Sad to think that the reason it is so hard to detect, is that cancer rates are so high in the first place :(
And cancer rates are so high in developed countries, because we are constantly bombarded with "safe" or "low" levels of toxins/radiation/carcinogens in our environment and in the food we eat.
Yes, much of the food produced to nourish our bodies contain cancer causing chemicals - unless it is organic, or comes from a local farm.
Amazing that some of the experts considered the cancer risk of this disaster absent or too small to detect, while others predict thousands of cancer deaths. In the end, it will be spun either way depending on who is presenting the data and who they represent (the corporations, the government, etc).
As with all statistics, and numbers, and the grey areas in between, a direct link is not possible, only averages and numbers of cancer cases based on proximity to the disaster.... over time.
It will be very sad to me if they eventually conclude that the cancer risk was minimal because we would all probably get cancer anyway. One of my greatest concerns is that BILLIONS of dollars are being spent looking for cures for cancers - maybe if that same money, that same fund-raising effort was put into detoxing our environment we would save several times more than that in medical costs (not to mention lives, and painful treatments, and emotional trauma).
Yes - prevention is key. Prevention is something every individual should work toward. But if we are going to have a global effort, government involvement, research, statistics, and funding to fight cancer - why not fight the causes first?
No comments:
Post a Comment