Subject: nutrition and carcinogens

From: Jack Rowe <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 23:27:50 -0500

Our bodies, according to some cancer studies, object not so much to the
presence of carcinogens in the environment as to the absence of natural
antioxidant and other immuno-supportive nutritional factors in our diets.
Many plants produce carcinogenic substances or even poisons -- nibbling on
Death Camass (pretty flower) or Water Hemlock, e.g., can kill you dead
right quick. Poisons can be avoided, however. Carcinogens, on the other
hand, are so pervasive that bodily defense has centered on immunological
resistance rather than avoidance. 

So it's perhaps less what we eat that's 'bad' for us, and more what we eat
that's GOOD for us that allows us to remain healthy in a world where even
natural carcinogens are rife. 

The "even Nature can kill you" argument we've recently seen yet again seems
posed as an apologia for our production of billions of pounds (yeah,
BILLIONS) of pernicious, persistent chemicals, and their release into our
environment. These are often built on heavy metal or highly-reactive halide
bases -- materials which are rarely found loose in the environment. The
fact of the existence of naturally-occuring carcinogens does not in itself
recommend massive release of chemicals extracted from natural materials and
converted to unnatural forms -- to which we've not had millenia to adapt --
into our air, water, soil. 

The lesson of the natural carcinogens seems to me to be that we need to eat
our greens, fruits, etc., so that our bodies can function in the miraculous
way they were designed, spontaneously seeking health and restoring order
given the basic materials of health... clean water, food, air. 

Jack