The truth and nothing but the truth. People please wake up

How about people should be responsible for their own health number 1, and nutrients are chemicals callin git another name means nothing just happens that to much of anything is bad for you weird

Nicotine is 300x more deadly per volume then stricknine (cant spell, help) who cares none of em should be in our water, i want my water to be H20

and the fact that fluoride does cause problems is all you need to get rid of it

I read a piece on those air trails (chemtrails) and in it they showed how in disneys over the fence movie they had been added to the virtual sky in several places to normalise them with children. The propoganda machine continues perhaps.

http://www.rense.com/general76/cars.htm they put them in here to.

NoDrama said:

So is that the absolute best appeal to ridicule you could come up with?

Click to expand...

best you got as a defense? i showed like for like

i can't help it if you cant recognize "conspiracy talk" from your own comp...

The Ruiner said:

What were you saying now?

Click to expand...

If you bold the next 4 words I think you will notice I said...outside the filtration process...

I said

We shouldn't add ANYTHING in the water aside from the filtration process...I don't care if its rainbow kisses and butterfly hugs

http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/9/3/246

Results Fluoride levels within the range recommended for drinking water by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency,Cincinnati, 0.80 to 1.30 mg/L, were found in only 3 samples of bottled water tested. The fluoride levels of tap water samples were within 0.04 mg/L of the optimal fluoride level of 1.00mg/L. The bacterial counts in the bottled water samples ranged from less than 0.01 CFU/mL to 4900 CFUs/mL, including 6 samples with levels substantially above 1000 CFUs/mL. In contrast, bacterial counts in samples of tap water ranged from 0.2 to 2.7 CFUs/mL.


Hmm...a difference of 4897.3 CFU's, no coincidence there! So, get the flouride out, get the bacteria IN!

its not a conspiracy


its right in the open

this is all public knowledge

The Ruiner said:

http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/9/3/246

Results Fluoride levels within the range recommended for drinking water by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency,Cincinnati, 0.80 to 1.30 mg/L, were found in only 3 samples of bottled water tested. The fluoride levels of tap water samples were within 0.04 mg/L of the optimal fluoride level of 1.00mg/L. The bacterial counts in the bottled water samples ranged from less than 0.01 CFU/mL to 4900 CFUs/mL, including 6 samples with levels substantially above 1000 CFUs/mL. In contrast, bacterial counts in samples of tap water ranged from 0.2 to 2.7 CFUs/mL.


Hmm...a difference of 4897.3 CFU's, no coincidence there! So, get the flouride out, get the bacteria IN!

Click to expand...

Yea its totally the fluroide that got rid of the bacteria, theres no evidence of that, pure coincidence, FLUORIDE is added for the sole reason of "Promoting strong teeth" , its added AFTER filtration. It has NOTHING to do with removing bacteria.

The Ruiner said:

http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/9/3/246

Results Fluoride levels within the range recommended for drinking water by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency,Cincinnati, 0.80 to 1.30 mg/L, were found in only 3 samples of bottled water tested. The fluoride levels of tap water samples were within 0.04 mg/L of the optimal fluoride level of 1.00mg/L. The bacterial counts in the bottled water samples ranged from less than 0.01 CFU/mL to 4900 CFUs/mL, including 6 samples with levels substantially above 1000 CFUs/mL. In contrast, bacterial counts in samples of tap water ranged from 0.2 to 2.7 CFUs/mL.
Hmm...a difference of 4897.3 CFU's, no coincidence there! So, get the flouride out, get the bacteria IN!

Click to expand...

how about spend some damn money on proper water filtration its not hard even on a mass level i mean wtf why is the option to bacteria the one thing that could make us sicker,

why among a list of choices to filter water is the one that could harm us the one thats chosen

ill tell you its cheap, at our expense win for them loose for us whether or not its does kill bacteria

news flash people

peoples teeth go bad no matter what for the most part

Samwell Seed Well said:

how about spend some damn money on proper water filtration its not hard even on a mass level i mean wtf why is the option to bacteria the one thing that could make us sicker,

why among a list of choices to filter water is teh one that could harm us the one thats chosen

ill tell you its cheap, at our expense win for them loose for us

Click to expand...

Again, Fluoride is not used to filter water or remove bacteria, from my own city water:

"Water additive to promote strong teeth."

just playing devils advocate, but i dont know or care i dont want shit in my water

i pay the water company and city taxes on my house, if i had a choice i wouldnt want it

but the water disctrict im in is full of baby boomers so im fucked

So...just google "Fluoride as an antibacterial" I am sure you will all come up with nothing...

ginjawarrior said:

best you got as a defense? i showed like for like

i can't help it if you cant recognize "conspiracy talk" from your own comp...

Click to expand...

You don't make any sense though, you took a comment out of context , no where have I ever said 9/11 was caused by those things. Do you see why I am flummoxed at your seemingly baseless accusations?

I thought chlorine was for all the nasty bacteria.

NoDrama said:

You don't make any sense though, you took a comment out of context , no where have I ever said 9/11 was caused by those things. Do you see why I am flummoxed at your seemingly baseless accusations?

Click to expand...

neither did that article explicitly say he was murdered its the asinine questions that give the "reasoning behind" away to us casual readers

ginjawarrior said:

neither did that article explicitly say he was murdered its the asinine questions that give the "reasoning behind" away to us casual readers

Click to expand...

You are able to tell the contents of another person's mind just by them typing a question? really?

NoDrama said:

You are able to tell the contents of another person's mind just by them typing a question? really?

Click to expand...

i've watched you asking same dumb questions for 2 years thats plenty of time to form an opinion..

when someone comes here with a bunch of "facts/lies" and they say all info is on linked website and first thing i see is "was Steve Jobs killed by illuminati" that too is all i need to form an opinion

ginjawarrior said:

i've watched you asking same dumb questions for 2 years thats plenty of time to form an opinion..

when someone comes here with a bunch of "facts/lies" and they say all info is on linked website and first thing i see is "was Steve Jobs killed by illuminati" that too is all i need to form an opinion

Click to expand...

Yeah . Exactly, because we all know that looking at two sides of an argument is overrated! Right?

hazyintentions said:

Yeah . Exactly, because we all know that looking at two sides of an argument is overrated! Right?

Click to expand...

2 sides, one reality

in the end someone has to be an idiot

ginjawarrior said:

i've watched you asking same dumb questions for 2 years thats plenty of time to form an opinion..

when someone comes here with a bunch of "facts/lies" and they say all info is on linked website and first thing i see is "was Steve Jobs killed by illuminati" that too is all i need to form an opinion

Click to expand...

I understand totally bro, but I think it is somewhat presumptuous to dismiss all the information just because of one hypothetical scenario submitted by readers. Don't you? If you are reading the NY Times and they get the wrong name of someone do you then dismiss all their info as being wrong? If a professor at college said something wrong, should you dismiss all of his words? You can't dismiss one because of the other, each must be taken to task on their own merits. I know it's just so easy to call all of it conspiracy theory and that hopefully will give it all a taint of illegitimacy so that you can just go on without ever thinking that perhaps such things do really occur. Presidents do try to hide things, Federal Agencies really do try to create false flag operations to get public sentiment, military men really do make up stories of ocean attacks to get involved in war, and more importantly power and money. It's all just conspiracy theory until it is proven correct, then they call it investigative journalism.

deprave said:

I think the better question is why would they lower it, whats the point of that?

Click to expand...

because people get more applications of fluoride nowadays than they did at the advent of fluoridated water. duh.