From: PeterB - Original on
On Nov 28, 7:20 pm, "Peter B" <origin...(a)frag.com> wrote:
> "PeterB - Original" <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:3066aea3-a237-4d4c-8b40-5d1ddb26c8ce(a)a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 28, 2:53 pm, "Peter B" <origin...(a)frag.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Just double checked re mercury. While most of it is non-harmful...
>
> Care to back that up with a citation?
>
> > none of it is good for the body. Three are a few forms of mercury
> > that are poison. I'll let you figure that out. ;)
>
> The evidence shows that all mercury compounds are toxic, although some
> are more immediately hazardous and some do not cross the blood brain
> barrier. The following papers discuss the adverse health effects of
> inorganic mercury. Perhaps you will some (much needed) time to
> educate yourself.
>
> 1) Langford NJ, Ferner RE (1999). "Toxicity of mercury" (PDF). Journal
> of Human Hypertension 13 (10): 651-6. doi:10.1038/sj.jhh.1000896.
> Retrieved 2007-07-31
>
> 2) "Mercuric Cyanide." 1987.://
> (accessed April 2, 2009)
> =================================================
> Cyanide is well known for its danger. discovered centuries ago.
> nothing new there.
>
> You show your ignorance by claiming all mercury is toxic.

If you can name a form of mercury documented to be completely non
toxic, let's hear it. And do cite your source.

> Show proof. You said you always provide scientific proof. None of
> that is here.

When you claimed above that most mercury compounds are not harmful, I
challenged you to do the same, but you conveniently ignored my
challenge. If you don't understand the evidence I cited showing
various mercury compounds are indeed treated as hazardous, that's not
my problem.

> As to my using cites...

"cites" is a verb, not a noun. Learn how to write.

> , we've already gone over that, you don't want
> any as have previously stated, you discount them out of hand.

A convenient lie by which you hope to avoid being held to task for
your bogus claims. The reason you don't cite published science is
because there isn't any supporting whatever it is you think you are
saying.

From: Peter B on
"PeterB - Original" <pkm(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:ce3ac067-29d8-4e72-a7eb-f9943a4a06b4(a)k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 28, 7:20 pm, "Peter B" <origin...(a)frag.com> wrote:
>
>> As to my using cites...
>
> "cites" is a verb, not a noun. Learn how to write.
>

I'll be back later as I have things to do, I will complete this reply
then. Until then this will have to suffice you ignorant buffoon.

From three different dictionaries. All call it a transitive verb.

All these little sidetrips solely designed to make you look good in your
own mind. It is all foolishness, stupidity, and shows off your ADD.
Countless times I have ignored your petty little errors and I will
continue to do so. Especially since I understand that your capability to
learn anything ceased over 50 years ago.

Main Entry: cite
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cit�ed; cit�ing

cite (st)
tr.v. cit�ed, cit�ing, cites


tr.v., cit�ed, cit�ing, cites.
To quote as an authority or example.
To mention or bring forward as support, illustration, or proof: cited
several instances of insubordinate behavior.

To commend officially for meritorious action in military service.
To honor formally.
To summon before a court of law.


From: PeterB - Original on
On Nov 29, 12:04 am, Bob Officer <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:24:47 -0800 (PST), in misc.health.alternative,
> PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Naturally-occurring substances to which human beings have evolved a
> >beneficial metabolic response (nutrients such as water, oxygen,
> >vitamins, etc.) are not inherently poisonous.  By contrast,
> >pharmaceutical drugs (and other substances that are not naturally
> >occurring) are toxic to living cells (or disruptive to normal
> >metabolic function at some level) regardless of dose, clinical
> >detection, or EPA toxicity thresholds.  EPA levels are designed only
> >to protect a person from immediate (not necessarily long-term) harm.
> >In human physiology, a little bit of mercury is still a poison.  The
> >industry-sponsored view that all chemicals are somehow analogous is
> >based on the fiction that dose makes the poison.  It's a convenient
> >axiom serving the interests of the drug and agriculture industries but
> >is contradicted by the latest science, which shows that even tiny
> >amounts of foreign substances in human biology can result in disease.
> >[Ref.http://www.ourstolenfuture.org.]
>
> Dumbass Petie has never read about water intoxication.

The point is that water is not inherently poisonous. No one expects
you to get that part.

http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/hydrationandfluid/a/Hyponatremia.htmhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1770067/http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/crime/archives/2009/10/pathologi...http://chemistry.about.com/cs/5/f/blwaterintox.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication
>
> Seem he has lost this point completely.
>
> --
> Bob Officer
> Posting the truthhttp://www.skeptics.com.au

From: PeterB - Original on
On Nov 28, 7:49 pm, "Peter B" <origin...(a)frag.com> wrote:
> "PeterB - Original" <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:51b3c12d-1a1f-4db9-b418-08b986550e18(a)g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 28, 3:20 pm, Tristan <twer...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
> > PeterB - Original wrote:
> > > Naturally-occurring substances to which human beings have evolved a
> > > beneficial metabolic response (nutrients such as water, oxygen,
> > > vitamins, etc.) are not inherently poisonous....
>
> > Oxygen is extremely reactive and in high concentrations has
> > harmful effects on humans and most organisms.
>
> So does water, that doesn't make it *inherently* toxic.  Mercury is
> inherently toxic because we have no beneficial metabolic response
> to it.
> =============================================
> It is inherently toxic, idiot. Read up on it. (oxygen & water)

Really? So how is water good for you if it's toxic?

> I'm going to watch you dance, again.

Tell the chimp who trained you that you need more treats.
From: Bob Officer on
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:28:12 -0800 (PST), in misc.health.alternative,
PeterB - Original Dumbass <pkm(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:

>On Nov 29, 12:04�am, Bob Officer <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:24:47 -0800 (PST), in misc.health.alternative,
>> PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Naturally-occurring substances to which human beings have evolved a
>> >beneficial metabolic response (nutrients such as water, oxygen,
>> >vitamins, etc.) are not inherently poisonous. �By contrast,
>> >pharmaceutical drugs (and other substances that are not naturally
>> >occurring) are toxic to living cells (or disruptive to normal
>> >metabolic function at some level) regardless of dose, clinical
>> >detection, or EPA toxicity thresholds. �EPA levels are designed only
>> >to protect a person from immediate (not necessarily long-term) harm.
>> >In human physiology, a little bit of mercury is still a poison. �The
>> >industry-sponsored view that all chemicals are somehow analogous is
>> >based on the fiction that dose makes the poison. �It's a convenient
>> >axiom serving the interests of the drug and agriculture industries but
>> >is contradicted by the latest science, which shows that even tiny
>> >amounts of foreign substances in human biology can result in disease.
>> >[Ref.http://www.ourstolenfuture.org.]
>>
>> Dumbass Petie has never read about water intoxication.
>
>The point is that water is not inherently poisonous. No one expects
>you to get that part.

No, Stupid, The point is the 'dosage' is what makes it poisonous. IT
is what you have up as the topic. once the point is made, no matter
what you continue to say, you are wrong. The Dosage size is what
counts.

>>http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/hydrationandfluid/a/Hyponatremia.htmhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1770067/http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/crime/archives/2009/10/pathologi...http://chemistry.about.com/cs/5/f/blwaterintox.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication
>>
>> Seem he has lost this point completely.
>>
>> --
>> Bob Officer
>> Posting the truthhttp://www.skeptics.com.au

You still missed the point completely. Critical thinking is no one of
your skills, is it?


--
Bob Officer
Posting the truth
http://www.skeptics.com.au