Gonna go make a "peanut butter" and jelly sandwich on toast.

Yeah, I'm not a soplist, I'll answer questions. Read the doctors
reports on DU, the ones who resigned their high paying jobs with
the WHO. There were others who didn't resign when their reports
were shredded.

Kem - Thanks for answering my question.

Hey ~Obvious~, I'm whispering now. Read this in a whisper tone,
it's a paranoid's secret.

Did you notice in that link YOU posted, that the author never
ONCE mentioed DU ammunition, or the 600,000 plus Gulf war vets
who suffer from radiation poison symptoms? Nor did it mention
the several thousand Gulf war vets, whose babies were born with
serious medical problems.

Some were born with no eyes, no sex organs, serious and forever
brain damage, some born with cancers, or no arms or legs, thousands of
deformed babies and NO ONE ever tested for DU contamination in the
father as a possible cause. Once in the body organs, DU will NOT show up
in urine tests.

A man contaminated with DU can pass altered genes to a fetus, that's
been medically proven. Check it out and argue with the doctors and
scientists who have proven it. Of course you'd have to do a great deal
of research on the subject, maybe you can have a dozen or so help
you on it.____ Have a good day Bud, __ I'm gonna. I do not expect any
decent or sensible reply.

Wonder if you are hiding under your bed and sucking your thumb?
Just answer the questions, don't be afraid to show your ignorance,
or admit you are wrong. You seem to have some degreee of intellect.
Fess up ~Mr. Obvious~ and be a big boy for a change. No one likes
or respects a chicken shit wimp.

BTW soplist, why did you ask that paranoid question of me,
you feel insecure about giving fair and honest answers to
this rather fun debate's questions I asked of you?

Oh I forgot to mention, I passed a 200 question psycho exam two
years ago for the State, when applying for a van driver's job
for the state prison system. Then a two hour long session with
a shrink. Couldn't pass the strict eye exam, even though I have
a valid license with zero offenses for the past 20 years and did
not require a CDL license for a nine pssenger van. That job would
have been fun and offset the bore of being retired and unemployed
and wasting valuable time debating Neo-Con nut-cases here at CD.

I was third in the national coach driver's rodeo in 1994.
Two points from first place and one from second, 400 drivers
competed. Pretty neat huh? Self Pat on back from the paranoid
old fart.

Read others educated opinions about WHO, not my oipinions.
Study that first link I offered as it mentions WHO as I recall,
those doctors qualifications are beyond question or
their morals and honesty beyond reproach. They have no political
axes to grind. Of course apparently you do, so just forget it.

Higlhly respected doctors and scientist who worked for WHO resigned,
because their reports on DU were altered or trashed and never published.

I'll be glad to wait till Hell freezes over for you to answer those
questions Mr. Obvious. Same reply given to the Russian Ambassador
by Dulles at the UN during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Am sure it will take that long too.

What's a consiracy? ___ Anything like a soplist?

Nope, passed the FBI tests for school bus driver, have a
top secret clearance, was a combat crew member in the service
and was given psycho test every six months for20 years. Never failed.

I am currently the president of a large community fire watch group,
have dozens of sensible and very decent friends, have been
married to the same gal for 52 years, we have wonderful and stable
Children and I have never been accused, or questioned of being
paranoid, by any who have an ounce of credence.

I also am not afraid to answer fair questions. Apparantly you
are. ___ How come? You can't answer them honestly can you?

Do you need help understnding them? Keep writing stupidity and
attacking me, every time you do, you lose credibility. Of course
I don't believe you have any to lose come to think of it.

Kem - I guess that I did not know its all a big consiracy. Did you ever get diagnosed as paranoid?

"Who" is under control of governments. They do as they are told.
They have NEVER given a decent mediocal analysis of the PTSD issue.
"PTSD" is actually radiation sickness, ALL of the same symptoms.
Do you deny over 600,000 Gulf war vets are permanently disabled,
or have already died from that? __No one can argue those figures,
they come from the VA. What's your opinon of the last link I offered?
I replied to your WHO question.

AGAIN, you refused to reply, or answer my fair questions. Not surprised,
instead you ask a question. Just like Neo Con denyers of any issue, such as
the Gulf wars, global warming, etc. You are not going to win this debate soplist. ___Your unfainess is ~OBVIOUS~ ___ MR. OBVIOUS. Be thankful it is
buried in the CD archives. But we'll meet again on another thread I'm sure.

Is the World Health Oragnization on the take too?

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

You are trying to "push me for convinving evidence".

Where do you, or I get convincing evidence to say exposure
to the sun is toxic? __We read it from medical articles or books,
or are qualifed doctors to state that is a fact.

I read articles about DU, and have to either trust, or ignore the
doctors and scientists who write those articles. I determine if I
will trust their opinions, based upon their schooling, training,
years of experience and their scientific evaluations of the threat
of inhaling microscopic specks of DU. Highly qualified doctors state
inhaling DU will cause cancer, destroy the immune system, alter DNA
and genetic codes, will cause cancers in any part o fthe body including
breast cancer and a medical malady that doctors term PTSD, which over
600,000 Gulf War vets are "permanently" disabled from.

Here is another of over a million DU articles. Argue it also, or get
a dozen to help you read it first and then ask who "peered" it for your "soplistic" satisfaction.

http://www.gulfwarvets.com/du_blowinginthewind.htm

Again, are you going to answer the questions? ___ Of course not.
"Soplists" don't do that, they just blather on and continue to make
fools of themselves.

Fair Questions:

1. Why do you say the doctors at the Conference are nothing but activists?

2. What are your credentials to state that, what references do you use to
support that claim? ___ Did you even bother to read the article?

3. What are the doctors and scientists names listed in that article,
do you question their studied knowledge on the subject?
Why? When you stated that you know nothing about the subject matter?

Another question. Why would you or any intelligent person, need any
assistance to study that ONE article I offered, ___ are you stupid?

Kem - Do you know this from first hand experience? That would explain a lot. Of course this stuff is toxic. So is exposure to the sun at it's surface. How about likely exposure senerios. You really think that I am trying to discredit your points, don't you? I am simply trying to push you to get some convincing evidence.

Dribble?? What do you term your posts? __I offered a respectable thread.

Look dufus, if you inhale a microscopic speck of DU, you will likely
get cancer. If it crosses the "olfactorary" bulb, it will lodge in the
brain and over time, cancer is assured. From there it can break off
and travel to any part of the body and establish another cancer factory.

Is that simple enough for you? You want references and PEER reviews? Look em
up. Then argue those articles with the other foolish denyers.

Kem - If I educated myself on all the dribble that you spout on this site, I'd need to hire a dozen assisants to keep up. The fact that I debate this with you does call into question my intelligence. I guess that I am a fool.

I only take one aspirin a day, no other meds. I notice you failed once
again to reply to the approriate questions. The doctors and scientists
headed the Uranium Weapons Conference. The two authors were the PEER
reviewers of the conference. The two authors have doctorates in the field of risk management.

Buttttttt, you say the entire group were just a bunch
of radical activists. ___Where do YOU come off stating that?
And did you bother to read any other articles on the DU subject?
What is you opinion about DU now that you are self educating yourself?

Oh, you didn't bother to do that. You are just going to continue to
mouth off like a fool.

Kem, Take your pills and calm down. Peer-review means not picking the peers that review your work. The peers are picked from experts that are not associated with the authors. This is why it works pretty well. Kinda like a jury. You can't choose your friends. Expert opinion is not science. In God we trust, everyone else needs data.

You hiding out ~MR. OBVIOUS~? __OBVIOUSLY,__ you do not know
how to honestly communicate or debate.

edit?

BTW, that link I offered was "PEER" reviewed. The two authors are the PEERS. They don't come any higher.

You can read the ~Bio~ of every person who attended that conference, their history, work experience, education, doctorates, etc.

Argue that "soplist", by their names, and tell us all why they are just a bunch of radical ding-bats. Then tell us all you know about the subject in medical and technical terminology. You can copy that type of deniying from some government paid shill's article.

What exactly is wrong with the one I did offer???__YOU say, those people are not credible and I asked you to give some credible facts to back up your comment. ___ You refuse to do that. Why?? What is your proof for such a comment?

You just make that comment and that's it. __ Prove it.___ Thousands of other doctors and scientists do believe the people listed in that article I offered are credible. I'll believe them, until someone with satisfactory credentials PROVES they are wrong. What are your credentials? ___ You have already stated you don't know squat about the issue but you do know the ones who attended that uranium weapons conference are wrong. You are not making any sense and you should be aware of that. You are just arguing with me and I'm not the expert, I just offer references.___ Good ones.

I also told you there are over ONE MILLION articles and papers available on the net on the subject. I will not list them all for you. Just Goodle Depleted uranium weapons and then argue with the authors of the articles till your happy.

Kem - I have not said that you are wrong about DU. I just asked you if you could supply a peer-reviewed paper or an education site that described your concern. Either you cannot of will not.

Forget it "soplist", this thread has been buried in the archives
for five day now. If you refuse to admit that the scientist and doctors
who are listed the link I offered are credible and that you are, then
you are a hopeless case.

BTW, I do have a mild form of dyislexia and am almost blind. But that
does not interfere with being resonable or with having common sense. Your
arguments are very weak and sensless. Write each of the doctors names
here and tell us why they are not credible on the DU issue. Your bladder
ass comment they are only "a bunch of activists" is pure bull shit.

KEM - I am just asking for some peer-reviewed arrticles or an education site (.edu) that supports your assertions. This is especially important to me because I have seen some of your past assertions.

Still can't find "soplist" is the dictionary. Do you suffer from dislexia? "L" and "H" are near each other on the keyboard so it cannot be a typo, and "soplist" does not sound like "sophist" so I cannot imagine that you are again trying to insult me with a word that is outside your vocabulary, especially after I questioned you about this before?

You don't have to make anything simpLe for me OBVIOUS.
As I've said repeatedly, my opinons are worthless, so for
you to chide my credentials is silly. The credentils of
all of the people listed in that link I offered are of the
highest in the world. They are experts, experts. You are just
arguing and makng a complete fool of yourself. __Rave on.

You show your stupidity by stating that conference was
a forum for a bunch of activists. And what in hell are
you talking about bringing up stupid arguments agbout blacks,
whites and the KKK??? God, I thought perhaps you were just
ignorant, but you are an ignorant soplist.

How many other articles have you read on the DU subject?
You state you know nothing about the subject but you then
write comments denying it is a problem. __ You're nuts.

Kem - Let me make this simple for you. I do not believe what people say here or anywhere else without some evidence being presented in a credible forum. I do not find a conference by a bunch of activists to be a credible forum. I know quite a few medical doctors. Some are smart and some are just good memorizers. Doctors bring bias to things just like the rest of us. Do you remember the dentist that was sure that he was allergic to StarLink corn. He was so sure that he allowed himself to be tested in a blind experiment, which found that he was not allergic to StarLink. His only response was that he could not understand where the experiment went wrong. He could not accept that his unfounded belief was wrong even when the evidence was clear. I do not pretend to be knowledgable about DU. But if you cannot point to any credible evidence, then I question your expertise on this subject as well. I can point to lots of white-supremesist sites that claim white people are superior to black people, but none of them are credible. Would you like me to point you to the proceedings of the KKK to support a point?

Do you discredit the authors of the paper published
in the link I offered Mr. Obvious? Are they not
satisfatory enough PEERS for your elevated sense of
perspective?

I'm aware that there are millions of books and papers
published on any number of subject matter. If I wish
to believe ANY, I have to determine if the authror is
credible. That's my choice and I find the authors of the
link I posted very credible and have no political agenda.

What is YOUR opinion of them and the highly regarded doctors
they quoted? If you disagree with them, why not state it and
why you do? Arguing with me is a waste of your time, I'm not the
expert who wrote the article. I just offered it for any who
wish to read it and determine if they agree or disagree.

Google depetd uranium and there are actuallly over a million
articles published on the issue, both pro and con, mostly they
agree DU is a very dangerous and deadly health hazard and has
been covered up by government personnel, who would be highly
inclined to do so, since DU use is a crime against humanity.

Why do you beat around the bush on the debate, either you agree
or disagree that DU is a health hazard and very well may be the
primary cause of so many cancers and the current very sad number of
autism cases in children. Argue with the doctors who state that
is so and say why you wish to deny it is so. Do yoi uundrstand what I'm
saying to you, or are you so self-centered you don't ever listen to
anyone else? So far here, that is precisely what you are doing.

Kem - Do you have any peer-reviewed scientific articles to suggest, or education (.edu) sites that describe the issue? I try to start with reputable sources when researching an issue. I too read a lot, and try to be efficient by validating that an issue exists with a reputable source before investing my time. There is lots of stuff on the internet. You can find anything your heart desires.

Well ~OBVIOUS~, whether you take me seriously or not is immaterial,
a moot issue. I'm not a doctor or a scientist, I do however
read a great deal and I pass along some of what I have read
on the issue of DU at Common Dreams threads. When it comes to sex
or sexual foeplay issues or cooking tips, I can offer expert advice.

There is ample scientific evidence that __DU __ WILL cause cancers and
attack a persons immune system. If you choose to disregard it,
that is your perogative. Once DU has establised itself in a body organ,
such as the brain, liver, lung, bone marrow, etc, it does not show
up in a urine sample, but it will establish a cancer factory and
cancer then spreads to any and all areas of the body. The patient,
young of old, dies of cancer and is buried and that's the end of that
story, DU is not identifed as the root cause of the cancer.

If the immune system is attacked, all other sorts of nasty diseases can
develop. So based upon that, I find it rather strange that you write
and idetify me and offer me advice on what I should post here. I'm not a
child ___ as you may know.

I'd suggest if you or any have an interest in this subject of the article,
that you consider DU as one of the problems of rising cancer rates. Here is
that link again and it is just one of thousands available on the net.
I personally think this is a good one. I'd read the final paragraph first,
or ignore it and don't get educated on a very important subject. Whatever
makes your heart pump.

http://www.uraniumweaponsconference.de/background.htm

Kem - I am being SARCASTIC. The article and many posters here point to one or several chemicals and say that they believe that they are the cause of cancer. In fact these chemicals can and have been tested. I picked peanuts as a silly example because it contains traces of carcinogens and is the major allergenic food in the US (to copy some of the logic proposed for milk above). In fact the concentrations of carcinogens in peanuts are much closer to NOELs (no effect levels) than any of the mentioned demon chemicals. My point is not to discount these chemicals, but rather to base accusations on evidence. If the evidence is lacking, there are any number of researchers that could do the testing. This is a viable option for academics because finding a common chemical is a threat to health will generate huge funds for them. If you can point to some empirical research on the proposed dangers or actually propose a mechanism by which these chemicals cause harm (like DNA damage for a proposed carcinogen), then maybe I would take you seriously.

My God, where on Earth do they come from??

Mr. ~OBVIOUS~, I eat natural peanut butter, no additives,
I even put it on deep fried hot dogs. I'm 72, my blood
pressure is 120 over 70 and the only medication I take
is one aspirin a day.

You ignore the DU issue and talk about the danger of "peanut
butter" for God's sake and advise me to get onto something
serious. Did you read the link I posted, it don't get much
more serious than that, unless we discuss the thawing Arctic
perma-frost and the 400 gigatons of methane gas which can
pollute our atmosphere. Since DU has been used recklessly as
war weapons, cancer rates have risen dramatically, also autism,
Hodgkins and Lou Gherig's disease, diabetes, etc. I do believe
it is you who should get serious, if at all possible.

I have long thought that the peanuts polluting our air, soil, food and water may have something to do with illnesses and cancer. Peanuts laced with aflatoxin a nasty substance (and known carcinogen) and we have been putting it everywhere for more than 90 years now. This could turn out to be another one of those "externalized" costs that economists talk about

I have long thought that the benzene in petrochemicals polluting our air, soil, food and water may have something to do with illnesses and cancer. Benzene is a nasty substance and we have been putting it everywhere for more than 50 years now. This could turn out to be another one of those "externalized" costs that economists talk about.

areader - If evidence supports that corporations have done harm, then we agree that they should be held accountable. What I cannot stomach is conviction based on inuendo. Unless you are communicating by telepathy, you are supporting corporations when you buy a computer and subscribe to an internet provider.

anne faith - I sympathize with your plight, but not with irrational baiming. Some synthetic chemical may indeed be the main cause of your breast cancer, but it is just as likely the effect of a "natural" chemical in your food. My mother is a survivor of colon cancer, and my sister-in-law of breast cancer. I want a remedy, but I think it will come from an open-minded analysis of the evidence, not a witch hunt.

Mr. Obvious -

If the corporations had to depend on consumers like me, they would be out of business. (I never even used disposable diapers! or formula.) I also will not work for any company that I consider harmful to society.

That is not the point, however. Corporations should be accountable to society. I am not permitted to dump toxins in the stream behind my house, and I have to pay taxes. I do not lie and cheat in my dealings with people or businesses. RuthK is correct. In Europe there is better regulation of product ingredients.

You are right in one way though. As long as people, as voters and as consumers, don't seem to care, the corporations will continue in their ways.

ps. Here is a link on legislation that has just passed out of committee in the Senate, to support research into environmental links to breast cancer.

http://www.stopbreastcancer.org//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=799&Itemid=106

"Why is BCERA important? Because rather than focusing on one community or one idea, this bill will create a strategic, national approach to the links between the environment and breast cancer, and will change the way breast cancer research is done and change it for the better."

To "Areader" and to "Doll," who posted earlier, here's to a long life for both of you. My mother, who will be 82 this year, was diagnosed at the age of 39 with breast cancer, had a radical mastectomy, and has been cancer free since then. Her mother, unfortunately, was not as fortunate and died from BC at the age of 50. My sister just had a mastectomy and, like my mother, had no chemo or radiation, thank God. With our family history, I believe I may well be next in line, but I am trying to do what I can to decrease my chances. I am high risk - early menses, no children, smoked cigarettes for 17 years, and I like my alcohol far too much. But I'm trying to mend my ways.

My mother grew up on a dairy farm and consumed tons of milk, butter and cheese. She believes that could be a reason for her cancer, whether it's the animal fat or Strontium 90, which was found in high doses in upstate New York, where the dairy farms were. It's really hard to say, but I think anyone who is not a denier of reality would seriously consider the role that pesticides, synthetic chemicals, organichlorides, and other man-made (and organic) poisons might play.

Speaking of deniers of reality, Mr. Obvious, I've tried to ignore you and your obnoxious troll-like posts, but I really can't sit by and say nothing when you tell a breast cancer survivor to "stop whinning" [sic]. Have you no decency? I've read your posts defending corporations (including Monsanto's use of rbgh in milk) and your musings that "green beans" or "peanut butter" are just as likely to cause cancer as pesticides, synthetic chemicals, and other toxins, and I have to wonder whether you're a shill for the Center for Consumer Freedom or a similar purveyor of disinformation. Either way, there's no excuse for your insults to the posters here.

Kem - I admire your drive and believe your heart is in the right place. I would encourage you to focus on evidence, so that you can help make changes that will make a difference. It is actually very hard to overcome superstition. You are a smart and energetic individual, and you can do a lot of good if you can focus on causes that are beneficial. Read a little about peanut butter and its "natural" contaminants. I am not an anti-peanut-butter activist, but research in this area may help understand a reasonable perspective.

Cancer has always been with us, but not anything like it is now.

Forty years ago, childhood cancers were pretty rare, __ not now. Fifty
years ago, autism was pretty rare,___ now it's epidemic. ___ Why?

Certainly over exposure to some chemicals will cause problems with
the human body and any animal's immune system. Penaut butter is not one
I fear personally. Triclorethaline, DDT, most pesticides, mercury,
lead, cigarette smoke, etc, are all harmful to our body, as is too
much sun exposure.

What has happened in the last forty years in our closed biosphere
enviroment that is now showing up in alarming numbers, with many
diseases including cancer? One MAJOR poison in our enviroment is
"DU", ___ depleted uranium.

Okay, I'm the DU nut-case. I post the danger frequently, that's because
as a long time and full time enviromentalist, I care about what is
happening to our world and atmosphere, because there is no other place
for us to live. It is especially the children and their children we
should all care about and I'm certain we all here do.

Here is one link of many hundreds about the dangers of DU and how
that danger has been covered up and lied about by governments and even government paid doctors and scientists. It is the final paper written
from a uranium weapons conference, which was attended by many highly
respected and credible doctors and scientists. Read the final paragraph
first and you can see the authors are well qualified to summarize the
findings and scientific opinions of the attendees of the conference.

Inhaling just microscopic specks of DU can result in the radiation
attacking a person's immune system and or, cause cancers to form
anywhere in the body, from the brain to the colon and it may also cause
genetic mutations to be passed onto a fetus. DU is a major problem and
it wss not a problem prior to the first Gulf Wars, except DU ammunition
was tested etensively since the mid 1960s. DU is also emmitted from
burning coal, but the major problem added to that mistake, is the use
of DU in ammunition and huge bunker buster bombs. DU is now all over the
planet and the cancer rates go up every year. It ain't from eating peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.

http://www.uraniumweaponsconference.de/bakground.htm

Siouxrose - Maybe its the ANIMAL FAT! You know - the thing that has been proven to be a risk factor.

areader - If you hate corporations, then stop buying their products, like cars and computers. If nobody buys their products, they disappear. If you are going to keep paying them, then quit whinning. You can't have it both ways. You want their products but don't want them to exist.

AREADER: thank you for a most informative posting. Dairy is certainly a factor due to all the chemicals used to produce meat and dairy products. I do have a weakness for ice cream, but try to only have it once a week. I hope you entirely heal...

This is a topic I have given a lot of thought to, and it holds strong emotions for me. I am a breast cancer survivor of 18 years, having it at a young age. I did not fit the 'profile' - slim, athletic and I nursed my child for almost a year. After chemo, I declined 5yr follow-up of x-rays and more chemo.
During treatment, I was shocked to realize how unsophisticated and barbaric 'the cure' really was. I don't think that has changed much. What struck me was I did not think there was much desire to find the cause. Since then I have seen breast cancer increase, with the emphasis on more chemo treatments. I felt that the motivation for prevention was not there because too many entities were making too much money on this disease.
I absolutely believe that the cause is environmental. I am sure our toxic environment causes a lot of other cancers as well. The sexual organs are especially vulnerable. And who is responsible for our toxic environment? Corporations. It's called socializing the risk. They save money by not cleaning up - society pays the price.
The timing of this article does not surprise me. I have noticed more interest in environmental causes by researchers in recent times.
I was also shocked at the time I had cancer, to find that little more was known of the causes then, than 30 years previously when I had gotten information from the American Cancer Society to write a paper for school. (Yes, I was quite young then - precocious.) I especially do not think the American Cancer Society is interested in prevention.
In my case, I think a causal factor was milk. I never ate much meat, but I always drank a lot of milk. Turns out milk has hormones in it. I moved to the northeast from California a few years before getting cancer. The northeast is more industrial. Also, in California I drank raw milk for many years, but stopped. This is only my theory.
I feel that, along with diagnosing and treating in the meantime, there have to be investigations into the causes AND concurrent battles to make corporations stop dumping toxins and using toxins in products. Multi-national corporations are not accountable in almost any way. This, I think, is the major battle, rather each issue separately.

Mr. Obvious said
"What country do you live in? In the devoped world chemicals are required to go through rigorous testing before being used in any consumer product. One exemption is herbal remedies, but due to several fatal concoctions, regulation of herbals is coming."

No. Only about 10% of the chemicals have been tested before being introduced into the marketplace. The attitude is that chemicals are innocent until proven guilty. Futhermore, effects of chemicals when used in combination have never been tested. The European Union has disallowed some chemicals and plastics that are still used here. They're doing a better job than we are. I'll stick to herbals.

Try checking site:
http://www1.environmentalhealthnews.org/

Now I know how a 1st grade teacher, with 30 kids, feels. Lets start with the most obvious:

1) Of course cosmetics are tested. Haven't you followed the activists fight to have animal tests with cosmetics replaced by in-vitro tests? What planet are you from?

2) Of course companies pay to have their own products tested. Who else would pay? I certainly do not want to pay to have your new product tested.

3) Of course no one expects one chemical to account for 100% of breast cancers. Studies are aimed at detecting any increase due to the chemical. The odds of two chemicals combining to cause cancer is miniscule compared, for example, to the chance that one of the thousands of chemicals in green beans will combine with one of the thousands on chemicals in carrots to cause cancer. Our most potent poisons have been isolated from "natural" sources, along with some of our most potent medicines.

4) If you are fat, this risks to your health overshadows any chemical exposure. The effects of this blubber has been proved over and over again. Spend a little less time on the key board and a little more time walking.

Animal fat and dairy are also highly suspect ---
There are thousands of cancer cells circulating in your body at all times ---
The problem is with the immune system.

Animal fat on the body makes it harder for your immune system to detect cancer cells.

Animal and dairy eating are connected to many diseases . . .
cancers, including breast cancer - diabetes, obesity, cataracts,
high blood pressure, heart attacks.

Rather than having the chemical industry prove that their products are safe, we just let them run wild over our environment.

There are over 80,000 chemicals being marketed around the world only a few thousand of which have been studied individually. Very rarely have any been studied in combination for synergical effects. In the US, the ones for fragrances and beauty products are "trade secrets" which cannot be regulated, even known carcinogens. We, all of us, are exposed to combinations of hundreds of virtually untested chemicals each and every day. And then there are the heavy metals, most especially mercury and lead. While we're talking about breast cancer, they aren't only attacking female breasts. They are also increasingly diagnosed in other sexual organs both female and male. Prostate cancers are on the rise. Many of us are walking timebombs chock full of chemicals we ingested or absorbed over long years. Perhaps the luckiest of us are those with multiple chemical sensitivites who became extremely reactive due to toxic exposures.(My childhood home was about 600 feet from what turned out to have been a toxic waste dump.) Our bodies rapidly make us ill when we are exposed forcing us to flee. It has been viewed by much of society as a physical or even mental flaw. Perhaps it is a survival mechanism that many others don't have.

I think its organic chemicals. WE used to live near an airport. On many cooler mornings, it'd fog up. So jets would burn jet fuel (imperfectly cuz its impossible to combust fuel perfectly), and partially oxidized jet fuel would dissolve into water droplets (which is what fog is). The water droplets would get inhaled into your lungs (cuz its so small it just carries with the air), and the water would aid its absorption into your bloodstream (if it had to get to your bloodstream from the air, it'd get filtered out with whatever dry particulate it absorbed onto, through your nose). Direct transport of a partially oxidized organic chemical into your bloodstream. Fully reduced organics are OK, your body knows to reject them. Fully oxidized organics are OK, they are carbon dioxide. But PARTIALLY oxidized organics are NOT ok, they can still get absorbed into your bloodstream, yet have 'functionality' because they aren't fully oxidized, so can cause mischief there. Guess what? We're surrounded by organics, thanks to oil and oil products like plastics (biologicals are also organics, but we're evolved to deal with them).

This probably won't go away until something is done about them.

Mr obvious, I find your limited conjecture to be STUPID. There are so many dangerous chemicals that isolating a single one as a l00% cause factor in the rising numbers of cancers is impossible. With so many offenders, and nature under attack on so many fronts, the false notion that we can't be sure which is the offending party or that any offense is underway as a result of the weight of insult/assault upon nature and OUR bodies' natural functions, may give you a sense of security but anyone noticing the climate of deception we all live in (media owned by corporations, corporations using PR and advertising to push products, EPA and other regulatory agencies favoring industry over public health, war on lies, war bankrupting our treasury of far more worthy expenditures etc.) recognizes we cannot afford to be smug about science, dangerous chemicals, and the two are now interfaced in our bodies. Maybe you're thrilled to learn of the pharmaceuticals in our water? Or that depleted uranium can be carried on the wind currents? Or that globam warming will vastly alter established climate patterns. Sweet dreams.

shikantaza,

Why is it idiotic to say that people should bike to work? Why isn't it idiotic to live 30-60 minutes by car from where you work?

I live four miles from where I work and I bike to work, except when the bike path is packed with snow. And some people are more faithful about it than I am, riding through the slush.

Yeah, I'd like to live 10 miles out in the suburbs, but that would be environmentally irresponsible, and I have children and grandchildren to consider.

Seems like you need a new definition of what's idiotic and what's possible.

I believe that Long Island in NY has a high rate of breast cancer too. Both Long Island and Cape Cod are built on terminal moraine, which is basically a pile of rocks pushed south and left by glaciers durin the ice age.

Could it be that the ground water is not being refreshed by deep natural springs of the same type as on the mainland? With so much population, so many gas stations, lawns, beauty salons, dry cleaners etc., could the ground water be ultra polluted?

Mr Obvious---I, for one, am not at all trusting of any "government source" of information of food or product safety. Sad to say but too much of our government continues to be run by the big business interests and things like "independent govt research grants" at public universities are a thing of the past. I have a college degree, but I do not agree it is "obvious" at all that people posting here display the intelligence of 1st graders.

Your faith in your sources displays a great deal of naivte, IMHO.

Mr Obvious said,"In the devoped world chemicals are required to go through rigorous testing before being used in any consumer product."

Sorry sir, I recently completed a degree course as an Esthetician, (skin care specialists). A company does not have to prove its ingredients are safe, consumers have to prove they are not.The cosmetic /personal care industry has no standards that have to be upheld, and they can even do the testing themselves. When it says ' dermatologist tested ' its dermatologists they paid for. How convenient for their bank accounts. How unfortunate for us.

Mr. Obvious is talking out of school, as in talking on the playground at recess with comments such as "I have not seen anything to indicate that many of the posters here made it out of 1st grade."
As for the claim that increased survival is revealing cancers that would not have otherwise occurred, I grant you a convincing point. But equally logical, however, is another scenario in which the medicine which accelerates our increase in lifespan overwhelms the detrimental effect of a carcinogen but only up to a point. And then the carcinogen accumulates more rapidly and overtakes the medical advances in influence. Each of these explanations is as compelling as the other. Furthermore, the notion that we live longer and healthier lives than ever before is not at all clear. Comparing today with 1-60 centuries ago this is true, but anthropologically any stronger statement is false: prior to agriculture and in today's nomadic societies longevity is similar to ours and disease is *markedly* less.
Lastly, please don't chide us for ostensibly failing to do our homework seriously while prejudicing Jane Brody and her colleagues. She presents her research *tonight*. First graders generally understand that it makes no sense to dismiss (and with disdain and scorn at that) a case not yet made.

Everything that man has created and boxed and packaged that brings a profit runs the risk of being full of chemicals that have no reason to be put in or on or near our bodies....some of the reasons those chemicals are there is to: get rid of an excess substance from some other industry; or to make you eat more or use more....all based on profits...
Our food industry, our pharmaceutical industry,our "health" industry...FTC..FDA..etc.etc.etc....all are susceptable to the same bribery and corruption that our government is...can we say lobbyist? Very few care about the "consumers" health or how it affects the environment...when it comes to profit...Follow the money folks, just follow the money...

Everybody else, excuse me while I go after the churchgoers (of all faiths).

Christian churchgoers, thou shalt not poison your church's children. Buddhists, don't cause suffering to your community.

Can you bring carcinogenic fragrance dispensers into the church bathroom? Well yeah, sure, and then when someone in your community gets cancer later you can say you didn't know. Cain lied to God about killing Abel. And God didn't buy it.

No! You can't kill your friends' kids! As a group, stand up and say "we own these our church's kids. We refuse to kill them or make them suffer."

That means you take the rubber ducks full of Bisphenyl-A away from the babies. Look for the number "3" in a triangle on the duck, those are the nasty vinyl chloride ones.

Then you take everything that dumb kids can huff (like airplane glue sniffing) out of the church: especially smelly magic markers and air freshener cans. Glue sniffing has progressed to "Gladeators" with cans of Glade huffed from plastic bags. Breathing toxic vapors causes a bit of immediate brain damage too.

Modern pesticides are carcinogenic, just as DDT was (and is). Usually there's a safe way to get rid of any bugs in the church or on the front lawn. Sometimes the safe way is cheaper and produces a better lawn too! Don't get sold a bill of goods by the pest control companies, kapesh?

Now about that perfume you're wearing. Go ahead and smoke too, but please don't do it in front of the kids. Secondhand smoke and secondhand perfume are both carcinogenic. Which is more important, smelling like lilacs or avoiding God's questioning about the eventual death of a cute kid?

And that lipstick has lead in it (certain shades). Makes you want to lick your lips.

Oh, and that popular toothpaste has sodium lauryl sulfate. It's carcinogenic. Tell the kids not to swallow. Ever.

Now, about those cleaners. Yes they kill germs. So does soap. So does drying dishes and counters overnight. Tricyclin is carcinogenic, and kids rub it on their hands. Some soaks in. Some gets on the finger food that the kids eat.

Ammonia and bleach cleaners make a few people, including some kids, violently sick. Vinegar and baking soda are pretty cheap and they do a good cleaning job.

What, you're giving up because doing the right thing is so HARD? You're suffering like Jesus already? Everything above has a safer alternative. Just pick up the safe product at the store. Move your hand over to the next shelf and pick up the safe product.

Now ask your fellow church members to join you in not poisoning anyone in the church. Maybe you can pass some kind of covenant among your church members saying, "we don't give each other cancer even if the heathens outside think its cool. If they played in traffic would we join them?"

If every church took responsibility for not poisoning their own congregations, the poisoners couldn't stay in business, and the cancer epidemic would be 3/4 gone. Now, doesn't this sound like a better solution than walking 5 kilometers for some stupid cancer charity that doesn't even fight carcinogens in consumer products?

Siouxrose - My issue is that picking out chemicals to blaim is silly without some evidence. Why blaim deoderant rather than the cotton pillowcase that you sleep on. You are just picking out silly things based on superstition. Maybe it is exposure to those pesky introduced honeybees. Maybe they are being synergized by baby spinach in our salad. This is just stupid. Sorry to be so blunt, but I have not seen anything to indicate that many of the posters here made it out of 1st grade. If you want to actually help change things, stop hurting the cause of reducing pollution by discrediting true environmentalists and giving the polluters ample ammunition to discredit the whole effort. Do a little research at credible sources.

FORGIVENESS, I agree. I use baking soda and there is NO odor and it's natural! Too many women I knew in the Florida Keys came down with cancer and it had a cluster effect to it. Deodorant is a likely culprit. I also believe the big pharma soup in our water, and the hundreds of chemicals--the lawn warrior run off of pesticides, herbicides, insecticides that finds its way into the water table and then US... and KAHALAB, right on!

Mr. Obvious, you're so under thrall to science that you only see the good side of the equation. WE know some technology has improved our lives, but Gaia is DYING, war is trumped over so many far more worthwhile pursuits of science (weapons take a major dark scientific genius to create) and the "better living through chemistry" has helped to create a lot of very sick, if sustained (alive) persons.

All these synergistic combinations must explain why we live longer today than any time in history. It couldn't be that safer food and better medical care are responsible for our longer lives - Just like it couldn't be that our fat, sedentary lifestyle combined with longer lives increases cancer rates. Increased allergy couldn't be because our immune systems are designed to fight intestinal parasitic worms that we no longer carry. It must be a coincidence that people with worms don't get allergies. How can the public be so ignorant? It must be aluminum in deodorant causing the inability to discriminate between bull and evidence. Trust the tabloids and discount the science. No wonder so many of our new researchers are being imported from China. I wonder if they will get stupid after using deodorant for a long time?

It's all quite simple in an enormously complex way. During the last few decades we have introduced tens of thousands of man made substances into our natural environment for we which no natural defense system. Any surprise that cancer rates and allergy rates have increased so dramatically during this time? And you can't just isolate one substance to understand this - they are all mixing together synergetically in a myriad of combinations - isolating one substance is beyond inadequate.

You would need to ban huge numbers of these substances (whole families of chemicals - chlorine based products would be a good start) to genuinely decrease this problem. But the corporate lobbyists stop even the most modest proposals (substitution principles, testing before release, closed system usage, etc etc etc). As always, money comes before health and life.

The last i read, 50% of all men and 40% of all women in the US will get cancer. Of course, one needs to keep in mind the only real consideration in all this - This means big profits for the drug industry.

I always thought that all the "beauty" creams oils , masks etc flogged to women from age 1 yr is the cause of a LOT of the current cancer crisis..

that and the insistence of big chemical companies on ADDING to and modifying natural
things .. just to make more money also contributes to this.

In the drinking water from the taps of many large and small cities across America , north and south, you get a soup of pharmaceuticals, that include many over the counter constituents as well..

It doesn't require a great deal of mental strength to realize all of these things are adding up to MORE cancers etc..

If you live in a pile of shit.. you turn into shit

as the saying goes "you are what you eat" ..

i consider the absorption of topical things, the same as the eating of it

After my sister got breast cancer, in addition to my mother and my grandmother, and my family tested negative for the BRCA mutation, I started doing a lot of research and came to the same conclusion as this article that the toxins in our environment are probably a major contributor to cancer. As a result, I eat organic as much as possible, became a vegan, and avoid all products that contain chemicals and preservatives. The cosmetics database referenced in this article is an excellent source for finding safe personal products, such as shampoos, makeup, soaps and deodorant.

For an alternative to deodorants/anti-perspirants that contain aluminum, you can try the brand "Thai Deodorant Stone," which rolls on and is made of natural minerals. It was recommended by my health food store and it works very well. (You can buy it online.) An excellent line of products is Aubrey Organics (available at health food stores), which makes several kinds of sunscreen.

An excellent article, IMO, on steps you can take to reduce breast cancer (although it probably could apply to all kinds of cancer) is this one by Dr. Christine Horner:

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:9ikwmawxtPoJ:www.drchristinehorner.com/goto/Library+luo+han+guo+pe...

If aluminum in deodorants are so dangerous, why isn't there a warning label on the deodorant?

wdmax3 - Are you sure you are referring to animal protein, or do you mean animal fat?

This madness needs to stop!

The number one cause of breast cancer, or any other form of cancer, in America is, the over consumption of animal products ie. meat and dairy, period... This has been a known fact for a very long time. Don't read the book "The China Study" read the actual China study. Pollutants only exacerbate an already carcinogenic environment created by the western diet high in animal proteins.

Stop giving your attention, time and money to fight a 'preventable' disease...

MeAlsoToo - i hope that you know that I was being sarcastic. My point is that without evidence, its all fairy dust.

shikantaza - You need to find a more reliable source for your information than The National Enquirer. Try searching the government web pages. The main risk for antibiotics in animal feed is resistant microbes. Where in the world did you find information that pharmaceutical clinical trials are carried out in 3rd world countries?

shikantaza

"Most pharmaceutical tests on humans are done in the 3rd world where the results can be controlled. supressed if really bad - or if somewhat bad - the bad parts can be repressed."

Where do you get this stuff? Do you just make it up? All the registrants in the Schering/Plough stage III tests of Zetia/Vytorin had to be registered by the World Health Organization. Schering/Plough execs would rather have plucked their eyes out with a fork than have seen this study analyzed in the New England Journal of Medecine, but somehow it was.

"Maybe deoderant is responsible for the fact that we have the longest lifespans in history? Why not?"

For example -- both the French and the German's are now out-living us -- as are the Cubans (and, it SURELY ain't due to deodorant-usage!).

OK Mr Obvious - tell me what testing was done to approve the anti biotics used on cattle and pigs? Also - while I'm at it can you tell me what approval process and testing was done prior to the FDA's approval of cloned pigs in our food supply? Most pharmaceutical tests on humans are done in the 3rd world where the results can be controlled. supressed if really bad - or if somewhat bad - the bad parts can be repressed. Wake up man

Obvious,

My point, which out didn't address, is that several other cancers lead breast cancer in prevalence and death rate, including fairly hopeless ones like lung, pancreatic and liver cancers. Yet there seems to be quite a fundraising racket around breast cancer but little work on the others.

shikantaza - What country do you live in? In the devoped world chemicals are required to go through rigorous testing before being used in any consumer product. One exemption is herbal remedies, but due to several fatal concoctions, regulation of herbals is coming.

Our bodies continually take in foreign, toxic substances some of which are carcinogenic. Our bodies have natural cleansing ability if they are fed proper nutrients that contain all the 44 essential ingredients plus oxygen and enzymes. Breast Cancer is a Wester Disease and is completely preventable regardless of how much toxins you take in. The only thing that allows the pre-cancerous cells to turn into cancerous cells or tumors are proteins from animal foods. This is well-documented science. For further information please refer to the book The China Study. Also visit The Cancer Project online.

Western cultures are not willing yet to eat a mostly Vegan diet so since we are ingesting more toxins and eating more foods that were once considered delicacies the cancer situation is only going to get worse.

Let's start more dialog on how we can shift the USDA's responsibilities of telling us what we should and shouldn't eat to the Health and Human Services Department where there is no conflict of interest between The Cattleman's Association, The Dairy Counsel and Monsanto. We are clearly not getting enough of the right information about how and what to eat. The pyramid is confusing and not in our best interest. It was primarily put together by politicians and lobbyists.

We also need to revamp the FDA to be science based rather than big industry based. They are allowing toxic ingredients into the food supply daily, disregarding the Delaney Amendment. Aspartame is one example.

Be well and eat right!
Julie

OK - I can buy into chemicals we use daily causing cancers and/or autism. But I laugh though when I hear idiotic suggestions like "we can bike to work". No - this is the environmentalists elitist attitudes shining thru yet again. The average person cannot bike to work because most of us live 30-60 minutes from work by car. Other self employed skilled labor often works at different or multiple locations. This arrogant attitude is why global warming has been so hard to sell to working class people.
Truth is there are plenty of alternative methods of fueling cars. Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) is growing quickly in use, electric cars have been mass produced by both Ford & GM for 10 years in Califoria. 1996-2006. There is ethanol made from something other than corn or soy. Bio-diesel, etc., etc.
I think a bigger question we need to ask our legislators is why there is little to no oversight for approval of chemicals in our daily use products. In the meantime - my family and I don't use products that have chemicals I don't know about in them as a precaution. If we explain to people that living in our own filth is killing us we may have a larger audience.

Hey - If we are all picking our favorite chemical to blame for breast cancer, I pick peanut butter. Why not? At least it has known carcinogens in it (fungal mycotoxins). Maybe deoderant is responsible for the fact that we have the longest lifespans in history? Why not? The correlation is just as strong. We are exposed to thousands of chemicals everyday. Most of these are in the form of "natural" plant compounds that we eat, and many have known adverse effects. I do not advocate exposure to uneeded chemicals, and our food is full of additives, but indescriminate chemophobia might be unhealthy. Many synthetic chemicals have benefits. Without some evidence of adverse effects, blaming your favorite chemical is a witch hunt. At least these chemicals have had some safety testing, unlike most of the "natural" chemicals we eat. The most substantiated cause for increased cancers is increased survival. We live longer because we have reduced other diseases, so now cancer is getting us. In the case of breast cancer, most is caused by having fewer children, having them later in life, and breast feeding them for less time. No doubt, other environmental factors contribute, but we don't know which ones. I think our fat-rich diets coupled with our fat bodies is the next likely contributor.

Forgiveness,

"Problem is most people don't have accurate information to use common sense. For example people are told to use sunscreen to avoid skin cancer. Common sense would tell you that putting toxic chemicals(noted on the label)on your skin and letting it bake in the sun might be more of a reasonable cause of skin cancer."

Your first statement couldn't be truer and your conclusion couldn't be farther from the mark. If you don't want to use sunscreen fine, but wear a hat and long sleeves.

Epidemilogist have long known that blistering sunburns incurred at a young age (<20) are responsible for 90+% of common skin cancers. These include basal and squamous cell carcinomas. Their diagnosis is almost always preceded by the presence of actinic keratoses (which are by definition sun-caused pre-malignancies). The jury is still out on malignant melanomas as far as how many are caused by UV exposure but of these, fewer than 20% are diagnosed in locations on the body where there is little/no sun exposure.

Don't take my word for it. The research is readily available.

I have instinctively known this all along. It is why I never -gave- to the corporate backed "research." As if -the corporations- who produce and spew all of this crap we are breathing, drinking, eating, peeing, covering ourselves in, washing our clothes in, etc. ad infinitum - are genuinely interested in uncovering "the source" of rampant cancers. I am shocked to have even seen this article today. Whaddup?

I've had two breast cancers and two masectomies. The first one in 2005 was estrogen positive; the second one just last fall was estrogen negative. After the first one, I stopped using deodorant and shaving under my arms. Last summer was very hot at times and I kept the AC off and sweated. The hair under my arms became brittle and broke off - sort of like what happens if you use a depilitory.

I'm staying off the deodorant for good. That stuff cannot be good.

I am fully expecting not to have any more cancers.

Forgiveness:

As lactation consultants, childbirth educators and informed parents have known for years, whether and when a woman lactates/breastfeeds does indeed affect her chances of developing breast cancer. Here's a bit from one article:

"Breastfeeding can offset the increased risk of invasive breast cancer for women who had their first full-term pregnancy after the age of 25, a study led by researchers at the University of Southern California (USC) suggests.

"...While having a first full-term pregnancy before the age of 25 and having many children protect against the type of breast cancers that express estrogen and progesterone receptors, these factors do not protect against the rarer tumors that do not have these receptors. Breastfeeding, however, appears to protect against both types of breast tumors, Ursin says."

More here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070416193310.htm

Back on topic, though--while what could be termed "lifestyle choices" have an effect on one's chances of developing breast cancer, imo these issues have too long distracted from the effects of our daily, lifelong involuntary exposures.

I'm sure the major polluters of the world would love for us to stay permanently distracted by , e.g., the aluminum in deodorants (I'm NOT saying this isn't a factor) and never seriously investigate what they've pumped into our air, water and food supply. I'm glad to see this work being done and the results being publicized.

Forgiveness - Not as much fun as some misterious chemical monster, but you might want to see what they have to say at the attached link. Notice that it is a link to an educational site, not a tabloid.

http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/FactSheet/Diet/fs29.brfeed.cfm

Well, yes trying understand the human body and the way it works is complicated but most ailments are totally avoidable with common sense. Problem is most people don't have accurate information to use common sense.

For example people are told to use sunscreen to avoid skin cancer. Common sense would tell you that putting toxic chemicals(noted on the label)on your skin and letting it bake in the sun might be more of a reasonable cause of skin cancer.

Hmm, not breast feeding or delay in breast feeding? I am pretty sure the female body stops trying to lactate if the baby is not trying to milk. Not breast feeding affects the baby much more than the parent and I would guess has nothing to do with breast cancer.

Aluminum though is incredibly toxic, is absorbed right into the body through the skin and deposites around the breast area.

Cancer is treatable but unfortuneately a lot of very effective treatments have been shut down by the AMA. Hoxsey for example.

http://www.hoxsey.com/

Water is deadly if you drink enough of it. We know that. Too much vitamin E will kill you. We know that, too. Bear hearts can deliver a fatal dose of vitamin A...we KNOW that.

"Blame Pollutants For Hike in Breast Cancer: Scientist
Culprits could be in water, air, detergents, pesticides, [or] plastics, epidemiologist says"

Remove the word "Breast." Exchange the implied word "or" with "and." Re-read the headline. Now, don't we already know this, too? What, exactly, is the news here? More importantly: what, exactly, is the reason for our inaction?

I'm sorry, Forgiveness, but the body is indeed very complicated. And complex. And those two adjectives are extremely different. But we DO know a lot. And adding to the complicatedness and complexity of maintaining good health with all these chemicals is sheer stupidity.

To all, one facet (our immune system) of the effects of all these environmental additives (a correct term, in my opinion) can be found in a REALLY INTERESTING book called The Secret Life Of Germs by Philip Tierno. The body is indeed complicated and complex, but understanding enough to live a healthy life isn't.

Hey, if we are just picking out our favorite chemical to blame for increased breast cancer, why not blaim peanut butter?

USAn - The focus on breast cancer may stem from the high frequency of this cancer relative to other cancers. The numbers are pretty scary.

Could the delay in having children have anything to do with this (delay in breast feeding)?

There are many chemical agents that increase risk of many cancers not just breast cancer.

But, why such disproportionate fund raising around breast cancer research, to the expense of other much more deadly cancers? Breast cancer is now often curable, and effective early detection procedures are widely avaialble (in the first-world anyway). But research for nearly always fatal cancers - Lung, liver, and especially pancreas - the latter having killed a few aquaintances on mine, are starved for funding.

Gee, let's see. Covering the planet in toxic chemicals which have either never been tested or have been conclusively determined to cause cancer in other animals is likely to lead to increased rates of cancer in humans? What shocking news.

In other news, a few thousand people died because they interacted with automobiles, a few thousand died because they breathed polluted air, a few thousand died because of eating toxic food-like substances, and a few thousand were blown up in wars between "civilized" countries.

How much does it take for us to acknowledge that industrial civilization is killing the planet, poisoning the total environment, and toxifying our very bodies? Is this really the best that we can do as a species?

you have a point about the aluminum but there might also be the issues of pumping women's bodies with synthetic hormones several hundreds of times the natural levels.

It's the aluminum in the anti-perspirent and deodorants people use. Quit trying to stop your bodies from cleansing, i.e. sweat from your armpits.

Let's see, rubing aluminum onto your skin daily, in an area right next to your breats. Pretty easy to understand what the problem is.

I am not saying other enviromental pollutants aren't causing some issues but breast cancer is very easy to understand. Aluminum hello??

Same issue with skin cancer, it's the toxic sun screen people use and then let bake into their skin.

The body is not that complicated.