Aperson Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Soback: Were they eating well done steak in that reastaurant? Because you do know that steak is a carcinogen, right? How did they determine if it was the cigarette smoke from rather then the steak they ate every Friday night at that same restaurant. Err, please reread my post. And wasn't the steak = carcinogen only true if it is cooked improperly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soback Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Errr. No. Starch foods are carcinogens, PERIOD. Potato chips are carcinogenic, so is milk. Raw steak wouldn't be a carcinogen, because it wouldn't have been cooked, and thus there would be no burned carbon in it. Wanna eat raw steak? And BlackGhost. You REALLY need to educate yourself about the topics you are attempting to discuss. It's already been established that you have no comprehension of how businesses work or how the economy functions. The fact that you have never heard of someone dying of steak is because people don't die of steak unless they choke on it. They die of CANCER caused by cooked steak, because cooked steak has burned carbon, which is a CARCINOGEN. Carcinogen is something that increases the chance of CANCER. Here's some heavy duty reading for your http://dceg.cancer.gov/pdfs/butler14162620...a%20carcinogen' However, maybe we should go with something easier http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2003/apr2003_awsi_02.html See the list on the left? See the food items? Did you even read the link to WHO article I posted that says 35% of carcinogens come from FOODS, while 30% come from smoke. Numbers will tell you that foods contain 5% more types of carcinogens. Which in turn means you are more likely to get cancer just by consuming certain foods. And if you follow that up with the link above, you will see that those are the types of food that you eat EVERY DAY. Now add the fact that those foods have been raised with the use of pesticides and other chemicals. So, read up, before you say something "UNLOGICAL", err... illogical. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...r-nfi092203.php http://dceg.cancer.gov/pdfs/sinha922000.pd...a%20carcinogen' Here's something really interesting http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/gen...dirty_dozen.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Peterson Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Educate myself? You claim you know so much and then you can turn around and make childish statements just to make a case! I thought we had already come to an agreement to stop this pointless argument. I guess you don't agree... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aperson Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 quote:See the list on the left? See the food items? Did you even read the link to WHO article I posted that says 35% of carcinogens come from FOODS, while 30% come from smoke. Numbers will tell you that foods contain 5% more types of carcinogens. The important question being is whether or not the potency of the carcinogens are the same and if not, what is the differance (which may include such things as amount in the product and such). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soback Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 What childlish statements would that be? Like the fact that the foods in above links cause cancer? Maybe you want to get in touch with WHO or the American Council of Science and Health http://www.acsh.org/ and tell then that they got it all wrong, that you know better. They need to stop making childlish statements and concentrate all their efforts on the smokers. After all, smoking is just baaaad. And since it's just baaaad. They should pay, we should tax them more, they should pay for themselfs, plus pay for others, and then pay some more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soback Posted March 11, 2006 Report Share Posted March 11, 2006 Another childlish statement. This time it's from the Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/2378.html "Eleven unions representing more than 7,000 workers at the Environmental Protection Agency are calling for a national moratorium on programs to add fluoride to drinking water, citing what they call a possible cancer risk. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Peterson Posted March 11, 2006 Report Share Posted March 11, 2006 That really has nothing to do with what we are talking about you know... It is interesting though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now