While a lot of the formality and pomp required when around the queen is a little silly and outdated (and the queen seems to be fine with some minor lapses) a toast to the queen isn't just a normal toast, it is a formalized event. A private in any commonwealth military would have been able to pull it off, someone should have briefed the president.

I don't fault Obama - she's not his queen - but I fault his advisors.

@critical_d The queen was likely drinking water. By tradition, the only things acceptable to drink while toasting the queen are water and port wine.

Thank you, pardner! neeeeigh!!!
In reply to this comment by arvana:
*promote for Horse Day!

>> ^gargoyle:

Fluoridation is also suspected of being a contributing cause to hypothyroidism. Can't find anything rigorous on this yet. Still looking.


It is hard with all the conflicting and conflated data and opinions out there to accurately gauge it. I am not a chemist either, but I know it makes my soil toxic to plants over time. I believe the chemical classification for Sodium Fluoride is a Toxic, Irritant, but for some reason the CDC lists it an an inert...which is completely false. People who do organic farming are really critical with the CDC on this point because Sodium Fluoride is anything but inert and violates the organic farmers main goal; of removing all toxic elements from food production. With fluoride in toothpaste, I really don't see a purpose for water fluoridation anymore. Like someone mentioned earlier, why ingest something that is supposed to be a topical application. Now that toothpastes all come with it, that topical nature is realized and drinking water fluoridation should fall away. Sodium Fluoride has electrolytes, what plants crave!

Teeth damage from fluoride in drinking water is definitely a very real phenomenon. I grew up in Suffolk, VA, which has a ridiculously high concentration of fluoride added to the water. We didn't know about it when I was growing up, and now my teeth have very dark brown spots on them, it looks like complete fucking shit. I've been getting them fixed, a couple at a time, over the last couple months, at a cost of $500 per tooth.

>> ^marinara:

so it's better to be a dumbass dentist and ruin peoples teeth with flouridosis and feed poison to babies than to sell some homeopathic shit? rhetorical question.


Logical fallacy. Yes fluoridosis is bad, but not once has he provided evidence to suggest excess levels of fluoride intake are due to the added levels in drinking water. To get the kind of fluoride damage he showed in those pictures you would need a LOT more than what gets added to your water, but he conveniently omitted that bit of info, only to then plug his crap at the end of the bit.

Selling homoeopathic shit as a doctor ruins all credibility this guy had.

Do kids even drink water anymore? Did King 5 news find truffles that far up Coke's butt?


"It's all bullshit and it's bad for ya." -George Carlin

mglittle, you officially made me smile for humanity.

>> ^mgittle:

I can't see how risking contamination of as much fresh water as is in question here can possibly be a good idea for anyone. Can you imagine the economic damage that comes with entire areas of the country having unsafe drinking water?

They're just starting in Michigan now.

http://www.cleanwateraction.org/feature/rush-drill-threatens-michigan%E2%80%99s-water-and-quality-life

Unfortunately, the economic situation in many states is forcing mineral rights sales...fun times. I can't see how risking contamination of as much fresh water as is in question here can possibly be a good idea for anyone. Can you imagine the economic damage that comes with entire areas of the country having unsafe drinking water?

There needs to be some sort of standard punishment for causing long-term damage to any public system, whether it's economic or environmental. The fact that the gas companies can do this or banks can do similar things economically and get away with executive bonuses and such is simply intolerable. In the case of fracking, even if some case were somehow brought against Halliburton can you even put a true dollar amount on the damages you'd be responsible for as a corporation when you're talking about an entire aquifer or watershed?

Regulations tend to favor people with expensive lobbies. Perhaps a better way to go about it is clearer definitions of properties rights more specifically, in this case, when it comes to drinking water. And access to a plain English, laymen system of court proceedings that a normal person could use and large companies couldn't use as leverage. Seems like a lot of the pollution problems could be bettered with a more defined system of property definitions. If people can extract money justice for polluters quickly, and for sizable sums, it would most likely be cheaper and faster than a regulatory body, imo.

From their website:

What are they made of? Can you eat them or chew on them to make them explode? If so, will the water taste funny?
A: Spitballs are made of polymer. You could bite/chew one to make it explode but they should not be eaten. We haven't tasted one or the water we grew them in. We prefer fresh, clean drinking water.

I don't know what "polymer" is. Maybe silica gel?


>> ^notarobot:

Silica gel?

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

>> ^Fantomas:

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Actually, while the sodium and caffeine in cola and similar beverages may have a (very, very) slight diurectic effect, you still retain more water from the beverage than the caffeine takes from your system. The same is true even of beer, though it's even more difficult to get people to believe that.

Sodium is not a diuretic, quite the opposite, it makes your body retain water. The added sodium in your bloodstream is counteracted by water flowing into it from your cells, your cells are then water deficient and send messages to your brain: "Drink Water!".


Ok ok, not diuretic. But you still take in more water than the sodium makes you lose. The sodium draws water form your cells, I'll grant you - but you've just had a drink, so as long as you've taken in more water than the sodium leeches from your cells you're fine.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

Actually, while the sodium and caffeine in cola and similar beverages may have a (very, very) slight diurectic effect, you still retain more water from the beverage than the caffeine takes from your system. The same is true even of beer, though it's even more difficult to get people to believe that.


Sodium is not a diuretic, quite the opposite, it makes your body retain water. The added sodium in your bloodstream is counteracted by water flowing into it from your cells, your cells are then water deficient and send messages to your brain: "Drink Water!".

If we were talking about someone pissing in my water supply, would I really have to drink it, and then later prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it did some harm to me before I could expect law enforcement to get involved? Couldn't I just say "I don't consent to have pee put in my drinking water!" and get the police to stop people who wouldn't comply?

No. You can prove they pissed in your water. That's ample. If someone is dumping pollutants into that water, you could also prove that and seek damages. Same with pollutants in the air. You always have to mitigate damages. Let's be reasonable, please.

As for the "good reason" Al Gore is being sued for fraud, it's because there's a tremendous amount of right-wing political groups and corporations that want to discredit the entire environmental movement. A cost-effective way to do that is to try to tarnish the movement's most recognizable representative.

Speculation. A cost-effective way to discredit environmental movements is to pick on Gore? And, is it just insidious right-wing political groups? Maybe draw a dastardly twisty mustache on these shadowy groups while you're at it. The founder of the weather channel is evil! Kill him with fire!

You really should read more about what climate scientists who study this say.

I do, but only so far. I have other things that take my time, and reading every perspective of global warming isn't a top priority. It seems a lot of the 'the world is coming to an end' environmental prophecy is doom and gloom fear-mongering. It's a rabbit hole. A dark, scary rabbit hole.

So, are you going to donate to Campaign for Liberty? I am! Woohoo! They can come back to dip in my well anytime. Gay pun intended.

I don't know. We know global warming is real, but no one can accurately say it's man made. Over 95% of the carbon emissions are naturally made, the majority of emissions coming from volcanoes. These things were around long before the industrial age, and life on earth seems to have evolved just fine. We also know our earth has experienced global warming in the past, so this may be a cyclical event man has no influence over.

You really should read more about what climate scientists who study this say. For one, the massive climate changes in the past coincide with mass extinctions. For another, study of how the environment responds to differing levels of CO2 shows that small changes in total CO2 output can cause significant changes in climate (as in, the kind that causes mass extinctions). Then there's also the whole idea of multipliers, where small warming causes a change like the melting of permafrost, which makes that part of the earth less reflective (and also amounts to a change in climate).

In the 70s "they" said we were facing an ice age. Did we? Remember acid rain? Another 70s scare that turned out to be a red herring for environmentalists. Good science always prevails, and there's probably a good reason why Al Gore is being sued for fraud.

Did "they" say that? From what I've read on the supposed new ice age, there was a small minority scientists who said that, and the media amplified it completely out of proportion.

It's funny that you bring up acid rain though. You know why that went away? We implemented cap and trade for sulfur dioxide emissions, and it essentially eradicated the problem.

As for the "good reason" Al Gore is being sued for fraud, it's because there's a tremendous amount of right-wing political groups and corporations that want to discredit the entire environmental movement. A cost-effective way to do that is to try to tarnish the movement's most recognizable representative.

I can give you the Libertarian perspective: you solve it with lawsuits. If you pollute and it affects the health of others, then they have a right to sue for damages. There's no corporation limit to liability in a free market, and class actions would prove to be silly. People individually would sue the company and that would deter them from damaging the environment.

Ahh, so that's how you completely disguise all responsibility. If I get killed in a road accident during a freak snowstorm caused by global warming, mintbbb has to choose between using the life insurance money to settle affairs and pay off debts she may not be able to service without my income, or gamble it by trying to engage in a lawsuit against a coalition of oil, gas, coal, and power companies?

If we were talking about someone pissing in my water supply, would I really have to drink it, and then later prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it did some harm to me before I could expect law enforcement to get involved? Couldn't I just say "I don't consent to have pee put in my drinking water!" and get the police to stop people who wouldn't comply?

In reply to this comment by blankfist: