211–220 of 303 posts
80 mg of caffeine at 90 "servings" per tube is 7200mg.
The LD50 for caffeine is 150mg/kg, so each tube is enough to potentially kill two 20kb toddlers.
Do you have warnings on the tube to tell people that the toothpaste is toxic to children? 80 mg of caffeine at 90 "servings" per tube is 7200mg. The LD50 for caffeine is 150mg/kg, so each tube is enough to potentially kill two 20kb toddlers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are being attacked?
Aggressively debated then :-) I dont give a shit - but jesus, one quotes another from memory and shitstorm ensues... :) Whatever.
It's okay to relate anecdotal experience - some these type of comments are really good - but the style in the comment should then reflect the fact that the claim cannot be validated in any concrete way.
Do you have warnings on the tube to tell people that the toothpaste is toxic to children? 80 mg of caffeine at 90 "servings" per tube is 7200mg. The LD50 for caffeine is 150mg/kg, so each tube is enough to potentially kill two 20kb toddlers.
Yes, we have a prominent warning on both the tube and the box that reads, "WARNING: For use by adults 18 years and older only. Keep away from children." Additionally, the tube comes shipped with a silver foil tamper-proof seal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aggressively debated then :-) I dont give a shit - but jesus, one quotes another from memory and shitstorm ensues... :) Whatever.
No one is attacking you personally. A lot of people read HN for insightful or evidence backed commentary and the voting mechanism is there to maintain this quality. No one can quote your story and retain any credibility -to a third party relating your story sounds like this: "A dude in a web discussion forum claimed that a man who, based on his childhood memories, was a CEO at Alcor, said that...". It has degenerated…
I proved who I was talking about, I stand by my statement and I believe that some HNers are dicks, period.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aggressively debated then :-) I dont give a shit - but jesus, one quotes another from memory and shitstorm ensues... :) Whatever.
No one is attacking you personally. A lot of people read HN for insightful or evidence backed commentary and the voting mechanism is there to maintain this quality. No one can quote your story and retain any credibility -to a third party relating your story sounds like this: "A dude in a web discussion forum claimed that a man who, based on his childhood memories, was a CEO at Alcor, said that...". It has degenerated…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Patrick, I used a random sampling of things... relax. How would you mandate pen-tests for every router to eliminate your job? Wouldnt happen, huh? Who gives a shit. My point is that if we are so concerned about one aspect of health, then why is "kids need good teeth" the only fucking vector we are addressing?
@tptacek: That is the second time I have called you Patrick... I have no idea why! I apologize. My whole life everyone has called me Steve, my name is Sam.... Anyway - I dont know why I see your username and equate it with Patrick. How do I reset mental variables?
I was down voted to hell for saying this in the past, but I'll share it again: One of my dads best friends was head of ALCOA, John Haymaker: Quote: "aluminum production produces fluoride acid - a substance so toxic that we cannot dispose of it... So we began fluoridation of the water because the only place we can store it is in your liver" And for those that toe the line with dental benefit BS: if the government was…
> why isn't any other medical benefit made free and literally forced upon you like fluoride is??? Iodization of edible salt is commonly either mandated or subsidized by government, so fluoridation of water isn't the only intervention of its kind.
What is the diff between this and other pandemic illness? Meaning (in all seriousness) why certain things and not others? What or who formed these decisions
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you advocating for less testing on toothpaste or more testing on cosmetics...
In a way, both, depending. In the case of toothpaste, we've already tested fluoride. I'm going to guess we know the safe limits and the recommended amounts in the stuff. So as long as there isn't any new sorts of drug in the toothpaste and one is using pretty standard safe sort of ingredients, there isn't really a need for some of the testing - animal or human testing. Tests to verify the percentage of fluoride in th…
This is probably exactly what the testing is for. Consider a drug that is (fluoride + X), where both fluoride and X are "already tested and safe". Are we sure that for all values for X, (fluoride + X) is safe also?