6 ms·

>prevention and not just treatment. Unfortunately, this conflicts with "the economy". Many of us are getting paid to produce cancer-causing products, such as:

>prevention and not just treatment. Unfortunately, this conflicts with "the economy". Many of us are getting paid to produce cancer-causing products, such as: * processed foods (most of the things you buy in a supermarket) * most shampoos, cosmetics, soaps, detergents, cleaning products, etc. * paraffin candles * cigarettes and alcohol * components of all these products and the byproducts of their production * not to mention shit done on industrial scale * the air, if you live in a populated area * and so on. If you really want to reduce your and your family's chances of getting cancer, you're doing your research and doing a lot of work to move away from the mainstream (which is still stuck in 1950's level of knowledge) on these habits, but most people are not, and just blindly trust the government and oversight bodies to protect them because it's "easier" and "cheaper" and "they wouldn't allow it to be sold if it was harmful". Years later: Surprise!

agumonkey 8y ago
I'm thinking of ways to start groups of aquaponics to grow local and toxin free. Spending more time in the green is good, eating simple and fresh too. The ~power of mainstream is high, it's not super easy to swim across the flow
- forgotmypw3 8y ago
  No, it is not easy at all. And even in educated circles, your opinions will be in the minority, and cognitive dissonance will work against you too. People hate finding out that they're wrong, and nobody wants to admit that they've been poisoning themselves and their family for decades. It's either that or cancer, though...
  - agumonkey 8y ago
    I think it's more fear of doubt than being wrong. I'm sure if you come with a ready made solution they won't resist nearly as much.
    - forgotmypw3 8y ago
      Unfortunately, there is no easy solution at this time...
- nradov 8y ago
  There's no such thing as "toxin free". Almost any chemical can be toxic at high enough concentrations, including oxygen.
  - yesenadam 8y ago
    There's something wrong with your definition of 'toxin' then I think, it seems meaningless.
    - nradov 8y ago
      It's not my definition. I'm using the accepted scientific definition of "toxic". You can't redefine it to match your political agenda.
      - yesenadam 8y ago
        Woah. My what? My 'political agenda'? Where on earth did that come from? What an extremely toxic comment. Don't do that here please. (See guideline on assuming good faith) I'm at loss to see how a 'political agenda' could have inspired my comment. You also object to me calling it 'your definition'. My point was the not very controversial one (I would have thought) of saying that if you call everything a toxin, (which you seem to do, insisting strangely that nothing is or even can be 'toxin free') then the word becomes useless. It seems you misread my comment, or don't understand what 'toxin' means, or something, as I wasn't trying to redefine anything, particularly 'toxic', I don't know why you said that. Neither of your comments made much sense to me. But then, I was downvoted for saying so, so maybe my point wasn't as simple and obvious as I thought.
        nradov 8y ago
        That is incorrect. The word "toxin" has a specific meeting. Almost nothing that we eat or use is toxin free. Even "organic" produce contains a wide variety of toxins. But generally the dosages are low enough to not cause any problems. If you want to complain about toxins then please clarify exactly which ones you're concerned about.
nate_meurer 8y ago
> most shampoos, cosmetics, soaps, detergents, cleaning products, etc. Cosmetics are a bit of a black box, but what carcinogens are supposed to appear in soaps, shampoos, detergents, or most common cleaners?
- forgotmypw3 8y ago
  Here is just one small example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945593/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945593/ If you look at the ingredients of your average shampoo bottle, google each one, click the Wikipedia link, you will find many more. Many of them will also have a number in the hazmat rhombus, which is also not a good thing. Detergents and cleaners are just as much of a black box, if not more, as cosmetics, and the largest source of indoor air pollution.
  - duskwuff 8y ago
    > Many of them will also have a number in the hazmat rhombus, which is also not a good thing. That doesn't mean they're carcinogenic, or even that they're especially harmful. Even if by "a number in the hazmat rhombus" you specifically mean a number in the health square of the NFPA 704 [1] diamond, the health hazard of a substance is assessed based on the danger of exposure to a concentrated, pure form of that substance. Acetic acid rates a 3 out of 4 on that scale, for instance, because glacial acetic acid is quite corrosive -- but that doesn't mean that vinegar is dangerous. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFPA_704 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFPA_704
  - nate_meurer 8y ago
    That link you posted almost completely contradicts you. Here are a few choice bits: > triclosan’s ability to behave as an estrogen antagonist also suggests that its presence in the body alongside estradiol may actually lower risk for cancer development [22,23]. However, whether triclosan raises or lowers risk of cancer through estrogen-related pathways, and possible effect modification by estradiol, have not been examined in human studies. > Together, the results of these in vitro studies suggest that FAS inhibitors, such as triclosan, may be an effective inhibitor of cancer growth, though no study has examined whether triclosan reduces cancer growth or incidence in humans, or what co-factors may potentiate any effect. > the results of animal studies to date have been mixed, showing null, inverse, and positive associations. > Both short and long-term studies have examined triclosan following oral and dermal exposure, showing rapid excretion from the body and no evidence of toxicity, irritation, or thyroid hormone disruption > [studies] have not addressed experimental findings that suggest triclosan’s estrogenicity may function to either stimulate or inhibit human estrogen-dependent cancer cell growth. Basically, a bit of speculation regarding triclocan's estrogenicity, one positive animal result with apparently no human application, and a handful of weak evidence showing that it just might actually decrease cancers. Detergent formulations, such as for dishes and laundry, are simple and entirely uncontroversial with regard to health and safety. Except for parabens, I'm unaware of any ingredients in cosmetic soaps or shampoos that are plausibly suspected of even faint carcinogenic activity. I'm happy to consider any contradictory evidence you may have.
aviv 8y ago
Shame that the most insightful comment in this thread is heavily downvoted. I hope that in 20 years when prolonged fasting becomes mainstream and recognized as a treatment and cure to many "incurable" illnesses, I get back the thousands of HN karma points I lost over the years to mindless downvoting of the simple truth nuggets I used to add to health related threads. I stopped doing it, the audience here is not ready to hear and be exposed to such concepts.
- rscho 8y ago
  There is a difference between your opinion and science. Your opinion may become science one day, but unless you've thoroughly reviewed the relevant literature before posting, it will be a coincidence.
  - aviv 8y ago
    When someone finds a way to patent fasting, the "science" will magically appear.
- yesenadam 8y ago
  >the thousands of HN karma points I lost over the years to mindless downvoting of the simple truth nuggets Everyone else feels that way too, you know! :-)

agumonkey 8y ago

I'm thinking of ways to start groups of aquaponics to grow local and toxin free. Spending more time in the green is good, eating simple and fresh too. The ~power of mainstream is high, it's not super easy to swim across the flow

forgotmypw3 8y ago
No, it is not easy at all. And even in educated circles, your opinions will be in the minority, and cognitive dissonance will work against you too. People hate finding out that they're wrong, and nobody wants to admit that they've been poisoning themselves and their family for decades. It's either that or cancer, though...
- agumonkey 8y ago
  I think it's more fear of doubt than being wrong. I'm sure if you come with a ready made solution they won't resist nearly as much.
  - forgotmypw3 8y ago
    Unfortunately, there is no easy solution at this time...
nradov 8y ago
There's no such thing as "toxin free". Almost any chemical can be toxic at high enough concentrations, including oxygen.
- yesenadam 8y ago
  There's something wrong with your definition of 'toxin' then I think, it seems meaningless.
  - nradov 8y ago
    It's not my definition. I'm using the accepted scientific definition of "toxic". You can't redefine it to match your political agenda.
    - yesenadam 8y ago
      Woah. My what? My 'political agenda'? Where on earth did that come from? What an extremely toxic comment. Don't do that here please. (See guideline on assuming good faith) I'm at loss to see how a 'political agenda' could have inspired my comment. You also object to me calling it 'your definition'. My point was the not very controversial one (I would have thought) of saying that if you call everything a toxin, (which you seem to do, insisting strangely that nothing is or even can be 'toxin free') then the word becomes useless. It seems you misread my comment, or don't understand what 'toxin' means, or something, as I wasn't trying to redefine anything, particularly 'toxic', I don't know why you said that. Neither of your comments made much sense to me. But then, I was downvoted for saying so, so maybe my point wasn't as simple and obvious as I thought.
      - nradov 8y ago
        That is incorrect. The word "toxin" has a specific meeting. Almost nothing that we eat or use is toxin free. Even "organic" produce contains a wide variety of toxins. But generally the dosages are low enough to not cause any problems. If you want to complain about toxins then please clarify exactly which ones you're concerned about.

nate_meurer 8y ago

> most shampoos, cosmetics, soaps, detergents, cleaning products, etc. Cosmetics are a bit of a black box, but what carcinogens are supposed to appear in soaps, shampoos, detergents, or most common cleaners?

forgotmypw3 8y ago
Here is just one small example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945593/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945593/ If you look at the ingredients of your average shampoo bottle, google each one, click the Wikipedia link, you will find many more. Many of them will also have a number in the hazmat rhombus, which is also not a good thing. Detergents and cleaners are just as much of a black box, if not more, as cosmetics, and the largest source of indoor air pollution.
- duskwuff 8y ago
  > Many of them will also have a number in the hazmat rhombus, which is also not a good thing. That doesn't mean they're carcinogenic, or even that they're especially harmful. Even if by "a number in the hazmat rhombus" you specifically mean a number in the health square of the NFPA 704 [1] diamond, the health hazard of a substance is assessed based on the danger of exposure to a concentrated, pure form of that substance. Acetic acid rates a 3 out of 4 on that scale, for instance, because glacial acetic acid is quite corrosive -- but that doesn't mean that vinegar is dangerous. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFPA_704 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFPA_704
- nate_meurer 8y ago
  That link you posted almost completely contradicts you. Here are a few choice bits: > triclosan’s ability to behave as an estrogen antagonist also suggests that its presence in the body alongside estradiol may actually lower risk for cancer development [22,23]. However, whether triclosan raises or lowers risk of cancer through estrogen-related pathways, and possible effect modification by estradiol, have not been examined in human studies. > Together, the results of these in vitro studies suggest that FAS inhibitors, such as triclosan, may be an effective inhibitor of cancer growth, though no study has examined whether triclosan reduces cancer growth or incidence in humans, or what co-factors may potentiate any effect. > the results of animal studies to date have been mixed, showing null, inverse, and positive associations. > Both short and long-term studies have examined triclosan following oral and dermal exposure, showing rapid excretion from the body and no evidence of toxicity, irritation, or thyroid hormone disruption > [studies] have not addressed experimental findings that suggest triclosan’s estrogenicity may function to either stimulate or inhibit human estrogen-dependent cancer cell growth. Basically, a bit of speculation regarding triclocan's estrogenicity, one positive animal result with apparently no human application, and a handful of weak evidence showing that it just might actually decrease cancers. Detergent formulations, such as for dishes and laundry, are simple and entirely uncontroversial with regard to health and safety. Except for parabens, I'm unaware of any ingredients in cosmetic soaps or shampoos that are plausibly suspected of even faint carcinogenic activity. I'm happy to consider any contradictory evidence you may have.

aviv 8y ago

Shame that the most insightful comment in this thread is heavily downvoted. I hope that in 20 years when prolonged fasting becomes mainstream and recognized as a treatment and cure to many "incurable" illnesses, I get back the thousands of HN karma points I lost over the years to mindless downvoting of the simple truth nuggets I used to add to health related threads. I stopped doing it, the audience here is not ready to hear and be exposed to such concepts.

rscho 8y ago
There is a difference between your opinion and science. Your opinion may become science one day, but unless you've thoroughly reviewed the relevant literature before posting, it will be a coincidence.
- aviv 8y ago
  When someone finds a way to patent fasting, the "science" will magically appear.
yesenadam 8y ago
>the thousands of HN karma points I lost over the years to mindless downvoting of the simple truth nuggets Everyone else feels that way too, you know! :-)