What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

That was a big thing in the 60's. Then there were the anti phosphates in your laundry detergent folks.

Everything runs in circles.
I remember as a kid hearing about the fluoride fights in Brainerd, Minnesota. The issue still comes up there every now and then.

http://www.brainerddispatch.com/content/its-water-0

Of course folks who have water filtration systems in their homes, as many do in a place like Arizona where the water is quite hard, filter out most of the fluoride anyway, at least with the more advanced systems.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Okay, I'm going to "go there". :eek: Flaggy, why is the gubmint really putting flouride in our water? :D :D :D
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Of course folks who have water filtration systems in their homes, as many do in a place like Arizona where the water is quite hard, filter out most of the fluoride anyway, at least with the more advanced systems.

I didn't know that. I thought filtration took out calcium and metals.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

It's not really fluoride, the gubbermint just says that so they can make the anti-cavity claim, get the ADA in on the program, and keep the sheeple quiet.

They're actually testing mind-control chemicals on us. ;)

I didn't know that. I thought filtration took out calcium and metals.

There are high-end/expensive filtration systems that can remove fluoride. The $30 Brita filter in your fridge isn't going to do the job though.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

It's not really fluoride, the gubbermint just says that so they can make the anti-cavity claim, get the ADA in on the program, and keep the sheeple quiet.

They're actually testing mind-control chemicals on us. ;)
Bah, you beat me to it!
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I didn't know that. I thought filtration took out calcium and metals.
We got one of those ones they sell at Costco (like $150 or so) and it takes out like 99 percent of the fluoride, along with a bunch of other stuff. I didn't even realize it until I was looking through the paperwork one year when I was putting new filters in. I'm guessing it'd be hard to make a filter take out all the other stuff and not take out fluoride. They are fairly common here in AZ, with our hard water. But, yes, some of the cheapo ones, like probably the ones that are in a gallon pitcher or attach to your faucet, may not take out fluoride or some of the other stuff.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

We got one of those ones they sell at Costco (like $150 or so) and it takes out like 99 percent of the fluoride, along with a bunch of other stuff. I didn't even realize it until I was looking through the paperwork one year when I was putting new filters in. I'm guessing it'd be hard to make a filter take out all the other stuff and not take out fluoride. They are fairly common here in AZ, with our hard water. But, yes, some of the cheapo ones, like probably the ones that are in a gallon pitcher or attach to your faucet, may not take out fluoride or some of the other stuff.

Why would you want to take out the fluoride? (I mean, other than FEMA Death Camps and demonic possession.)
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Why would you want to take out the fluoride? (I mean, other than FEMA Death Camps and demonic possession.)
I'm not saying I want to, just that the default with any of the more advanced system is that it does. As I noted, I didn't even know we were taking out fluoride until I saw it was one of the many things that get taken out by the system.

This is the kind of system I'm talking about:
http://www.costco.com/Pure-Blue-H2O-4-Stage-Reverse-Osmosis-Water-Filtration-System.product.100170441.html

Probably most people, like me, didn't even know they were buying a system that takes out fluoride. It's just how the thing works.


But, hey, now that you mention it, FEMA death camps and demonic possession sound like compelling reasons! ;)
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I'm not saying I want to, just that the default with any of the more advanced system is that it does. As I noted, I didn't even know we were taking out fluoride until I saw it was one of the many things that get taken out by the system.

This is the kind of system I'm talking about:
http://www.costco.com/Pure-Blue-H2O-4-Stage-Reverse-Osmosis-Water-Filtration-System.product.100170441.html

Probably most people, like me, didn't even know they were buying a system that takes out fluoride. It's just how the thing works.

Got it. Thanks.

I wonder if water fluoridation is even necessary for cavity control anymore? Pretty much everybody uses toothpaste; even the poors.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Why would you want to take out the fluoride? (I mean, other than FEMA Death Camps and demonic possession.)
General Jack D. Ripper: Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face.
General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream.

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: [very nervous] Lord, Jack.

General Jack D. Ripper: You know when fluoridation first began?

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: I... no, no. I don't, Jack.

General Jack D. Ripper: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.
.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Got it. Thanks.

I wonder if water fluoridation is even necessary for cavity control anymore? Pretty much everybody uses toothpaste; even the poors.

Ask the Brits' dentists.
 
Got it. Thanks.

I wonder if water fluoridation is even necessary for cavity control anymore? Pretty much everybody uses toothpaste; even the poors.
Kepler, Kepler. You disappoint me. That's anti-vaxxer level thinking. "Nobody seems to get measles any more, so I bet we don't even need vaccines..."

Fluoridation is still extremely important and effective.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Kepler, Kepler. You disappoint me. That's anti-vaxxer level thinking. "Nobody seems to get measles any more, so I bet we don't even need vaccines..."

Fluoridation is still extremely important and effective.

Come on. I was thinking that with supplementation in our other foods maybe water fluoridation is an inefficient and superfluous way to achieve a worthwhile goal. That's hardly anti-vaxxer level thinking. Also, there is no herd resistance to tooth decay, so if were really invested in who was coming up with the woolly-headed analogies... ;)
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Kepler, Kepler. You disappoint me. That's anti-vaxxer level thinking. "Nobody seems to get measles any more, so I bet we don't even need vaccines..."

Fluoridation is still extremely important and effective.

It's one of the reasons I haven't put in an RO or filtration unit in my house. First, they're insanely expensive. Second, it takes the fluoride out.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Why would you want to take out the fluoride? (I mean, other than FEMA Death Camps and demonic possession.)

Fluoride dumbs you down. When towns remove fluoride and add iodine to the water supply, IQs go up.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Fluoride dumbs you down. When towns remove fluoride and add iodine to the water supply, IQs go up.

Oooh, I like this one! If I Google it, I assume it will be right next to the articles "debunking" the scientists who exposed that fraud Andrew Wakefield, and the ad-ucation pieces promoting the "health benefits" of juice detoxes.
 
Come on. I was thinking that with supplementation in our other foods maybe water fluoridation is an inefficient and superfluous way to achieve a worthwhile goal. That's hardly anti-vaxxer level thinking. Also, there is no herd resistance to tooth decay, so if were really invested in who was coming up with the woolly-headed analogies... ;)
May want to rethink which way herd immunity slices. With measles, there really could be a chance that you might not need a vaccine - if everyone else gets one, you're good. Without herd immunity in play, you personally have to ingest the fluoride for it to have any effect.

No wool on my head - beautiful 75 and sunnny out here today...like pretty much every other day. ;)
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

May want to rethink which way herd immunity slices. With measles, there really could be a chance that you might not need a vaccine - if everyone else gets one, you're good. Without herd immunity in play, you personally have to ingest the fluoride for it to have any effect.

No wool on my head - beautiful 75 and sunnny out here today...like pretty much every other day. ;)

Ugh. I just got back from Santa Fe, where it was lovely, albeit a little cool. A one-season year would have me postal in a couple years -- you are welcome to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top