cybrbeast
Member Profile
Member Since: 2006-11-10
Last Power Points used: 2008-09-21 • Available: now
Max Power Points: 1
Last Power Points used: 2008-09-21 • Available: now
Max Power Points: 1
Comments
Subscribe
Philosophy Videos Submitted by cybrbeastNavigation
- profile
- unsifted videos (0)
- personal queue videos (5)
- sifted videos (78)
- promoted published vids
- promoted queued vids
- promoted Sift Talk posts
- promoted blog posts
- blog entries (0)
- Sift Talk posts
- discarded posts
- dead/deadpool videos (0)
- my playlist bookmarks
- my post bookmarks
- playlists bookmarked by others
- posts bookmarked by others
- voted up
- voted down
- playlists
Member Stats
Rank: 111
Rating:
79 star points
Votes Received: 2357
Votes Cast: 2708
Comments Posted: 711 • browse
Sifted Videos: 78
Sift Talk Posts: 4
Quality Sift Talk Posts: 1
Profile Views: 12572
Rating:
79 star pointsVotes Received: 2357
Votes Cast: 2708
Comments Posted: 711 • browse
Sifted Videos: 78
Sift Talk Posts: 4
Quality Sift Talk Posts: 1
Profile Views: 12572
http://www.videosift.com/video/Professional-Perspectives-Fluoride-in-Tap-Water
In reply to this comment by cybrbeast:
Not saying I doubt it, but I'm curious rembar, what scientific credentials do you have? What's your area of expertise?
In reply to this comment by cybrbeast:
Rembar, please answer my question and explain why you have such a hard time with this video and not with Brainiac or the water car inventor? I could scour your channel and probably find many more examples of pseudoscience.
In reply to this comment by cybrbeast:
How is it possible to requeue discarded videos?
It looks like a final stage booster of a satellite rocket re-entering the earth's atmosphere.
In reply to this comment by cybrbeast:
I'm going to agree with qruel now. Qruel has posted links to real scientific papers, which appear make this an unsettled scientific issue. Even though rembar has some papers saying the opposite doesn't suddenly make his papers more valid, as papers from both sources are peer reviewed. Therefore this is a scientific issue. Sorry to offend but this is starting to appear like a pride issue for rembar.
Why EPA's Headquarters Professionals' Union Opposes Fluoridation
<snippet>
Then, as EPA was engaged in revising its drinking water standard for fluoride in 1985, an employee came to the union with a complaint: he said he was being forced to write into the regulation a statement to the effect that EPA thought it was alright for children to have "funky" teeth. It was OK, EPA said, because it considered that condition to be only a cosmetic effect, not an adverse health effect. The reason for this EPA position was that it was under political pressure to set its health-based standard for fluoride at 4 mg/liter. At that level, EPA knew that a significant number of children develop moderate to severe dental fluorosis, but since it had deemed the effect as only cosmetic, EPA didn't have to set its health-based standard at a lower level to prevent it. We tried to settle this ethics issue quietly, within the family, but EPA was unable or unwilling to resist external political pressure, and we took the fight public with a union amicus curiae brief in a lawsuit filed against EPA by a public interest group. The union has published on this initial involvement period in detail (1).
go here for the rest of the story
http://www.fluoridealert.org/hp-epa.htm
In reply to this comment by cybrbeast:
I just read a part of qruel's submitted free online book, at The National Academies Press site, on fluoride by the Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, National Research Council.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571
I just browsed through the summary and it contains many conclusions of health problems at levels between 2 and 4mg per liter. Standard addition to water is 1mg per liter. This is very close to a toxic level which should typically lie a 100 times above normal exposure.
If dose alone makes the poison, here is something to think about. Fluoride is found in almost everything. pesticides, fumigants, water, food, air.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-sources.htm
http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/flouride/USDA_National_Fluoride_Database_of_Beverages_Foods_12-2005.pdf
also, the ADA recommends that babies do not get any fluoride. How is one suppossed to do that if bottle feeding (formula) ? buy an expensiv reverse osmosis machine, or bottled water. Bigger problem yet, not many people know about this, so they cannot follow the guidelines for something they don't know about.
http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/flouride/infant-fluoride-warning.pdf
In reply to this comment by cybrbeast:
I just read a part of qruel's submitted free online book, at The National Academies Press site, on fluoride by the Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, National Research Council.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571
I just browsed through the summary and it contains many conclusions of health problems at levels between 2 and 4mg per liter. Standard addition to water is 1mg per liter. This is very close to a toxic level which should typically lie a 100 times above normal exposure.
In reply to this comment by cybrbeast:
Why not in the * Catsanddogs channel?
In regards to your comment, unfortunately, we are not given a choice about our president. What is the option if we impeach? Dick Cheney? Not a chance, he is even more of a non-thinker and even less of a "decider man" as Bush calls himself.
Considering our electoral system is rigged, and we have a president that does not even consider public opinion, continues a costly war, and all the while we cannot even maintain our quality of life here as far as healthcare is concerned for the lower and middle class.
I myself was turned down for medicaid for a life or death surgery on my spine, whilst at the same desk, an illegal alien was given "emergency healthcare". At the time, I made around 17k a year, which is not enough to even cover healthcare here and eat, let alone have a decent place to live if you are not living with others, which I do to help not waste space.
"Our" cars, with regard to your "generalization" are actually more inclined towards the most fuel efficient options we are "allowed" here in the U.S. while the big oil companies are still holding back alot of the better more "green" options. The upper class people are the ones with the S.U.V.'s and all that land-yacht trash. So pleae forgive them, for they are ignorant unless they are carrying 5+ people.
I think if you actually had real information to go on, you would find that alot of Americans would pay higher taxes in order to get better healthcare. But you see, due to our tax system, our government with Bush in office has pushed the highest tax rates on the lower, and middle class while reducing the tax rates in the higher earning tax bracket.
As for as your more liesurely life, I think that is up for debate if you are to consider "Europe" do you also consider all of the other areas in your "Europe" where people don't even have basic necessities like running water and
simple healthcare?
I feel your points are valid in many ways, but denying the very basic healthcare people need, while spending money on a "war" that "Europe" and all it's neighboring countries should be also doing what they can to help end, is an afront to what the human condition needs to work against in order to blossom.
We should try bringing back a justice system to replace our "legal system" and I truly hope that you, as fellow people on the same planet consider bringing our President Bush to charges just like he did with other "dictators", and you will find that alot of us support you.
Sinerely,
A Naturalized American Citizen
In reply to this comment by cybrbeast:
I think it's funny how much you hear Americans (generalization) shout about higher taxes. We in Europe have taxes set extremely higher than yours and we live contently, work less hours, have better health care and better pensions.
I think what we did in Europe was take the extra wealth and make life more leisurely and what the Americans did was take the wealth and work extra hard so they could just buy more stuff and drive heavier cars.
I think nuanced is the right word to use here. I would never support that guy.
BUT I can't get past how when we demonize a leader, that is a big step till acceptance of a Iran bombing policy.
Sorry for the awkward sentence
In reply to this comment by cybrbeast:
What I think he said was that the Zionist entity would be wiped away, not meaning killed, but ended. He has said that he is for a referendum in Palestine/Israel where every inhabitant including current refugees, be it Jew, Muslim or Christian gets a vote about a government of unity. This might be a very naive view but it is not a view that all Jews should be killed.
I just submitted a video with a more nuanced view on the Ahmadinejad affair by "The Real News Network", I think the issue deserved more in depth commentary instead of this useless propaganda and spin. (sorry for the self plug)
where is round one?
http://www.videosift.com/video/Japanese-Tetris
http://www.videosift.com/video/South-Park-explains-Scientology#185932
and i can't remember the viddy so i can't show you an exact fix...those scientology motherfuckers are some sensitive pricks for being so, "in tune" with themselves.....engrams shoved so far up their asses they turn into massive pricks as far as i can tell......
In reply to your comment:
“was this it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAuTUs7fVfA
”