From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Sun Sep 14 2003 - 15:26:41 MDT
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Robbie Lindauer wrote:
> My point is simply that to reduce the overall amount of carcinogens and
> known toxins in our environment is a GOOD IDEA if we want to extend our
> lives and our chances for survival. I still don't see why this is even
> slightly controversial.
Ah, but as the saying goes, "there's the rub". I don't have any problem
with the removal of mutagenic substances generally deemed universally
harmful. Asbestos might be a good example. But with many other toxic
substances the level to which one "should" be exposed (to maintain optimal
defense mechanisms) is genome specific. So exposure levels that help one
person in terms of extending lives might actually harm someone else.
So long as we continue to remove pollutants from our environment and
cancer rates continue to decline I think we are on the right track.
(Though it takes some time (decades) for the epidemiology to provide
good indicators for this.) You can see this playing out currently
in lawsuits against IBM for exposing semiconductor workers to hazardous
chemicals about 15 years ago. But I'm somewhat doubtful that a
"zero" exposure rule would be the best strategy for the average
individual.
Ultimately one needs to look at each carcinogen, its mechanism of action
and then have a good feeling for how it interacts with the detoxification
gene set (as well as the DNA repair set, the nutrient absorption gene set
and probably other gene sets) of the "average" individual. Ultimately one
has to come back to the idea that "all persons are created equal" and
realize that it simply isn't true -- so one has to give up rational
principles that are based on that idea.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 14 2003 - 15:37:50 MDT