Discussion that challenges supposed mainstream beliefs and officially accepted stances

[4channel]

Some issues when discussed can cause a range of reactions. Sometimes they can lead to an awakening, the beginning of a journey to discovering something new, or they can can cause a certain type of reaction in a person who may not like what they hear. I think that it's all about how we choose to deal with the info we're hearing and how we process it.

Take the issues of let's say ....  fluoride and mobile phone tower radiation. The government has allowed the fluoridation of our water and they have allowed the construction of mobile phone towers in residential areas. Does that mean the water is safe to drink and it causes no ill affect? Does that mean that the mobile phone towers are safe?  What about the handsets. Are they safe for children to use and hold against their heads?

Well, we discuss these things and some people do react angrily to the people discussing these issues. Does this mean that we have to stop discussion that challenges the supposed official stance or challenges what we are told is the mainstream belief? Do we have to self-censor or have this in a [private group? I have noticed that in discussion forums or the media that racist beliefs are a;allowed a platform and yet issues that many folk feel that need to be addressed because of health concerns are not given the same platform. To me racism is abhorrent and yet in the media, it gets the pass ticket while issues that some call important to health freedom do not! Why is that?  Could it be political? What are your thoughts?

NOTE:

Spoiler

This is a discussion that some people here would be interested in while others may not be. Folks with opposing views are welcome as  always. Please, if someone has an issue with these topics being discussed or another member, could they refrain from any attacks on others or deliberately flooding this thread with off topic filler.

[domino-710]

One shouldn't need to change 'frocks' to give an opinion.

We all know how 4 thingy - feels about this.

[*kazumi*]

---

@4channel wrote:

---

---

Your friend was correct. Firstly with babies, mostly their teeth haven't erupted yet so what would be the point? If there was any benefit from Fluoride, it is topical. Its only real purpose is to kill the dental caries bacteria on the teeth when the fluoridated water comes into contact with the teeth. There's no reasojn to fluoridate babies!

---

---

No.  Fluoride does not kill the bacteria.  Tooth decay occurs when acid corrodes the outer surface of the tooth. Mouth bacteria produces this acid from sugary food and drinks. Fluoride helps to strengthen the tooth’s mineral structure. It acts like a repair kit, repairing the early stages of tooth decay before it becomes permanent.  The drinking water has 1 mg/L

Thanks for the link, which states:

"F is the most successful active agent against dental caries. It is also one of the few agents that can stimulate bone cell proliferation and therefore may be of benefit in optimizing bone mineral density, important in maintaining bone health throughout life.  The necessary level of exposure for fluorosis to occur amounts to at least 20 mg/day of fluoride for at least 20 years of adult life."

[bright.ton42]

---

@domino-710 wrote:

Could be Bright - but if the cost outweighs the health issues - and the environmental issues ?????

---

I wasn't making an argument pro Roundup at all Dom  , just wondering if it is often used because it is cheaper than more environtmentally-friendly alternatives. 

[domino-710]

---

@bright.ton42 wrote:

---

@domino-710 wrote:

Could be Bright - but if the cost outweighs the health issues - and the environmental issues ?????

---

I wasn't making an argument pro Roundup at all Dom  , just wondering if it is often used because it is cheaper than more environtmentally-friendly alternatives. 

---

I know Bright. 

[simone4010]

Domino

I really have no idea what your reply means but if It's nastiness, I don't engage in it.

[domino-710]

---

@simone4010 wrote:

Domino

I really have no idea what your reply means but if It's nastiness, I don't engage in it.

---

Good for you - nor do I. 

[icyfroth]

---

@domino-710 wrote:

---

@simone4010 wrote:

Domino

I really have no idea what your reply means but if It's nastiness, I don't engage in it.

---

Good for you - nor do I. 

---

So what's your reason for not using 4channel's correct username instead of  "4 thingy"?

[chameleon54]

---

@domino-710 wrote:

I'm not sure what is getting away from you here.

Every year an arrangement is made for inspection by local Rangers - carried out & a report sent as to what needs addressing.

That is followed through with shots - the dye contained in the spray -  obvious.

No Pitt Street farmers here.

---

Not suggesting that at all Dom. From what I've seen, the horse people generally tend to be some of the better farm managers. Often their love of horses starts at an early age and they gain experience in horse husbandry throughout their life. They also learn a bit about fencing, vets, feed, weeds and all the other stuff as they go. They also tend to be a bit more physically fit and practical than general " pitt street farmers."

This is quite different to a public servant who has worked in an office all of their lives, taking a package in their late 50,s or early 60,s and buying a small farm. These people are not accustomed to hard physical work and often find the text book doesn't always correlate with the reality of farm life. They tend to find its a lot harder and more physically demanding than they expected and usually only last a few years before putting the property on the market again.

As for the weed inspector bit, different states and different councils take different approaches to the question of weed control. In my local council areas, the inspectors usually just leave you to it if they can see a farmer has an ongoing weed control programme in place. I have never been visited by a weed inspector in my life, although I have heard second hand, that the inspector has peered over the fences and is happy with the work I,m doing. My neighbour has had a different experience and has actually been taken to court by the local council and fined over $10,000 for not controlling his weeds.

[domino-710]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@domino-710 wrote:

---

@simone4010 wrote:

Domino

I really have no idea what your reply means but if It's nastiness, I don't engage in it.

---

Good for you - nor do I. 

---

So what's your reason for not using 4channel's correct username instead of  "4 thingy"?

---

Sticky keyboard. 

[icyfroth]

---

@domino-710 wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@domino-710 wrote:

---

@simone4010 wrote:

Domino

I really have no idea what your reply means but if It's nastiness, I don't engage in it.

---

Good for you - nor do I. 

---

So what's your reason for not using 4channel's correct username instead of  "4 thingy"?

---

Sticky keyboard. 

---

you should clean it up...