What makes FE sound?

Feed makes a "fe" sound. Was that the question?

...that's no surprise you have  trouble understanding my ramblings

LOL... at least we have one small victory for logic.  Charles admits that he's just "rambling".

My dictionary defines rambling as:  incoherent, confused, disjointed, muddled, and long-winded.  10/10 Charles.  Well done.   

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 20, 2015, 11:10:18 PM

...that's no surprise you have  trouble understanding my ramblings

LOL... at least we have one small victory for logic.  Charles admits that he's just "rambling".

My dictionary defines rambling as:  incoherent, confused, disjointed, muddled, and long-winded.  10/10 Charles.  Well done.   

I suppose she's just rambling on as well .

Australian Politician tells Truth&Exposes Agenda …: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

I suppose she's just rambling on as well.
Australian Politician tells Truth&Exposes Agenda …: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Ann Bressington is another whack-job Charles, possibly only exceeded in her lunacy by your good self.   

From The Australian March 2013:

"Ms Bressington was just one year into her eight-year term when she said she was fed up with being a pollie, but she's starting to look like she will not go quietly when her term is up next year.  That's a shame.  She is dedicating considerable time and energy to promoting fringe conspiracy theories, anti-scientific thinking and outright rubbish.

Recently she gave a rambling speech about the Club of Rome and Agenda 21, about shadowy figures creating crises such as global warming to condition us and control our lives. If that sounds garbled, then it's an accurate reflection of the entire speech.  She has been posting about communism by stealth and dragging other bits of flotsam and jetsam out of the murky depths of the internet.

Sometimes, ignoring these things is the best option.

But not when we have a public figure, on the taxpayer teat, in a position of power, in a climate where every now and then the conspiracy theorists get to influence public policy.

In Queensland, the Newman Government has revoked compulsory fluoridation of water to appease people who believe it is poisoning us - or worse, part of a government conspiracy to medicate and control us.  [The health minister] reassured The Advertiser there was no mind-control conspiracy in the water, just fluoride, one of "the most effective public health advances in decades".

I suspect there's something in Ms Bressington's water."

—Political Editor Tory Shepherd

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 22, 2015, 07:55:47 AM

I suppose she's just rambling on as well.
Australian Politician tells Truth&Exposes Agenda …: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Ann Bressington is another whack-job Charles, possibly only exceeded in her lunacy by your good self.   

From The Australian March 2013:

"Ms Bressington was just one year into her eight-year term when she said she was fed up with being a pollie, but she's starting to look like she will not go quietly when her term is up next year.  That's a shame.  She is dedicating considerable time and energy to promoting fringe conspiracy theories, anti-scientific thinking and outright rubbish.

Recently she gave a rambling speech about the Club of Rome and Agenda 21, about shadowy figures creating crises such as global warming to condition us and control our lives. If that sounds garbled, then it's an accurate reflection of the entire speech.  She has been posting about communism by stealth and dragging other bits of flotsam and jetsam out of the murky depths of the internet.

Sometimes, ignoring these things is the best option.

But not when we have a public figure, on the taxpayer teat, in a position of power, in a climate where every now and then the conspiracy theorists get to influence public policy.

In Queensland, the Newman Government has revoked compulsory fluoridation of water to appease people who believe it is poisoning us - or worse, part of a government conspiracy to medicate and control us.  [The health minister] reassured The Advertiser there was no mind-control conspiracy in the water, just fluoride, one of "the most effective public health advances in decades".

I suspect there's something in Ms Bressington's water."

—Political Editor Tory Shepherd

Well I think it a good idea to take a highly toxin substance out of the water supply .Sodium fluoride is not naturally occuring in nature. Calcium fluoride is . Sodium fluoride is a by product of producing aluminium. Forever ton of aluminium smelt you produce a ton of highly toxic sodium fluride . The evilness of the whole corporate toxic dumping scheme thats been going on for years , with greed & share profits put before public health is Criminal & a total abuse of trust. Only an imbecile could possibley believe prolonged  exposure to a highly toxic substance would be good for your health & teeth. You can refuse medical attention, you have to consent to having a medical procedure performed. But its ok to dump posionous toxin in peoples drinking water . lie to them that its not harmful to their heatlh & good for their teeth & thats ok?. What country did you come from ? 

Well I think it a good idea to take a highly toxin substance out of the water supply .Sodium fluoride is not naturally occuring in nature. Calcium fluoride is . Sodium fluoride is a by product of producing aluminium. Forever ton of aluminium smelt you produce a ton of highly toxic sodium fluride . The evilness of the whole corporate toxic dumping scheme thats been going on for years , with greed & share profits put before public health is Criminal & a total abuse of trust. Only an imbecile could possibley believe prolonged  exposure to a highly toxic substance would be good for your health & teeth. You can refuse medical attention, you have to consent to having a medical procedure performed. But its ok to dump posionous toxin in peoples drinking water . lie to them that its not harmful to their heatlh & good for their teeth & thats ok?. What country did you come from ? 

Do you understand how doses work? Water is poisonous in large enough doses. It's just fine in smaller amounts. Sodium fluoride can be part of toothpaste, is that a conspiracy too? It has medical benefits: but not when you overdose. The same as basically anything. The incredibly diluted amount of sodium fluoride is not enough to be dangerous.
Don't make claims about things you know nothing about.

Well I think it a good idea to take a highly toxin substance out of the water supply.

               [...]

But its ok to dump poisonous toxin in peoples drinking water. lie to them that its not harmful to their health & good for their teeth & that's ok?

You've fallen for a common trap of the poorly informed Charles.

Like a lot of panic-merchants, you assume that some chemicals that are toxic to humans in large quantities possess the same toxicity in small quantities—which is demonstrably erroneous.  As they say, "the dose makes the poison".

These are a few examples of natural foods that contain toxins that ingested in large amounts would be fatal to humans;

•   Apples - formaldehyde
•   Vinegar - acetic acid
•   Tomatoes - nicotine
•   Coffee - caffeine
•   Licorice - glycyrrhizic acid
•   Spinach - oxalic acid
•   Bread - acrylamide
•   Apricots - cyanide
•   Mushrooms - cholecalciferol
•   Fish - methyl mercury
•   Wine - ethanol
•   Oranges - citric acid
•   Zucchini - cucurbitacin
•   Water - sodium fluoride

The fact that you make a major error in talking about "toxic" chemicals in our drinking water is indicative that your notions about the planet and the cosmos could also be just as suspect.  If you're so ill-educated about something as simple as food science, how then can you claim to be knowledgeable about far more technically-demanding sciences such as astrophysics and geophysics?  And like most conspiracy theorists, you're unfounded suspicions run the full gamut of just about everything and everybody outside of your front door LOL.

Charles, show us some statistics that correlate fluoride in drinking water with long-term, medical damage.

You're worse then the people who think vaccines cause autism because they don't know the difference between methyl and ethyl mercury.

You're worse then the people who think vaccines cause autism because they don't know the difference between methyl and ethyl mercury.

I wonder if Jenny McCarthy, the former Playboy bunny thinks the earth is flat?

   

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 23, 2015, 12:11:30 AM

Well I think it a good idea to take a highly toxin substance out of the water supply .Sodium fluoride is not naturally occuring in nature. Calcium fluoride is . Sodium fluoride is a by product of producing aluminium. Forever ton of aluminium smelt you produce a ton of highly toxic sodium fluride . The evilness of the whole corporate toxic dumping scheme thats been going on for years , with greed & share profits put before public health is Criminal & a total abuse of trust. Only an imbecile could possibley believe prolonged  exposure to a highly toxic substance would be good for your health & teeth. You can refuse medical attention, you have to consent to having a medical procedure performed. But its ok to dump posionous toxin in peoples drinking water . lie to them that its not harmful to their heatlh & good for their teeth & thats ok?. What country did you come from ? 

Do you understand how doses work? Water is poisonous in large enough doses. It's just fine in smaller amounts. Sodium fluoride can be part of toothpaste, is that a conspiracy too? It has medical benefits: but not when you overdose. The same as basically anything. The incredibly diluted amount of sodium fluoride is not enough to be dangerous.
Don't make claims about things you know nothing about.

if you want to brush your teeth with sodium fluoride toothpaste .  Thats your consented choice . Sodium fluoride toothpast was a restricted category S2 drug once because of its toxicity. Corporate profitability changed the sale marketing ,not it toxicity.

Quote from: BiJane on February 23, 2015, 03:07:36 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 23, 2015, 12:11:30 AM

Well I think it a good idea to take a highly toxin substance out of the water supply .Sodium fluoride is not naturally occuring in nature. Calcium fluoride is . Sodium fluoride is a by product of producing aluminium. Forever ton of aluminium smelt you produce a ton of highly toxic sodium fluride . The evilness of the whole corporate toxic dumping scheme thats been going on for years , with greed & share profits put before public health is Criminal & a total abuse of trust. Only an imbecile could possibley believe prolonged  exposure to a highly toxic substance would be good for your health & teeth. You can refuse medical attention, you have to consent to having a medical procedure performed. But its ok to dump posionous toxin in peoples drinking water . lie to them that its not harmful to their heatlh & good for their teeth & thats ok?. What country did you come from ? 

Do you understand how doses work? Water is poisonous in large enough doses. It's just fine in smaller amounts. Sodium fluoride can be part of toothpaste, is that a conspiracy too? It has medical benefits: but not when you overdose. The same as basically anything. The incredibly diluted amount of sodium fluoride is not enough to be dangerous.
Don't make claims about things you know nothing about.

if you want to brush your teeth with sodium fluoride toothpaste .  Thats your consented choice . Sodium fluoride toothpast was a restricted category S2 drug once because of its toxicity. Corporate profitability changed the sale marketing ,not it toxicity.

And what does S2 mean?

Sodium fluoride toothpaste was a restricted category S2 drug once because of its toxicity.

Totally erroneous.  Schedule 2, Pharmacy Medicine, can be sold in supermarkets LOL. 

Schedule 8 is the first controlled drug level.

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 23, 2015, 04:34:10 PM

Sodium fluoride toothpaste was a restricted category S2 drug once because of its toxicity.

Totally erroneous.  Schedule 2, Pharmacy Medicine, can be sold in supermarkets LOL. 

Schedule 8 is the first controlled drug level.

Perhaps in Australia, but in America:

Schedule II substances are those that have the following findings:

        The drug or other substances have a high potential for abuse
        The drug or other substances have currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, or currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions
        Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.

Quote from: ausGeoff on February 23, 2015, 08:08:53 PM

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 23, 2015, 04:34:10 PM

Sodium fluoride toothpaste was a restricted category S2 drug once because of its toxicity.

Totally erroneous.  Schedule 2, Pharmacy Medicine, can be sold in supermarkets LOL. 

Schedule 8 is the first controlled drug level.

Perhaps in Australia, but in America...

Charles is an Aussie.   

Quote from: ausGeoff on February 23, 2015, 08:08:53 PM

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 23, 2015, 04:34:10 PM

Sodium fluoride toothpaste was a restricted category S2 drug once because of its toxicity.

Totally erroneous.  Schedule 2, Pharmacy Medicine, can be sold in supermarkets LOL. 

Schedule 8 is the first controlled drug level.

Perhaps in Australia, but in America:

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act#Schedule_II_controlled_substances

Schedule II substances are those that have the following findings:

        The drug or other substances have a high potential for abuse
        The drug or other substances have currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, or currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions
        Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.

No one is going to abuse sodium fluoride. 

Quote from: markjo on February 23, 2015, 08:55:39 PM

Quote from: ausGeoff on February 23, 2015, 08:08:53 PM

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 23, 2015, 04:34:10 PM

Sodium fluoride toothpaste was a restricted category S2 drug once because of its toxicity.

Totally erroneous.  Schedule 2, Pharmacy Medicine, can be sold in supermarkets LOL. 

Schedule 8 is the first controlled drug level.

Perhaps in Australia, but in America:

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act#Schedule_II_controlled_substances

Schedule II substances are those that have the following findings:

        The drug or other substances have a high potential for abuse
        The drug or other substances have currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, or currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions
        Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.

No one is going to abuse sodium fluoride.

lying about constant daily exposure not being detramental to your heath .is abuse .dumping a toxic substance in people's dinking water ,  because to store it safely in drums & bury in the grounde would cost millions, which would have  made  aluminium not  viable to smelter . Is  abuse.
Studies conducted on the health detriment caused from continual exposure .have been covered up since the 1930.

Lying about constant daily exposure being detrimental to your heath. is abuse dumping a toxic substance in people's drinking water,  because to store it safely in drums & bury in the ground would cost millions, which would have  make aluminium not  viable to smelter.

This is possibly the most ill-informed—and stupid—comment I've read on this forum today!  Charles has absolutely no idea of what he's talking about with aluminium smelting.  Please ignore this disinformation.

Just as cyanide in small amounts is not toxic to humans, neither is sodium fluoride.  Charles—as he usually does—is talking through his arse.

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 23, 2015, 10:56:24 PM

Lying about constant daily exposure being detrimental to your heath. is abuse dumping a toxic substance in people's drinking water,  because to store it safely in drums & bury in the ground would cost millions, which would have  make aluminium not  viable to smelter.

This is possibly the most ill-informed—and stupid—comment I've read on this forum today!  Charles has absolutely no idea of what he's talking about with aluminium smelting.  Please ignore this disinformation.

Just as cyanide in small amounts is not toxic to humans, neither is sodium fluoride.  Charles—as he usually does—is talking through his arse.

care to tell us all why you would be wanting to be drinking!!!!!!!! sodium fluoride ? http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/sodium_fluoride .

Where do you obtain sodium fluoride Geoff ? Calcium fluoride you find naturaly in soil . So where is the sodium fluoride coming from?
http://consciouslifenews.com/fluoride-toxic-poison-learn-differences-between-natural-synthetic-fluoride/

if you want to brush your teeth with sodium fluoride toothpaste .  Thats your consented choice . Sodium fluoride toothpast was a restricted category S2 drug once because of its toxicity. Corporate profitability changed the sale marketing ,not it toxicity.

Seriously, I may be wrong, but the only evidence I found of that is from the post you just made after a google.

Also, I ask again, do you understand the concept of dosing and overdosing? Smaller amounts of a chemical may be fine and useful. Larger amounts may be dangerous. See: water and water intoxication. Or should water be banned because, in large enough quantities, it's a poison?

care to tell us all why you would be wanting to be drinking!!!!!!!! sodium fluoride ? http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/sodium_fluoride .

Because... it has benefits. (for example, in stopping tooth decay). Have you done any research at all?

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 24, 2015, 12:53:27 AM

care to tell us all why you would be wanting to be drinking!!!!!!!! sodium fluoride ? http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/sodium_fluoride .

Because... it has benefits. (for example, in stopping tooth decay). Have you done any research at all?

Really , well I, m afraid you have been lied to .

Flat Earth Theory has been empirically demonstrated, whereas Round Earth Theory has not. Round Earth Theory has survived the years on Aristotile's Three Proofs, which were dismantled and shown fallacious by Rowbotham and others.

The main proof of a Round Earth is provided by NASA, which has shown to be fraudulent.

See: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy

Really , well I, m afraid you have been lied to .

Of course, please bear mind mind the importance of quantity and dosage.

Flat Earth Theory has been empirically demonstrated, whereas Round Earth Theory has not. Round Earth Theory has survived the years on Aristotile's Three Proofs, which were dismantled and shown fallacious by Rowbotham and others.

The main proof of a Round Earth is provided by NASA, which has shown to be fraudulent.

See: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy

Tom, my boy, where have you been?
And could you please state some of the empirically demonstrated evidences if you please

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 24, 2015, 01:33:02 AM

Really , well I, m afraid you have been lied to .

Of course, please bear mind mind the importance of quantity and dosage.

if its being put  in your drinking water who desides the levels .you  cant spit it out after brushing &  rinse your mouth can you.
You have a right not to have  your drinking  water medicated with a toxic chemical .http://www.baff.org.au

if its being put  in your drinking water who desides the levels .you  cant spit it out after brushing &  rinse your mouth can you.

Sure: but not only do children have, for example, a recommended amount, but if you decide to drink a whole tube of toothpaste in one sitting followed by a bathtub of water, you've pretty much got whatever's going to happen coming. You don't seem to understand just how little is actually present. Should we ban salt just because someone could decide to chug down a glass of it, given that large quantities of salt could be fatal?

You have a right not to have  your drinking  water medicated with a toxic chemical .http://www.baff.org.au

Again, no evidence there, just unfounded assertions. Try again.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 24, 2015, 01:52:16 AM

Flat Earth Theory has been empirically demonstrated, whereas Round Earth Theory has not. Round Earth Theory has survived the years on Aristotile's Three Proofs, which were dismantled and shown fallacious by Rowbotham and others.

The main proof of a Round Earth is provided by NASA, which has shown to be fraudulent.

See: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy

Tom, my boy, where have you been?
And could you please state some of the empirically demonstrated evidences if you please

I migrated to tfes.org with other FE'ers.

There is empirical evidence of a Flat Earth all around. Just look out your window. The experience of living on a plane is empirical evidence for a Flat Earth. Additional evidence comes from Samuel Birley Rowbotham, who conducted water convexity experiments on the Bedford Canal. Repeats of his experiments were repeated by others, notably they were published by The English Mechanic, a scientific journal.

Bedford Canal, England. A repeat of the 1870 experiment.

"A train of empty turf-boats had just entered the Canal from the river Ouse, and was about proceeding to Ramsey. I arranged with the captain to place the shallowest boat last in the train, and to take me on to Welney Bridge, a distance of six miles. A good telescope was then fixed on the lowest part of the stern of the last boat. The sluice gate of the Old Bedford Bridge was 5ft. 8in. high, the turf-boat moored there was 2ft. 6in. high, and the notice board was 6ft. 6in. from the water.

The sun was shining strongly upon them in the direction of the south-southwest; the air was exceedingly still and clear, and the surface of the water smooth as a molten mirror, so that everything was favourable for observation. At 1.15 p.m. the train started for Welney. As the boats gradually receded, the sluice gate, the turf-boat and the notice board continued to be visible to the naked eye for about four miles. When the sluice gate and the turf-boat (being of a dark colour) became somewhat indistinct, the notice board (which was white) was still plainly visible, and remained so to the end of six miles. But on looking through the telescope all the objects were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance. On reaching Welney Bridge I made very careful and repeated observations, and finding several men upon the banks of the canal, I called them to look through the telescope. They all saw distinctly the white notice board, the sluice gate, and the black turf-boat moored near them.

Now, as the telescope was 18in. above the water, The line of sight would touch the horizon at one mile and a half away (if the surface were convex). The curvature of the remaining four miles and a half would be 13ft. 6in. Hence the turf-boat should have been 11ft., the top of the sluice gate 7ft. 10in., and the bottom of the notice board 7ft. below the horizon.

My recent experiment affords undeniable proof of the Earth's unglobularity, because it rests not on transitory vision; but my proof remains printed on the negative of the photograph which Mr.Clifton took for me, and in my presence, on behalf of J.H.Dallmeyer, Ltd.

A photograph can not 'imagine' nor lie!"

—"The Flat Earth: another Bedford Canal experiment" (Bernard H.Watson, et al), ENGLISH MECHANIC, 1904

The experiments were also repeated by the Flat Earth society in the 70's, 80's, and Daniel Shenton performed one a few years ago.

Even other organizations totally unaffiliated with a Flat Earth has reported observations consistent with a Flat Earth. Read through the Sinking Ship page on the wiki and there is a link at the bottom to a chapter in the book "Cellular Cosmogony" reporting the same effects.

Quote from: charles bloomington on February 24, 2015, 02:17:58 AM

if its being put  in your drinking water who desides the levels .you  cant spit it out after brushing &  rinse your mouth can you.

Sure: but not only do children have, for example, a recommended amount, but if you decide to drink a whole tube of toothpaste in one sitting followed by a bathtub of water, you've pretty much got whatever's going to happen coming. You don't seem to understand just how little is actually present. Should we ban salt just because someone could decide to chug down a glass of it, given that large quantities of salt could be fatal?

Quote

You have a right not to have  your drinking  water medicated with a toxic chemical .http://www.baff.org.au

Again, no evidence there, just unfounded assertions. Try again.

have you been to specsavers yet Jane ? Alcoa who wouldn't trust them not to be getting rid of their waste using the public water supply.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA080PN20140109?irpc=932
http://www.ahealedplanet.net/fluoride.htm

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on February 24, 2015, 02:09:29 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 24, 2015, 01:52:16 AM

Flat Earth Theory has been empirically demonstrated, whereas Round Earth Theory has not. Round Earth Theory has survived the years on Aristotile's Three Proofs, which were dismantled and shown fallacious by Rowbotham and others.

The main proof of a Round Earth is provided by NASA, which has shown to be fraudulent.

See: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy

Tom, my boy, where have you been?
And could you please state some of the empirically demonstrated evidences if you please

I migrated to tfes.org with other FE'ers.

There is empirical evidence of a Flat Earth all around. Just look out your window. The experience of living on a plane is empirical evidence for a Flat Earth. Additional evidence comes from Samuel Birley Rowbotham, who conducted water convexity experiments on the Bedford Canal. Repeats of his experiments were repeated by others, notably they were published by The English Mechanic, a scientific journal.

Quote from: The English Mechanic, 1904

Bedford Canal experiment

The experiments were also repeated by the Flat Earth society in the 70's, 80's, and Daniel Shenton performed one a few years ago.

Even other organizations totally unaffiliated with a Flat Earth has reported observations consistent with a Flat Earth. Read through the Sinking Ship page on the wiki and there is a link at the bottom to a chapter in the book "Cellular Cosmogony" reporting the same effects.

I have an alt on www.tfes.org. Can you name it?
Also, can you name any of these other organisations that have done the experiment