Thread: Reducing Cancer Danger (HCA) on Grilled Meats

Dave the blogspot SPAMMER wrote:
>
> Three commercial spice-containing marinade blends (caribbean,
> southwest, and herb) on round beef steaks were tested by researchers
> from Kansas State University on grilled steaks. The steaks were
> marinated for one hour and then grilled at 400 degrees Fahrenheit.

Note that the risk from grilled meats is nearly
insignificant. Of course, the blogspot spammer
won't tell you that, because he's trying to use
fear to drive traffic to his commercial blogspot
web site.

Here's a table of relative risks from

http://zoology.muohio.edu/oris/ZOO46...s/15b_462.html

Note how 100 charcoal broiled steaks compares to
40 tablespoons of peanut butter or half liter of wine.
There is absolutely no reason to be concerned about
this risk, when there are so many other risks that
completely dwarf this one. When you put the risk
in perspective, it removes the rational basis for
fear. But then it wouldn't be such a good story
for the spammer to exploit.


Table 12. Risks which increase chance of death by 0.000001

Smoking 1.4 cigarettes -- Cancer, heart disease
Drinking ½ litre of wine -- Cirrhosis of the liver
Spending 1 hour in a coal mine -- Black lung disease
Spending 3 hours in a coal mine -- Accident
Living 2 days in New York or Boston -- Air pollution
Travelling 5 minutes by canoe -- Accident
Travelling 10 miles by bicycle -- Accident
Travelling 300 miles by car -- Accident
Flying 1000 miles by jet -- Accident
Flying 6000 miles by jet -- Cancer caused by
cosmic radiation
Living 2 months in Denver on vacation from
New York -- Cancer caused by cosmic radiation
Living 2 months in average stone or brick building
-- Cancer caused by natural radioactivity
One chest X-ray taken in a good hospital -- Cancer
caused by radiation
Living 2 months with a cigarette smoker -- Cancer,
heart disease
Eating 40 tablespoons of peanut butter -- Liver
cancer caused by aflatoxin B
Drinking Miami drinking-water for 1 year -- Cancer
caused by chloroform
Drinking 30 12 oz. cans of diet soda -- Cancer
caused by saccharin
Living 5 years at site boundary of a typical nuclear
power plant in the open -- Cancer caused by radiation
Drinking 1000 24 oz. soft drinks from recently banned
plastic bottles -- Cancer from acrylonitrile monomer
Living 20 years near PVC plant -- Cancer caused by
vinyl chloride (1976 standard)
Living 150 years within 20 miles of a nuclear power
plant -- Cancer caused by radiation
Eating 100 charcoal broiled steaks -- Cancer from
benzopyrene
Risk of accident by living within 5 miles of a nuclear
reactor for 50 years -- Cancer caused by radiation

On Jul 30, 10:44*am, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Dave the blogspot SPAMMER wrote:
>
>
>
> > Three commercial spice-containing marinade blends (caribbean,
> > southwest, and herb) on round beef steaks were tested by researchers
> > from Kansas State University on grilled steaks. The steaks were
> > marinated for one hour and then grilled at 400 degrees Fahrenheit.
>
> Note that the risk from grilled meats is nearly
> insignificant. *Of course, the blogspot spammer
> won't tell you that, because he's trying to use
> fear to drive traffic to his commercial blogspot
> web site.
>
> Here's a table of relative risks from
>
> http://zoology.muohio.edu/oris/ZOO46...s/15b_462.html
>
> Note how 100 charcoal broiled steaks compares to
> 40 tablespoons of peanut butter or half liter of wine.
> There is absolutely no reason to be concerned about
> this risk, when there are so many other risks that
> completely dwarf this one. *When you put the risk
> in perspective, it removes the rational basis for
> fear. *But then it wouldn't be such a good story
> for the spammer to exploit.
>
> Table 12. Risks which increase chance of death by 0.000001
>
> Smoking 1.4 cigarettes -- Cancer, heart disease
> Drinking ½ litre of wine -- Cirrhosis of the liver
> Spending 1 hour in a coal mine -- Black lung disease
> Spending 3 hours in a coal mine -- Accident
> Living 2 days in New York or Boston -- Air pollution
> Travelling 5 minutes by canoe -- Accident
> Travelling 10 miles by bicycle -- Accident
> Travelling 300 miles by car -- Accident
> Flying 1000 miles by jet -- Accident
> Flying 6000 miles by jet -- Cancer caused by
> cosmic radiation
> Living 2 months in Denver on vacation from
> New York -- Cancer caused by cosmic radiation
> Living 2 months in average stone or brick building
> -- Cancer caused by natural radioactivity
> One chest X-ray taken in a good hospital -- Cancer
> caused by radiation
> Living 2 months with a cigarette smoker -- Cancer,
> heart disease
> Eating 40 tablespoons of peanut butter -- Liver
> cancer caused by aflatoxin B
> Drinking Miami drinking-water for 1 year -- Cancer
> caused by chloroform
> Drinking 30 12 oz. cans of diet soda -- Cancer
> caused by saccharin
> Living 5 years at site boundary of a typical nuclear
> power plant in the open -- Cancer caused by radiation
> Drinking 1000 24 oz. soft drinks from recently banned
> plastic bottles -- Cancer from acrylonitrile monomer
> Living 20 years near PVC plant -- Cancer caused by
> vinyl chloride (1976 standard)
> Living 150 years within 20 miles of a nuclear power
> plant -- Cancer caused by radiation
> Eating 100 charcoal broiled steaks -- Cancer from
> benzopyrene
> Risk of accident by living within 5 miles of a *nuclear
> reactor for 50 years -- Cancer caused by radiation

Mark, back to your old name calling? That's getting old. You've been
pushed off so many newsgroups I can't count them.

I'm a poster here on Rec.Food just like you. My blog is listed as it
is the source of the article, and it has no ads or commercial content.
Just a compendium of 300+ articles like the one you object to.

It's interesting how a pharmaceutical/chemical industry tout like you
can come on here and talk about cancer risk, when your whole
livelihood and interests deals with chemicals that can hurt the human
body. Mark, are you aware that your industry KILLS tens of thousands
of people every year when people like you formulate these products?

You should be ashamed of yourself for objecting to a post about the
genuine risk of cancer from grilled meats. This is based on research
from a legitimate university, with named people, not anonymous posters
like you who don't leave a trace of their identity behind them. Look
at everything of mine, and like the people from Kansas in this
article, I have my full details and biosketch open. Good luck getting
details on "Mark Thorsen, internet policeman"!

Dave

Dave the blogspot SPAMMER wrote:
>
> Mark, back to your old name calling? That's getting old. You've been
> pushed off so many newsgroups I can't count them.

It's not name-calling to call you a spammer.
You are abusing a non-commercial discussion
newsgroup for commercial purposes, and that
makes you a spammer.

> I'm a poster here on Rec.Food just like you. My blog is listed as it
> is the source of the article, and it has no ads or commercial content.
> Just a compendium of 300+ articles like the one you object to.

Your web site has commercial content, as you
admitted when you said in a posting made on
7/21/07:

> On occasion, I will mention a product that
> I am affiliated with, and this is clearly
> presented in the text. That only happens
> in about one out of ten or twelve posts.

You can't spin those words as anything else.
Your web site is commercial, and every time
you plug it in a non-commercial discussion
newsgroup, you are spamming. That makes
you a spammer. It is not name-calling
to correctly identify you as a spammer,
any more than it would be name-calling
to call O.J. Simpson a murderer.

> It's interesting how a pharmaceutical/chemical industry tout like you
> can come on here and talk about cancer risk, when your whole
> livelihood and interests deals with chemicals that can hurt the human
> body. Mark, are you aware that your industry KILLS tens of thousands
> of people every year when people like you formulate these products?

I've never worked for a pharmaceutical or chemical
company. Now, it's not name-calling to call
you a LIAR in addition to SPAMMER. You invent
these lies because you can't defend yourself
with truth. You are a dishonest spammer
trying to steal some free advertising for
your Internet-get-rich-quick scheme.
You disgust me with your ignorance, your lies,
your plagiarism, and your crass commercialism.

On Jul 30, 11:03*am, Dave <djense...@cox.net> wrote:

> Cured meats are another story entirely . . . they have far more cancer
> causing agents than meat cooked on the grill.

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll eat my meat grilled and my bacon crispy.
I just don't have it in me to worry about cancer.

Cindy Hamilton

On Jul 30, 2:49*pm, Cindy Hamilton <angelicapagane...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jul 30, 11:03*am, Dave <djense...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Cured meats are another story entirely . . . they have far more cancer
> > causing agents than meat cooked on the grill.
>
> Thanks, but no thanks. *I'll eat my meat grilled and my bacon crispy.
> I just don't have it in me to worry about cancer.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

Every time you turn around, somebody is banging on the cancer risk
panic button. They've done it over bacon, coffee, sacchran, cell
phones, fried food, grilled food, smoked food, meat, processed meat,
Allar, free radicals, preservatives, plastic water bottles, the sun
and anyone smoking a Chesterfield within a thousand yards of me. They
have screamed Wolf! so many times that I don't even listen to them
anymore. Besides, I'd rather die of cancer at 50 than live to 85 or so
nibbling on raw bean sprouts and organic acorns and living in abject
terror of every other food item in the universe.

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:07:55 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Helms
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Jul 30, 2:49*pm, Cindy Hamilton <angelicapagane...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On Jul 30, 11:03*am, Dave <djense...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Cured meats are another story entirely . . . they have far more cancer
>> > causing agents than meat cooked on the grill.
>>
>> Thanks, but no thanks. *I'll eat my meat grilled and my bacon crispy.
>> I just don't have it in me to worry about cancer.
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>
>Every time you turn around, somebody is banging on the cancer risk
>panic button. They've done it over bacon, coffee, sacchran, cell
>phones, fried food, grilled food, smoked food, meat, processed meat,
>Allar, free radicals, preservatives, plastic water bottles, the sun
>and anyone smoking a Chesterfield within a thousand yards of me. They
>have screamed Wolf! so many times that I don't even listen to them
>anymore. Besides, I'd rather die of cancer at 50 than live to 85 or so
>nibbling on raw bean sprouts and organic acorns and living in abject
>terror of every other food item in the universe.

I don't know. I always said *exactly* that. And then I watched both
my uncle and my mother die of cancer, just recently, and you really
kind of don't look at anything the same way ever again.

So while I think that the grill thing is nonsense, I think long and
hard about consuming "foods" that are overly processed or basically
just chemicals (I know, everything is chemicals, but I mean things
like Nutrasweet). It's harder to dismiss it all completely. Makes
you think that you should at least have some kind of stab at spreading
out the odds.

Not trying to be a wet blanket here, but it's hard to get it out of
your mind when you watch the process.

>Dave the blogspot SPAMMER wrote:
>>
>> Mark, back to your old name calling? That's getting old. You've been
>> pushed off so many newsgroups I can't count them.
>
>It's not name-calling to call you a spammer.
>You are abusing a non-commercial discussion
>newsgroup for commercial purposes, and that
>makes you a spammer.
>snip rest of accusations<
Not being invested in this pissing contest, I took a look at the blog.
While he does mention and point to his supplements company in one
standard sidebar in the blog, none of the articles (and I read them
all) have a commercial bent to them. You're being a bit too harsh.

Nina wrote:
>
> So while I think that the grill thing is nonsense, I think long and
> hard about consuming "foods" that are overly processed or basically
> just chemicals (I know, everything is chemicals, but I mean things
> like Nutrasweet). It's harder to dismiss it all completely. Makes
> you think that you should at least have some kind of stab at spreading
> out the odds.

In the U.S., all food additives are regulated by the FDA.
The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended in 1958,
allows no level of any carcinogenic food additive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaney_clause

You have much greater exposure to natural carcinogens
such as aflatoxins in peanuts and dried corn.

Abe wrote:
>
> >Dave the blogspot SPAMMER wrote:
> >>
> >> Mark, back to your old name calling? That's getting old. You've been
> >> pushed off so many newsgroups I can't count them.
> >
> >It's not name-calling to call you a spammer.
> >You are abusing a non-commercial discussion
> >newsgroup for commercial purposes, and that
> >makes you a spammer.
> >snip rest of accusations<
> Not being invested in this pissing contest, I took a look at the blog.
> While he does mention and point to his supplements company in one
> standard sidebar in the blog, none of the articles (and I read them
> all) have a commercial bent to them. You're being a bit too harsh.

You can't be too harsh on spammers. If any spam
is permissable, all spam becomes permissable, and
the non-commercial discussion newsgroups will be
lost in an ocean of spam. I'm not in favor of
unlimited spamming in the newsgroups. Remember
all the spam we were recently receiving for
counterfeit leather goods from China? It'll
be worse than that. There are no good spammers,
there are no innocent spammers.

There are commercial newsgroups where it is
permissible to plug your commercial web site.
Why can't he limit himself to those newsgroups?
It's because he doesn't care about the future
of this newsgroup. He only cares about his own
interests, not the on-line community that has
developed here. He sees it as free advertising
for his business, nothing more.

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:40:40 -0700, Mark Thorson <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Nina wrote:
>>
>> So while I think that the grill thing is nonsense, I think long and
>> hard about consuming "foods" that are overly processed or basically
>> just chemicals (I know, everything is chemicals, but I mean things
>> like Nutrasweet). It's harder to dismiss it all completely. Makes
>> you think that you should at least have some kind of stab at spreading
>> out the odds.
>
>In the U.S., all food additives are regulated by the FDA.
>The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended in 1958,
>allows no level of any carcinogenic food additive.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaney_clause
>
>You have much greater exposure to natural carcinogens
>such as aflatoxins in peanuts and dried corn.

I don't eat either of those things, actually.

And, frankly, I don't really trust the FDA all that terribly much,
when you get right down to it.

But I'm not really saying that it's a rational position; I'm just
saying that a bunch of real-life exposure to cancer makes it harder to
just shrug and say, I'll take the risk.

On Jul 30, 4:53*pm, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Abe wrote:
>
> > >Dave the blogspot SPAMMER wrote:
>
> > >> Mark, back to your old name calling? That's getting old. You've been
> > >> pushed off so many newsgroups I can't count them.
>
> > >It's not name-calling to call you a spammer.
> > >You are abusing a non-commercial discussion
> > >newsgroup for commercial purposes, and that
> > >makes you a spammer.
> > >snip rest of accusations<
> > Not being invested in this pissing contest, I took a look at the blog.
> > While he does mention and point to his supplements company in one
> > standard sidebar in the blog, none of the articles (and I read them
> > all) have a commercial bent to them. You're being a bit too harsh.
>
> You can't be too harsh on spammers. *If any spam
> is permissable, all spam becomes permissable, and
> the non-commercial discussion newsgroups will be
> lost in an ocean of spam. *I'm not in favor of
> unlimited spamming in the newsgroups. *Remember
> all the spam we were recently receiving for
> counterfeit leather goods from China? *It'll
> be worse than that. *There are no good spammers,
> there are no innocent spammers.
>
> There are commercial newsgroups where it is
> permissible to plug your commercial web site.
> Why can't he limit himself to those newsgroups?
> It's because he doesn't care about the future
> of this newsgroup. *He only cares about his own
> interests, not the on-line community that has
> developed here. *He sees it as free advertising
> for his business, nothing more.

Honestly, Mark, I don't know why this newsgroup puts up with YOU.

You try to control everyone's access to information, claiming "spam"
when you haven't even looked at what I write. I put the entire article
up, not some teaser. The link is there if people want to look at what
I write and what I do, or to see my biosketch. Pure ego, not a "get
rich scheme," because there is nothing sold there. Not even one lonely
Google ad.

But when it comes to you, all is mystery. Good luck finding out
anything about our Internet cop, eh Mark!

Dave

Dave the SPAMMER wrote:
>
> You try to control everyone's access to information, claiming
> "spam" when you haven't even looked at what I write. I put the
> entire article up, not some teaser. The link is there if people
> want to look at what I write and what I do, or to see my
> biosketch. Pure ego, not a "get rich scheme," because there
> is nothing sold there. Not even one lonely Google ad.

Do you deny saying this in a posting made on
7/21/07:

> On occasion, I will mention a product that
> I am affiliated with, and this is clearly
> presented in the text. That only happens
> in about one out of ten or twelve posts.

Certainly, when you promote products you
are "affiliated with", you are advertising.
That makes it a commercial web site, and
it makes you a spammer. Spam has no place
in a non-commercial discussion newsgroup.
When this is pointed out, you respond with
insults and lies. Your behavior is truly
loathesome.

On Jul 30, 6:07*pm, Christopher Helms <Chrishelms...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 30, 2:49*pm, Cindy Hamilton <angelicapagane...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 30, 11:03*am, Dave <djense...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > Cured meats are another story entirely . . . they have far more cancer
> > > causing agents than meat cooked on the grill.
>
> > Thanks, but no thanks. *I'll eat my meat grilled and my bacon crispy.
> > I just don't have it in me to worry about cancer.
>
> > Cindy Hamilton
>
> Every time you turn around, somebody is banging on the cancer risk
> panic button. They've done it over bacon, coffee, sacchran, cell
> phones, fried food, grilled food, smoked food, meat, processed meat,
> Allar, free radicals, preservatives, plastic water bottles, the sun
> and anyone smoking a Chesterfield within a thousand yards of me. They
> have screamed Wolf! so many times that I don't even listen to them
> anymore. Besides, I'd rather die of cancer at 50 than live to 85 or so
> nibbling on raw bean sprouts and organic acorns and living in abject
> terror of every other food item in the universe.

Well, I've made it past 50. I'll probably die of a heart attack.
Preferably
the one you didn't see coming and weren't aware you were having.
But not just yet, please.

Cindy Hamilton

Nina wrote:

> I don't know. I always said *exactly* that. And then I watched both
> my uncle and my mother die of cancer, just recently, and you really
> kind of don't look at anything the same way ever again.
>
> So while I think that the grill thing is nonsense, I think long and
> hard about consuming "foods" that are overly processed or basically
> just chemicals (I know, everything is chemicals, but I mean things
> like Nutrasweet). It's harder to dismiss it all completely. Makes
> you think that you should at least have some kind of stab at spreading
> out the odds.
>
> Not trying to be a wet blanket here, but it's hard to get it out of
> your mind when you watch the process.
>
I understand that. After my mom died of pancreatic cancer, I became a
vegetarian for several years. It made me feel like I might have some
control over my destiny. I still do avoid things--and this whole issue
is one reason why my current consumption of sausages (albeit uncured
etc.) is odd. I really need to stop that.

--
Jean B.

On Jul 31, 6:43*am, "Jean B." <jb...@rcn.com> wrote:
> Nina wrote:
> > I don't know. *I always said *exactly* that. *And then I watched both
> > my uncle and my mother die of cancer, just recently, and you really
> > kind of don't look at anything the same way ever again.
>
> > So while I think that the grill thing is nonsense, I think long and
> > hard about consuming "foods" that are overly processed or basically
> > just chemicals (I know, everything is chemicals, but I mean things
> > like Nutrasweet). *It's harder to dismiss it all completely. *Makes
> > you think that you should at least have some kind of stab at spreading
> > out the odds.
>
> > Not trying to be a wet blanket here, but it's hard to get it out of
> > your mind when you watch the process.
>
> I understand that. *After my mom died of pancreatic cancer, I became a
> vegetarian for several years. *It made me feel like I might have some
> control over my destiny. *I still do avoid things--and this whole issue
> is one reason why my current consumption of sausages (albeit uncured
> etc.) is odd. *I really need to stop that.
>
> --
> Jean B.

Jean, the same thing happened to me. My dad died of cancer, in his
early 60's, and so I tried to "clean up my act" for quite some time,
but I've slipped back into most of my old eating habits. I must admit
that I felt the best when I was a veggie -- it was indeed a good,
healthy feeling (perhaps its in the head). But it was impossible when
my family wasn't supporting it, and my wife and son were sitting there
eating a filet mignon and I had a salad in front of me. The family
peer pressure snapped me out of that after about 8 or 9 months.

Still, its funny, but when you mention something about health on RFC,
people ALWAYS come out in support of their poor eating habits. Hey, we
all do it, but it doesn't hurt now and again to at least confront our
eating habits and think about ways that we can improve them for our
own health. I think the problem is, as someone put it in the string
above, that just above everything that tastes good has been nailed by
the health police at one time or another.

Dave

Dave wrote:
> On Jul 31, 6:43 am, "Jean B." <jb...@rcn.com> wrote:
>> Nina wrote:
>>> I don't know. I always said *exactly* that. And then I watched both
>>> my uncle and my mother die of cancer, just recently, and you really
>>> kind of don't look at anything the same way ever again.
>>> So while I think that the grill thing is nonsense, I think long and
>>> hard about consuming "foods" that are overly processed or basically
>>> just chemicals (I know, everything is chemicals, but I mean things
>>> like Nutrasweet). It's harder to dismiss it all completely. Makes
>>> you think that you should at least have some kind of stab at spreading
>>> out the odds.
>>> Not trying to be a wet blanket here, but it's hard to get it out of
>>> your mind when you watch the process.
>> I understand that. After my mom died of pancreatic cancer, I became a
>> vegetarian for several years. It made me feel like I might have some
>> control over my destiny. I still do avoid things--and this whole issue
>> is one reason why my current consumption of sausages (albeit uncured
>> etc.) is odd. I really need to stop that.
>>
>> --
>> Jean B.
>
> Jean, the same thing happened to me. My dad died of cancer, in his
> early 60's, and so I tried to "clean up my act" for quite some time,
> but I've slipped back into most of my old eating habits. I must admit
> that I felt the best when I was a veggie -- it was indeed a good,
> healthy feeling (perhaps its in the head). But it was impossible when
> my family wasn't supporting it, and my wife and son were sitting there
> eating a filet mignon and I had a salad in front of me. The family
> peer pressure snapped me out of that after about 8 or 9 months.
>
> Still, its funny, but when you mention something about health on RFC,
> people ALWAYS come out in support of their poor eating habits. Hey, we
> all do it, but it doesn't hurt now and again to at least confront our
> eating habits and think about ways that we can improve them for our
> own health. I think the problem is, as someone put it in the string
> above, that just above everything that tastes good has been nailed by
> the health police at one time or another.
>
> Dave

Well, I agree with all of this--and I still think I should get back to
more of a straight and narrow diet.... Actually, I could do that and
lose weight too, I guess. Mostly fruits and veggies. Grains and
legumes. I think the way we eat has little to do with what our bodies
actually require now.

Your family made a healthier way of eating difficult for you just as my
daughter makes it hard for me. Her eating habits aren't excatly My
ideal, to say the least. And there is food here for her and her friends....

--
Jean B.

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:44:40 -0700, Mark Thorson <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Dave the blogspot SPAMMER wrote:
>>
>> Three commercial spice-containing marinade blends (caribbean,
>> southwest, and herb) on round beef steaks were tested by researchers
>> from Kansas State University on grilled steaks. The steaks were
>> marinated for one hour and then grilled at 400 degrees Fahrenheit.
>
>Note that the risk from grilled meats is nearly
>insignificant. Of course, the blogspot spammer
>won't tell you that, because he's trying to use
>fear to drive traffic to his commercial blogspot
>web site.
>
>Here's a table of relative risks from
>
>http://zoology.muohio.edu/oris/ZOO46...s/15b_462.html
>
>Note how 100 charcoal broiled steaks compares to
>40 tablespoons of peanut butter or half liter of wine.
>There is absolutely no reason to be concerned about
>this risk, when there are so many other risks that
>completely dwarf this one. When you put the risk
>in perspective, it removes the rational basis for
>fear. But then it wouldn't be such a good story
>for the spammer to exploit.
>

trepidation is an essential food group for some people.

your pal,
blake

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:53:45 -0700 (PDT), Dave <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Jul 30, 10:44*am, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> Dave the blogspot SPAMMER wrote:
>>
>
>It's interesting how a pharmaceutical/chemical industry tout like you
>can come on here and talk about cancer risk, when your whole
>livelihood and interests deals with chemicals that can hurt the human
>body. Mark, are you aware that your industry KILLS tens of thousands
>of people every year when people like you formulate these products?
>

mark thorson is a chemical industry tout? most of us here think he's
even more of a nervous nellie than you appear to be.

blake

On Jul 31, 10:24*am, blake murphy <blakepmNOTT...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:53:45 -0700 (PDT), Dave <djense...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jul 30, 10:44*am, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >> Dave the blogspot SPAMMER wrote:
>
> >It's interesting how a pharmaceutical/chemical industry tout like you
> >can come on here and talk about cancer risk, when your whole
> >livelihood and interests deals with chemicals that can hurt the human
> >body. Mark, are you aware that your industry KILLS tens of thousands
> >of people every year when people like you formulate these products?
>
> mark thorson is a chemical industry tout? *most of us here think he's
> even more of a nervous nellie than you appear to be.
>
> blake

Blake, read his posts in other newsgroups, in the chemical groups.
I'll admit that most of what Mark says on this forum has value. But in
some newsgroups his comments are primarily name calling and flames.
I'm ashamed to admit that I will follow suit when attacked - and this
forum deserves more than that. Sorry.

Dave