The ADA, NSL and CDC all state that flouride is not harmful to us and advocate it's use in our water supply to help prevent tooth decay. It's GOOD for you!

Ok.. fine what's a little bit of extra toxin in our daily diet... it's not like we're getting this fluoride from a dictatorship-style run country with a health violation record regarding it's products exported.

I mean, we're getting top-grade pharmaceutical quality fluoride from nature (according to the ADA). Our politicians and corporate CEOs overseeing the process would have nothing less because they care for their end users.

I mean, it's not like they're siphoning these toxic chemicals (complete with arsenic, lead and radons) in an unrefined and unprocessed state directly from fertilizer plant smoke-stacks. The same ones where they used to emit these fluorides as gasses into the environment and kill off the animal and plant life in the township near the plants (until regulation prohibited them from this process). Now we have an effective method of discarding these toxic chemicals - by putting it in our drinking water.

Absolutely Genius!!!

We should be thankful they're giving us fluoride. According to the Health Science Channel our daily fluoride dosage is what is keeping our tooth enamel from falling apart. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKgZeeBpBQc

I do find it strange though that this water treatment facility has turned off their fluoride integration and have still yet to investigate why this Chinese fluoride is clogging up their system. The CDC and NSL says it's safe though so we can put away any fears of contamination. Why would they lie to us? That would be scandalous would only serve to harm their reputation on the subject of fluoride. Still, how long would a spectroscopic test take? I don't understand why they haven't shown proof of it being safe. Some empirical data on this batch of fluoride might reassure the public.

Indeed I do.

In reply to this comment by shponglefan:
>> ^gwiz665:
Maybe they need some nice homeopathy, so they can clear out the toxins that cause pain during child birth.


You mean giving them distilled water?

>> ^gwiz665:
Maybe they need some nice homeopathy, so they can clear out the toxins that cause pain during child birth.


You mean giving them distilled water?

No no, we have to accept alternative solutions to pain... maybe give them hemp? Maybe they need some nice homeopathy, so they can clear out the toxins that cause pain during child birth. This is what the patriarchal medical community doesn't want you to know! Vote green.

>> ^EndAll:
perhaps with good reason. there's a lot of debate/controversy surrounding the vaccines.


Excuse me? There is just as much debate/controversy surrounding vaccines as there is surrounding Santa Claus - which is none, if we disregard arguments from children, ignorant or mentally handicapped people (sorry for adding you to this sorry bunch, mentally handicapped folks).

Here are a few points that solidify my argument, with a special (and simple) rebuttal to all the anti-vaccine conspiracy-theorists out there. EndAll, I can't believe you'd be one of them


* Pro-disease anti-vaxers want vaccines that are 100% safe. This is never going to happen, as all medicines carry some risk. However, the relative risk of injury from vaccines is significantly lower than the risk of injury from getting the disease naturally. For more information, see http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm

* Reduced vaccination rates lead to higher incidents of infection. This has been illustrated in the U.K. following Wakefield’s bogus study, in Germany in 2006 (including two deaths in unvaccinated children – see http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/87/2/07-050187/en/index.html), in California (see http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm57e222a1.htm), in MN (where an unvaccinated child died from hemophilus influenza type b – see http://www.emaxhealth.com/1020/50/28863/minnesota-child-dies-lack-hib-meningitis-vaccination.html).

* Pro-disease anti-vaxers claim that “Big Pharma” makes lots of money from vaccines. If vaccination rates dropped, however, there would be an increase in preventable illnesses, many of which have high rates of complications resulting in hospitalization and expensive treatment. See the link about Germany above for information on costs associated with the measles outbreak there. The money to be made from the diseases far outweighs any money to be made from vaccines.

* Pro-disease anti-vaxers claim that better hygiene has led to a decrease in disease, rather than vaccines. However, many of the diseases prevented by vaccines are airborne, and are not greatly impacted by improved sanitation or hygiene.

* Pro-disease anti-vaxers claim that too many antigens (the parts that make the vaccines work) are given at once, ignoring that infants and children are exposed to thousands of antigens every day by touching things and putting their hands or the object in their mouth, through absorption or by inhaling.

* They claim that combination shots should be avoided, and that parents should break up the vaccinations into individual vaccines and spread them out. However, this increases the total number of shots received, as well as exposure to those various “toxins” they hate so much.

* There have been no well-controlled studies establishing a causal link between vaccines and autism.

* There have been numerous well-controlled studies sponsored and run by various people and organizations around the world that have shown no link between vaccines and autism.

via http://antiantivax.jottit.com/

So... Looks like people are still willing to voice opinions without doing preliminary research first?

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl-microwave-dioxin.htm
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/dioxins.htm
http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cookplastic.asp
http://www.foodsafety.gov/~dms/fdacplas.html
http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Microwave-Health-Problems.htm

In the age of the internet rumors may out-number facts, but the facts can be looked up.

I'm not convinced there is much wrong in this method.

Sometimes I wonder if you really believe anything you actually write.


>> ^quantumushroom:
"A few smoke stacks"?
Yeah, those evil smokestacks, a side effect of allowing people to have energy to heat their homes and cook food and have manufactured items that save millions of hours of manual labor. Those.

All well and good when that was the only way we knew how to make energy. But seeing as now we know how to use solar, wind, wave, thermal, hydro etc. I think it's perfectly agreeable to suggest that maybe we could be using forms of energy creation/capture that do not pump toxins into the atmosphere. I mean, really, you think that what we, as more than 6 Billion people, do has no effect on the earth? You are truly imbecilic.

I really don't get your mindset, well, other than being someone who can't be stuffed actually making an effort, and likes big cars, huge wasteful lives and does all he can to somehow delude himself into thinking it's not a hugely selfish existence.

Which I think is where most right wingers come from, the point of selfishness. If they are comfortable, no matter how badly that life affects others, they want to keep their 'stuff' and not have to change.

I'd argue there are stupid things that people do that always constitute reckless endangerment, like driving drunk, that should be illegal outright because people have lousy judgment (especially when drunk).

If someone runs a red light or a stop sign, or speeds in the middle of nowhere, chances are the penalties are going to be minor, if the law gets enforced at all.

Connecting with an actual victim, while doing something clearly proscribed by law, has harsh penalties. Connecting with a victim, when you were obeying all the right laws, and did your best to avoid the accident, but failed, carries a small penalty, or possibly no penalty at all depending on circumstances.

Part of having law exist in cases like this are to help decide who's the victim when things occur (was it the guy who ran the red light while drunk at fault, or the person obeying the signal?), and some of it to avoid the damage done when people misjudge their abilities (initially lowering the speed limits from 65 to 55 made a large reduction in highway fatalities). I also think limiting the amount of toxins you can legally put into foodstuffs is also fair game for the same reasons.

I don't think laws prohibiting recreational drugs, or gay marriage are tyrannical; ineffective and prejudicial perhaps, but not tyrannical.

As for whether a law is tyrannical or not, I don't think there's a simple set of criteria. To me, I usually define tyranny more along the lines of how the laws are made than on what the law itself is.

Dictators are tyrannical because they alone create the law, and are free to modify it at whim, and cannot have their proclamations challenged. The United States' government isn't tyrannical, because when it's working properly, the law is created by elected representatives, approved by an executive, and if necessary clarified or overturned by the courts.

I've often pondered whether it's appropriate to call George W. Bush a tyrant or not. He had a congress that followed his every whim (the slim Democratic majority from 2006-2008 approved most of his whims, but not every), a supreme court that first installed him to the Presidency, then upheld almost every single one of his extra-constitutional actions, and he listened to no one, and felt himself unconstrained by law or constitution when he thought he was right (and he often felt quite sure of himself).

As of right now, I think it's inconclusive as to whether he fully acted as a tyrant, or merely set up a legal precedent for ignoring the conventions that are supposed to prevent tyranny from breaking out.

I think we need investigations, and ultimately a post-administrative judgment made decrying what he did and reaffirming that law and the Constitution trumps a President's powers, even in extremes, and even if he hires lawyers who write him a note saying he has the authority to do whatever he damn well likes in the name of "national security".

I say use the same clever system used on drains, strong toxins!

>> ^demon_ix:
"There's no proof, they're saying, that it would kill the birds"..........
Who's saying? The same "There's no proof that global warming is man made" people?
Would someone please slap some common sense into anyone that thinks that eating big chunks of plastic is good for any kind of wildlife?


You can eat plastic. It just goes through your system. No digestion occurs, so no toxins will enter your system. Of course, you could choke on it... P.S. I'm a biologist.

Anyway, this whole thing is ironic since people have been touting the values of plastic over paper for years now. Save the trees and all that. If all that trash were paper, it'd be gone long before it got out that far into the ocean. I vote: tree farms, tree farms, tree farms.

"I don't see why people are so friggin shocked. Where do you think the garbage of the world goes? If we're not burying it and building cities over the landfills it's being dropped in rivers, lakes and oceans."

We have a tremendously huge amount of space for landfills... profound amounts of space. The paranoia of the 80's about trash and landfills has been debunked as a child of media hype and activist exaggeration. In addition, we now harvest methane from landfills. When they get "full", they are buried and these fills are managed by people who aren't moronic enough to dump... say... radioactive waste or anything to unsafe that might end up in the water table. Of course, we should fullfill the 3 R's as we were taught. Reduce, reuse, recycle... but we shouldn't sacrifice our reason. Penn and Teller gave a good shake to recycling on their show. I recommend it.

>> ^cyberscythe:
So the answer is, no, they are not.
The amount of mercury released in the atmosphere is a net loss compared to an incandescent if it's powered by a coal-fire plant. The natural mercury in the coal would be greater than the 15mLs in the bulb.


Atmospheric mercury pollution from coal-fire plants is nominal compared to other producers like various gold mines. Besides that, atmospheric pollution is not as dangerous to you directly as is the concentration in your home if a florescent light breaks, and in landfills where the toxin can run off into local rivers and enter the food chain.


>> ^ponceleon:
Okay, so which is it... Is mercury bad for you or not? There's that one video on the sift where the guy is handling mercury and then there is this. Make up your minds dammit...


And yes, mercury is bad for you. Very bad.

http://www.videosift.com/video/How-Mercury-Causes-Neurodegeneration-Brain-Damage

>> ^Enzoblue:
This will be my weekend project. He said 4 Areca palms and 6 to 8 mother of tongues per person, but didn't say how many money plants. Anyone know?



The money plant is there to take toxins out of the air, which aren't produced by people. That shouldn't change much by adding people.

The other two remove CO2, which increases as you add people. I suppose the number of money plants you need would depend on local air quality, but I was unable to find any recommendations for number of plants.


It should also be noted that Mother-in-Law's Tongue and Money Plant are toxic to pets, so be careful if you have animals that like to chew on your house plants.

http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/poison-control/plants/golden_birds_nest.html
http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/poison-control/plants/devils_ivy.html

Oh, as a quick BTW. For anyone who is concerned about the effects of smoke on the air passages there's a simple solution to the vast majority of it which medical marijuana users make use of on a regular basis. Vaporizers.

Cheap ones are pretty much worthless but you can get quality ones starting at about $120 to $150 or so, they go up from there but you should be able to get good quality for that. If anyone needs pointers let me know, I will not suggest specific brands or places to buy from since it depends too much on your preferences and who has a good sale right now but I can point you to a place or two that have good forums on the subject and where you can ask users about them and what style might suit you. Bag, whip, or whatnot.

One thing I will warn about though, avoid the cheap imports. Some are known to use cheap construction and metals which when heated can leach toxins. This is one case where the name brands are worth the few extra bucks and a little time shopping can be worthwhile.

very good use of copy/paste there, but most of those don't really pertain to the subject at hand, that is, driving under the influence. i could really give a crap if someone is absorbing more toxins than cigarette smoke while driving. i'm not even sure that's an issue that was even in question, in fact.

your posts get longer and longer, with more and more irrelevant topics loosely associated with marijuana and health effects thereof when that's not really even what i was intending to discuss.

so i ask again, who would you rather be on the road near? a stoner or a drunk? legal differences aside, purely from a short-term effect point of view... 'neither' is not an acceptable answer, because it's going to happen whether you like it or not, such is life.

i completely agree. toxin cleansing is not always a good idea. they sell detox suppliments at health food stores. this is why i mentioned the contraindications part in the first comment. these are 1) over priced and can either be dangerous, or completely ineffective and crap.

i would love to see some studies about message therapy. its probaby difficult because the vast majority of massage therapists are independent and self employed, the vast majority are undereducated, and medical science has been resistant to embrace it as something that can legitmately improve your wellbeing, i suspect because it is not profitable to them, because therapists are independent and self employed.

i do not think enough education is required to become a massage therapist, as for myself, i already had a degree in radiological technology before i went to massage school and had spent 7 years studying the body from a medical/ scientific perspective. i think higher standards of training would improve the legitimacy of the field and the quality of care. but, i stand by my assertion that massage is rooted in phsyiology and when properly applied can greatly improve well being and prevent a plethora of illnesses. i will defend it to the death!

In reply to this comment by rychan:
>> ^peggedbea:
anyhow, its always good to flush your body of toxins

I upvoted your commented. But I don't agree that it's necessarily good to have a medical intervention to "flush your body of toxins" rather than letting the natural processes play out. I'm not about to go on dialysis to help flush out my toxins when I'm perfectly healthy. I realize that's an exaggerated parallel and that this massage is probably harmless, but I'd like to see some peer-reviewed studies on the matter. You've made an appeal that massage therapy is not junk science, and controlled, randomized, double blind, peer-reviewed trials are the way to prove that.

I realize that the "blind" part of such trials would be difficult in this case, but you can still have it single blind with a proxy intervention that is known to be worthless. Say you're treating them with magnets but actually do nothing.