 |
| Don't lick the brushes. |
"The second limit was far more insidious: radiation produced cancers. The very effect of X-rays killing rapidly dividing cells--DNA damage--also created cancer-causing mutations in genes. In the 1910's, soon after the Curies has discovered radium, a New Jersey corporation called U.S. Radium began to mix radium with paint to create a product called Undark--radium-infused paint that emitted a greenish white light at night. Although aware of the many injurious effects of radium, U.S. Radium promoted Undark for clock dials, boasting of glow-in-the-dark watches. Watch painting was a precise and artisanal craft, and young women with nimble, steady hands were commonly employed. These women were encouraged to use the paint without precautions, and to frequently lick the brushes with their tongues to produce sharp lettering on watches.
Radium workers soon began to complain of jaw pain, fatigue, and skin and tooth problems. In the late 1920's, medical investigators revealed that the bones in their jaws has necroses, their tongues had been scarred by irradiation, and many had become chronically anemic (a sign of severe bone marrow damage). Some women, tested with radioactivity counters, were found to be glowing with radioactivity. Over the next decades, dozens of radium-induced tumors sprouted in these radium-exposed workers--sarcomas and leukemias, and bone, tongue, neck, and jaw tumors. In 1927, a group of five severely affected women in New Jersey--collectively termed 'Radium girls' by the media--sued U.S. Radium. None of them had yet developed cancers; they were suffering from the more acute effects of radium toxicity--jaw, skin, and tooth necrosis. A year later, the case was settled out of court with a compensation of $10,000 each to the girls, and $600 per year to cover living and medical expenses. The 'compensation' was not widely collected. Many of the Radium girls, too weak even to raised their hands in court, died of leukemia and other cancers soon after their case was settled."
A few months ago, I met someone who was talking about the harmful effects of drinking milk who referenced The China Study by T. Colin Campbell. I read the book and since have been somewhat immersed in the topics of diet (specifically, a Whole Foods Plant-Based diet) and cancer. Campbell grew up on a dairy farm is is well acquainted with the Standard American Diet ("SAD"). The particular argument Campbell makes is that casein, the protein found in cow's milk, is correlated with health risks for chronic diseases including heart disease and diabetes and that excess protein intake increases carcinogenic activity. Campbell extols the Whole Foods Plant-Based (WFPB) diet as the solution to prevent or diminish the impact of these chronic conditions.
Artist sidenote: casein is also a water-soluble medium used by artists, like tempera paint.
The WFPB informational sources I've found are adamant that iron and protein needs are fairly easily met within the diet. They also like to boast their WFPB super-athletes.
The quote above is from The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer, by Siddhartha Mukherjee. Mukherjee notes the misperception cancer as a modern illness, citing its occurrence in the earliest of humankind (tumors in Egypt in 2500 B.C. and breast cancer occurrence in 440 B.C.). Although cancer was present it was rare. Says Mukheerjee, "Civilization did not cause cancer, but by extending human life spans, civilization unveiled it."
The WFPB diet distinguishes itself from veganism with its emphasis on health rather than an ideology such as environmentalism or animal rights. It purports to provide all of the essential nutrients with the exception of B12 (deficiency of which can cause anemia or nervous system damage), for which a supplement is recommended. Apparently, B12 is made by anaerobic microorganisms that exist in the gut of animals; animal products (meat, eggs, cheese) are the primary source of vitamin B12 in the American diet. B12 exists in animals because animals ingest feces, have bacterial contaminations of their food, or eat other animal products. The risk of low B12 is an elevation of homocysteine levels, causing increased risk of heart disease, stroke, and pregnancy complications. Thus taking a B12 supplement is recommended for all adults over age 50, regardless of diet.
Reading about diet also makes me reflect on a Ted Talk entitled "The moral roots of liberals and conservatives," by Jonathan Haidt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc Haidt identifies 5 universal foundations of morality: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, purity/sanctity. Regarding the purity/sanctity virtue, he defines purity as the idea of gaining virtue by controlling what you do with or put into your body, and that whereas the political right may moralize sex, the political left is doing it with food. I realize diet has occupied much consciousness in recent American thought and wonder to what degree I am a pawn within a larger social sphere.
Currently, the American Cancer Society recommends maintaining a healthy weight, limiting processed meat and red meat, eating at least 2.5 cups of vegetables and fruits a day, and choosing whole grains. The Alzheimer's Association promotes a heart-healthy diet, highlighting the DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) and the Mediterranean diets. Of course, writing all this makes me want to acknowledge that cancer is multifactorial and horrible. My interest has been to learn about any factors that are within my control, and I acknowledge that research is ongoing and that cancer and disease affect the healthiest among us.
The following are some resources I've come across along the way.
Resources:
*Interesting study for fellow migraine sufferers: taking 1/8 teaspoon of powdered ginger at the onset of a headache has the same effect as the medicine Sumatriptan. I've tried it once or twice and it kinda seems to work.
Documentary Films:
Forks Over Knives
What the Health?
Conspiracy
PlantPure Nation
Food blogs:
When I adopted a vegetarian diet 8 years ago,
I did so for various reasons, but would not have done so if I did not believe it was also healthy.
The biggest drawback to eating a more restrictive diet is doubtless the burden it imposes on any host. Like most humans, I attempt to be minimally burdensome and think I have generally felt so as a vegetarian (either that or I have become blind to accommodations a host is making). As minimally as I will want others to adapt/change/be inconvenienced by my diet, I also realize that hosts (not the least of which are family members) will likely feel put-out by needing to rethink, gather strange or new ingredients, and make extra or different dishes than otherwise. I also sadden at the prospect of not experiencing particular family recipes.
On the flip side, in principle I think a commitment to a particular diet could allow me a greater sense of resolution in not eating foods that I should probably avoid anyhow. I would hope that adherence to a strict diet would help me to prioritize human interactions over eating at social gatherings. In general, I prefer not to eat out. I think adherence to the diet could allow me greater resolve in saying "no," to that to which I would otherwise perhaps like to say "no" to.
Anyways, I'm still not over the cliff, but the wind is playing in my sails. Regardless, I figure the more veggies the better, right? Which is what we always knew. Which is what your mother told you. Eat fresh foods, eat colorful foods, eat a variety of foods.
And, there's the pleasing resonance that eating more vegetables/fruits happens to be more beneficial for our world.
More of the looking-into I'd like to do is to explore the rate of disease in particular nations and how that correlates to a typical diet for that country.
Blah Blah Blah. This is what a blog is for: for me to write down my thoughts to see what I think. Please feel free to disagree, and I especially welcome any other reputable, non-biased sources.
