Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

GeeTeeEffOhh    

Rank #19275 on Subscribers
GeeTeeEffOhh Avatar Level 245 Comments: Doinitrite
Offline
Send mail to GeeTeeEffOhh Block GeeTeeEffOhh Invite GeeTeeEffOhh to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Age: 19
Date Signed Up:11/19/2010
Last Login:7/29/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#19451
Highest Content Rank:#3982
Highest Comment Rank:#3740
Content Thumbs: 3206 total,  3727 ,  521
Comment Thumbs: 4678 total,  5272 ,  594
Content Level Progress: 6% (6/100)
Level 132 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 133 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 34% (34/100)
Level 245 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 246 Comments: Doinitrite
Subscribers:3
Content Views:86250
Times Content Favorited:84 times
Total Comments Made:373
FJ Points:1767
From London.
100% OC. NEVER EVER REPOSTED.

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny text/links

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny pictures

  • Views: 59890
    Thumbs Up 2938 Thumbs Down 335 Total: +2603
    Comments: 179
    Favorites: 54
    Uploaded: 06/08/12
    FJ Today FJ Today
  • Views: 22085
    Thumbs Up 317 Thumbs Down 31 Total: +286
    Comments: 138
    Favorites: 20
    Uploaded: 05/29/11
    Cool Chick Carol Comp Cool Chick Carol Comp
  • Views: 4187
    Thumbs Up 83 Thumbs Down 48 Total: +35
    Comments: 50
    Favorites: 2
    Uploaded: 05/22/12
    A Little Wallpaper For Y'all (Enlarge!) A Little Wallpaper For Y'all...
  • Views: 2319
    Thumbs Up 35 Thumbs Down 11 Total: +24
    Comments: 3
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 01/16/11
    Awesome Inventions Awesome Inventions
  • Views: 1540
    Thumbs Up 23 Thumbs Down 3 Total: +20
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 07/28/11
    Socially Awkward Edward Socially Awkward Edward
  • Views: 873
    Thumbs Up 20 Thumbs Down 3 Total: +17
    Comments: 5
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 01/14/11
    Japanese Comp Japanese Comp
1 2 3 > [ 18 Funny Pictures Total ]

latest user's comments

#209 - That is fucking fantastic. 06/22/2014 on Bored Drawfag Here +1
#525 - Thumbed down. Just lookin out for a brother.  [+] (1 new reply) 06/18/2014 on nofap +18
User avatar #526 - joshlol (06/18/2014) [-]
thanks
#81 - Picture  [+] (1 new reply) 06/13/2014 on You will never be as smooth... +1
#88 - klokwork Comment deleted by GeeTeeEffOhh
#200 - This is actually incredible. Definitely a strang… 06/11/2014 on Bored Drawfag Here +1
#25 - Imagine how true you know science to be. Given whatever reason…  [+] (28 new replies) 05/20/2014 on Wise Words -3
User avatar #262 - gitanisme (05/21/2014) [-]
>implying science can be even compared to religion when it comes to what is true
>implying there's any actual evidence for their beliefs
>implying there's no evidence about their beliefs being bullshit
#148 - narutolas (05/21/2014) [-]
That is a damned good point. The only problem is this: I'm assuming that in this nightmare world there is a reason everyone feels the need that religion is mandatory to teach in school. I'm assuming this reason is that they all believe it to be 100% true, having never been presented with evidence to the contrary. It follows, then, that in this nightmare universe, religion has evidence that can be presented daily, and on command, just like how in OUR universe, you can do that with science. Instead of conducting an experiment or researching, people in this hypothetical world would pray for a cure to their cancer, and a giant hand would descend from the sky and cure it. Unfortunately, this is OUR universe, where science holds all the evidence, and the evidence for religion is confined in a little book that they put in hotels.
Also here's my favorite quote from eric idle
<--
#144 - xtremeweed (05/21/2014) [-]
User avatar #75 - christmouth (05/21/2014) [-]
Other than that science hasn't always been taught the same way it is today. There was a time were schools taught children biblical creation, but when people made more discoveries, like age of the earth, evolution, theories that could actually be proven, it replaced the biblical creation, but that didn't happen in Sunday schools because they don't need evidence for their beliefs.

They don't KNOW that their beliefs is true, they just think that it is.
User avatar #58 - leonhardt (05/21/2014) [-]
Only problem with your cute little story is that science can actually be proven.
#29 - makotoitou (05/20/2014) [-]
Except that there has been more than enough proof for science while the only "proof" for religion is some books. Come back here with a picture of a giant magic man on a cloud and then we'll be able to teach it side by side with an Archaeopteryx.
User avatar #146 - alltimetens (05/21/2014) [-]
This is why I think atheism is retarded.

"Come back with a picture of a magic man on a cloud"

That isn't what any religious individual person believes. We do not know what God is. God could be energy, God could be all the morality in this world, or all the laws governing the universe. The fact of the matter is that we. Don't. Know.

We believe that God is nothing like his creations. Therefore you are arguing against a point that hasn't been made. Thus, you are nothing more that an arrogant person.
User avatar #384 - christmouth (05/21/2014) [-]
The bible say that Jesus ascended to heaven, and that God made man in his image, so the analogy is fine.
User avatar #299 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/21/2014) [-]
>We believe that God is nothing like his creations
>God created man in his image

lel
#168 - jeanmariegrangon (05/21/2014) [-]
Of course that isn't what any religious person believes. Instead they choose to believe that they need a supernatural being, or a book, to guide them in their life, but just don't realize that they're making all the choice by themselves all along. There is only a small minority that believes in the bible as whole, because of the vast amount of contradictions it contains, but on what criteria can you decide to put aside some part of the scriptures? The answer is crystal clear. You use the rationality. Now comes the part that needs a little courage. If you can use rationality to make some choices, than use it to make all the choices.
#201 - splitalterego (05/21/2014) [-]
Could you name some of the contradictions?
User avatar #204 - jeanmariegrangon (05/21/2014) [-]
God says murder is bad, then kills every human being excepted a familyl. God tells the jews to exterminate the ammonite people. God sends himself on earth in the person of Jesus to suffer for our sins so he can allows himself to forgive the human race for the original sin. The concept of the trinity, etc. You can read the book The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins for a quite impressive list.
P.S. : one day I'll read the bible then I will be able to provide a more exhaustive list.
User avatar #36 - magicexplain (05/20/2014) [-]
"Magic man on a cloud"... sounds accurate
User avatar #32 - stefanovic (05/20/2014) [-]
While frustrating, I think GeeTeeEffOhh is actually right.
Of course there's more proof for science, but since you didn't discover the Archaeopteryx's fossile yourself (I presume), you just put your faith in the guys who tell you it has been discovered.
You just assume they're telling you the truth, while you have no proof at all.
User avatar #79 - christmouth (05/21/2014) [-]
The only thing I assume is that the system works. There's a strict way for something to be accepted in the science community, and it needs to be peer reviewed by some of the most competent people on the planet, and if that isn't enough, then what is.

The material is also public, so I can go and research it myself, and look into it.
User avatar #37 - gammajk (05/20/2014) [-]
Actually, no, you can look at their papers and theories and see for yourself what the proof is. All the information in science is available for literally anyone to come in and debunk or refute, including you and I. If you can poke holes in the current scientific theories, then please go collect your Nobel prize.
#121 - kingpongthedon (05/21/2014) [-]
Just playing the devil's though I guess it's God's advocate in this case advocate here:

Look at it from a theological perspective. There are a number of logical proofs for God's existence and many other divine aspects. You're free to go in and poke holes in them just like you can with any other theory. So far nobody's done it. Roughly 90% of the world follows some religious doctrine, I assure you that any reward for effectively disproving them would be far greater than that of a Nobel Prize. However, as of now some of these theorems have held up for millenia longer than most scientific principles that are now considered law. On the other hand, Newton's Laws of Motion are provably invalid yet they are often still taught in schools as absolute fact.

And yes, many of these theological doctrines cannot be directly tested but the same can be said of many scientific principles, especially in mathematics and more advanced physics. We still believe these principles are worthy of discussion, why do they get special treatment? They are no more testable than any religious idea, yet they are still held in high esteem.

All I'm trying to get at here is that we can't completely dismiss the idea as scientists, though I have myself. I do however believe it's worthy of debate, though not in a kindergarten classroom, but neither should M-theory. It's good to have people challenging your views. If we don't have people challenging the current Standard Model, how can we expect to move forward to the next one? Point is, we need people challenging on all fronts. One day we may reach a point where all our questions are answered, but we're far from it today. Until we can satisfactorily show how and why they're inadequate models we need to be open to them, we're just not there yet.
User avatar #147 - gammajk (05/21/2014) [-]
cont.
>Newton's Laws of Motion are provably invalid yet they are often still taught in schools as absolute fact.
They are TECHNICALLY invalid, yet for the purposes of high school which is where they're taught, they are valid for everything you could possibly want. It's only until you start studying quantum mechanics and other related physics fields where Newton's laws start to break down. Like I said, very high and very low energy states as well as the very large and very small.
>but the same can be said of many scientific principles, especially in mathematics and more advanced physics
That's wrong. Like I said, ANY mathematical proof is correct because that's how mathematics works. Math is not subjective and it is not a concrete thing, it is a completely abstract idea that would still remain true anywhere you go in the universe. If you want to refute this, feel free, just note that you won't.
As for physics? Yeah. That's how science works. Scientific theories change over time to better fit with reality. Religious doctrine does not. Scientific theories do not start out with a premise and look for evidence (or in religion's case, philosophy as well) to fit that premise - religious doctrine does.
>One day we may reach a point where all our questions are answered, but we're far from it today.
But do you honestly, legitimately believe that this point will include a two thousand year old book written by superstitious desert people?

>In addition I'd like to remind everybody that religious dogma is often the motivator for scientific breakthroughs.
While that may be true in some cases, it does NOT mean that religious dogma is a fundamental part of science. It is an unnecessary addition - science operates completely fine without religion.
>open mind
A phrase often thrown around by the superstitious, but one that is completely misunderstood.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
#162 - kingpongthedon (05/21/2014) [-]
First off, what reason do we have to suggest that something does not need a cause? The entire premise of science is cause and effect. All known natural phenomenon have a cause. If it doesn't have a cause, it's behaving outside of our understanding of naturality. Depending on your definition, that may qualify it as a god (whether or not it needs to be conscious or conscientious to be a god is up for debate). If you define God as the primary stimulus of existence, then it absolutely exists.

Also you say it's lazy to chalk up Creation to God without an explanation, yet you offer no explanation as to why "everything must have a cause" is wrong. You just say it is. Frankly, we don't have an answer for either and until we do we really shouldn't say what is and is not true.

And yes, many of the proofs do not specify which religion is right, but that isn't their point. They're theological, not religious, in nature. Big difference. Theology is analytic and religion is practical. It's more empirical in nature, it takes observed phenomenon and sets to interpret what it says about the spiritual world. Religion on the other hand starts with something that is believed to work whether or not there is any actual understanding behind it. The same can be said of the relation between engineering and science. As a material scientist, I can tell you that there is a ton we can't explain about certain material behavior, but engineers still use them. We can do more research, but right now we have something that we believe works and we're damn sure gonna use it until we come up with something better. In the same way, theologians attempt to further refine religion into something better suited for what we observe in the world.

Cont.
User avatar #217 - gammajk (05/21/2014) [-]
The point I was trying to make is that religion is not the cause of human curiosity but rather a by-product. Humans who have conducted scientific experiments throughout the years were doing so for various reasons, but they all boiled down to the same thing - curiosity. Ancient people did it to know more about god's creation and most modern scientists, who are vastly more atheistic than the general population, do it to know more about the universe and the natural world. While religion may have at one point been the spark that drove people's curiosity and what made them want to understand the world around them, scientists today who don't believe in any religion have the same drive to explore and understand. It's not exclusive to religion and that's why I don't think religion is necessary or helped in any way.
User avatar #214 - gammajk (05/21/2014) [-]
>that’s what a hypothesis is, a premise to be tested
Technically yes, but it's different. A hypothesis is simply a prediction of what the results of the experiment will be. What we DON'T do is start off with is an ASSUMPTION of what the results will be, and then ignore the results that don't fit with the assumption. Having a hypothesis and having it proven wrong by your own experiment is absolutely normal in science. A scientist that can't change their mind based on the evidence before them and instead continues to believe their original hypothesis is a bad scientist.

>It is far from a pure reflection of the true state of things.
What you're referring to is the warped practice of science, not science itself.

>I have exactly zero knowledge of where science is going to end up. However, as a scientist myself, I’m damn sure not going to deny the possibility without conclusive evidence.
And most people who identify as atheist are exactly the same way. The god that is suggested by these proofs could very well exist, but I see absolutely no reason to claim it does, let alone worship it and pray to it because there simply isn't any evidence that it exists, and I see no reason to argue for it using flawed philosophical proofs instead of actual empiricism and science.


As for whether or not religion as a whole has helped humanity, well that's subjective. I don't really see the scientific breakthroughs brought about by religion. If anything, religion has hindered it. Humans have always observed and they've always experimented, but what religion does is it confines the observations, experiments and more importantly results to the "god box", and people who make observations that go against religious doctrine are considered heathens and often killed. It's not necessarily scientific breakthroughs brought about by religion, as you say, but simply by religious people.

cont
User avatar #211 - gammajk (05/21/2014) [-]
>Religion on the other hand starts with something that is believed to work whether or not there is any actual understanding behind it.
That's precisely what assuming the spiritual world exists is though.

The problem with comparing theology + religion to science + engineering is that science and engineering are both things that we can apply to the real world and see the physical, tangible results of. Theology and religion can do neither of those things. The analogy isn't really valid. Science doesn't really compare to theology because theology still assumes there is a god and it still assumes there is a supernatural world.

>People have evidence supporting or refuting one claim and move on to the next one.
They don't though. People still believe millenia-old stories like christianity, judaism, islam, etc (i'm not going to get into a discussion as to why these religions are incorrect). The same arguments get made over and over again with no regard for the truth because most people simply refuse to consider the idea that their god does not exist. Praying has been proven to be ineffectual yet it's still considered the number one thing that all religious people should do.

>Religion will continue to evolve in conjunction with our understanding of the universe
Yes, and this is called the god of the gaps.

>They just aren’t testable in the tangible world.
It is though. 2 + 2 = 4 will always be true across the entire universe specifically because it isn't a tangible thing and it isn't a "law" per se, but rather a concept. Mathematical laws are absolutely testable. Modern society is based off of it. You can take any mathematical idea you want and apply it to the real world and you'll find that it remains true every single time. You can re-do all the proofs for yourself and you'll get the same result every single time. If that isn't something being testable, I don't know what is.

cont
User avatar #209 - gammajk (05/21/2014) [-]
>First off, what reason do we have to suggest that something does not need a cause?
Because again, the fundamental laws of physics break down at the very small and very large. If time itself began at the big bang, then there was never a point where the universe didn't exist and there is no need for a creator because it never "began". It's completely counter-intuitive, but so is everything about the speed of light and yet we know that to be true.
We still don't know precisely what happened at the big bang, but attributing it to a deity of some kind is pointless. It's just tacking on an unnecessary factor for the sake of having it.

> If it doesn't have a cause, it's behaving outside of our understanding of naturality.
Yes, that's precisely what I said. The same thing can be said about most of quantum mechanics.

>whether or not it needs to be conscious or conscientious to be a god is up for debate
Not really. That would be like calling any natural phenomena "god", like evolution or planetary formation. Technically they "created" us, but calling it god is just desperate clinging to archaic beliefs and traditions.

>If you define God as the primary stimulus of existence, then it absolutely exists.
Sure, but then you're just defining god as something that it isn't. What's even the point of calling it god then?

>t's more empirical in nature, it takes observed phenomenon and sets to interpret what it says about the spiritual world.
It isn't though, and you contradicted yourself in the same sentence. You can't be empirical in "the spiritual world" because there is no spiritual world. Literally everything that is attributed to spirits or the supernatural can be explained using quite natural explanations. It's the opposite of empirical because there's no evidence the spiritual world exists, yet it assumes it does.

cont
#165 - kingpongthedon (05/21/2014) [-]
This brings us to my next point, religious doctrine does change. In Christianity alone, there are 3 main divisions with countless divisions under each. Christianity itself is an update on old Jewish doctrine. Very few people are sacrificing goats to Jupiter anymore because we’ve sufficiently proven that sacrificing goats to Jupiter is ineffective. People have evidence supporting or refuting one claim and move on to the next one. Religion will continue to evolve in conjunction with our understanding of the universe, case in point: Deism and the Scientific Revolution.

Now back to mathematics. I’m not saying they don’t hold up. They just aren’t testable in the tangible world. The same is true of theological proofs. What reason do we have to accept this for one and not the other?

And science does start with a premise, that’s what a hypothesis is, a premise to be tested. Nobody’s just making up experiments out of the blue. And if you really want to get into it there are countless examples of people making their data fit their own agenda. Science is much better about this, but it isn’t immune. It is far from a pure reflection of the true state of things.

And last major point, do I believe that any of it will include a two thousand year old book written by superstitious desert people? Fuck no, but the key word here is believe. I have exactly zero knowledge of where science is going to end up. However, as a scientist myself, I’m damn sure not going to deny the possibility without conclusive evidence.

Lastly, I’d like to say that you’re correct that science does not need religion. However, I do believe that without religion we would not be nearly as advanced as we would be today. The number of scientific breakthroughs that have been brought about by religion is astonishing. There have of course been a number of times where it has impeded scientific progress, but on the whole I believe it’s done more good than harm.
#221 - anonymous (05/21/2014) [-]
"we have sufficiently proven that sacrificing goats to Jupiter is ineffective"

and why exactly isn't that true for any and all of the other ~40000 gods that popped up during our time on this planet?
User avatar #142 - gammajk (05/21/2014) [-]
>There are a number of logical proofs for God's existence and many other divine aspects. You're free to go in and poke holes in them just like you can with any other theory. So far nobody's done it.
You couldn't be more wrong.
Most of the "proofs" of god's existence are all the same thing - they all boil down to the cosmological argument, ie "everything that exists has a cause, the universe exists, therefore the universe has a cause, aka god". There's three problems with this.
The first problem is that the same can be applied to the god that you just "proved". Saying that god is the uncaused cause of the universe is not a justifiable refutation of that. It's lazy argumentation to bring an unnecessary factor into the equation just to allow for your religion to be correct.

The second problem is that the first premise is wrong, "everything must have a cause", is wrong. The argument can be compared to this: "Any object that is pushed forward will move faster, objects can travel just under the speed of light, therefore pushing an object travelling just under the speed of light will make it move faster than the speed of light". The first two premises are both true, but there are fundamental laws of the universe in play that make the first two premises not lead to the third. At very high and very low energy states, the laws of physics that we see in everyday life start to break down and you can't necessarily apply the same kind of logic we use in everyday life to these situations.

The third problem is that even if we ignore the first two problems, these arguments are not arguments for any of the deities commonly worshipped today. The christian god, the muslim god, etc. Even if the proofs were sound, which they are not, they would not prove that Jesus is the son of god or that god made man in his own image or anything else in any holy book on earth.

Near character limit
#128 - kingpongthedon (05/21/2014) [-]
In addition I'd like to remind everybody that religious dogma is often the motivator for scientific breakthroughs. The whole Scientific Revolution was born out of the idea that there were a set of organized rules put in place by a divine being. People then set out to find this order and attributed to God. People wouldn't have found this order, or at least not as quickly, if they didn't already believe in God. They weren't exactly without bias like the good experimentalists we often hold them up to be. They had a clear agenda that they set out to prove.

Again, all I'm saying is keep an open mind until ALL of the facts are in. I assure you we'll be long dead before that happens. Until then, let's keep everything on the table. You don't have to like it, you don't have to use it yourself, but don't throw out any of the tools others have proven to be useful, especially one as powerful and time-tested as religion.
User avatar #149 - christmouth (05/21/2014) [-]
"In addition I'd like to remind everybody that religious dogma is often the motivator for scientific breakthroughs"

Still, religious dogma has been in the way of some of the most major breakthroughs we've had, and some of the breakthroughs have come, because someone disagreed with what the dogma said, and wanted to prove that it was incorrect.

"Roughly 90% of the world follows some religious doctrine, I assure you that any reward for effectively disproving them would be far greater than that of a Nobel Prize."

How do you disprove angels, hell, heaven, demons, genies etc.?
#11 - Goddammit, I'm the shit.  [+] (6 new replies) 04/20/2014 on Jesus died for your shits +164
#88 - laspussy (04/21/2014) [-]
Well fuck your shit son
#84 - newdevyx (04/21/2014) [-]
Jesus Christ how horrifying.
User avatar #41 - mylazy (04/20/2014) [-]
What is this from?
User avatar #43 - brettyht (04/20/2014) [-]
Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood

character is Pride. literally, Pride.
User avatar #45 - mylazy (04/20/2014) [-]
Thanks.
#26 - lirfy (04/20/2014) [-]
Pride is the one I got scared of the most
#11 - And in 45 states in America, tap water is technically deemed &…  [+] (4 new replies) 04/15/2014 on mountain water -9
#70 - anonymous (04/16/2014) [-]
Solution isn't to drink cancer water either.
#12 - splattercrap (04/15/2014) [-]
User avatar #102 - kilotech (04/16/2014) [-]
I cant verify that but my town water tastes like pool water accidentally drank pool water once so thats something
#31 - quatre (04/16/2014) [-]
I believe GeeTeeEffOhh was referencing the results of the 2009 executive summary of the Environmental Working Group. However, I think he only skimmed the article, as it does not say 45 states have "unsafe" water, only "contaminated' water, with a spread of 316 contaminants.

About two thirds of those 'contaminants' are unregulated. There is nothing saying those substances are safe, but neither is there anything saying they are unsafe (in the summary). EPA has since issued regulations voluntarily (not mandated) and found 49 unregulated contaminants at the time of testing were above the _ new_ legal limits.

For actual performance of eliminating regulated contaminants, the summary says:
"
For the 114 contaminants that are regulated, EWG's drinking water quality analysis found that utilities achieved 92 percent compliance with EPA's mandatory health standards, demonstrating that utilities can and do comply with regulatory standards when they exist.
"
www.ewg.org/tap-water/executive-summary.php

Let's face it, the US has some of the safest municipal water in the world. That's why 25-30% of bottled water is municipal water. And the rest of that bottled water? It's not held up to the same regulation level as municipal water and allows for some contamination of E.coli, fecal coliform, and parasites such as cryptosporidium or giardia.

environment.about.com/od/healthenvironment/a/tap_water_safe.htm
#6 - Yes, because the puddles outside my house are perfectly safe t…  [+] (9 new replies) 04/15/2014 on mountain water -10
#69 - anonymous (04/16/2014) [-]
Ignorant Alert!
#13 - anonymous (04/15/2014) [-]
Glorious Scandinavian tap water!
#10 - Sjujimako (04/15/2014) [-]
You are gods mistake
User avatar #8 - splattercrap (04/15/2014) [-]
They're talking about a tap
User avatar #11 - GeeTeeEffOhh (04/15/2014) [-]
And in 45 states in America, tap water is technically deemed "unsafe" to drink.
So, although it's a nice point that these people make and the production of the placstic is a terrible thing, I can't help but think this is a terrible principle upon which to base their argument.
#70 - anonymous (04/16/2014) [-]
Solution isn't to drink cancer water either.
#12 - splattercrap (04/15/2014) [-]
User avatar #102 - kilotech (04/16/2014) [-]
I cant verify that but my town water tastes like pool water accidentally drank pool water once so thats something
#31 - quatre (04/16/2014) [-]
I believe GeeTeeEffOhh was referencing the results of the 2009 executive summary of the Environmental Working Group. However, I think he only skimmed the article, as it does not say 45 states have "unsafe" water, only "contaminated' water, with a spread of 316 contaminants.

About two thirds of those 'contaminants' are unregulated. There is nothing saying those substances are safe, but neither is there anything saying they are unsafe (in the summary). EPA has since issued regulations voluntarily (not mandated) and found 49 unregulated contaminants at the time of testing were above the _ new_ legal limits.

For actual performance of eliminating regulated contaminants, the summary says:
"
For the 114 contaminants that are regulated, EWG's drinking water quality analysis found that utilities achieved 92 percent compliance with EPA's mandatory health standards, demonstrating that utilities can and do comply with regulatory standards when they exist.
"
www.ewg.org/tap-water/executive-summary.php

Let's face it, the US has some of the safest municipal water in the world. That's why 25-30% of bottled water is municipal water. And the rest of that bottled water? It's not held up to the same regulation level as municipal water and allows for some contamination of E.coli, fecal coliform, and parasites such as cryptosporidium or giardia.

environment.about.com/od/healthenvironment/a/tap_water_safe.htm
#4853579 - Love you ADDY 04/09/2014 on Play items +1
#4853482 - This song is actually perfect for a DJ 4Dm1n … 04/09/2014 on Play items -1

user's channels

Join Subscribe pokemon
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 1050 / Total items point value: 1300

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #3 - bigfatniggerdickz (09/24/2013) [-]
u cockney m8
User avatar #2 - gingershavetrolls (01/14/2013) [-]
Yeah, you might as well gift me all your FJ points as well. They're useless to you!
User avatar #1 - SuccessfulNegroII (06/19/2012) [-]
you motherfucking guy.

Also your page comment virginity are belong to me.
 Friends (0)