tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3044224847186670768.comments2023-03-26T02:07:20.715-07:00SKEPTICAL SOUNDSLUNGABUSEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12302903361883247711noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3044224847186670768.post-54637035664147443362017-05-17T08:23:27.476-07:002017-05-17T08:23:27.476-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Angiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14548516917978119753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3044224847186670768.post-11641601788313184502017-05-15T15:16:38.346-07:002017-05-15T15:16:38.346-07:00¡Gracias!
¡Gracias!<br />Angiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14548516917978119753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3044224847186670768.post-61508281164997731372016-05-11T17:56:19.134-07:002016-05-11T17:56:19.134-07:00thanks a lotthanks a lotInfector Gadgethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11780078181229521324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3044224847186670768.post-67295108392896699912016-04-05T14:56:38.733-07:002016-04-05T14:56:38.733-07:00Gracias por compartir!Gracias por compartir!Joselohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16686978396682684354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3044224847186670768.post-73303469078901790792014-07-01T12:51:39.032-07:002014-07-01T12:51:39.032-07:00gracias x 2gracias x 2i nomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17782233742572119884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3044224847186670768.post-41967427888491875592014-04-13T20:21:22.065-07:002014-04-13T20:21:22.065-07:00Gracias!Gracias!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05881236181125065054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3044224847186670768.post-51241329994362520802014-03-24T15:44:06.057-07:002014-03-24T15:44:06.057-07:00oh snap. can we get a reup of this please?oh snap. can we get a reup of this please?XsoldoutXhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11271167086153961397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3044224847186670768.post-63024689122827733512014-02-06T14:26:19.356-08:002014-02-06T14:26:19.356-08:00Ever hear me wee "Crispy Krishna"?Ever hear me wee "Crispy Krishna"?https://www.blogger.com/profile/03037704048671379868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3044224847186670768.post-75233404659563888382013-12-07T12:04:00.720-08:002013-12-07T12:04:00.720-08:00Hah! I was actually tempted to demand that I lead ...Hah! I was actually tempted to demand that I lead the prayer. It was going to be totally nice and normal then I was going to quickly say at the end "Dark Lord bless us, amen." Then see if anyone noticed.LUNGABUSEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12302903361883247711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3044224847186670768.post-27600388346033210522013-12-06T16:08:00.036-08:002013-12-06T16:08:00.036-08:00That's funny I do the same thing. Next time we...That's funny I do the same thing. Next time we should sit together, look at each other and roll our eyes together with whomever is watching us!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03365960469566599365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3044224847186670768.post-30928758126858881692013-12-05T13:54:55.578-08:002013-12-05T13:54:55.578-08:00Individual scientists saying stuff about fluoride ...Individual scientists saying stuff about fluoride is entirely anecdotal (and an argument from authority, although a strong one). Scientists are people too and are prone to biases. The links you provided are out of context to the claims you are making. The first link: yes fluoride is in food and occurs naturally in water, that is a non-sequitur. Provide a link to a peer-reviewed study that says the combination of fluoride occurring in food combined with consuming optimally fluoridated water has negative effects and it would mean something.<br /><br />The second link: Often anti-flouridationists cherry pick out only the high-dose toxicological effects of fluoride and state that as proof of the fact that water fluoridation is a health risk. Sentences such as, "While daily intake of 1–3 mg of fluoride prevents dental caries, long-term exposure to higher amounts may have deleterious effects on tooth enamel and bone;" are read only for the deleterious effects. Just how much are we getting per day? "The total diet in areas where water supplies are fluoridated may contain a mean of 2.7 mg/day compared with 0.9 mg/day in non-fluoridated areas (25)" I would argue that this mean is a bit too high, considering that a) this paper was written in 2000, the EPA began recommending lower optimal levels to lower the rates of mild dental fluorosis and b) the sourced study that was provided (25) was written in 1974, with again probably higher than current optimal standards. Even the high estimate is well within the safe toxicological limit.<br /><br />Third: Fluoride has a toxicity of LD50 of 5 to 10 g. A 100 kg adult's LD50 is somewhere around 12.5 g. You could just as easily say "Water is a poison its LD50 is 90 g/kg in rats." Every chemical substance has the capability of being considered a poison in the right dosage. As Paracelsus said, "The dose makes the poison."LUNGABUSEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12302903361883247711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3044224847186670768.post-60129988832047505482013-11-05T14:55:39.856-08:002013-11-05T14:55:39.856-08:00Men of science have spoken passionately against fl...Men of science have spoken passionately against fluoride and fluoridation. Phillipe Grandjean has remarked on the lack of good studies on fluoride’s affect on the brain. (though we’ve been putting it in the water for 60 years) Dean Burk called it public murder on a grand scale after heading a department at the American Cancer society and studying and working there for 34 years on groundbreaking lifesaving research. Aarvid Caarlson winner of the 2000 Nobel Prize in medicine advised the government of Sweden and recommends pharmacologically active substances not be added to the environment. nor medication given to the public instead of the individual. He called it obsolete. "I am opposed to fluoridation because of the overwhelming evidence that fluoridation is not only potentially harmful but has already caused considerable, well-documented harm." Albert Schatz, Ph.D., biochemistry, world-renowned discoverer of streptomycin (Oct., 1999)Toxic waste should not be diluted then dumped into the ground and the waterways (through mopping sprinklers, toilets, baths, and washing) and it certainly shouldn’t be used to grow food, prepare food, be in most beverages and in one of life’s necessities. Most of the world has stopped doing this. More people receive artificially fluoridated water in the United States than the rest of the world combined. It may be good for teeth at 1-3mg per day, but the dosage you get is probably higher. It affects the thyroid, the pineal, the brain, the kidneys, and the bones. There are no studies of fluoride in regards to dermal absorption though when looking at similar issues intake when showering or bathing is often even higher than when drinking. If we drink, eat, brush with, and bathe in fluoride what is our total intake? There are few or no studies on many of these issues, and that is why you are told so frequently that fluoridation is safe. Why are there no studies of this nature after 68 years of fluoridation? This is about more than just teeth. Men of science speak against this, but to find anything for it one must turn to agencies, organizations, and bureaucracies.<br /><br />There is fluoride in most food:<br />from the USDA http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/12354500/Data/Fluoride/F02.pdf<br /><br />While daily intake of 1–3 mg of fluoride prevents dental caries, long-term exposure to higher amounts may have deleterious effects on tooth enamel and bone. from the world health organization. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/123075/AQG2ndEd_6_5Fluorides.PDF<br /><br />“according to clinical research, the fluoride dose capable of reducing thyroid function was notably low-just 2-5 mg per day over several months” (Galetti & Joyce 1958) “this dose is well within the range (1.6 to 6.6 mg/day) of what individuals living in fluoridated communities are now estimated to receive on a daily basis.” <br /><br />Fluoride is a neurotoxin http://www.epa.gov/ncct/toxcast/files/summit/48P%20Mundy%20TDAS.pdf<br /><br />But don’t take my word for it. Read it yourself. It’s out there. If you are only skeptical about that which you are uncertain you are not using skepticism properly. Take out your beliefs and give them an airing out on occasion.<br /><br /><br />Dr. Arvid Caarlson, 2000 Nobel prize in medicine winner says, "In Sweden, water fluoridation, to my knowledge, is no longer advocated by anybody. In Sweden, the emphasis nowadays is to keep the environment as clean as possible with regard to pharmacologically active and, thus, potentially toxic substances." <br />"I am opposed to fluoridation because of the overwhelming evidence that fluoridation is not only potentially harmful but has already caused considerable, well-documented harm." (Oct., 1999).fluoridation ... it is the greatest fraud that has ever been perpetrated and it has been perpetrated on more people than any other fraud has." - Dr. Professor Albert Schatz, (Microbiology)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15416551376915970939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3044224847186670768.post-66470155730475003832013-10-22T02:32:32.481-07:002013-10-22T02:32:32.481-07:00Your blog is just awesome. Thank you! (:Your blog is just awesome. Thank you! (:Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15139486351163081297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3044224847186670768.post-36243649162573656632013-08-31T20:05:44.110-07:002013-08-31T20:05:44.110-07:00Another one that can be added to this list is fait...Another one that can be added to this list is faith healing and those parents who refuse medical treatment for their children when they need it, and oops, they die! Luckily, our governor signed out of law the exemption that religious parents were given.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3044224847186670768.post-4451202893269853022013-08-20T16:33:43.258-07:002013-08-20T16:33:43.258-07:00I like breaks from the internet too.
I like breaks from the internet too. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3044224847186670768.post-9322739232862212342013-06-27T20:01:09.988-07:002013-06-27T20:01:09.988-07:00Couldn't agree more! Greydon is amazing! I l...Couldn't agree more! Greydon is amazing! I listen to him and Tombstone almost every day. They make my brain happy! :) #GU4ET.R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16808287989324445668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3044224847186670768.post-36869879571257707432013-05-08T20:30:09.089-07:002013-05-08T20:30:09.089-07:00Sounds like the anti fluoridation side is giving c...Sounds like the anti fluoridation side is giving credence to the claim by the late Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper, US Air Force, that fluoridation compromises our purity of essence, by the contamination of our precious bodily fluids.Ken Morganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14219689765758643750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3044224847186670768.post-74530206296345001632013-04-29T16:48:32.942-07:002013-04-29T16:48:32.942-07:00I love how your comment(s) come coupled with the e...I love how your comment(s) come coupled with the emotional plea of not thinking that you're a crazy person. LUNGABUSEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12302903361883247711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3044224847186670768.post-86944171342236262252013-04-28T05:16:41.000-07:002013-04-28T05:16:41.000-07:00Fluoridation was sold to the American people by Ed...Fluoridation was sold to the American people by Edward Bernays, the same man who sold Lucky Strike cigarettes aka "Torches of Freedom" to a new generation of women demanding equal rights. He used his understanding of uncle Sigmund Freud's psychology also to manipulate doctors into endorsing large quantities of bacon as a healthy breakfast. I know this sounds like an episode of Mad Men, but truth is stranger than fiction. Look it up if you don't believe me. Bernays is known as "The Father of Public Relations". One of his clients was United Fruit. Their profits were threatened by the democratically elected president of Guatemala, so Bernays convinced American politicians and the American public of a Communist threat. The U.S. overthrew their government and ignited a civil war in which 200,000 people died, and all those new family farms were lost. Bernays' ad campaign for WWI was "we're making Europe safe for democracy". Does anyone still believe that?<br /><br />The ADA has been fighting Medicare/Medicaid since 1965, now the same with Obamacare, and they also fight midlevel practitioners which would greatly help people in rural and poor areas that don't have enough dentists. The ADA is one of the main reasons people suffer from cavities. The EPA ignores its own scientists as well as the Safe Drinking Water Act and manipulated the NRC's ability to have more of an impact on fluoridation policies. The EPA Union even sued the EPA and successfully got fluoride removed from their workplaces. The CDC ignored half of the NRC report in their summary. 68 years of fluoridation doesn't prove it's safe. TIME Magazine: "For nearly six decades, gasoline companies ignored the known dangers associated with lead to get rich." SOUND FAMILIAR?<br /><br />We're not going to allow this in Portland. And after we're done here, we're going to lead the rest of America back to its senses.<br />Kenrichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05214039934355879204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3044224847186670768.post-73630854053863099362013-04-28T05:16:22.277-07:002013-04-28T05:16:22.277-07:00The American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry does n...The American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry does not support the use of prenatal fluoride supplements. Pregnant women with MS are even specifically instructed to avoid fluoridated water. The National Kidney Foundation no longer supports fluoridation because it's bad for people with CKD (chronic kidney disease). Far more fluoride collects in the pineal gland (the extremely important connector of the brain and endocrine system) than teeth or bones. The National Research Council in 2006 stated that it might be a factor in early puberty, changes in sleeping patterns, and various other critical functions regulated by hormones. And in that and other sections of the NRC report which fluoride supporters repeatedly and systematically ignore, they're not only talking about high levels of fluoride. They recommend further studies on ALL levels including so-called "optimal" fluoridated water.<br /><br />Fluoride also has greater effects on those with poor nutrition and hypothyroidism. Some people are allergic to fluoride. There was also a cover up of a huge Harvard study on osteosarcoma. Fluosilicic acid is far more toxic than natural calcium fluoride because it is 100% soluble and all those free-floating ions of the most reactive element in the known universe readily combine with other toxins such as arsenic, lead, and aluminum, which oh by the way are also added to the water as part of the fluoridation process. Fluorine compounds are able to breach the blood-brain barrier and the placenta, which is a likely factor in Alzheimer's and early onset dementia. And by the way, what is the toxicity level for a fetus? Oddly it's not defined by the USDA, even though they have done so for newborn babies. Peer-reviewed placebo studies on the adverse health effects from fluosilicic acid have NEVER BEEN DONE. You want me to show you the NRC consensus report that proves the risks of so-called "optimal" fluoridation? No, YOU show me the NRC report that proves it is SAFE, because there is a preponderance of evidence indicating likely harm.<br /><br />Why is all of the science being ignored? The only conspiracy I truly believe in is that some people want to make a hell of a lot of money. CRAZY HUH?! The original fraudulent Grand Rapids "study" was sponsored by Alcoa. No conflict of interest was declared even though they converted toxic waste disposal expenses into profits. The ADA has a huge conflict of interest as well because they profit from their seal of approval on fluoridated products and they even sell their own co-branded fluoridated water at Wal-Mart. The Harvard professor who tried to cover up the osteosarcoma study works for Colgate.Kenrichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05214039934355879204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3044224847186670768.post-85722739481532044572013-04-28T05:15:14.265-07:002013-04-28T05:15:14.265-07:00The pineal gland connects the endocrine system wit...The pineal gland connects the endocrine system with the nervous system and serves many important functions including:<br /><br />* Secretion of the Hormone Melatonin<br />* Regulation of Endocrine Functions<br />* Sleep Regulation<br />* Influences Sexual Development<br /><br />This is one rather very important part of the brain and body wouldn't you say?<br /><br />Well it turns out that fluoride targets the pineal gland, where the levels (up to 21,000 ppm) are by far higher than any other part of the body, including teeth and bone.<br /><br />Now quoting from the National Research Council's 2006 Consensus Report pg 214 (with my emphasis in ALL CAPS):<br /><br />Whether fluoride exposure causes decreased nocturnal melatonin production or altered circadian rhythm of melatonin production in humans HAS NOT BEEN INVESTIGATED. As described above, fluoride is LIKELY to cause decreased melatonin production and to have other effects on normal pineal function, which in turn could contribute to a variety of effects in humans. Actual effects in any individual depend on age, sex, and probably other factors, although at present the mechanisms are not fully understood.<br /><br />Notice they didn't say anything about "optimal levels" of water fluoridation, only that effects have not yet been investigated but are anticipated. And yet those who propose fluoridating our clean Portland water have presented us with a fraudulent "dental health crisis" in order to fast track it for industry profits before we even know what it does to our pineal glands and other soft tissues, enzymes, etc. Does this seem reasonable to you?<br /><br />If the fluoridation vote passes it would be very difficult to reverse that decision. Doesn't it make a whole lot more sense to wait for the studies that the NRC highly recommended?<br />Kenrichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05214039934355879204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3044224847186670768.post-16472440599052674312013-04-28T05:13:41.310-07:002013-04-28T05:13:41.310-07:00REVIEW OF THE 2006 UNITED STATES NATIONAL RESEARCH...REVIEW OF THE 2006 UNITED STATES NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL REPORT: FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER by Robert J Carton<br /> <br />Robert J Carton, PhD, is an environmental scientist who has worked for over 30 years in the US federal government writing regulations, managing risk assessments on high priority toxic chemicals, and providing environmental oversight of medical research conducted by the government. From 1972-1992 he worked at the headquarters of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Washington, DC, and wrote the first regulations for controlling asbestos discharges from manufacturing plants. From 1992-2002, he was Chief of Environmental Compliance for the US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, Fort Detrick, MD.<br /> <br />SUMMARY: The recent report by a 12-member committee of the US National Research Council (NRC) examined the scientific basis for the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) of fluoride in drinking water promulgated in 1985 by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Due to misdirection by EPA management, who requested the report, the NRC committee identified only health effects known with total certainty. This is contrary to the intent of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), which requires the EPA to determine “whether any adverse effects can be reasonably anticipated, even though not proved to exist.” Further misdirection by EPA consisted of instructing the committee not to identify a new MCLG -- in other words, not to determine a safe level of fluoride in drinking water, and not to discuss silicofluorides, phosphate fertilizer manufacturing by-products used in most cities to fluoridate their water. Despite these restrictions, the committee broke new ground declaring severe dental fluorosis and moderate (stage II) skeletal fluorosis adverse health effects, and by noting that the current standard of 4 mg F/L in drinking water does not protect against bone fractures or severe dental fluorosis. Silicofluorides were said to need health effects testing. The NRC review includes extensive information on other possible health effects of fluoride, such as endocrine effects and effects on the brain. On the basis of this information and the proper interpretation of the SDWA, the following are all adverse health effects: moderate dental fluorosis, stage I skeletal fluorosis (arthritis with joint pain and stiffness), decreased thyroid function, and detrimental effects on the brain, especially in conjunction with aluminum. The amount of fluoride necessary to cause these effects to susceptible members of the population is at or below the dose received from current levels of fluoride recommended for water fluoridation. The recommended Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for fluoride in drinking water should be zero.<br /> <br />FULL REVIEW HERE: www.fluorideresearch.org/393/files/FJ2006_v39_n3_p163-172.pdf<br />Kenrichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05214039934355879204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3044224847186670768.post-33079483499607892452013-04-28T05:10:33.035-07:002013-04-28T05:10:33.035-07:00What proof is there that CWP actually did this as ...What proof is there that CWP actually did this as opposed to someone posing as CWP? If it was CWP then I do not approve. I also don't approve of HKHP's fraudulent claim that there is a dental health crisis in Portland. I don't approve of the payola they gave to minority advocacy groups to support fluoridation. And I don't approve of the Oregon Health Authority dragging their heels on the 2012 Smile Survey revealing that fluoridation actually has no effect (or at best only 1% difference) and that Oregon and Portland dental health improved without additional fluoridation.<br /><br />Your skepticism seems to be rather one-sided.<br /><br />As for the science ...<br /><br />Fluosilicic acid used in water fluoridation -- human studies for which have NEVER BEEN CONDUCTED -- is 100% soluble which results in nearly 67,000 times more fluorine ions dissolved into the water than natural calcium fluoride which is nearly insoluble. Fluorine is the most reactive element in the known universe so it combines with other toxic elements such as lead and aluminum. This is why we are seeing higher incidences of Alzheimer's and dementia, which is why there is such a controversy about fluoridation now in Ireland. And there is no calcium in fluoridated water to counteract the toxicity. Fluoridation supporters need to stop pretending that it's just the same as the natural fluoride.<br /><br />SCIENTIFIC DISSENSUS ON SAFETY OF FLUOSILICIC ACID<br /><br />Source: www.thehealthvine.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=36&Itemid=58<br /><br />Hexafluorosilicic acid or hydrofluorosilicic acid or H2SiF6.<br /><br />This substance is usually generated in the wet scrubbing systems of the phosphate fertilizer industry and shipped as a 23% solution to communities fluoridating their water. However, when it is diluted ( approximately 180,000 gallons to one) at the public water works the substance is attacked by the water and yields fluoride ion. To what extent this process goes to completion by the time the water reaches the consumer is under debate. Urnansky and Schock (2000) argue based upon theoretical assumptions that the process will be complete and that there will be no fluoride left attached to silicon. Masters and Coplan argue based upon a Ph.D thesis from Germany (Westendorf, 1974) that at neutral pH two fluoride atoms are still attached to the silicon and moreover the hexafluorosilicate ion is more active biologically than the free fluoride ion. Masters and Coplan (1999, 2000) have also found an association between blood levels in children in both Massachusetts (1999) and New York (2000) and the use of the silicon fluorides (H2SiF6 and Na2SiF6) as fluoridating agents but not sodium fluoride. Thus, they have argued that it is some silicon fluoride complex which facilitates the uptake of lead (from other environmental sources) into children's blood and not the free fluoride ion itself.<br /><br />FLUOSILICIC ACID IMPORTED FROM CHINA<br /><br />On top of all that the fluorine compound that's coming from China has additional substances in it, some kind of sludge of unknown origin. And the CDC when bombarded by about 1,000 complaints about that, instead of investigating it they just shrug it off and repeat their stop-worrying-you-silly-conspiracy-theorists-it's-totally-safe mantra. They have to keep supporting fluoridation because otherwise they'd be admitting they were wrong for so many decades and then everything else they do will be questioned and they'll probably lose funding. They're saving face at the expense of public health.Kenrichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05214039934355879204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3044224847186670768.post-88027221852113643512013-04-26T21:05:47.053-07:002013-04-26T21:05:47.053-07:00As Mark Twain once said, "A lie can travel ha...As Mark Twain once said, "A lie can travel half-way around the World while the truth is still putting on its shoes". Great analysis. This should be widely circulated.Kurt Ferrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14512991985801293586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3044224847186670768.post-15413569604962188302013-04-18T11:26:16.133-07:002013-04-18T11:26:16.133-07:00There is no scientific literature screaming that f...There is no scientific literature screaming that fluoridation is unsafe. There is only cherry-picked data that anti-fluoridationists scream about in the scientific literature with passionate ignorance. We've had community water fluoridation for over 60 years and the science has no signs of changing on it.<br /><br />We've had vaccinations for over 200 years and there are still people waiting for the scientific consensus to shift against it.<br /><br />The point being, you can't make an argument from a lack of evidence or by pointing out science's past mistakes on other issues. Fluoride is essential for healthy teeth, that's why its in toothpastes and mouth rinses. We're voting on this issue in May, if people decide that the medical benefits outweigh the "assault to our personal freedoms" then we'll have it, we choose.LUNGABUSEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12302903361883247711noreply@blogger.com