EquALLity wrote:
What do you mean? I was using if interchangeably with 'when' there.
People get abnormal cells all of the time. If these nutrients promote the growth and spread of abnormal cells more so than ordinary cells, they are buttressing those random and frequent abnormal cell lines as they occur, and increasing the probability of one becoming a lethal cancer.
There's a strong link between choline and cancer, apparently. It may turn out to be cancer food, to put it simply.
Autopsies. About 80% of men by age 80.
EquALLity wrote:
I wasn't thinking it was, I was just wondering about this specific situation. I just want to be prepared when I use this as an argument in the future.
The important thing is to look at why and how a thing is harmful.
For example, a little bit of cyanide is fine; it's moderated by B-12 in the body. After it reacts, it forms cyanocobalamin, which is then reacted with again by some enzyme to pull off the cyanide which is removed from the body by kidneys quite easily, leaving you with free B-12 again.
Taking cyanocobalamin is basically cyanide-neutral. Pure B-12 as hydroxycobalamin is like negative cyanide (and can treat cyanide poisoning).
If Cyanide consumption exceeds the free B-12 in your body, then you start to have a problem as it binds to the enzymes responsible for oxygen metabolism in cells. This can cause cell death, particularly in nerve cells that rely on aerobic metabolism. Nerve cell death isn't cancer, but it is BAD because nerves regenerate very slowly. You want to keep your rate of nerve cell death very low, or you'll start to experience neurological symptoms through chronic exposure.
Cyanide is non-carcinogenic, and as far as I know, Cyanide actually kills cancer rather than promoting its growth. So, there's nothing about cyanide that should promote or cause cancer in any way. Just keep exposure within reasonable limits, and it should be harmless.
Anyway, that's an example of something that's lethal in large amounts, but harmless in a small amount, and specifically why it's harmless in those amounts. That's the case for a lot of substances. It's not the case for carcinogens.
It depends on the details of the biochemistry, and how your body deals with them.
So, it is true that if you take cyanide and pure (hydroxy) B-12 at the same time, the cyanide would be mitigated perfectly, because the B-12 is its exact method of mitigation and binds with it to prevent its action on cells.
Not so true with carcinogens and anti-oxidants (which are the anti-cancer substances in plants). Carcinogens operate by different mechanisms. Antioxidants mostly just reduce common free radicals in the body, and may not interfere with the mutagenic properties of potent carcinogens.
The analogy I used of wearing a bullet proof vest and playing Russian roulette is more accurate. A bullet proof vest protects you somewhat from *other* sources of bullets, but does nothing to defend against the gun you've put to your head. Likewise, eating antioxidants from plants mainly defends against other causes of cancer. Your net odds may more or less even out, just like they might if you wore a bullet poor vest in a war zone and played Russian roulette. But you're not directly mitigating the source of danger you introduced yourself to -- just other comparable sources of danger.
EquALLity wrote:
I just want to be equipped for debates with meat-eaters when I use this as a reason for them to go vegan.
Well, the best argument is ethics. People do all sorts of stupid self-destructive things.
The best argument to atheists, who believe themselves to be rational, is probably to point out the irrationality of lose-lose behavior.