Originally posted by Metal Brain I could go on and on, but I think you get the point.
No, actually, I do not get the point. You seem to be claiming that there will be a scientific finding in your favor in the future and you can somehow use this to support your claim now. This seems to be a ridiculous argument to me.
You can eat food with pesticides on it if you like, but I would advise you to feed children better food. And I can equally say: you can eat food with [insert whatever scientists will find is wrong with organic foods] if you like but I would advise you to feed your children better food.
Originally posted by Metal Brain Many pesticides have already been proven to cause cancer. Because dosage matters I was simply giving you the benefit of the doubt. Sure, NOW we know tobacco harms peoples health, but that was disputed for many years before the findings were clear.
The problem with proving carcinogens are actually causing cancer in people is that there are so many other ...[text shortened]... st tales a while before ironclad proof is found.
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/food/risks.htm
Many pesticides have already been proven to cause cancer.
In large doses yes. The ones that cause cancer even in very small doses (e.g. DDT ) have generally been banned and simply selectively banning those dangerous ones while keep using the relatively safe ones is always the only rational response. There is an ongoing evolutionary process here where, over the years, the most dangerous ones are banned one by one leaving ever more safer more selective ones so they are becoming ever more safer all the time making this irrational argument against modern insecticide ever more moronic and out-of-date and out of touch with current reality as the years pass. Already, many of the modern pesticides are actually less toxic in their concentrated form than common table salt! (some of the hormone weed killers go into that category ) Would you ban table salt on the bases of its toxicity? If not, why ban something that is even less toxic than table salt in its concentrated form esp when you never eat it in concentrated form but only inadvertently in minute trace amounts so tiny that it should have absolutely no measurable biological effect!? -that makes no sense whatsoever. The toxicity from adding just a bit of table salt to your food at dinner time would be something like a billion times that from tiny almost undetectable traces from those insecticides at least the safest ones so why not have more paranoia about people putting salt on their food? In fact, there is statistically more chance of you dyeing from falling out of bed than dying of eating the minute traces of insecticides found in present day food.
There is generally no significant or measurable risk of cancer from the minute traces of pesticides typically found in present day food -the traces are just too small and their toxicity is generally just too low.
As for you moronic comparison with tobacco -both the toxicity and the cancer risk from smoking a single cigarette is obviously going to be many orders of magnitude higher than the tiny traces of insecticide you would consume each day in present day non-organic food -its like comparing an atom bomb with a fire cracker -there is no meaningful comparison.
Many pesticides have already been proven to cause cancer.
In large doses yes. The ones that cause cancer even in very small doses (e.g. DDT ) have generally been banned and simply selectively banning those dangerous ones while keep using the relatively safe ones is always the only rational response. There is an ongoing evolutionary proces ...[text shortened]... ic food -its like comparing an atom bomb with a fire cracker -there is no meaningful comparison.
You are overlooking the accumulating affect of pesticides in the human body. You have no idea how much is in peoples blood and urine because testing of pesticides is very limited. Most tests do not detect pesticide levels in blood and urine that have not already been banned, so your assertion that we are consuming pesticides at safe levels is not based on anything but your guess or faith in other people to use good judgement.
For you to scoff at my comparison to tobacco is based on pure ignorance and nothing else. As usual you are overly zealous in defending the position you have taken on this thread. The fact is that people are getting cancer more than they used to and all you say is that it isn't because of pesticides because there is no ironclad evidence. That is a nearly impossible burden of proof to reach because there are so many factors in the mix and testing is terribly inept at this time. If artificial pesticides are causing cancer rates to increase it will likely be decades before it is possible to make the connection with ironclad proof. That is why my comparison to tobacco is a good one.
http://www.nrdc.org/health/kids/farm/chap6.asp
There are also indications that pesticides may contribute to Alzheimer and Parkinson's Disease.
Originally posted by Metal Brain You are overlooking the accumulating affect of pesticides in the human body. You have no idea how much is in peoples blood and urine because testing of pesticides is very limited. Most tests do not detect pesticide levels in blood and urine that have not already been banned, so your assertion that we are consuming pesticides at safe levels is not based o ...[text shortened]... esticide-level-blood-linked-Parkinsons.html
https://eohsi.rutgers.edu/files/JAMANeurPesta.pdf
You are overlooking the accumulating affect of pesticides in the human body.
for most if not all trace amounts of modern insecticides found in food, there generally is no "accumulating affect". You have yet to show good evidence that there generally is. Even if there was, the only rational response is to selectively ban only those few that are responsible, NOT all pesticides.
Originally posted by twhitehead No, actually, I do not get the point. You seem to be claiming that there will be a scientific finding in your favor in the future and you can somehow use this to support your claim now. This seems to be a ridiculous argument to me.
[b]You can eat food with pesticides on it if you like, but I would advise you to feed children better food. And I ca ...[text shortened]... wrong with organic foods] if you like but I would advise you to feed your children better food.[/b]
See my reply to Humy the ignorant.
Cancer rates are not decreasing with the banning of certain chemicals known to cause cancer and radon detectors. That means something is being overlooked.
My mother died from lymphoma and rates are increasing. What is your theory for the increase? At least I have a theory and I think it is a good one. Do you have a theory?
You are overlooking the accumulating affect of pesticides in the human body.
for most if not all trace amounts of modern insecticides found in food, there generally is no "accumulating affect". You have yet to show good evidence that there generally is. Even if there was, the only rational response is to selectively ban only those few that are responsible, NOT all pesticides.
When did I call for a ban on any pesticides? I didn't. This is about whether or not organically grown foods are safer than non-organics.
What is your theory for the increase in lymphoma rates?
Ok so pesticides toxins and all that is good or not good for us peoples animals and on and on with endless debating a good thing or not and what always matters most to the ordinary Joe in the streets of everywhere is can I afford to be that picky when picking my produce my animal flesh and the liquids I consume. The answer is obviously no! One day perhaps? Not tomorrow or the day after! Humans are always willing to poison themselves always were and always will be if they enjoy it and it is cheap enough. Alcohol being the most outstanding example from many hundreds of examples. Bring the prices down in all organics and the truth will be known about your benefits and non benefits. There is no other certain way to discover the real truth until people in the street stores and markets let their money speak the truth. Right now that is not going to happen! It may never happen? God bless all you rich little organic cherry pickers, you make me envious! Rec.😛:'(😀
With the exception of HIV, no established risk factors are known to have changed over time.
If you think there is a relationship with pesticides, then please tell us what trend in pesticide use matches the trend in lymphoma rates.
Are you claiming that people are eating less organic food over time?
Originally posted by Metal Brain When did I call for a ban on any pesticides? I didn't. This is about whether or not organically grown foods are safer than non-organics.
What is your theory for the increase in lymphoma rates?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Maybe it's the fluorine in drinking water?
That is exactly why it is nearly impossible to pin down any one cause to an acceptable level of proof. I can say that my mother did not drink fluoridated water though. She grew up on a farm and married my father who was a farmer.
I know you are mocking me, but it is no secret that fluoride can and does cause health problems in some people.
Originally posted by twhitehead http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/types/nhl/incidence/uk-nonhodgkin-lymphoma-incidence-statistics
With the exception of HIV, no established risk factors are known to have changed over time.
If you think there is a relationship with pesticides, then please tell us what trend in pesticide use matches the trend in lym ...[text shortened]... te]And high chemical exposure on farms cannot account for NHL in the general population.[/quote]
There is a lag effect from pesticides that were banned decades ago. It is probably a combination of those banned pesticides that show up in meat and dairy products high in fat and the pesticides that are still being used on fruits and vegetables.
As you can see the accumulation effect of long ago banned pesticides is still present where they were used. It is reasonable to assume that no apparent trend is detectable if the above link is right.
Organically Grown Fruits and Vegetables
28 Jul '14 08:06
Back to Top