It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Overpopulation? Elitest Propaganda and Damned Lies Lies Lies!

page: 21
162
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by CouncilOfNine
reply to post by spikey
 


There are working zero point energy modules throughout the world, I am told that one of these modules can sit in the bottom of a cupboard, and supply a house with power forever for free.



I agree there is probably much that is hidden from us in this regard.

I wanted to stick with 'open energy technologies' in this thread though, as solar is available, open and will give us all we need and more if we want it to, it's just less controversial to give easy examples of just how much energy is available to our species, even using simple solar technologies the energy available is staggering.

Cheers.




posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D

I agree with some of what you say, but I have no idea why you think I want to "get over" my belief that the masses are being dumbed down.


Im sorry, if I said you WANTED to get over your belief the masses are being dumbed down I misspoke. I actually do NOT think you want to get over that belief, but rather to preserve it. Im just arguing essentially fruitlessly against it. I do not think many people want to change their belief system, and most do not unless reality smacks them upside the head.



Originally posted by Nathan-D
I do still think that we are being dumbed-down chemically by the elite with malice aforethought.


And I do not. Although I will not argue that many of these things may be harmful in various ways which may or may not include brain damage, I dont believe that these substances are being created for that purpose. There is absolutely no need for the government to go to those extremes to dumb people down or depopulate us if that were their agenda. There are any number of very cheap and chemically simple ways to achieve either end that would be drastically more effective than the things you suspect.


Originally posted by Nathan-D
You also, oxymoronically, say we are "educated beyond our intelligence". How can a person be educated beyond their intelligence? Strikes me as rather odd.


Its actually not an oxymoron. Education is a program. Bits of data. Intelligence is the capability of the CPU itself. Many people are educated, (given bits of data) that their brain really cannot meaningfully interpret and use in a constructive way. They can memorize and repeat what they are taught, but so can a tape recorder, and we dont accuse those of intelligence. There are highly intelligent uneducated people, and highly educated people of very average intelligence.




Originally posted by Nathan-D
Anyway, I think the elite are keeping people dumbed down, not just by chemicals, but through other means, by the woefully inadequate, indoctrinatory, standardised education-system that discourages creative thought. As John Rockefeller once wrote, "I don't want a nation of thinkers, I want a nation of workers".


I dont wholly disagree with this, although I would argue that for many Americans, even a good educational system geared towards teaching them HOW to think, rather than WHAT to think would only be marginally more successful. Even when dealing with pre-school children its clear that some are not bright and sharp. It would help, no doubt, to have as a goal to make the most of someones native intelligence, but it probably would not create a nation full of really bright people. Environment is only part of the story.


edit on 23-4-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: to fix a quote



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Not exactly hidden, just not advertised.


Recently the International Patent Application of Trombly and Kahn (assigned to Acme Energy Co. of San Rafael, CA) has become public property under the Patent Cooperation treaty and can be obtained from the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization.
A copy of this patent application is attached. The difference between the international patents and the US patent system is that in the US the material of the patent is secret until the patent is granted, while overseas the application itself is the basis of the patent, which stands until challenged by a third party.
Thus although Adam Trombly, the senior designer of the machine, has received two written gag orders from the Pentagon Department of Defense, forbidding him to reveal details of the machine --- upon threat of 10 years imprisonment for violating security relating to homopolar generator design -- through the very nature of life itself by a totally automatic process, the attaché document falls into the public domain.

The attached patent application and drawings represent the result of the expenditure of $290,000 in two phases. The DOD-imposed secrecy has prevented any recompense whatsoever from accruing to the men who performed this work.
What is described is a machine, an electrical generator whose output exceeds the input by a factor of 4.92. Summary of Machine Parameters:
Rotor o.d: 14.0 inches
Rotor Length: 9.25 inches
Internal Rotor Diameter: 6 inches
Shaft Diameter (at widest point): 2 inches
Speed: 7200 rpm
Field: 15,000 gauss @ 150 watts field input
Voltage Output: 2.9 volts C @ 15,000 amperes
Drive Motor (DC) input (no load):
1.8 - 1.9 hp (1340-1470 watts) windage & friction
Drive Motor input (loaded): 10.8 Kw, 14.5 hp
Machine Internal Resistance: 6-10 micro-ohms
Output Power: 43.7 Kw (maximum achieved 45.8 kw)
Power gain of Machine: 45.8 / 9.3 (drag due to current withdrawal) = 4.92 In the above figure the 150 watts consumed in exciting the magnet is a negligible factor.

The numbers in the above list of machine parameters which were not included in the patent application have been obtained in private communication with Adam Trombly. The US patent application was rejected twice on the grounds of impossibility that the machine could work, and then the authors were warned not to publish any information on the basis of violation of secret homopolar generator work being done concurrently in the DOD. Technical Comment:

Trombly and Kahn are two of the brightest young physicists in America today. Their work is of the very highest quality and is reflected in the enclosed report. Technically what was done represents the first stages of the development of the N-machine as an article of commerce. Particularly two items are important. Closure of the magnetic field path in the Trombly machine allows for high magnetic field strength to be obtained with little effort, i.e., the 150 watts of excitation.

Strong magnetism in the N-machine rotor results in high voltage output but at the expense of increased drag. Extraction of current from a machine of this type wherein current is taken out through holes in the magnets (Be-Cu shaft in iron rotor), as well as flowing radially outward (to the edge of iron rotor), as well as flowing radially inward (to the edge of the disk liquid metal contact), through the outer flux return path causes a reverse motoring action which increases the drag of the machine. If the gap between the outer rotor annuli were increased the flux in the central core would decrease but also would the drag of the machine brought about by the anti-motoring action.

Experience as well as design philosophy will decide the proper balance between drag and power gain in a particular machine. In the earlier "Sunburst" machine drag was minimized by not closing the flux path and operating the machine in a totally non-magnetic (brass and wood) environment. Here the measured power gain was 28:1 at 10 kw output (1.5 v.d.c @ 6700 amperes). However, much more power was consumed in exciting the magnet of this machine, i.e., 4 kw vs. 150 watts for the Trombly machine. A major factor is the construction of the liquid metal brush system, which makes possible the power potential of a low voltage, very high current machine.

The solution described by Trombly seems to have been simultaneously invented by him, DePalma, and the DOD. Without necessarily having to add specific detail, it should be obvious how to enlarge the structure to handle more current. The liquid metal could be circulated to provide additional cooling. Different metals could be used, i.e., mercury. I estimate that the Trombly machine should be able to produce 100,000 amperes without difficulty. Conversion of the low voltage d.c. output to the standard 110 and 220 volt a.c./60 cps requires innovative engineering.

The easiest way is to run a Faraday disk motor at the low voltage and drive a conventional electrical generator to produce whatever voltage and current required. Conversion could also be attempted by interrupting the low voltage high current with some sort of liquid metal commutator and transforming the voltage directly without a transformer. These ideas are treated by Tesla in his patents for the design of liquid metal commutators and interrupters. The voltage could be transformed electronically but at this time is beyond the state of the art of low voltage high current transistors at the present time.

A larger diameter machine could be built. Voltage goes as the square of the machine radius. The low internal resistance, 6-10 micro-ohms, reported for the Trombly-Kahn machine speaks to the quality of the liquid metal sliding contacts obtained with the construction method described. Low internal resistance is crucial to obtaining high power output and avoiding internal heating. The Trombly-Kahn machine represents what bright young minds can accomplish given the right circumstances and support. The attempted suppression of this work only point up the feeblemindedness of the gerontocracy that rules science in the USA. Building a useful N-machine is a high-technology accomplishment. Intelligent designers and craftsmen can take this information and scale it to appropriate needs. The wish is to cause this technology to flourish on Earth. Bruce DePalma DePalma Institute



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by CouncilOfNine
 


That's a good description. Did you get it from that book?
It reminds of the writings of Madame Blavatsky that I read long ago.
I thought she was rather boring.
English writers usually are.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 


It is an account of creation by Ra, the Egyptian sun god, who are actually a societal complex originally from Venus, many millions of years more evolved than we are at this time.
They are presently mid 6th density, compared to us being at the end of the 3rd density.
edit on 23-4-2011 by CouncilOfNine because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   
This is my first post on ATS, so hopefully I get everything right. But, if you think the human population growth is not a problem, or as the OP stated, "nothing but lies", you don't understand the implications of exponential growth. I teach high school math, and cover the math of human population growth whenever I can. I usually start right off with the following graph:



Right now, at this minute, we may be doing "okay". Granted, that is for 80-90% of the global population. The remaining percentage may be not doing so well (starvation, perpetual wars and violence, what have you). Through much of human history the growth rate of our species was relatively flat. Of course, the industrial revolution changed all that. It's a very easy math problem to calculate the yearly growth rate since then. Take the population in 1900 of approximately 1.65 billion people and the year 2000 of 6.08 billion people, use the exponential growth formula, and you get approximately 1.3%. If you want more data, fill in as many points as you like in your favorite graphing program and calculate an exponential trendline, and you get pretty close to that.

Doubling time is 70/1.3, or about 54 years. Roughly, the Earth will be carrying around 12 billion people by the year 2054, assuming nothing drastic happens between now and then!

So, what is true for every population, is that a carrying capacity exists, which can change due to circumstances. As our technology increases, so too will the carrying capacity. It is not infinite however. How we reach our carrying capacity is the question.

1. Will we ease up to it and have no problems? (you should know what I mean by "no problems")
2. Will we overshoot it but come back down to it and have no problems?
3. Will we overshoot the carrying capacity and collapse to near extinction?

The logistic curve gives a nice picture of what a healthy population does as it approaches its' carrying capacity:



Unfortunately, I am not of the belief that our population growth is necessarily "healthy". My guess is that the growth rate indicates an overshoot will occur...the question remains that nobody knows the answer to is what the implications will be on the human race as a result of us blowing right by the carrying capacity.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by brass
 


Your calculations seem impeccable, as i would expect from a Maths teacher, but if you don't mind me saying, you're too focused on the maths and not the actual thrust of this thread.

In a nutshell, you're right...population growth is *not* a great thing right here and now.

The way we live now, the methods we use to derive our energy, our food, our planetary financial systems all conspire to produce the negatives we see around us every day.

Some of which are the obvious..starvation, gross inequality between peoples, poor resource allocation, lack of empathy for fellows suffering from want, wars and conflict, contamination of waterways, land, air and sea, societal stagnation, repression and civil unrest are all products of our current systems and will only continue to create these and further negatives in our lives unless a completely new paradigm, a new direction for a planetary affairs is sought.

This thread (the OP) isn't discussing the practicality or sustainability of population growth based on *our current systems*, and all of the negative implications that heavily discussed in this thread, but rather offering a window into proposals for a set of essentially simple concepts, and relatively simple engineering solutions required to offset the problems and negatives that we do and will experience if we continue on in our current systems.

Long story short...carry on as we are, don't change a thing and were destined for increased misery (as your calculations bear out)...implement a series of relatively simple concepts and it is shown that all of our worries about limited resources and living in a world of want, are are fallacy at best and blatant propaganda at worst, but more importantly they are easily resolved, and with the right mindset, plenty available to all now and in the future.

I agree increasing population numbers within our current systems would not be a good idea. But that's *not* what i'm proposing here in this thread.

Cheers for taking the time to post.

In fact, seeing as this thread is waning a little in popularity, i'd like to take this opportunity as the thread OP, to *Thank everyone* who has contributed to this thread.

It's been very successful (by my usual standards) and i want you all to know that i appreciate it very much.

Thank you.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 

I'm sorry, if I said you WANTED to get over your belief the masses are being dumbed down I misspoke. I actually do NOT think you want to get over that belief, but rather to preserve it.

I have no desire to defend a preconceived position and simply wish to get to the truth of the matter.


There is absolutely no need for the government to go to those extremes to dumb people down or depopulate us if that were their agenda. There are any number of very cheap and chemically simple ways to achieve either end that would be drastically more effective than the things you suspect.

We aren't talking about the government. We are talking about the elite (I don't like the word 'elite' - it comes with 'crazy-conspiracy theorist' connotations). Furthermore, I don't see how you come to the conclusion that there are cheaper alternatives. What 'very cheap' and 'drastically more effective' alternatives are these you speak of? I should point out that the fluoride that gets pumped into out drinking water contains hydrofluorosilic acid which is apparently so toxic you have to pay a considerable amount of money to put it into a toxic dump site. So it is cheap. In fact it saves money. The potential side-effects of consuming fluoride are well-documented and can beget a whole litany of biological abnormalities. Then again, perhaps you're right. Perhaps it's just a way for corporations to save money while creating more profit for pharmaceuticals by causing people physiological problems.


'I dont believe that these substances are being created for that purpose

Well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.


There are highly intelligent uneducated people, and highly educated people of very average intelligence.

Interesting. But surely these 'highly intelligent' autodidacts who have not had a formal education have still be educated in some capacity (i.e. they have assimilated information throughout their lifetime just as educated people do). What you say about people simply passively facsimileing information and mindlessly regurgitating it seems an epistemology encouraged throughout most schools. They do not teach our children the critical life-skills of logic and deduction or offer them valuable preparation for creative thought. The problem, as I see it, is that we are not 'educated beyond our intelligence' as a species, it's that the education-system is designed in such a way as to create generations of adults who 'follow the book' and blindly defer to authority. There are not many activities in school that engender left-hemisphere activity and that can only stifle creative thought.
edit on 24-4-2011 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by brass
 




if you think the human population growth is not a problem, or as the OP stated, "nothing but lies", you don't understand the implications of exponential growth. I teach high school math, and cover the math of human population growth whenever I can.


Your "hockey stick" graph reminds me of our current fiat currency problem, as demonstrated by Glenn Beck last year.

I wouldn't want to read anything into your comment above, but as a high school teacher, surely you wouldn't be using your position to push your own agenda, on young people who aren't yet able to sort out the details.

And as with many issues, the devil is in the details. We can focus on "exponential growth", and appeal to the seemingly objective mathematics of it all, and yet, even one small ASSUMPTION, will collapse the house of cards.

In this case, the shocking hockey stick is in fact at odds with the reality of a severe global FERTILITY CRISIS. For those that haven't heard of it, or gasp at the mere possibility, in the face of so much mathematics, don't bother reading anymore. Carry on, tune back in to your televisions, Al Gore will arrive shortly to keep you worried about something.

Obviously, this issue can be terribly political. There are elite agendas, IMO, and that being the case, we might well be suspicious of some of the "accepted" data out there.

Interestingly, one source for some of the most detailed research being done on this global fertility crisis, is the United Nations. Often slammed for being a central tool for the coming NWO, the matter hasn't gone unnoticed, although the data isn't exactly something that anyone cares to highlight. It seems that TPTB know about the reality, and yet continue to speak out of the other side of their mouths.

Here's a Reader's Digest version of the conclusions regarding this critical issue of fertility, as it impacts the global population: Best estimates suggest that the global population in the year 2100 will be THE SAME as today! Read it again. ZERO population "growth". In between, for those who realize there are more details, the population is supposed to peak around 2050, and then will plunge. The good news being that by 2100, it seems that population should once again level off (again, at around today's levels).

Obviously, the estimates that are used assume that things will continue at similar rates existing today, and the reality probably would not necessarily pan-out that way. Could be more, or less population at the turn of the next century, but the data should at a minimum not be completely ignored.

Of course, to be conservative, we might do well to factor in a few "unknowns" that might impact population levels, completely aside from continuing trends.

How about war? Some might not even consider war an unknown, but more of a "given", considering the dismal track record of the previous century.

How about a comet? Volcanoes. Earthquakes (today, much more to worry about, considering concentrated populations). Solar activity. Even small weather changes that could have drastic results on food production, and therefore the population.

SO, what does all this really mean? Apparently, a more objective view might mean that humankind is NOT exploding out of control, but rather that we're not out of the woods just yet, and our survival remains at serious risk.

Imagine. The survival of humanity still remains at considerable risk, and yet the arrogant and ignorant feel quite comfortable culling the herd. Interesting.

JR

edit on 24-4-2011 by JR MacBeth because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-4-2011 by JR MacBeth because: spelling, as usual



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D

Interesting. But surely these 'highly intelligent' autodidacts who have not had a formal education have still be educated in some capacity (i.e. they have assimilated information throughout their lifetime just as educated people do). What you say about people simply passively facsimileing information and mindlessly regurgitating it seems an epistemology encouraged throughout most schools.


Why do people do that? When the conversation turns to intelligence, there is always some percentage of people who seem to feel peppering their comments with multi-syllabic words makes them seem more intelligent, and..............it doesnt. Chomsky once commented that often times, that is merely a strategy for concealing lack of understanding on the topic. The hope is that people will either become impressed or confused by the word usage, and the elaborate nature of sentence construction and not notice there is little "meat" in the discussion.

The bottom line is simple. Education is a program, bits of data. Intelligence is the ability to manipulate, and synthesize new concepts from that data, or when lacking data, to analyze and formulate theory all on its own.

Many people memorize bits of data, and spit them out on cue, but never seem to notice that the theory is unworkable. (Economics has lately had a grand example of that, people highly educated, clearly beyond their ability to actually understand what they are learning well enough to see that the models they had memorized were fallacious. )


Originally posted by Nathan-D
The problem, as I see it, is that we are not 'educated beyond our intelligence' as a species, it's that the education-system is designed in such a way as to create generations of adults who 'follow the book' and blindly defer to authority.


Then why do some who are also educated in this system NOT "follow the book?" I will tell you why. Because if you have high native intelligence, you see the problems with what the book says, even if just by bumping up against a logical inconsistency that makes you look more intently. And you begin to look for your own answers, data, etc.

It would not matter if you tried to teach the majority to think critically. There would be some modest gain, and then it would plateau. All humans do not have an equal capability to reason. You can blame it on "the man" all you want, but the simple truth is that the majority of people are quite average and have a very modest ability to reason. They can memorize, but they cannot synthesize information. It isnt a moral judgment. You are not "less" or "bad" because this is the case, but, it does put a damper on your theory that people would be much more intelligent if the "elite" were not trying to dumb them down.

And lead. Lead would easily have done the trick cheaply, and much more efficiently than fluoride. Your assumption of high intelligence on the part of people in business (your "elite") is hindering you. The "elite" for the most part just want more. They make tons of money exploiting the highly intelligent, as intelligence and cunning are not the same, and they have no motive to want to dumb down the masses.

Your entire line of argument in terms of motive seems to be the assumption that the masses need to be dumbed down, (and any good Bell curve should show you why thats not the case) and that a smaller population is easier to control. Which is not the case AT ALL. Why do you suppose the "elite" are pressing to move to huge trading blocks with common government? Because small groups talk to one another, they discuss, and they form bonds of loyalty. And they begin to work for the best interests of that small group. But the larger the group, the more likely it is to fracture along lines of competing interests, and THAT, that potential to fracture the group, is what makes it easy to control.
edit on 25-4-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 

Why do people do that? When the conversation turns to intelligence, there is always some percentage of people who seem to feel peppering their comments with multi-syllabic words makes them seem more intelligent, and..............it doesnt. Chomsky once commented that often times, that is merely a strategy for concealing lack of understanding on the topic. The hope is that people will either become impressed or confused by the word usage, and the elaborate nature of sentence construction and not notice there is little "meat" in the discussion.

Damn! You can read me like a book! I guess that comment was directed at me (even though not explicitly stated). Should I stop using multi-syllabic words and start typing monosyllabically? Opps! There's another multi-syllabic word. *Slaps wrist*


Your entire line of argument in terms of motive seems to be the assumption that the masses need to be dumbed-down, (and any good Bell curve should show you why thats not the case) and that a smaller population is easier to control.

Yes, I believe that's how this argument got started. However I see you did not answer my question concerning the 'cheaper' and 'drastically more effective' alternatives of dumbing-down the population that you were speaking of. Nevertheless I guess what I don't understand is simply, why would they put a neurotoxin like fluoride into our drinking water when there is evidence linking fluoride consumption to a whole host of nasty side-effects, such as skeletal fluorosis, reduced IQ, osteosarcoma, thyroid disease, diabetes, joint pain, kidney failure, etc. Why put it in our drinking water when there have been so many pathologies over the years demonstrating unequivocally that fluoride consumption (at 2-3 ppm) is very bad for people and can dramatically reduce IQ? Is it just an accident they are putting a deadly neurotoxin in our drinking water? Surely not?


“Because small groups talk to one another, they discuss, and they form bonds of loyalty. And they begin to work for the best interests of that small group. But the larger the group, the more likely it is to fracture along lines of competing interests, and THAT, that potential to fracture the group, is what makes it easy to control”.

Perhaps so. Perhaps not. I suspect we could argue all day about whether a larger group or smaller group is easier to manipulate. Your argument is appealing though and logically sound.


The bottom line is simple. Education is a program, bits of data. Intelligence is the ability to manipulate, and synthesize new concepts from that data, or when lacking data, to analyze and formulate a theory all on its own. Many people memorize bits of data, and spit them out on cue, but never seem to notice that the theory is unworkable. (Economics has lately had a grand example of that, people highly educated, clearly beyond their ability to actually understand what they are learning well enough to see that the models they had memorized were fallacious).

I don't remember arguing with this. Why bring it up? Also that's where the whole 'left-hemisphere' of the brain thing comes in (which is associated with creative thought and logic), as opposed to the right-hemisphere which is associated mainly with information storage/recollection and how the school-education generally predominately encourages the latter and neglects the former.


And lead. Lead would easily have done the trick cheaply, and much more efficiently than fluoride.

Everyone knows lead is poisonous. But there is still a widespread misconception that consumption of fluoride is physiologically beneficial (to my knowledge it is only beneficial as a topical treatment).


more cheaply, and much more efficiently than fluoride.

More cheaply? Ferrgoodnesssake. Putting fluoride (which is a waste industrial product) into our water supply actually saves money because you have to pay to put it into a toxic dump site and the EPA does not allow you to put it into rivers because it is so dangerously toxic.
edit on 25-4-2011 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D
However I see you did not answer my question concerning the 'cheaper' and 'drastically more effective' alternatives of dumbing-down the population that you were speaking of.


Yes I did. I said lead. Lead was in gas, in paint, in piping, in solder, any number of things, and it had exactly the effects you were looking for. It dumbed people down, dramatically, and it could and did also kill many of them. Not only was it cheap and plentiful, but it was also ALREADY IN PLACE. Meaning all they had to do was do nothing to continue to use it. Your theory about fluoride would mean that they had to remove lead from solder and piping, and paint, and gas, etc. only to replace it with something else that didnt work nearly as effectively.

If they wanted the effect of dumbing people down, why go to all the trouble of removing from all sorts of stuff a substance that was already doing that remarkably well? It make no sense. They could have just added fluoride to the mix if their goal was to reduce intelligence.

And why would they add something to the water that created harmful side effects? Because, like I have been arguing, humans are not nearly as smart as they think they are. If you look back over the history of science, one remarkable thing stands out. How often what we thought we knew proved wrong in light of new evidence. I have arguments regularly with people in the sciences who feel that "that was the past, its different now" but.............it isnt. We are still barbarians stabbing in the dark a lot of the time. When they introduced fluoride, they didnt realize all its effects. And many of those effects have only become apparent over long periods of time. and studies need to be done, and redone to assure that it is a causative not a corollary agent. And then you have people with selfish financial interests who want things to stay the same who will present counter studies, and lobby.............etc. Human beings do not like change. There is also a beneficial side to fluoride that many people have internalized and so the masses in some cases would complain if they just removed it in some areas. There are lots of reasons we use all kinds of harmful things, and greed, ignorance and unwillingness to accept new data and change is at the top of that list.

Deliberately poisoning people is a possibility, but in this case, it is not probable. At least not to dumb people down. Since the vast majority of us actually used fluoridated water, if it were having that effect, you would expect to see some movement of the IQ distribution after they started adding the fluoride. And we do. IQs appear to be increasing over all. Not decreasing. Which hardly adds good anecdotal evidence to your claim. So maybe, just maybe, the fact that the "elite" removed from many consumer products a substance KNOWN to dumb people down, lead, and the subsequent rise in IQ supports the idea that the "elite" do not have an agenda to dumb people down. Humans are just another resource to be harvested, and smart people make things they can appropriate for themselves and profit from. And plentiful people provide cheap labor. There is just no incentive for the "elite" to dumb people down and depopulate them, which is why you see them actually behaving in ways which indicate they want the opposite.

www.wired.com...


Twenty-three years ago, an American philosophy professor named James Flynn discovered a remarkable trend: Average IQ scores in every industrialized country on the planet had been increasing steadily for decades. Despite concerns about the dumbing-down of society - the failing schools, the garbage on TV, the decline of reading - the overall population was getting smarter. And the climb has continued, with more recent studies showing that the rate of IQ increase is accelerating.



Originally posted by Nathan-D
Why put it in our drinking water when there have been so many pathologies over the years demonstrating unequivocally that fluoride consumption (at 2-3 ppm) is very bad for people and can dramatically reduce IQ? Is it just an accident they are putting a deadly neurotoxin in our drinking water? Surely not?


How about they just didnt realize the harmful possible effects before they did, and once they did, a lot of people have a financial incentive to keep doing it. Corporations have no morals. If something is profitable, they will keep doing it, despite its impact on people unless they are forced to stop, or it is made a financial liability to continue. You are not factoring in the mess our political system is in, with lobbyists and campaign contributions, and media campaigns. Something quite harmful can start innocently, prove to be bad in practice, and continue on for a long time without having as a direct underlying motive the desire to harm.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


IQs appear to be increasing over all. Not decreasing. Which hardly adds good anecdotal evidence to your claim. So maybe, just maybe, the fact that the "elite" removed from many consumer products a substance known to dumb people down, lead, and the subsequent rise in IQ supports the idea that the "elite" do not have an agenda to dumb people down.

Here's a scientific paper that may be of paticular interest to you (there and many more of these): Rocha-Amador D, et al. (2007). Decreased intelligence in children and exposure to fluoride and arsenic in drinking water. Quote from the paper: "Fluoride and arsenic in drinking water have a potential neurotoxic effect in children. It is urgent that public health measures to reduce exposure levels be implemented. Millions of people around the world are exposed to these pollutants and are therefore potentially at risk for negative impact on intelligence. This risk may be increased where other factors affecting central nervous system development, such as malnutrition and poverty, are also present. The risk is particularly acute for children, whose brains are particularly sensitive to environmental toxins". Here's a few more: Trivedi MH, et al. Effect of high fluoride water on intelligence of school children in India. Wang SX, et al. Arsenic and fluoride exposure in drinking water: children's IQ and growth in Shanyin county, Shanxi province, China.


Yes I did. I said lead. Lead was in gas, in paint, in piping, in solder, any number of things, and it had exactly the effects you were looking for. It dumbed people down, dramatically, and it could and did also kill many of them. Not only was it cheap and plentiful, but it was also already in place. Meaning all they had to do was do nothing to continue to use it. Your theory about fluoride would mean that they had to remove lead from solder and piping, and paint, and gas, etc. only to replace it with something else that didnt work nearly as effectively

You forget that everyone who is anyone knows that lead is a poisonous so they would not be able to put it into our drinking water or food anymore without creating public uproar. Fluoride on the other hand is still considered by many people to be physiologically beneficial (even though to my knowledge there is evidence only supporting that it is beneficial only as a topical treatment). Furthermore, as I said, fluoride contains hydrofluorosilicic acid which is a by-product of industrial waste and people have to pay large sums of money in order to safely dispose of it in toxic dump-sites. The EPA does not even allow fluoride with these dangerous chemicals to be dumped into rivers because they are so toxic. And yet, for some bizarre reason, you think there's nothing sinister about them putting it into our drinking water? I suspect that someone here may have already had their IQ substantially decreased by fluoride and is not thinking clearly.


And why would they add something to the water that created harmful side effects? Because, like I have been arguing, humans are not nearly as smart as they think they are.

Is that your argument? Honestly?
edit on 25-4-2011 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Here is some more data on fluoride, proving it is very dangerous and very cheap, the aluminium smelters make a 20,000% profit on it.

Flouride and Thyroid Cancer

Flouride and Population Control

Flouride Does Not Work

Flouride Inhibits Tooth Growth



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D
I suspect that someone here may have already had their IQ substantially decreased by fluoride and is not thinking clearly.


Lol. Well, Ive been called an idiot in many ways, on many occasions by people whose pet theories I did not buy into, but this is the first time fluoride has been implicated.




posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
The elite tell us this because they want to keep the population down. If there arent very many of us to get angry when we see how screwed we really are then they wont have as big a problem on there hands. The more the better for us!!!



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by CouncilOfNine
 


Im not arguing that fluoride is not harmful, not that it should remain in the water supply, just to be clear. Im only arguing that it is highly improbable that it was added to the water supply with the intent of dumbing people down and depopulating them.

Its much more likely it began with good intentions and when it was discovered that it was really useless, habit, greed, and apathy have kept it going. I do think we should get it out of the drinking water. Along with a lot of other crap thats in there causing problems, (estrogens and estrogen like substances) but our government is so in the pocket of big money, its going to be a long uphill fight.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


This Might shed a little light.




Let's begin at the beginning: The first occurrence of fluoridated drinking water on Earth was found in Germany's Nazi prison camps. The Gestapo had little concern about fluoride's supposed effect on children's teeth; their alleged reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to sterilize humans and force the people in their concentration camps into calm submission. (Ref. book: "The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben" by Joseph Borkin.)



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by CouncilOfNine
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


This Might shed a little light.




Let's begin at the beginning: The first occurrence of fluoridated drinking water on Earth was found in Germany's Nazi prison camps. The Gestapo had little concern about fluoride's supposed effect on children's teeth; their alleged reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to sterilize humans and force the people in their concentration camps into calm submission. (Ref. book: "The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben" by Joseph Borkin.)


Amazing isnt it that people will not only willingly drink poison but also give it to their children and defend it. Government would never lie to you huh? I guess its okay with these people when their children get sexually assaulted by the TSA too? Afterall, "it was professional".



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by CouncilOfNine
 


Im not arguing that fluoride is not harmful, not that it should remain in the water supply, just to be clear. Im only arguing that it is highly improbable that it was added to the water supply with the intent of dumbing people down and depopulating them.


Lets connect the dots here shall we?

1: America "wins" WW2 and brings all those Nazi Scientists over here (Lymes Disease/Plum Island as one example).
2: Drinking Fluoride originated in Nazi Germany.

Can you help me connect these? Im having a hard time here.


Incase you're too lazy to actually look up Plum Island: en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 26-4-2011 by AndrewJay because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
162
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join