Re: Should we label turkey too? archive 2450
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Should we label turkey too? archive 2450
- From: email@example.com (Christoph Reuss)
- Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 00:52:43 +0100
- Cc: Rick Roush <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
- Resent-From: email@example.com
Rick Roush wrote:
> Really? Have any evidence? I am very impressed that you have answers that
> have apparently eluded cancer specialists for years.
Cancer specialists aren't particularly interested in genuine prevention
(some not even if you push their nose on it) and the industry prefers to
put the blame on "nature" (genes and "natural nasties") instead of their
own industrial nasties, of course. Btw, have a look at
> Isn't it true that the
> most common cause of cancer is smoking, a reaction to burned but natural
Cigarette smoke contains about 4'000 chemicals, including Arsenic, Cadmium,
Cyanide, DDT, Formaldehyde, Lead, Mercury, Napthalene, radioactive Polonium
210, Vinyl Chloride, etc. -- some "natural" stuff in the broadest sense (it
or its basic elements was/were taken somewhere from nature..), but
*inhaling* it can hardly be called natural...
Again, no "natural nasty" can ever justify producing any additional synthetic
nasty. But this is the spin of the ACSH.