95 % of the time. I don’t if I’m in public and in close proximity to someone.

Haiku?

Why use more words when less work fine?

#cursed

∞

Yeah, it gets that way when people know something major you do. The amount of lame chemistry shirts and such is far too high.

I know they mean well, and I definitely appreciate it. But it does get a bit old.

Crust punk would be like drinking water steeped in an ashtray full of old cigarettes.

Yes! Cbat hahaha. Thanks.

What’s that dolphin-sounding song someone played during sex in that meme? That.

Alternatively, the brown note (assuming it’s real).

Or like hardcore noise stuff. Is “Wall of sound” a type of it?

Edit: How could I forget Ram Ranch?

Don’t you just use iif?

Interesting, I’m not well-versed in pasteurization techniques.

Sorry to hear about the raw milk PTSD. I’ve never had it, and don’t plan on it.

Thanks for giving me something (UHT) to look into.

Dr. Manhattan, obviously.

Pasteurization doesn’t boil the milk though…

Many horror movies that I didn’t watch around Halloween.

Woah, no need to get so angry, I’m merely asking questions (which you’re not providing answers to).

I’m refuting the one thing you’ve mentioned multiple times; the “contaminated” source of fluoride. You make it seem like it’s dangerous because “it comes from the smoke stack scrubbers of fertilizer plants.” Why do you keep bringing this up?

Since you brought it, up have you studied this at a university level? While I have not directly studied the fluoridation of water in university, I have studied chemistry. That is where all my questions are coming from. I’m not concerned about this from a dental perspective.

While that article is peer-reviewed and has sources, it’s pertaining to a very specific region, and also is published in a fairly obscure journal with a trash impact factor.

This is also the first I’ve heard mention of pre-eruption benefits of fluoride. I’ve never stated I believe this, and have not heard anyone else mention this in favour of fluoridation.

Also as I mentioned in a previous comment, I am in no way saying the individual with a PhD in a social science is “full of shit”. I’m just saying the article is an opinion piece, and reads like a conspiracy theorist wrote it. Think Charlie and Pepe Silvia from IASIP.

Many scientists (research-based) go into public policy as well. Mainly because they’re capable of thinking critically and are able to contribute to policy in their area of expertise.

Also for the third time, are you a scientist, or have any scientific background?

Doesn’t questioning all these things you’re saying display critical thinking?

Well firstly, you did not provide any specific contaminants. You did mention heavy metals, which are inherently in normal ground water. They are also controlled, as I mentioned in my last post.

Can you provide a source that states there’s no processing of “it”? Can you also state what exactly “it” is? NaF, HF, SiCl4, or something else?

Also, for the third time, are you some sort of scientist? Especially one who would have knowledge of actual chemistry?

If I don’t get at least somewhat of a semblance of intelligence in your reply, this is over, and you should really try to accept people trying to educate you on topics you clearly don’t know.

As I’ve said at least a couple times, I’d be happy to provide multiple sources proving F- in water is safe. I will even help walk you through these sources. I’m all for educating people.

So, please don’t reply with some stupid shit stated in that shitpost of an article you linked.

I’m genuinely trying to help/educate. So please take me up on the offer if you would like to.

Contaminated with what exactly?

Edit: if it’s As and Pb, both (among many other things) are closely monitored in any city water supply (and also occur naturally) to ensure there is little to none.

I can (and I’m sure you can as well) look up exactly the levels of contaminants allowed in your drinking water if it’s coming from a plant.

If it’s another element(s) or compound(s), I’m quite interested to know what they may be.

Also as per my last reply, are you a scientist of any kind?

Hmmm. The author of the article has a PhD in environmental history, so a social science. Nothing wrong with that at all, but it’s not actual hard science. Where people research and develop novel things.

I don’t want to blow smoke anywhere near any asses. But does that article site one primary literature source? They’re all articles or if it’s an actual paper, it’s an opinion piece. I’m not going through all of them because it reads like some crazy uncle on a conspiracy theory rant.

Are you a scientist? I know what I’m talking about, although I’m afraid you’re not.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-99688-w

There’s an actual journal article (I know it’s only Nature scientific reports, but it’s a valid reference). I know it doesn’t explicitly state it’s not toxic, but:

“Thus, based on the evidence available on the topic, it is not possible to state neither any association or the lack of an association between F exposure and any neurological disorder.”

Taken straight from their conclusion.

Obviously there’s many more sources, and again, I’m happy to provide you with some of you’d like to enhance your knowledge on the subject.