Exnihiloest »14/07/21, 22:03
Christophe wrote: ...
Arsenic, cyanide, nicotine ... it's natural ... even petroleum ... it's natural!
so why only talk about artificial pesticides, when natural pesticides, which represent 99,99% of pesticides in food, are also harmful ?!
Re stupid strikes again!
A little biology wouldn't hurt you!
The particularity of the components absorbed are in complex compositions that the living organism has been able to manage for thousands of years of adaptation. And filters concerning the products to be absorbed are taste, smell and possibly sight (when these means are not perverted by culture!)
However, natural pesticides made by plants result in taste modifications that prevent the consumer from absorbing them otherwise most living beings would have died since the origin of life!
Then don't forget your adage: nature is shit!
Did you forget it ??
To produce staphylococcus aureus, myopathy, or progeria, examples among thousands of others, yes nature is shit. Fortunately, man transcends it more or less; less with the ecologists, of course, they want it to level us.
And you call transcending what you indicate below, is that your transcendence?
Even products that have been known for generations are carcinogenic, here are some of them:
• White bread
White bread for everyday consumption only appeared with the industrialization of flour mills and its vital composition denatured by industry after that of industrial agriculture as well.
• Drinks over 65 °
All alcoholic drinks are carcinogenic whatever the dose, it is just the time that differs before appearance.
• French fries, crisps
This calls into question the industrialization of products and the way in which potatoes are prepared. French fries like crisps are not carcinogenic in themselves.
• Grilled meat
It is not that when it is grilled that it is concerogenic, it is because of its unsuitability for human consumption, the fact of grilling only aggravates this maladjustment.
• Pasta
Do the same way and with the same products as white bread
• Milk
Same thing, milk is not carcinogenic in itself, it is always due to its industrialization which denatures the basic products. Otherwise all mammals in nature would be stricken with early cancer.
• Peanuts
Idem
All this is due to
ta transcendence in question where human vanity believes it can do more and better than Mother Nature or Mr. GOD for others and I was going to forget the chance, it would have been a shame to forget the third thief of the famous trinity.
And are you complaining about a few tiny artificial pesticides no more dangerous than the many natural pesticides, as the study I gave demonstrates?
And you come to lament over some examples of pathologies for which humans are largely responsible in their choices of life ... or death!
Like this passage from the marketing advertising of poison sellers who are not going to accuse themselves of attacking the living just for the money it brings them:
We conclude that natural and synthetic chemicals are also likely to be positive in animal cancer tests. We also conclude that at low doses from most human exposures, the comparative risks of synthetic pesticide residues are insignificant.beautiful fallacy!
So we can, WE conclude that pubmed, in the service of his majesty BP, only says bullshit
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré