~MOTHERS Protect Your Children~

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Organic Living, Nov 20, 2003.

  1. David Wright

    David Wright Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Organic Living <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> >The Fluoride you are talking about IS NOT NATURAL.

    >>
    >> Sure it is. It doesn't contain any antimatter.

    >
    >Yes.. sure as natural as a H-Bomb.. By your definition.. Or does that
    >contain Anti-matter?


    The H-bomb is just a local equivalent of the Sun. How natural can you
    get?

    >> >Fluorine is a trace element, and is not even a required element for human
    >> >development.

    >>
    >> Nobody really knows about that. In mice and rats, it *is* required.
    >> For humans, we're not really sure.

    >
    >And Fluorine is Not the same "Fluoride" which is a Toxic and hazardous waste
    >product..


    Yeah -- fluorine is an element, and it's so reactive that it's never
    found on earth in its elemental state. It's always in some sort of
    compound. You know, like sodium fluoride, or stannous fluroide, or,
    for that matter (for you history buffs), uranium hexafluoride.

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
    were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
     


  2. "Zannah" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > In article <y%[email protected]>,
    > [email protected] (David Wright) wrote:
    >
    > > In article <_vevb.59$G[email protected]>,
    > > Organic Living <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > >-=-=-=-=-=-
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >MOTHERS
    > > >PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN
    > > >
    > > >WHAT You are about to READ may shock you. It may enrage you, you may
    > > >wonder how is this possible? But..

    > >
    > > But it's the usual set of lies about propylene glycol, SLS and SLES.
    > > Carefully worded to make them sound just awful. I could make water
    > > sound awful if I were as inventive as these jerks. (Which I actually
    > > am, but it's not worth the effort.)

    >
    > Anyway, someone beat you to it. Look at http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
    > if you want to see the dangers of water.


    I tried to point this out upthread,but Organic said 'up yours.'
     
  3. "Organic Living" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > > >The Fluoride you are talking about IS NOT NATURAL.

    > >
    > > Sure it is. It doesn't contain any antimatter.

    >
    > Yes.. sure as natural as a H-Bomb.. By your definition.. Or does that
    > contain Anti-matter?


    It contains deuterium, which is all natural.

    > > >Fluorine is a trace element, and is not even a required element for

    human
    > > >development.

    > >
    > > Nobody really knows about that. In mice and rats, it *is* required.
    > > For humans, we're not really sure.

    >
    > And Fluorine is Not the same "Fluoride" which is a Toxic and hazardous

    waste
    > product..


    Dip yourself in a vat of pure F2 and come out singing those words.
     
  4. Mr. 4X

    Mr. 4X Guest

    [email protected] (David Wright) wrote in message
    news:y%[email protected]:

    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > Organic Living <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>-=-=-=-=-=-
    >>
    >>
    >>MOTHERS
    >>PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN
    >>
    >>WHAT You are about to READ may shock you. It may enrage you, you may
    >>wonder how is this possible? But..

    >
    > But it's the usual set of lies about propylene glycol, SLS and SLES.
    > Carefully worded to make them sound just awful. I could make water
    > sound awful if I were as inventive as these jerks. (Which I actually
    > am, but it's not worth the effort.)
    >
    >>I URGE YOU..
    >>
    >>DO NOT JUST ACCEPT IT. Investigate it yourself!

    >
    > Yep. And if you'll do, you'll discover that the anonymous poster
    > (don't you love spammers who use anti-spam precautions?) is lying
    > his or her ass off.
    >
    >>DID YOU KNOW? In 1901 cancer was considered a rare disease. Statistics
    >>show that 1 out of 1000 developed some form of cancer. Today, according
    >>to the American Cancer Society, 1 out of 4 people develop some form of
    >>cancer requiring medical intervention.

    >
    > That's because cancer is primarily a disease of older people. In
    > 1901, life expectancy at birth as 47.


    Also, there is sure a lot more and worse air pollution today than in 1901.

    >>TOOTHPASTE containing Fluoride is poisonous!

    >
    > That's why you're not supposed to swallow it, a precaution that anyone
    > over the age of 7 should be able to handle just fine.
    >
    > -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    > These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    > "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
    > were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
    >
    >
    >
     
  5. David Wright

    David Wright Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Mr. 4X <[email protected]> wrote:
    >[email protected] (David Wright) wrote in message
    >news:y%[email protected]:
    >
    >> In article <[email protected]>,
    >> Organic Living <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>-=-=-=-=-=-
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>MOTHERS
    >>>PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN
    >>>
    >>>DID YOU KNOW? In 1901 cancer was considered a rare disease. Statistics
    >>>show that 1 out of 1000 developed some form of cancer. Today, according
    >>>to the American Cancer Society, 1 out of 4 people develop some form of
    >>>cancer requiring medical intervention.

    >>
    >> That's because cancer is primarily a disease of older people. In
    >> 1901, life expectancy at birth as 47.

    >
    >Also, there is sure a lot more and worse air pollution today than in 1901.


    I'm not sure that air pollution is worse today than in 1901. It just
    comes from different sources. In many ways, air pollution may have
    peaked in the 1950-1970 region.

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
    were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
     
  6. Eric Bohlman

    Eric Bohlman Guest

    [email protected] (David Wright) wrote in
    news:5wtzb.2974$%[email protected]:

    >>Also, there is sure a lot more and worse air pollution today than in
    >>1901.

    >
    > I'm not sure that air pollution is worse today than in 1901. It just
    > comes from different sources. In many ways, air pollution may have
    > peaked in the 1950-1970 region.


    True, and most of the air pollution in 1901 would have come from the large-
    scale burning of coal, which, especially back then with no scrubber
    technology, would have been particularly nasty, full of highly carcinogenic
    polycyclic aromatic compounds.
     
Loading...