9 ms·

http://extoxnet.orst.edu/faqs/natural/natcarc.htm http://extoxnet.orst.edu/faqs/natural/natcarc.htm Natural = less carcinogenic is not always true. E.g. peanu

by howlin 11y ago

http://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 ago
It 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 ago
  The 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

9 ms·

http://extoxnet.orst.edu/faqs/natural/natcarc.htm http://extoxnet.orst.edu/faqs/natural/natcarc.htm Natural = less carcinogenic is not always true. E.g. peanu

by howlin 11y ago

INTPnerd 11y ago
It 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 ago
  The 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