|
Xiahou Dun posted:????????????? It's a solvent.
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 08:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 20:38 |
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:I'm not letting you start framing this thread, MIGF. I don't know anything else about the Jewish conspiracies. If you want to critique David Duke, write him a letter. To "frame" a thread you need that star quality. You don't evince it sorry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 09:00
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:Nice straw-man. It's not a straw-man. He's pointing out that chlorine is extremely electronegative, just like fluorine. Your argument was that fluorine is bad for health in any dosage because of its electronegativity, so it would follow that chlorine would be bad for health for the same reason. But you don't have an issue with table salt, despite it containing chlorine e: It's similar to an argument that I made with oxygen, another electronegative element that you have no problem using. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 09:04 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:It's a solvent. ???????????
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 09:04
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Why? The water all gets fluoridated in a single place, meaning that the inclusion of any lead contamination from water fluoridation would result in an approximately homogenous mixture throughout the city. A far more likely explanation is that lead pipes in the city water mains and in homes, features that were common until the 1980s, introduce a difficult-to-predict amount of lead contamination on a home-by-home basis. I wouldn't expect a barrel of 500 tons of acid to have a homogeneous contamination. The bulk of it is hydrofluosilicic acid. It's simply impure. It's especially believable that it is impure since it originates as industrial waste and it would take costly processes to ensure its purity. quote:If there was a conspiracy then the results wouldn't have been published in the first place You can't get to everyone. QuarkJets posted:It's not a straw-man. He's pointing out that chlorine is extremely electronegative, just like fluorine. Your argument was that fluorine is bad for health in any dosage because of its electronegativity, so it would follow that chlorine would be bad for health for the same reason. But you don't have an issue with table salt, despite it containing chlorine Chlorine's electronegativity is an entire unit lower, and I will say I'm actually pretty scared of oxygen. Don't scientists think that the Earth use to have higher concentrations of oxygen in the atmosphere and essentially the atmosphere was constantly on fire? I'm basically willing to cede and admit it's all good and safe if you can show me how municipalities purify hydrofluosilicic acid. SedanChair posted:To "frame" a thread you need that star quality. You don't evince it sorry. I tried. Maybe some day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 09:16
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:I wouldn't expect a barrel of 500 tons of acid to have a homogeneous contamination. The bulk of it is hydrofluosilicic acid. It's simply impure. It's especially believable that it is impure since it originates as industrial waste and it would take costly processes to ensure its purity. Here I got you this oxygen shield put over your head and tie it real tight
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 09:28
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:I wouldn't expect a barrel of 500 tons of acid to have a homogeneous contamination. The bulk of it is hydrofluosilicic acid. It's simply impure. It's especially believable that it is impure since it originates as industrial waste and it would take costly processes to ensure its purity. Even if you don't expect the concentration of lead within the barrel to be of constant density, you should still expect the distribution of lead added to the water system to wind up being of constant density over volume, just not over time. Unless the homes were tested months apart, there's no reason to expect homes next to each other to have wildly varying lead levels unless one house has lead pipes and the other doesn't. You also haven't bothered to prove that fluorosilicic acid comes with sufficient lead contaminants to effect an EPA measurement, or that any lead measurements are definitely from contamination that came from fluorosilicic acid dosages rather than old lead pipes that exist throughout the country, especially in older cities like Chicago. The observations are much more accurately explained by the existence of lead pipes and soil leeching than by your unphysical description of how fluorosilicic acid is added to water supplies. quote:You can't get to everyone. Unless it's a huge international conspiracy to bomb Tower 7, apparently quote:Chlorine's electronegativity is an entire unit lower, and I will say I'm actually pretty scared of oxygen. Don't scientists think that the Earth use to have higher concentrations of oxygen in the atmosphere and essentially the atmosphere was constantly on fire? No, the Earth's atmosphere was never "constantly on fire", unless your definition of "on fire" is so loose that it includes today's atmospheric conditions. In actuality, people play with varying oxygen concentrations all the time (for medical and recreational uses) in amounts that far exceed any oxygen level measured in the geologic record without ill effects. You shouldn't breathe pure oxygen, but a 30% oxygen mixture (vs the 20% that you normally breathe) is perfectly safe. If you're afraid of too much fluorine and too much oxygen, then you should be afraid of literally everything. In sufficient quantities, drinking pure water can kill you. Anything can kill you if you take enough of it. This fact alone is not enough to drat any substance; what's important to know is effect as a function of dosage. Fluorine, in the quantities with which it is added to municipal water supplies, is not any more dangerous than the water itself. quote:I'm basically willing to cede and admit it's all and safe if you can show me how municipalities purify hydrofluosilicic acid. No, see, that's not my job. It's up to you to prove that water fluoridation is bad for you. You haven't done this. You've come up with some unproven hypotheses. Now it's time for you to prove them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 09:51
|
|
|
clearly the danger of a chemical can be broken down to a single electronegativity so given a choice between sodium flouride and dimethyl mercury one should always choose dimethyl mercury (to experience the fleeting nature of human life, first consciuosly and then as a vegetable)
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 09:58
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!|
It's remarkable how AddMe cites an EPA report as evidence that flouride is bad for you that I openly quoted in the thread to the contrary. Its findings were mixed or ambiguous about the health effects of fluoride in certain specific areas, but its conclusions were nonetheless quite positive; AddMe's take away was that it was extremely negative. He is clearly pretty blind even to easy to read evidence placed right in front of him, I'm not sure it is possible to reach him. In a way I admire it. Addme's persistence in the face of reality is a tribute to the power of the human spirit - but only the same way that storing your bodily fluids in jars for a year is. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 10:01 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 09:59
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:It was in areas with already high levels for sure, but they did get good data showing neurological damage. We've moved on a bit to questioning whether hydrofluosilicic acid (the chemical added to water supplies and obtained from industrial waste) could be contaminated with lead and arsenic from the industrial process. The argument was made that hydrofluosilicic acid is reacted with other chemicals prior to being added to the water to remove impurity, and if anyone can prove that and show me how cities convert hydrofluosilicic acid into sodium fluoride before adding it to the water, I'll be satisfied. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexafluorosilicic_acid Eyeballing it, it looks like a convenient method of storing reactive fluorine in a stable medium for transport. Sodium is readily available and generally safe for human consumption in smallish doses, so sodium fluoride makes sense as a method for actually ingesting fluoride and is understood to have beneficial effects on bones and teeth when ingested orally. Sodium fluoride can be prepared from fluorosiclic acid by exposing it to sodium hydroxide which is more or less the bog standard alkaline solution used in chemistry, which would give you sodium fluoride and some combination of hydrogen, oxygen, and silicon. AddMEonFacebook posted:Impurities in the hydrofluosilicic acid wouldn't be consistent throughout, and so this is the kind of result I would expect. Only when impure chemicals were added would we find excessive levels of contamination, so I don't think we need 29 of 29 to question whether this might be from impure chemicals labeled as fluoride. Alternatively possibly Chicago is a major city with a long industrial history and so it probably has a lot of problems with lead contamination in general. It has nothing to do with fluoride and everything to do with it being Chicago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 10:20
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:????????????? AddMe is a neo-nazi, despite what evidence may or may not indicate. To disagree with this is to make a strawman. Hey, you loving nazi scum, whens your next psychotherapy appointment? 'cause you could really use it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 10:47
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:It was in areas with already high levels for sure, but they did get good data showing neurological damage. We've moved on a bit to questioning whether hydrofluosilicic acid (the chemical added to water supplies and obtained from industrial waste) could be contaminated with lead and arsenic from the industrial process. The argument was made that hydrofluosilicic acid is reacted with other chemicals prior to being added to the water to remove impurity, and if anyone can prove that and show me how cities convert hydrofluosilicic acid into sodium fluoride before adding it to the water, I'll be satisfied. Do you have any studies from that where the text is publically available? The ones from China that I saw on fluoride and IQ didn't really attempt to account for confounding factors. To be fair, the conclusions tended to note that they weren't accounting for confounding factors, but that places them in the "more study necessary" rather than "conclusive evidence" category. Edit: For example - an older one, but one of the first results that shows up: Effect of a High Fluoride Water Supply on Children's Intelligence - the final paragraph is: quote:As expected, and also found here, the educational level of the parents has a significant positive influence on the children’s IQ. However, other factors that might affect children’s IQ need to be considered as well, and further studies are therefore needed both to confirm the present findings and to elucidate the mechanism of fluoride involvement. Also, the high fluoride group of children were exposed to 4.12 mg/L of fluoride, which is like four to five times the recommended level of fluoridation in the US. And using the standard estimate of three liters of water per day, is actually above what's considered the tolerable upper limit of fluoride ingestion per day (tolerable upper limit for teenagers to adults is 10mg per day - the children in the high fluoride group would've been getting over 12mg per day.) moebius2778 fucked around with this message at 11:01 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 10:55
|
|
|
The number of contaminants the average Chinese child is exposed to boggles the mind, I'm not surprised there is a high occurrence of neurological damage - it doesn't even surprise me, necessarily, that flouride might be causing it. What the poo poo that has to do with conspiracies in the USA is an entirely different question.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 11:06
|
|
Disinterested posted:The number of contaminants the average Chinese child is exposed to boggles the mind, I'm not surprised there is a high occurrence of neurological damage - it doesn't even surprise me, necessarily, that flouride might be causing it. What the poo poo that has to do with conspiracies in the USA is an entirely different question. he's schizophrenic. also an idiot and stupid as gently caress about chemistry (and also literally everything else) why are you arguing with the mental equivalent of a brick wall. gently caress at least a brick wall erodes over time he'll be decades dead before he caves
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 11:10
|
|
wheez the roux posted:he's schizophrenic. also an idiot and stupid as gently caress about chemistry (and also literally everything else) I just wanted to take my turn seeing for myself how utterly impenetrable he is.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
Allright, at this point it's clear he's being a troll, and a poor one at that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 11:44
|
|
Tias posted:Allright, at this point it's clear he's being a troll, and a poor one at that. The David Duke thing is a thinly veiled troll at best, I think.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 11:45
|
|
|
I just skipped the last 10 pages, did I miss anything beyond the troll?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:The David Duke thing is a thinly veiled troll at best, I think. Considering the number of times he's been probated for bad posts even for FYAD I think is a good indication as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:I really don't have the time to go tracking down municipal purchase orders. Call your city government and ask them who they buy their fluoride from if you're so interested. It's like you're some sort of conspiracy chatbot. How many accounts do you have on prisonplanet? AddMEonFacebook posted:Basically I am framing the thread so you're kind of forced to respond to me and I'm not letting people just run away with ridiculous straw-mans about conspiracy theorists. Or, you know, the dozen or so primary posters in the thread could start ignoring you and we could go back to making fun of sovereign citizens and the Third Eagle of the Apocalypse. edit AddMEonFacebook posted:I really hope this doesn't de-rail the thread, but why not... Congressman Scalise? Sir Tonk fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Trolled. Trolled so hard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
I can't be bothered reading 101 pages of discussion but what is the current topic of this thread? Zionist? Holohoax? Not sure
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
Yes
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
can we change the thread title to: "Admin with gimmick account tries really hard to be TobleroneTriangular"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
astupiddvdcase posted:I can't be bothered reading 101 pages of discussion but what is the current topic of this thread? Major topics: building 7 and fluoridation in water. Using the holohaux straw-man, I see. I still don't understand why you would think impure chemicals would produce lead contamination in 100% of homes. The contamination may be in some barrels and not in others, and you wouldn't expect there to be contamination in 100% of homes. That's perfectly sensible. There could be other causes, but if the cause is lead pipes, then I think you would expect there to be 100% contamination in homes with lead pipes and it would be easy to pin that down. Saying Chicago sucks doesn't solve anything. Chicago is the third most populous city in the United States and if their water is polluted, it's an issue affecting millions of Americans. The main point the article seemed to make is that the testing procedures are out of date and more should be done to update the testing procedures. It's either being caused by contaminants or they are getting away with having lead pipes. Both situations are a health concern, and it would benefit the people of Chicago to discover the truth. People wouldn't buy homes that they know have lead pipes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:It's remarkable how AddMe cites an EPA report as evidence that flouride is bad for you that I openly quoted in the thread to the contrary. Its findings were mixed or ambiguous about the health effects of fluoride in certain specific areas, but its conclusions were nonetheless quite positive; AddMe's take away was that it was extremely negative. He is clearly pretty blind even to easy to read evidence placed right in front of him, I'm not sure it is possible to reach him. I just find it rather tenuous considering they don't do any neurological studies. To conclude something is safe and ought to be added to everyone's water, don't you think they ought to do some studies on that instead of just concluding it's safe based on it's effects on bone disease? quote:standard ad-hom
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
itt we learn that goonspiracy theorists are control freaks and overestimate how much detail is available about things built before computers became widespread
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
Alex DeLarge posted:can we change the thread title to: "Admin with gimmick account tries really hard to be TobleroneTriangular"? lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
At near neutral pH SiF62− + 2 H2O → 6 F− + SiO2 + 4 H+ So it breaks down on its own. Any other science questions I can help with?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Does it matter that water fluoridation was done with NaF for a very long time, thereby negating any claim that it's all a big conspiracy to dump minute quantities into our drinking water?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:I just find it rather tenuous considering they don't do any neurological studies. To conclude something is safe and ought to be added to everyone's water, don't you think they ought to do some studies on that instead of just concluding it's safe based on it's effects on bone disease? Previous researchers had already done neurological studies. This is why I keep emphasizing the importance of dosage. The EPA requirements were already way below what it takes for neurological damage to occur
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Previous researchers had already done neurological studies. This is why I keep emphasizing the importance of dosage. The EPA requirements were already way below what it takes for neurological damage to occur idiotfromfacebook is a literal manchild who either can't be arsed or is incapable of googling things and reading a few pages of text before going  IT'S A CONSPIRACY people like him are exhibit a for how the largest most easy to access collection of information in world history is completely wasted on idiots suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
please close this thread
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:32
|
|
Tater Love 
|
zakharov posted:please close this thread No, just ban putmeontheblacklist from posting in here and the posting quality will rise sharply.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Jesus with the ad-homs. That's a really over-flattering view of the internet. People think they can get all their information on the internet and so they stop doing experiments themselves, and it makes them retarded. The internet is basically a giant scam platform for getting money from idiots. I'd say a good one third to one half of wikipedia articles have errant information. Sorry I don't believe everything I'm told by the government right away and I like to have certainty about things that affect public health and my health personally. QuarkJets posted:Previous researchers had already done neurological studies. This is why I keep emphasizing the importance of dosage. The EPA requirements were already way below what it takes for neurological damage to occur What I had read and quoted here from scientists says that there are virtually no studies done in the US. Can you post a study or are you just making stuff up now out of wishful thinking? The studies done in other countries show a negative impact, but I do admit they were exposed to higher doses than what is claimed to be present in US drinking water. The doses added to water should be extremely low. What concerns me is they are adding too much or that the chemicals they are using are impure. Should we really trust the government to distribute doses of fluoride through the drinking water in safe amounts or do you think maybe they'll gently caress it up and/or give into corruption when they're told to up the doses to an unsafe level? Shbobdb posted:At near neutral pH This doesn't remove impurities. It just shows the ionization. It's also transported in an acidic pH. Can you show how the acid is ionized or will you just copy/paste wikipedia again? AddMEonFacebook fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:I still don't understand why you would think impure chemicals would produce lead contamination in 100% of homes. The contamination may be in some barrels and not in others, and you wouldn't expect there to be contamination in 100% of homes. That's perfectly sensible. There could be other causes, but if the cause is lead pipes, then I think you would expect there to be 100% contamination in homes with lead pipes and it would be easy to pin that down. You'd expect contamination in all homes that draw from the same source. If you took a pouch of lead dust and poured all of that into the water at a water treatment plant, before too long every home drawing from that source would have an approximately equal distribution of lead coming out of the faucet. And while you're trying to pin lead levels on a single source (fluoride), lead contamination is better known as coming from lead pipes (most common) and from residual lead left in the groundwater from back when we burned leaded gasoline in our cars. There are also countless industrial waste products containing lead, which could be leaking into the groundwater that feeds back into the Chicago water supply. Given all of these confounding factors, how could you possibly believe that fluoride contamination is the primary source for lead to have reached these Chicago homes? Your explanation requires that I accept a lot more assumptions on faith (that none of the pipes are leaded, that the lead contamination coming from fluoridation is part of a nonphysical liquid that doesn't mix solids well like other liquids, that industrial lead isn't contaminating the water supply, etc.) quote:There could be other causes, but if the cause is lead pipes, then I think you would expect there to be 100% contamination in homes with lead pipes and it would be easy to pin that down. Except that it wouldn't be easy to pin down, because lead pipes can be literally anywhere in the house or in the city water lines. You might have an entire neighborhood with slightly higher lead levels, or just a stretch of homes, or just random individual homes with contamination. And then there's also the problem that lead pipes don't always leak lead into the water supply; lead doesn't dissolve in water on its own, it must bind with other compounds first. This makes it extremely difficult to pin down whether or not a city water line has some lead pipe in it quote:Saying Chicago sucks doesn't solve anything. Chicago is the third most populous city in the United States and if their water is polluted, it's an issue affecting millions of Americans. The main point the article seemed to make is that the testing procedures are out of date and more should be done to update the testing procedures. This is a strawman; I never said that we should ignore lead in the water supply. I said that you have no proof that the lead detected in the story was coming primarily from water fluoridation; and you still don't! I provided a number of more likely explanations for detectable lead contamination in Chicago quote:It's either being caused by contaminants or they are getting away with having lead pipes. Both situations are a health concern, and it would benefit the people of Chicago to discover the truth. People wouldn't buy homes that they know have lead pipes. Lead pipes were still being used in homes and in city water mains through the 1980s in some areas, and it's not required that these pipes be replaced. Lead pipe is also often allowed to be used for nonpotable sources, which can introduce additional lead contamination in groundwater. A lot of homeowners aren't even really aware of the potential danger (which is admittedly pretty low). And people do buy homes that they know have lead pipes. A home purchase is a complex decisions that has a lot more factoring into it than "does this place have lead pipes, or do the pipes leading to this house potentially have lead pipes?" Many homeowners aren't aware that they have lead pipes, many are aware and choose to ignore the issue, and most cities can't afford to dig up and replace all of their lead pipes even if they're aware of which pipes might be lead (which is not a guarantee)
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:You'd expect contamination in all homes that draw from the same source. If you took a pouch of lead dust and poured all of that into the water at a water treatment plant, before too long every home drawing from that source would have an approximately equal distribution of lead coming out of the faucet. Agree to disagree, I guess. I can kind of get where you're coming from, but I don't think the diffusion is fast enough to actually create a equal distribution of contamination. IF you dumped a whole lot of lead (like from a pouch), you'd probably see it everywhere, but there isn't enough lead to actually contaminate the entire supply, only parts of it. I guess you're right that people will generally ignore health risks if they are constrained by socioeconomic factors. Still, it would lower the value of the home significantly, at the very least, if it were known. These things should be better data-based so home-buyers can be more informed and don't get ripped off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
 Now imagine the horse is also repeating bullshit over and over.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:I'll continue to reply to people who actually make good points and people who are doing research and are actually trying to understand things with epistemological certainty. You might draw the correct conclusion, but if you don't know why you hold that conclusion, what good is it really? That's why conspiracy theories are important. They make you question your epistemology and should force you to come up with evidence instead of just holding a position because it's popular or because you're told.  Shall I prove this view is idiotic now, or would you prefer to revert to joke troll mode beforehand?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 20:38 |
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:Agree to disagree, I guess. I can kind of get where you're coming from, but I don't think the diffusion is fast enough to actually create a equal distribution of contamination. quote:IF you dumped a whole lot of lead (like from a pouch), you'd probably see it everywhere, but there isn't enough lead to actually contaminate the entire supply, only parts of it. quote:I guess you're right that people will generally ignore health risks if they are constrained by socioeconomic factors. Still, it would lower the value of the home significantly, at the very least, if it were known. These things should be better data-based so home-buyers can be more informed and don't get ripped off. blowfish posted:itt we learn that goonspiracy theorists are control freaks and overestimate how much detail is available about things built before computers became widespread you would be surprised by how much asbestos firebrick and lead piping gets pulled out of homes and schools and office buildings that nobody realised was there till something broke or how often nobody can figure out where pipes and wires even go in buildings that got modified in a hurry twenty years back AddMEonFacebook posted:Jesus with the ad-homs. That's a really over-flattering view of the internet. People think they can get all their information on the internet and so they stop doing experiments themselves, and it makes them retarded. quote:The internet is basically a giant scam platform for getting money from idiots. I'd say a good one third to one half of wikipedia articles have errant information. Sorry I don't believe everything I'm told by the government right away and I like to have certainty about things that affect public health and my health personally. quote:What I had read and quoted here from scientists says that there are virtually no studies done in the US. quote:Can you post a study or are you just making stuff up now out of wishful thinking? The studies done in other countries show a negative impact, but I do admit they were exposed to higher doses than what is claimed to be present in US drinking water.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:34
|
|