arsenic, Lead, and Mercury.


Go figure, the "tin foil hat wearers" are right; again!

Ulsterkiwi
13th March 2014, 21:30
There's a difference ???

"Some respectable peer reviewed academic journal" is just a flash way of saying "some fucking looney corner" ... who says peer reviewed is better than looney on the net ?? Only those who benefit from peer reviewed journals ..

Nope, its way for the world to call "bullshit" if the data being reported doesnt stack up. Until you have to actually go through the peer review process and know what you are talking about perhaps you would be best to not make comments like that?

Edit: Apologies, I see you have gone through the process. Its not perfect, but is a darn sight better than no review at all. Surely its a measure of validity and/or reliability not a guarantee of it?


as sure as science!

and this is precisely the point. Science is not precise, thats a myth propogated by the media. Talk to a scientist, actually READ a peer reviewed article you will never see extravangant claims, the language will be commensurate with the evidence to hand. In the case of Flouride, given sufficient concentrations in the body (a complex system of systems) it will act as a neurotoxin. So will oxygen.

Ulsterkiwi
13th March 2014, 21:31
The scientific community is not part of the government, the govt takes their findings and makes a decision. There is not some evil bias (govt or otherwise) in the scientific community, so stop trying to insinuate there is, instead explain why those experts who are sure fluoride poses a hazard have been unable to prove it?

what he said....

Ulsterkiwi
13th March 2014, 21:35
educate yourself.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4

have you heard of the series of case studies where they placed a cannula into the brain of people with endstage GBM (advanced brain cancer)? By means of that they put pretty hefty doses of cannabis directly into their tumours. The tumours regressed (shrank) for a period of time. The patients were high as.....clearly.... and did eventually die sadly. Not sure if the people who did that ever followed up on it. Point is that article makes reference to lots of animal model work but trials in people have happened too.

Akzle
14th March 2014, 06:23
and this is precisely the point. Science is not precise, thats a myth propogated by the media.
ulster, meet irony.

Bass
14th March 2014, 17:48
You are all missing the point completely!
Fluoride isn't the enemy - Oxygen is. No, seriously! (sort of)
Consider this: -
Respiration (and by that I mean the chemical reaction where sugar combines with oxygen to release water, carbon dioxide and energy) powers us all. It is a complex multistage reaction and one of those stages releases free radicals. Free radicals are incredibly reactive. They will react with almost anything and their lifetime is measures in microseconds.
One of the things they react with is your DNA and they damage it progressively so that it doesn't reproduce accurately. The major symptom of this is aging.

Yep, breathing oxygen causes you to age and if nothing else gets you first, oxygen will.

So if you want to live forever, stop breathing.

Oops, hang on a minute.................




Personally, i think this proves that God (or whatever) has a sense of humour

mashman
30th July 2015, 08:32
"As efficient as this type of propulsion may sound, it defies one of the fundamental concepts of physics - the conservation of momentum, which states that for something to be propelled forward, some kind of propellant needs to be pushed out in the opposite direction.

For that reason, the drive was widely laughed at and ignored when it was invented by English researcher Roger Shawyer in the early 2000s." (http://www.sciencealert.com/independent-scientists-confirm-that-the-impossible-em-drive-produces-thrust)

Science pricks!

oldrider
30th July 2015, 14:07
"As efficient as this type of propulsion may sound, it defies one of the fundamental concepts of physics - the conservation of momentum, which states that for something to be propelled forward, some kind of propellant needs to be pushed out in the opposite direction.

For that reason, the drive was widely laughed at and ignored when it was invented by English researcher Roger Shawyer in the early 2000s." (http://www.sciencealert.com/independent-scientists-confirm-that-the-impossible-em-drive-produces-thrust)

Science pricks!

Further explanations of Emdrive by Roger Sawyer - fascinating stuff: https://vimeo.com/channels/Emdrive

pzkpfw
30th July 2015, 17:34
Direct Thrust Measurement of an EM Drive and Evaluation of Possible Side-Effects
M.Tajmar and G. Fiedler

http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2015-4083


... Our test campaign can not confirm or refute the claims of the EMDrive but intends to independently assess possible side-effects in the measurements ...

It's a bit soon to get too excited by this.

Scuba_Steve
30th July 2015, 19:41
After years of research & millions of dollars, engineers can accurately replicate two drunk people carrying a sofa
(http://9gag.com/gag/ajn8n4R)

husaberg
30th July 2015, 19:55
I love just how gullable you critters are.
None of you likely read the study.
Yet your agenda based sites sheeped you guys into thinking it was proof that you so longed for Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/

If you had (and could actually read) you will see that the study compared children in areas with recommended levels of fluoride in water the same levels that are introduced in the process of water fluoridation (0.5 to 1.5 mg/L)
It compares this to children in areas with high fluoride levels (above 1.5 mg/L).
This paper documents the risks of chronic fluoride toxicity, not water fluoridation.

As for the mind control if they wanted to control your minds (assuming you had one) just legalise weed. As that's one of the CIA tested and proven mind control drugs.:laugh:

TD – Strong Cannabis
TD, or truth drug, is extracted from the cannabis plant and injected into food or cigarettes. As the name suggests, it muffles any sense of prudence so that users talk without caution. And just like its marijuana sister, interviewees sink into a state of mirth and are so happy they're willing to talk on just about anything.

If you wanted to exert some level of mind control via manipulation of free will over a large population you simply just limit their protein and increase sugar intakes.

mashman
30th July 2015, 21:40
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2015-4083

It's a bit soon to get too excited by this.

No, German Scientists Have Not Confirmed the “Impossible” EMDrive (http://io9.com/no-german-scientists-have-not-confirmed-the-impossibl-1720573809)... accompanied the one I posted earlier ;).

R650R
31st May 2018, 09:29
When is a large acid spill across a busy STATE HIGHWAY and major cyclelane route (the scenic off road one) and close to popular beach fishing spot only worth local news coverage? When is the acid involved not named in news report, useless local reporting aside even a junior newbie snowflake reporter would know to ask the name....

Probably when you don't want the public to realise the shit in their water is a toxic chemical that is not harmless.... Funny they mention its not explosive or flammable but no mention of toxicity at all.....

Well going out on a limb here pretty sure its probably Hydroflourosilic acid, the precursor to one of the three types of fluoride we poison our water with.... Flouride is a toxic byproduct of fertilizer and aluminium production that is too toxic to dump so many years ago the colgate family suckered people into having it in their toothpaste... The stack mentioned is huge steam emitter, pretty sure its a water scrubber type thing to reduce fluoride emmisions into local environment which has been news before as local orchardists complian about effects on their crops in local newspaper articles.
The article is bit contradictory but you get that with a coverup... "Large quantities of a dried product had spilled on the road "......"There was a small amount of liquid emitted from that stack ".....

Hhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmm

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503462&objectid=12061366

Viking01
31st May 2018, 13:28
I wouldn't go too far out on that limb if I was you ..... 8-)

The superphosphate plant at Awatoto uses the Contact process in
superphosphate manufacture, and they generate their own sulphuric
acid for use in the process. Hence the large piles of yellow (or grey)
sulphur sitting on the land to the south of the plant.

Having briefly worked in the labs at the plant back in the 1970's
(anlysing for mercury and cadmium) - and having seen the plant
configuration up close (before working as a chemical engineer),
I suspect that the "spill" (most likely liquid carry-over via the
stacks) involved only sulphuric acid.

Yes, you'll often see steam being generated (from the acid making
process). And the water scrubbers are to reduce the carry-over of
acid, dust and impurities to the wider environment.

I wouldn't be surprised to see such an event again in the future
on occasion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_process

Cheers,
Viking

R650R
31st May 2018, 14:27
Cheers Viking... sounds plausible... although my previous research suggests fluoride is still a byproduct somewhere and local apple orchards had elevated levels in previous news years ago...

Viking01
31st May 2018, 15:57
Cheers Viking... sounds plausible... although my previous research suggests fluoride is still a byproduct somewhere and local apple orchards had elevated levels in previous news years ago...

Plausible is fine. I'm OK with "plausible"..... 8-)

1. Superphosphate Manufacture

Rock phosphate is typically combined with the sulphuric acid
mentioned in order to create "single" superphosphate. [ "Triple"
superphosphate uses a phosphoric acid process in contrast ]

Know that one form of rock phosphate - fluoro-apatite - contains
a fluoride ion within its chemical structure : Ca5(P04)3 F.

But I have no idea from where the manufacturer (Ravensdown)
sources its rock phosphate feedstock. And whether fluoro-apatite
is present.

So, quite apart from traces of heavy metals (e.g. cadmium, mercury,
lead), it is possible that there might be trace amounts of fluoride
within the finished superphosphate product.

Pages 1 and 2 of the following link have some fairly readable info
if you're interested:

http://slwater.iwmi.org/sites/default/files/DocumentRoot/2.%20Dissanayake%20and%20Chandrajith%202009.pdf


2. Orchards

As for the presence of fluoride within orchards, I couldn't comment.

Especially if there is no mention whether soil or water samples were
being discussed at the time.


3. Water Treatment

From what I found (from doing a quick online search after your post),
think that hydrofluorosilic acid will be used in urban water treatment.

But the additive used in urban water treatment can vary between region
and operator.

From an online search for our local (Wellington) water supply, there
is mention of the types of chemical used in fluoridation (either sodium
fluorosilicate or sodium fluoride)

https://wellingtonwater.co.nz/your-water/drinking-water/whats-in-your-water/fluoride/
https://wellingtonwater.co.nz/your-water/drinking-water/whats-in-your-water/chemical-analysis-te-marua/

But I see that for Hastings, Napier and Flaxmere, the operator uses
hydrofluorosilic acid (H2 SiF6) as the additive.


I won't get involved in a discussion on the benefits (or otherwise)
of adding fluoride to an urban water supply.

Cheers,
Viking