Posted on 11/25/2004 7:57:52 AM PST by OESY
Forty-five years ago this week, ...1959, most Americans celebrated Thanksgiving sans cranberry sauce. Earlier that month, a government health official had announced that traces of the weed killer aminotriazole — a chemical that caused cancer in rodents — had been found in the cranberry crop. The spokesman urged housewives to "be on the safe side" and refrain from buying cranberries because the rodent data suggested that the "contaminated" cranberries could pose a human cancer risk.
There was never any real health risk.
The cranberry scare of 1959 marked the beginning of a modern wave of "chemical phobia" and a government assault on synthetic chemicals that, at high doses, caused cancer in laboratory animals.
This "war on carcinogens," which is still in full force today, had its legal origins in the Delaney Clause, a 1958 amendment to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that prohibited the presence in food of any synthetic chemical that caused cancer in animal studies.
Cranberry phobia, which burst on the scene a year after the Delaney Clause was passed, was soon followed by a spate of other chemical scares, including those focused on nitrite in bacon, the sweeteners saccharin and cyclamate, and the agricultural chemicals EDB and Alar. More recently, questions have been raised about the safety of French fries (and other high-starch foods cooked at high temperatures) because the process can generate acrylamide. All of these "carcinogen du jour" scares were based solely on the observation that the chemical in question caused cancer in rodents.
But is there sound scientific evidence that high-dose animal tests can accurately predict human cancer risk? Many scientific studies and scientific experts tell us that the resounding answer is "no."
America's "war on carcinogens" was predicated on a number of assumptions — all of which we now know are false:...
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
It makes me feel old to be able to remember the cranberry hoax. Arrgghhhh.
Oh thanks - I had forgotten about that ... :-)
Junior in HS when it happened. Remember it well now.
"Actually, a surprisingly high percentage of chemicals — 50 percent in some tests — test positive in animal carcinogenicity studies."
Could the continued increase in cancer rates be due to the cumulative effect of many chemicals at lower levels...in addition to the fact that new chemicals are regularly added to those already in our environment?
sorry for my previous post...Beginning of "nomophobia".
No.
The longer you live, the more likely you are to develop cancer.
People are living longer and longer precisely because of all those chemicals whose cumulative effect you are so worried about.
nitrate. sodium nitrate.
Beeswax. No going to church, you red states, hear?
I can give everyone a good example of a drug class that increases cancer risk in animals, but does not increase the risk of cancer in humans. In fact, it may well reduce the risk of cancer in humans.
The drug class is the proton pump (stomach acid) inhibitors, like Prilosec. The reason the drugs increase the risk of stomach cancer in rats is, but not in humans, is:
1. In the rat, shutting off the production of stomach acid, causes increased levels of gastrin in the blood stream. Gastrin is a hormone that stimulates the digestive system, including cellular growth.
2. Humans do not experience an increase in serum gastrin, when the production of stomach acid is blocked.
3. The reason humans may experience a reduction of cancer risk is: With less acid, their is less erosion of the esophageal lining. Continued erosion of the esophageal lining may lead to Barrett's esophagus, which does have an increased risk of cancer of the esophagus.
Now for those of you who don't know, Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Its basis is the unstable radical Hydroxide, the components of which are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol.
Yes, you should be concerned about DHMO! Although the U.S. Government and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) do not classify Dihydrogen Monoxide as a toxic or carcinogenic substance (as it does with better known chemicals such as hydrochloric acid and saccharine), DHMO is a constituent of many known toxic substances, diseases and disease-causing agents, environmental hazards and can even be lethal to humans in quantities as small as a thimbleful.
(Lordy...I have more fun than people. Hehehehehehehe!)
From The Rise and Fall of Modern Medicine, by James Le Fanu:
...the likelihood of cancer is strongly age-determined, with an eighty year old having a thousand-times greater risk compared to when he was a teenager. This is fifty times greater than the twenty-fold increased risk of lung cancer in the smoker compared to the non-smoker.This book is highly recommended, particularly for its demolition of "The Social Theory" of disease (i.e., it's the Western diet that's killing us all).
"The longer you live, the more likely you are to develop cancer."
That's correct.
"People are living longer and longer precisely because of all those chemicals whose cumulative effect you are so worried about."
That's not correct.
The interaction of thousands of man-made chemicals (currently about 60,000 according to an immunologist with whom I spoke) isn't known at this time because it's never been studied (and it would be enormously difficult - if not impossible - to do so).
Why would you assume that millions of unknown reactions would only extend (vs. shorten) life spans? The primary "chemical reactions" extending life spans have come from the use of antibiotics and improved sanitation.
Breast and prostate cancer rates are increasing, and are increasingly found in younger people...even factoring in better means of detection.
Google "xenoestrogens" for info re chemicals, cancer, and some things to avoid.
Google up Bruce Ames and read of his trials and treatment in the face of his recantation of his early work and conclusions and subsequent blacklisting by his so-called peers.
There is no cumulative risk of cancer. The increased chance that one will have cancer is a function of the fact that people are living longer- are living long enough to get cancer.
<Mr. Bill>
Oh nooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!</Mr. Bill>
I feel fine, for now!
*sobbing* Been nice knowing ya, Dave. What do you want on your tombstone?
;o)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.