I have been reading a lot of /x/ tier conspiracy-esque articles lately about most things. What tends to pop up a lot is ''pollutants'' in the air, water and food etc. Is there any ground for this to be a valid concern, or are the conecentrations of pharmaceuticals, and other stuff simply too low to impact a third party interaction with these substances?
t. haven't had a glass of water in 50 hours
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
if someone ever tells you "X is a mind control drug, a poison, a sedative" etc., you need to realize that too much or too little of any one substance can cause problems. Poison is about the dose, not the substance.
Well actually there is an annoying contradiction with the argument FOR fluoride.
Their argument says:
Statement 1.) its good for teeth and oral hygiene
Rebuttal 1.) it only spends a minimal amount of time on your teeth before you swallow the water and it goes straight to your stomach, and if it somehow crosses the gut wall, it will cause flaws in those same teeth and bones.
Statement 2.) Well if its not good for your teeth it must be there to kill bacteria. Yes, that has to be the reason.
Rebuttal 2.) If it can kill bacterial cells it can sure as hell kill human cells, therefore its bad to swallow and ingest fluoridated water and products.
Statement 3.) No see your human body has billions of cells and therefore can afford to lose and replace a few, whereas the water supply is not contaminated by billions of cells its only a few... losing a few cells through fluoridation is much more preferable than loosing... a few... cells... from bacteria... humm
Rebuttal 3.) Who decided that i had to choose between those options. There are chemicals slightly more safe than fluoride, why arnt we just using those instead? This is a restricting the options fallacy. And lets not forget the government doesnt say that fluoride is an acceptable loss, it says the fluoride is completely safe to ingest throughout the course of ones life. We could easily see a latency period in the effects of fluoride and it could be our generations version of asbestos.
As you can see ive demonstrated here that the logic behind using fluoride is deeply flawed. Atleast its a restricting the options fallacy or even a necessary and sufficient conditions confusion fallacy.
However if someone tries to link this with a global conspiracy that is somehow all powerful and responsible for the reason they as people cannot get ahead in life; like ancient aliens or devils then this is most likely a circular argument fallacy.
>it only spends a minimal amount of time on your teeth
So? I once got a glob of vegatable oil on my arm when frying, instant burn, it was there less than a second. Time need not be material.
I dont think youve understood my argument.
Fluoride is not like hot oil. Fuoride is diluted significantly so that it does not immediatly acid-burn you. Having a dilute substance on your teeth for at most the time it takes to swallow, 0.5 seconds, is not long enough for it to have any measurable effect and i dont think any research has ever been conducted to prove that it does.
This then begs the question, why was fluoridation introduced in the past without significant drug trails.
So you think chemical reactions take place on time scales greater than a second?
Have you never performed a basic gen. chem. or orgo experiment?
Considering that the rate of reaction of a dilute substance is slower than a concentrated one.
Yes.
Not in years. The point is there's no particular reason to think that times scales on the order of a second is insufficient for something to happen.
But that doesn't mean anything, it could be something happens on nanoseconds, being longer could then imply microseconds.
Fluoride aside, in the case of pharmaceuticals wich caught my eye. Since there have been several large scale studies done in both the US, Canada and Europe, do the minimal exposure we might be prone to like parts per trillion have any effect?
Plastics is a real concern. It's everywhere and it has unknown consequences, but some has already been studied, such as the estrogenic effect it has on the organism. Microplastic also affect the food chain.
There's also mercury.
>The point is there's no particular reason to think that times scales on the order of a second is insufficient for something to happen.
Well... i suggest you go back to school honestly.
Rate of reactions is one of the first things they teach you. Heat increases rate of reaction. Dilution decreases it. Enzymes increase the rate of reaction for their specific substance. Breaking up a solid or concentrating a gas will increase rate of reaction.
Short answer: maybe
You don't get it, or you're being purposely obtuse. Saying "dilution decreases the rate of reaction" might be true (I don't remember much chemistry, so I don't know), but that argument is meaningless here, since you've not demonstrated that it's an insufficient amount of time. Again I can only say that if it does slow down, then it's possible to slow down from a nanosecond to a millisecond and still be in the mouth for a sufficient amount of time.
If you can't understand this then there's no point in continuing. And I would suggest that it is you that needs to go back to school until you've acquired some basic critical thinking faculties.
Will i turn into a woman if i drink tap water?
Ok im going to try to deal with these subjects as quickly as possible.
1.) Antibiotics
Antibiotics are a bit of a hazard, even though their proscribed widely. Obviously they dont kill viruses, so dont take them for your cold, but that is not why were here. The problem lays in that your body has both good bacteria and bad bacteria, and the gut bacteria of your country of residence or diet. Antibiotics kill ALL of these without discriminating between good or bad bacteria. Killing good bacteria can actually leave you open to other illnesses, at the very least open to new colonisation. The gut bacteria may also help you in ways not well understood, such as your digestion. Killing them may result in a lack of vitamins or increased toxicity of your food.
2.) Vaccines.
Taking vaccines containing thimerosal (mercury) is retarded no matter what way you look at it, even in small doses mercury can be damaging. Consider that some mother will have her child vaccinated with mercury and then refuse to feed that same child tuna from a can because it might contain mercury. The problem as some have stated, is not that a small amount of mercury is in the vaccine, but that doctors in the US recommend as many a 30 vaccines to children and their parents before the age of 5. No was regulating or even considering what would happen if you had 30 times the amount of mercury in your body. Lasly, the argument is often stated that the mercury will leave in the urine before it has a chance to do any damage. But not for people with urine and kidney damage, but when was the last time someone asked you if you had either of these before giving you a vaccine? When was the last time someone asked you how many other vaccines you had this week? As you can see, the argument is illogical.
Continued with part 3.
Im beginning to think you are a troll.
I am the author of this post:
There i clearly use critical thinking. Now you accuse me of not knowing critical thinking.
Also, critical thinking is not taught in any schools. This proves you really dont know what your talking about. Also rate of reaction is basic school level knowledge and you still dont understand it.
Stop speaking to me.
>but that doctors in the US recommend as many a 30 vaccines to children and their parents before the age of 5.
And of those vaccines, how many do you think actually contain thimerosal?
I see there is no point in continuing. Good day user.
3.) Estrogen and POPs
Estrogen is not just contained in the fertility treatments women take which end up in the water supply. Its also contained in; detergents we use to clean things with, pesticides we use to kill bugs and plastics we use to contain everything. It also leaches into the water supply. There is presently no way to remove it form the water so it will continue to concentrate there year on year. Increases in estrogen can cause very distressing results including increase in the likelihood of cancer in both men and women. It can also cause a sort of low level sex change which might be the cause of all these gender politics now. Lastly, every cell in a mans body operates primarily off of testosterone meaning it can be very unhealthy to circumvent that by flooding the body with estrogen, which in concentration can outcompete the testosterone. This will essentially shut down certain aspects of the male metabolism.
POPs or persistent organic pollutants are plastics eaten by animals that build up in their bodies. If a creature higher up the food chain eats these animals they will have even more POPs in their system and it will continue to concentrate.
>And of those vaccines, how many do you think actually contain thimerosal?
No one is checking. Thats the point. Maybe you could be the first.
en.wikipedia.org
>To test the hypothesis that adding fluoride would prevent cavities, Dean and his colleagues conducted a controlled experiment by fluoridating the water in Grand Rapids, Michigan, starting January 25, 1945. The results, published in 1950, showed significant reduction of cavities.[35][99]
Fluoridation is good for your teeth. You can stop now.
How about:
>Not medicating the public.
> Lastly, every cell in a mans body operates primarily off of testosterone meaning it can be very unhealthy to circumvent that by flooding the body with estrogen, which in concentration can outcompete the testosterone. This will essentially shut down certain aspects of the male metabolism.
What the FUCK are you talking rofl. You don't know how hormones work, do you?
That's purely correlative and isn't a proper study.
>This then begs the question, why was fluoridation introduced in the past without significant drug trails.
Source?
>Other studies found no other significant adverse effects even in areas with fluoride levels as high as 8 mg/L.
>By present-day standards these and other pioneering studies were crude, but the large reductions in cavities convinced public health professionals of the benefits of fluoridation
Ok so no long term studies were conducted. Such as a latent period before negative symptoms of fluoride.
Even if fluoride was concentrated enough to kill bacteria that cause tooth decay. It still spends roughly 0.5 of a second on your teeth before you swallow the water and it goes down to your gut. If fluoride was good for teeth why are we including the stomach into the bargain.
As i have said, it is a restricting the options fallacy.
It is also entertaining to think that you didnt not critically analyse your own source and instead stopped when you found something you thought proved you right. This is a conformation bias.
>Source?
Drugs studies in 1920s are inferior to those conducted today.
QED.
You are an idiot
What is the consensus on this? Are the pharma and other shit harmful at the levels present and should i buy into the Alex Jones memes and get a filter?
>>antibiotics
the biggest issue with antibiotics is that we over use them and this is causing bacterial resistance to evolve faster. Antibiotics in soap don't make the soap much more effective than regular soap.
>every cell in a mans body operates primarily off of testosterone
Wrong.
If we wanted to defeat bacteria we would ALL take ALL antibiotic types on the same day at the same time to kill as many strains of bacteria as possible.
Antibiotics are supplied in the way you discribe because it is the most profitable for the pharmaceutical companies, not because it is the most effective.
We need to increase our use not decrease and ration it. Because rationing will just see the price increase and the poorer sections of society will not be able to pay and thus the bacteria will be present mostly in the poor sections of society. This strategy solves nothing.
Ok, i suppose red blood cells dont operate off testosterone, being that they dont have a nucleus. However given that fact i doubt they are actually true cells.
But most every other cell does. Prove me wrong.
>this whole post
If your just going to cast doubt on everything i say without posting a source then im going to doubt your doubting.
According to wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org
>Free testosterone (T) is transported into the cytoplasm of target tissue cells, where it can bind to the androgen receptor,
>androgen receptor is a type of nuclear receptor
>nuclear receptors are a class of proteins found within cells that are responsible for sensing steroid and thyroid hormones and certain other molecules.
OR
>The T-receptor (where T stands for testosterone)... undergoes a structural change that allows it to move into the cell nucleus and bind directly to specific nucleotide sequences of the chromosomal DNA.
OR
>The bones and the brain are two important tissues in humans where the primary effect of testosterone is by way of aromatization to estradiol.
So the summary conclusion of this post is that testosterone is used in "target tissue cells".
There are ofcourse likely other cells which use T which are as yet unknown.
This thread has been plagued by a particular troll poster. I propose that you are that same troll poster.
>If we wanted to defeat bacteria we would ALL take ALL antibiotic types on the same day at the same time to kill as many strains of bacteria as possible.
>as possible
Therein lies the problem brainlet
>This thread
Holy shit, the absolute state of this board.
>Therein lies the problem brainlet
Are you referring to the problem i just explained for you? Is that why i am a brainlet?
Because i created an argument that led you to a conclusion and somehow i am the brainlet?
Debate more.
>Holy shit, the absolute state of this board
I dont see you proving any of it wrong.
Bring it.
>If it can kill bacterial cells it can sure as hell kill human cell
You sure about that? Does any Beta-Lactam derivative kill human cells for instance?
Shhhhh.. we don't know what we're talking about.
Target tissue cells are specific parts of the body. That's not a general effect like mhc display for example.
If we would take all antibiotics at the same time we'd be: dead and there'd be superresistant bugs.
Studies of 16-17 years aren't long term? Wut?
Also, if the demographic this study was done on doesn't massively report problems with their general health or chronic diarrhea or some shit, why would you ever assume it's hazardous for human health (protip: it's not)
You think an anionic superreactive atom of this kin is going to manifest itself in the body and stay latent for 20 years? You clearly don't know (bio)chemistry very well.
The only merit your arguments have is that it could've been a mouthwash instead of put in drinking water. However, it's in drinking water already naturally and has shown no adverse effects on the population drinking it.
I've stopped because it was 7-8 long term studies spanning from 5-17 years done in different places in the world all coming to the same conclusion. This is how widespread consensus is formed. If you have a flaw in the system and can show in a reasonable matter that fluoride is bad for you, by all means, do, but if you can't provide even a decent hypothesis to test, you better just shut it up.
Can i get a non-abstract to all this chemistry shit? Should i be worried about my drinking water or no?