Everything Causes Cancer



REGISTER TO REMOVE ADS

quitejaded

I Do Phoenix.
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
2,805
Awards
0
Age
30
Location
Texas, USA
Website
xanga.com
Because everything has been modified into forms that are not good for our body. Even your fruits and vegetables have been altered. Isn't it ridiculous that apples are now 3 times the size that they are supposed to be, but are 3 times less nutritious?

And before I started citing research and articles, I just wonder how many of us on here are concerned at all about their health and the corporate manipulation of our food so that we can have an intellectual conversation about it. I'm just itching to have one. It'd be really nice to meet someone who's not 40 years old to talk to about this.

I'm not one of those people who think that the FDA and every food empire's goal is to kill every person. But I do know I will be growing a lot of my own food and no longer using a microwave. I've cut out junk foods, fast foods, sodas, etc, for the most part. My goal is to eat as much real food as possible.
 

Orion

Prepared To Die
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
20,384
Awards
6
  • Retired Staff
  • 2013 Roleplaying Awards
  • Quack Attack
  • Alter Ego
  • Writer of Writers
  • Master of Monologues
Nothing 'causes' cancer, save for an unhelpful mutation in self-replication that means the growing tissue eventually becomes fatal. 'Everything' just increases the chances of you getting cancer in certain areas.
 

Johnny Stooge

Hawkguy
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
6,797
Awards
6
Location
Australia.
  • Tomb Raider
  • Kingdom Hearts HD 1.5 ReMIX
  • Sleeping Dogs
  • Quack Attack
  • Retired Staff
  • Master of Monologues
And before I started citing research and articles, I just wonder how many of us on here are concerned at all about their health and the corporate manipulation of our food so that we can have an intellectual conversation about it. I'm just itching to have one. It'd be really nice to meet someone who's not 40 years old to talk to about this.
I take drugs and drink like a lonely pirate.

I'm not concerned. Being too cautious makes things boring.
 

krexia

Translator
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
1,086
Awards
3
  • Retired Staff
  • Quack Attack
  • News Hound
Isn't it ridiculous that apples are now 3 times the size that they are supposed to be, but are 3 times less nutritious?
Got a peer-reviewed source on that?

What drives me crazy is this idea that 'natural' is always healthier than 'artificial'. Countless lives are saved every day by synthetic medicines. Inorganic fertilisers generally improve the nutritional value of food, and genetically modified foods have been used to save lives in countries where vitamin deficiencies are a problem. Look at Norman Borlaug's work; look at golden rice.
 

Teiku 5

Something About, Baby, You and I...
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Messages
4,190
Awards
0
Age
26
Location
Looking for Someone to Watch Over Me
Website
www.facebook.com
while i don't know about health concerns i will agree with the fact that produce has been manipulated in plenty of ways. nevertheless, its what the people want.

just about everyone loves strawberries, right? and if you had a nice big plate/bowl/whatever of strawberries in front of you, which one would you pick? probably the biggest one as long as it was nice and such.

i havent eaten strawberries for going on almost 2 years, because i had Amish strawberries that are about as natural as you can get. they were smaller than average, but they were the deepest red i've ever seen a strawberry be. and talk about sweet and juicy. it was amazing.

and i haven't had them since :/.

now i'm not saying that all food is tasting less then its best, but you can be for sure that food companies are trying to make things bigger so they'll be more appealing to the eye and to help save/make them money.
 

very differentiable
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
1,912
Awards
1
Location
an n-brane
  • Quack Attack
I'm not one of those people who think that the FDA and every food empire's goal is to kill every person. But I do know I will be growing a lot of my own food and no longer using a microwave. I've cut out junk foods, fast foods, sodas, etc, for the most part. My goal is to eat as much real food as possible.
Skipping fatty foods, sure it'll help you stay on weight, doesn't prevent cancer. However the microwave is pretty harmless, aside from causing burns. It doesn't have the energy to ionise atoms in tissues, something that does cause cancer, it is only able to increase the kinetic energy of water molecules. And no, food doesn't cause cancer, i hate ct bullshit.
 

krexia

Translator
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
1,086
Awards
3
  • Retired Staff
  • Quack Attack
  • News Hound
However the microwave is pretty harmless, aside from causing burns. It doesn't have the energy to ionise atoms in tissues, something that does cause cancer, it is only able to increase the kinetic energy of water molecules.
Heh, I completely missed the bit about microwaves in the OP. Funny stuff.
 

Devious

New member
Joined
May 29, 2004
Messages
834
Awards
0
Age
29
Location
Utah
I used to work at Whole Foods so I have the whole "Natural Food, Natural Life" thought process caught up in my mind. As unfortunate as some of you may find - hell, even I find it a little bemusing - there are a few things that I have learned about recent GMO products that absolutely disgust me in the sense of wanting to even trust commercial food products.

FDA To Allow Irradiation Of Spinach And Lettuce

This link describes how the FDA has allowed the irradiation of spinach and some forms of lettuce for bacterial control purposes. I personally find this to be a horrid example of how we are ruining our food and possibly even killing ourselves slowly by making our food almost radioactive. However, this is my opinion and I base it on what I have read, seen, and even tasted in some of my experience.

Toward Freedom - Genetic Eucalyptus Trees Threaten Southern U.S.

This link is merely to provide a bit more information on my previous point about GMOs. It speaks of how Genetically Altered Eucalyptus trees are allowed to be planted by one GM group in the US as a "field trial". However, I'm sure all of you have taken a simple biology class and learned that adding an exotic species of plant or animal to an ecosystem is cause for disaster. My point being that we as humans are doing many things to our entire ecosystem (even down to genetics) that are cause for concern or redress due to the damage that can be done now, or in our future. This does include my personal belief that genetically altered food can cause inflammation and possibly even mutation, leading to a greater risk for cancer.

"In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations."
- From The Great Law of The Iroquois Confederacy
 

very differentiable
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
1,912
Awards
1
Location
an n-brane
  • Quack Attack
Devious, your post is dripping with ignorance. Go spread you BS somewhere else. Unlike you, i actually understand what radiation truely is and i am pretty sure food does not get radioactive. If that were to be the case, isotopes in food would be used in nuclear power plants. That would solve all energy problems, which we obviously haven't solved. Second of all, exotic species do not mean the collapse of an ecosystem, it would simply replace the organism with the same niche. At worst it would lead to new diseases. Second of all, would you call an apple-tree which gives enlarged apples exotic? Since that too is accomplished through GM. You obviously reason with emotions, but have no knowledge of it whatsoever.
 

Devious

New member
Joined
May 29, 2004
Messages
834
Awards
0
Age
29
Location
Utah
Devious, your post is dripping with ignorance. Go spread you BS somewhere else. Unlike you, i actually understand what radiation truely is and i am pretty sure food does not get radioactive. If that were to be the case, isotopes in food would be used in nuclear power plants. That would solve all energy problems, which we obviously haven't solved. Second of all, exotic species do not mean the collapse of an ecosystem, it would simply replace the organism with the same niche. At worst it would lead to new diseases. Second of all, would you call an apple-tree which gives enlarged apples exotic? Since that too is accomplished through GM. You obviously reason with emotions, but have no knowledge of it whatsoever.
Did I not state that it was my personal opinion? I believe you telling me to spread my "BS" elsewhere is much more ignorant than my post with a couple of links and a clear state that it is something that I think personally to be true to an extent. If you want to try to prove me ignorant the way you claim then please. Continue. Post your facts, be respectful, and if I lose a debate, then I lose a debate. No?

Irradiating a plant can cause mutation in the cells of the plant and therefore, when ingested, it has the potential of causing inflammation or other adverse effects on the body that intakes the plant. Note I am saying has the potential. Meaning that it won't always happen. Don't get too butt hurt now. :)

Do you believe that a Eucalyptus tree really belongs in the U.S. where the climate is much colder than that of its natural habitat? The fact that it is not suited to grow in the U.S. is what makes it exotic. Not the fact that it is GM. The GM is to make it more resistant to cold. Had you read the article you would know that and the fact that Eucalyptus take up a large amount of water and when they are planted in a largely forested area that means that some of the vegetation in the area has a high probability of dying due to lack of water.

You call me ignorant, when you yourself have not really shown any sign of reading a single piece of the article or considering the factors with a sense of respect before placing your fingers to the keyboard. Cheers
 

very differentiable
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
1,912
Awards
1
Location
an n-brane
  • Quack Attack
You did not act as if it were a personal opinion, you obviously presented it as fact, with articles trying to show how truthfull it is. Oh and btw, the word BS has nothing to do with ignorance, too bad huh. You claimed that radiation literally causes radioactivity, you did not mention mutations until after i posted. Not that mutations in a plant are a bad thing, since any spontanious difference to the genotype is a mutation. With that in mind, a mutation could cause resistance to a disease, so inflamation upon ingestion, i don't think so. And the eucalyptus would die in the environment it's not suited for. Unless it is able to absorb at a rate that is several factors from other plants, it won't get enough. Absorbtion depends on several factors like root-area, humidity of the ground etc.
 

Devious

New member
Joined
May 29, 2004
Messages
834
Awards
0
Age
29
Location
Utah
You did not act as if it were a personal opinion, you obviously presented it as fact, with articles trying to show how truthfull it is.
Simply read this quote:

However, this is my opinion and I base it on what I have read, seen, and even tasted in some of my experience.
Now I don't think that's necessarily saying "this is fact! I don't care who you are, or where you're from! This is fact!" Or did I miss out on some kind of meeting?

Oh and btw, the word BS has nothing to do with ignorance, too bad huh.
Yes, but I believe saying that I should leave and speak somewhere else is fascist. Am I wrong? Instead of simply trying to correct my statements, or disrupt them you have just told me to shut up and get the hell out, so to speak. Last I checked fascism is pretty ignorant.

You claimed that radiation literally causes radioactivity, you did not mention mutations until after i posted. Not that mutations in a plant are a bad thing, since any spontanious difference to the genotype is a mutation. With that in mind, a mutation could cause resistance to a disease, so inflamation upon ingestion, i don't think so.
Ah yes, the wonderful word could. As I believe I did say:

Irradiating a plant can cause mutation in the cells of the plant and therefore, when ingested, it has the potential of causing inflammation or other adverse effects on the body that intakes the plant. Note I am saying has the potential. Meaning that it won't always happen.
Which basically means, you could be right, and I could be right. No? Also I do apologize for not mentioning mutation until later. I guess I should try to make my posts more complete in the future. I'll try to get a lot of this across now so I don't get bashed for missing out on a paragraph of information. :)

I personally find this to be a horrid example of how we are ruining our food and possibly even killing ourselves slowly by making our food almost radioactive.
I did say I personally. I guess I can see where you think I'm claiming fact or fiction on this. I also did say possibly meaning - once again - that I could be wrong. I posted those two links up merely to support what I say. Didn't know I'd have someone riding my ass for actually trying to support what I say. Next time I say something I'll just make sure that I say exactly what I mean with very small words so no one gets confuzzled. Mkay?

And the eucalyptus would die in the environment it's not suited for. Unless it is able to absorb at a rate that is several factors from other plants, it won't get enough. Absorbtion depends on several factors like root-area, humidity of the ground etc.
That's the wonderful world of GMO, isn't it? Taking something that shouldn't grow that big, or in that area, or with that type of gene and making it so! How wonderful it is to mess with the genes of plants and animals to make them more suited to our needs! :D
 

very differentiable
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
1,912
Awards
1
Location
an n-brane
  • Quack Attack
[Fascism, compare me to hitler while you're at it, half the job is no job. Maybe i should rephrase, educate yourself and then post. It helps, a lot. As for missing that final sentence, it was your opinion i guess, but don't take counterarguments personal. I just want to show mutations have a bad ring to it, which is not entirely fair, since evolution, an endless chain of mutations, has helped humans reach their full potential. Mutation =/= disease/health risk. And GM is in no means bad or unnatural, nature does it through evolution, we do it in a lab. You know, how do you think the vegetables and fruits we eat have those perfect qualities of taste, size, shape and health-beneficial? All achieved through cross-breeding, a primitve form of GM. Technology ain't bad, mkay.
 

Devious

New member
Joined
May 29, 2004
Messages
834
Awards
0
Age
29
Location
Utah
Fascism, compare me to hitler while you're at it, half the job is no job. Maybe i should rephrase, educate yourself and then post. It helps, a lot. As for missing that final sentence, it was your opinion i guess, but don't take counterarguments personal.
Fascism, though tied with the Nazi party, is not what the word means. :) It's ok, I don't think you're Hitler.

Fascism Definition | Definition of Fascism at Dictionary.com

The philosophy, principles, or methods of forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism. (a paraphrase, but legitimate nonetheless) Meaning either I shut up, or I get out if I don't believe what you believe.

And I don't take it personally. I just think you're quite misinformed if you went from claiming me a BS spreading jackass (not quoting you) so to speak, to this last post. Kinda seems to me you feel like you've been reduced a bit on your points.

I just want to show mutations have a bad ring to it, which is not entirely fair, since evolution, an endless chain of mutations, has helped humans reach their full potential. Mutation =/= disease/health risk.
Prove that I said it was completely bad to mutate? I believe you when you say evolution is purely a chain of endless mutation. I said in that case it can be bad, or it has the potential of negatively affecting health. Also, next time you want to do something like that, then do it. Don't drag your ass merely to get to it later. Just get to it first and foremost. Your other points can come later.

And GM is in no means bad or unnatural, nature does it through evolution, we do it in a lab. You know, how do you think the vegetables and fruits we eat have those perfect qualities of taste, size, shape and health-beneficial? All achieved through cross-breeding, a primitve form of GM. Technology ain't bad, mkay.
Well, you're talking to a person who's going to be a tech engineer. So I agree that technology "ain't bad, mkay."

Genetic Modification that I am speaking of is not like cross-breeding. It is where you delve into the genome of a plant (speaking in terms of the eucalyptus) and changing it forcefully. That isn't natural. Cross-pollination, however, has been possible since plants have existed. It is part of their genes to be able to make cross-bred plants. Of course, it is possible to make transgenic animals without the use of GM, however they are usually born sterile or hermaphroditic (this has happened with plant species as well). With the use of GM as far as transgenic animals are concerned is outside of my knowledge. Back to my original point, I hardly see going into a creature's DNA and forcefully removing or adding a gene to its genetic structure natural.

If you're talking about only breeding the plants that are well proportioned, properly colored and maturing, with a good taste. You would be talking about selective breeding. Very similar to what is done to a lot of bulldogs that are involved in dog fights (selectively bred for aggression and muscle mass). Ever tried a commercial pear side-by-side an organic pear? The taste is actually pretty substantial (at least for me, some people might not notice).

EDIT: By the way, I must thank you for bringing me some form of entertainment on this rather dull day. Cheers
 

very differentiable
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
1,912
Awards
1
Location
an n-brane
  • Quack Attack
You implied explicitly that radiation is bad because it causes mutations, that also implies that mutations are bad, though i showed they don't neccesarily have to be. Although there are plenty cases in which they are bad, that's not always the case. And i'm not interested in personal info, so it doesn't matter to me much. But let me ask you this, what truely is natural? Are buildings and architecture natural? Are cars and plains, or even television or the computer? No, they aren't, they are all man-made. GM is nothing more than natural selection, or in this case, human selection. Almost nothing in human life is natural, the difference between cars and GM is that one is something you experience daily and have a pretty solid view of, while the other is new and inexplored. Changing genetic information isn't wrong, it's what nature has done for millenia.

That last remark is smug, and you know how others think about smug people.
 

Devious

New member
Joined
May 29, 2004
Messages
834
Awards
0
Age
29
Location
Utah
You implied explicitly that radiation is bad because it causes mutations, that also implies that mutations are bad, though i showed they don't neccesarily have to be. Although there are plenty cases in which they are bad, that's not always the case.
Then why are you continuing to argue with me about this? We seem to agree that it can be good and bad, and we've gone through agreement about this for what seems like the second or third post. We have both said that they can be good and bad and the only difference in our views is that you feel that mutation in food can be a good thing majority of the time over where I say it can be a bad thing majority of the time.

And i'm not interested in personal info, so it doesn't matter to me much.
Said it for comic relief. Don't get your knickers in a twist.

But let me ask you this, what truely is natural? Are buildings and architecture natural? Are cars and plains, or even television or the computer? No, they aren't, they are all man-made. GM is nothing more than natural selection, or in this case, human selection. Almost nothing in human life is natural, the difference between cars and GM is that one is something you experience daily and have a pretty solid view of, while the other is new and inexplored. Changing genetic information isn't wrong, it's what nature has done for millenia.
Now this was kind of a stupid thing to say, no offense. Of course none of what humans make is natural. We are sentient beings on a planet filled with non-sentient creatures. The actions and nature of a sentient being is almost never explainable because it is ever-changing. Sentience as compared to non-sentience is an unfair comparison and holds no weight in this conversation. Also, you're talking about what nature does. Do you even know what nature does in detail? I sure as hell do not. I don't expect even the most intelligent biologist or geologist to understand even half of what nature is capable of. What humans try to do is a mockery of nature because we are crude beings compared to how natural selection rules out the weak. We are cutting ruggedly into the genetic frame to change things (usually ineffectively) immediately, while nature simply fine tunes it over thousands of years.

That last remark is smug, and you know how others think about smug people.
I meant it in all honesty and respect actually. I do thank you for this because I have not been able to talk to someone in a deep and intrinsic manner for quite a while. It's really refreshing and I do thank you for putting up a really good argument continuously.
 

very differentiable
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
1,912
Awards
1
Location
an n-brane
  • Quack Attack
Then why are you continuing to argue with me about this? We seem to agree that it can be good and bad, and we've gone through agreement about this for what seems like the second or third post. We have both said that they can be good and bad and the only difference in our views is that you feel that mutation in food can be a good thing majority of the time over where I say it can be a bad thing majority of the time.
I understood you meant all the time, but i can't say if plant mutations are either bad or good consistently.


Said it for comic relief. Don't get your knickers in a twist.
I'm not, i suspected you, like the average person, uses tons of technology, but are rather skeptical for certain reasons of some.


Now this was kind of a stupid thing to say, no offense. Of course none of what humans make is natural. We are sentient beings on a planet filled with non-sentient creatures. The actions and nature of a sentient being is almost never explainable because it is ever-changing. Sentience as compared to non-sentience is an unfair comparison and holds no weight in this conversation. Also, you're talking about what nature does. Do you even know what nature does in detail? I sure as hell do not. I don't expect even the most intelligent biologist or geologist to understand even half of what nature is capable of. What humans try to do is a mockery of nature because we are crude beings compared to how natural selection rules out the weak. We are cutting ruggedly into the genetic frame to change things (usually ineffectively) immediately, while nature simply fine tunes it over thousands of years.
We can only create models which describe nature to a certain extent, which is why science is ever-changing, i agree. However, although i believe we can't ever know since there will always pop up something new, i do believe we should at least learn from our attempts. We have a large extent of technology which we use anyway, and looking at nature itself has given us effective designs. I do think we should not be warry of new technology, but should be explored.


I meant it in all honesty and respect actually. I do thank you for this because I have not been able to talk to someone in a deep and intrinsic manner for quite a while. It's really refreshing and I do thank you for putting up a really good argument continuously.
I read it wrong then, well in that case i appreciate it and must say you're convincing in your posts. I have to go to bed now (timezones), so goodmorning/afternoon/night.
 

krexia

Translator
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
1,086
Awards
3
  • Retired Staff
  • Quack Attack
  • News Hound
This link describes how the FDA has allowed the irradiation of spinach and some forms of lettuce for bacterial control purposes. I personally find this to be a horrid example of how we are ruining our food and possibly even killing ourselves slowly by making our food almost radioactive.
lol, I personally find this to be a hilarious example of how ignorant people are of what electromagnetic radiation is, and of how radioactivity works. Anyone who thinks gamma rays can make vegetables radioactive needs to take a high school science class.

Irradiating a plant can cause mutation in the cells of the plant and therefore, when ingested, it has the potential of causing inflammation or other adverse effects on the body that intakes the plant.
Don't be ridiculous, cells can't mutate when they're dead. A lettuce is dead after you harvest it. As the CDC points out, even with foods that do have living cells (like potatoes), the radiation used will kill them - just like it kills microbes.

"The safety of irradiated foods has been studied by feeding them to animals and to people. These extensive studies include animal feeding studies lasting for several generations in several different species, including mice, rats, and dogs. There is no evidence of adverse health effects in these well-controlled trials. In addition, NASA astronauts eat foods that have been irradiated to the point of sterilization (substantially higher levels of treatment than that approved for general use) when they fly in space. The safety of irradiated foods has been endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and by the Assistant Secretary of Health, as well as by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)."

I'd much rather eat irradiated food than food treated with the toxic fumigation that is commonly used today.

As for the trees: sure, introduced species are generally a bad thing. But as you yourself said, it's not the genetic modification of these eucalyptus trees that's an issue, it's the fact that they're being introduced into an ecosystem unprepared for them. So I'm not sure what relevance the topic has to this discussion.

Would be quite interested to hear your thoughts on golden rice.
 
Top