When fluoride is added to the water it’s applied at around 3 parts per million. In toothpaste it’s usually 800 ppm or as high as 1300 ppm. So why aren’t they putting in 50x or 100x more fluoride, to help our teeth? Oh that’s right, it’s toxic and you’re not meant to drink it. Please reconsider your stance on this. Fluoride will cost a ridiculous amount of money with no benefit.
I had numerous fillings as a child because I drank coke all the time. I had my last filling in 2003, at age 13. Since then I’ve used a mix of fluoride and Red Seal Baking Soda / Strong Mint toothpaste, and I’ve never had any fillings or pain. There is no fluoride here in Christchurch water, my dental health is a result of my good choices. We cannot force people to make good choices about their health, but we can give them information and encourage them in the right direction.
Supporting fluoride is the ultimate un-scientific, nanny-state solution for people who believe in the power of the state - more than they believe in the ability of citizens to make better choices. We need to get fluoride out of the water and treat it like a menace, like chlorine. I don’t want to spend thousands of dollars on a filter to get rid of fine fluoride particles. Just don’t add it to the water. It doesn’t do any good for anyone. Junk science + cope.
You are looking at the issue from a moral perspective rather than a logical perspective. Russia has a lot of power here - they have hundreds of thousands of troops in Ukraine, they have Oreshnik missiles which could destroy Kyiv’s government and economy district. The only thing which could save Ukraine now, is for Russia’s economy to collapse. Don’t count on that happening - if there was a way to force it to happen, then it would have happened in 2022.
When I said “trick” I meant that Ukraine wants to invite foreign armies to the border, and then deceive the world with something, a provocation, that would “justify” foreign armies to invade Donbass and Crimea. We already see these provocations in the media. Last July, Ukraine claimed that Russia used a KH-101 missile to deliberately strike the children’s section of a hospital in Kyiv. This was false and designed to provoke outrage in the West.
If a KH-101 had hit a building, there would be no survivors. Yet only 2 people were killed, leading me to believe that the missile was not a KH-101, but rather an air defence missile launched by Ukraine, which missed its target and ran out of fuel and crashed into the hospital, killing 2 adults and injuring 35. If Russia was deliberately trying to kill as many civilians as possible, why would they waste a missile worth millions of dollars, just for the sake of killing 2 random people?
The Ukrainian government is counting on a deception to provoke a full-scale war between European nations and Russia.
The most interesting part is whether Trump will support Ukraine, or whether Trump will see Ukraine as a liability and give up on the situation. So far we already know that one of Russia’s negotiators has ruled out any concessions. When asked if Russia would give back land to Ukraine, he said to the BBC “why should we? we have liberated lands where russian people are living for centuries”. We are now back at 2014, wondering whether to give-in to Russia’s 2014 demands, or continue the war for another 2 years or longer in the hope that Russia’s economy collapses, causing their army to disintegrate.