- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Best water filter that will remove fluoride?
Posted on 6/1/18 at 8:40 am to Jax-Tiger
Posted on 6/1/18 at 8:40 am to Jax-Tiger
This is such a bad idea that I’m speechless...and I usually have enough to say about everything that I get paid to talk for others. There might be a reason you’re having a problem finding such a product.
Try focusing on finding a filter that can remove your stupid.
Try focusing on finding a filter that can remove your stupid.
This post was edited on 6/3/18 at 12:14 pm
0
Posted on 6/3/18 at 2:26 pm to Jax-Tiger
quote:
Most water filters won't remove fluoride.
None of them will. Flouridated water has flouride in solution with water, much like saline solution has dissolved salt. You have to distill the water to remove salt and/or flouride that is in solution, no filter will do so.
Posted on 6/3/18 at 2:33 pm to Jax-Tiger
BTW your Newsweek link is broken and the second link has so much BS I don't have time to debunk each point. For starters, he never talks about dosage. *Any* substance can be deadly at high enough concentration, and whether it is a simple compound or not is irrelevant.
I don't fault you for not having any scientific background (I do) but that link is complete BS designed to fool those who don't.
Edit: FWIW I'm not claiming flouridation is good, I'm not an expert in that field. I'm saying I know enough to spot nonsense and false arguments, which your second link is full of. For example, if a single study finds that the flouride layer is thinner than previously thought, it does not mean flouridation is bad and doesn't mean it is less effective. It simply means the protective layer is thinner and nothing more.
I don't fault you for not having any scientific background (I do) but that link is complete BS designed to fool those who don't.
Edit: FWIW I'm not claiming flouridation is good, I'm not an expert in that field. I'm saying I know enough to spot nonsense and false arguments, which your second link is full of. For example, if a single study finds that the flouride layer is thinner than previously thought, it does not mean flouridation is bad and doesn't mean it is less effective. It simply means the protective layer is thinner and nothing more.
This post was edited on 6/3/18 at 2:53 pm
Posted on 6/3/18 at 7:05 pm to MaHittaMaHitta
quote:
He sells and installs them for $650 total.
How many people are out there that can't install these themselves?
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:16 am to foshizzle
quote:
BTW your Newsweek link is broken and the second link has so much BS I don't have time to debunk each point.
Sorry. I was on my phone at the airport and screwed it up.
Newsweek I
Newsweek II
Harvard Article
The point is, we don't know. We really don't. There are a lot of things that scientists claim they know, but they really don't.
Do you think we know makes a plane fly? The scary thing is, we don't. We know it does, and we have a couple of good theories, but the truth is, we don't know for 100% certain.
There are a lot of long term theories on health and what is healthy for us that have been debunked after decades of us assuming they were truth. For example: We've been told for years that cholesterol (specifically, LDL) lead to plaque build up in our arteries, which lead to cardiovascular disease. Now we believe that plaque buildup is due to consumption of sugars and grains, and not cholesterol levels. If I had brought this up on this board a couple of years ago, all of you pseudo doctors on this board would have told me I need to filter the stupid out of me.
I came on the board asking for a simple recommendation. If you don't have a recommendation, and want to debate the merits, that's fine. But if you just want to throw insults out there, feel free to not reply, and go to the OT.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:42 am to GoCrazyAuburn
Came here for this.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 7:19 pm to Jax-Tiger
quote:
we don't know for 100% certain.
We know for 99.999% certain though. If you want to buck those odds then more power to you.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 7:45 pm to foshizzle
quote:
We know for 99.999% certain though.
No. We don't. You think we do.
We were 100% certain that cholesterol caused plaque in our arteries, too, didn't we?
Posted on 6/4/18 at 8:07 pm to Jax-Tiger
quote:
We were 100% certain that cholesterol caused plaque in our arteries, too, didn't we?
No, speaking for myself, I always allow a fudge factor. This simply means I understand I'm betting a favorable game, not that I will always win every bet.
I have no idea where you pulled cholesterol out of this as though I place complete trust in current research.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News