3 ms·
I hear this all the time whenever I say anything about anything contributing to cancer. People use the excuse "Everything gives you cancer, so who cares?" No, n
by INTPnerd 11y ago
I hear this all the time whenever I say anything about anything contributing to cancer. People use the excuse "Everything gives you cancer, so who cares?" No, not everything gives you cancer. Only things that give you cancer, give you cancer. Lots of foods have anti-cancer properties. Basically, the more natural the food is, the more likely it will be to prevent or even treat cancer. Now when I say treat cancer, I am not saying it is guaranteed to get rid of all your cancer, or you should not seek help from a trusted smart cancer fighting person (notice I did not say doctor or oncologist?). Check out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxWRxtS_cGI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxWRxtS_cGI. Basically if you eat vegetables and fruit, these are anti-cancer. But if you already have cancer, you have to be careful with fruit because of the sugar. But vegetables are good. However, even with fruits and vegetables, the more natural their state the better. If you juice them instead of blending the whole thing, you lose a lot of the nutrition. You are no longer eating it in the original state it was intended to be consumed. They were designed to be a complete package, the nutrients complement each other and enable your body to deal with and use the other things in the food. If they were grown with pesticides or herbicides, these can contribute to cancer. If the ground they are grown in is nutritionally depleted, the food will be also. If the ground or water used is polluted, the food will be also. The best thing is to buy a water distiller, to clean your own water. Then grow your own fruits and vegetables using that water and using high quality, clean, plant superfood. From http://www.foodrising.org/ http://www.foodrising.org/, you can even purchase a very low maintenance, small hydroponic system that allows you to easily grow very nutritious, better than organic fruits and vegetables.
- howlin 11y agohttp://extoxnet.orst.edu/faqs/natural/natcarc.htm http://extoxnet.orst.edu/faqs/natural/natcarc.htm Natural = less carcinogenic is not always true. E.g. peanuts with fungicide are way less likely to give you cancer than peanuts in their natural state. Also, saparilla has almost been completely removed from the diet due to perceived cancer risk.
- INTPnerd 11y agoIt is true that natural is not always less carcinogenic, but it is one of the simplest and most effective reasoning points. In fact this way of reasoning is so effective, that I am already pretty sure you are wrong about the peanut thing, or at least oversimplifying it in a misleading way, despite the fact that I have never even heard of this before and have done no research at all. I would be interested to see what evidence there is that I am wrong about peanuts. It is also good to reason about whether something was intended for human consumption. Marijuana may be "natural", but I don't think we are intended to eat it for food. If you think a certain food was intended to be eaten it it's original raw state, then reasoning about different ways it can be changed away from that state will help you. The way we grow, process, cook, and eat food is getting farther and farther away from the natural state it started with.
- howlin 11y agoThe problem with peanuts is aflatoxin. It's a really, really bad contaminant. If human livers weren't so resilient, ingesting this toxin would almost guarantee liver cancer. Most commercial peanuts have either been rigorously inspected or doused in fungicide. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/568443/fda-warns-public-on-peanuts-bearing-cancer-causing-fungus http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/568443/fda-warns-public-on-pean... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aflatoxin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aflatoxin