From: matus (matus@matus1976.com)
Date: Sat Sep 13 2003 - 01:26:44 MDT
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robbie Lindauer
>
>> IF a child is born with four of the five
>> required mutations *in every cell of his body* he will probably get
>> cancer
>
>
>> In short, it does explain it, you just don't understand it.
>I suggest
>> you refrain from making assertive comments of areas where you do not
>> have sufficient background knowledge to be that assertive.
>
>I suggest we may have a disagreement about what "probably" means.
>
>Now I'm no doctor but I can tell the difference between "Will" and
>"Might".
>
>Can you?
>
Yet your knowledge of cancer is way off. Do you or do you not
acknowledge that? I note you ignore the entire theme of the message,
and just focus on my saying 'probably' I don't disagree with you what
'probably' means, this is an issue you and Robert Bradbury have in
terminology, my issue was your suggestion that the large rise in cancer
we are seeing is from pollution. Do you still hold that opinion?
On Friday, September 12, 2003, at 11:05 AM, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>> Facts not in evidence. 200 years ago, the average lifespan was
>> significantly less -- perhaps as much as 50%.
>But not the average maximum life span - still around 110-120 years."
You keep tossing red herrings into the debates, but never acknowledge
the points all ready discussed. Do you still hold the opinion that if
plants caused cancer then people of the past should have gotten cancer,
and therefore plants do not cause cancer?
>Why is it such a controversial proposition that the noxious fumes,
>radioactive waste, heavy metals and other KNOWN CARCINOGENS that we
>spew forth into the atmosphere, water and earth at a rate of
>100,000,000 tonnes/year are killing us because they are carcinogenic?
It is not controversial, no doubt that is the case. Some cases of
cancer are certainly from these things, but you assert that the majority
of cancers, in fact the steep rise in cases of cancers over the past few
decades is primarily attributed to these things, the presence of these
things helps to actually lower the overall incidences of cancer (when
present below certain thresholds). This is NOT the case, as I have
elaborated on and argued, DIET is the primary cause of cancer. What we
eat (natural plants with natural pesticides) and how much of it we eat.
Regards,
Michael Dickey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 13 2003 - 01:38:55 MDT