i just want to post something on the question of anti-oxidants, as there's as much nonsense "debunking" them as there is in support of them. and, i tend to find myself more pissed off by these "debunkers" than i do by the naive hippies, because at least the hippies don't pretend that they have some literacy in the topic. i recently went over this with the question of what effect tidal drag has on earthquakes - something the neckbeards will instantly write off as pseudoscience, without the slightest idea of what they're talking about. it just looks like astrology, right? but it's a research topic with a lot of potential. and, likewise, these same neckbeards are going to jump all over anti-oxidants as empty marketing hype, as though a few exaggerated claims are enough to throw the entire idea out of the window. like i say: it's the people that misuse science that piss me off more than the people that don't care about it.

the science underlying the issue is not controversial. free radicals are very strongly linked to cancer development, and the reaction involved is one of the most basic ideas in chemistry. i'm not aware of any research that suggests that attempting to maximize your anti-oxidant count is harmful, or even ineffective. the criticisms exist around the honesty of marketing claims, rather than the mechanism, and that is the responsibility of the consumer to work through.

but, you'll notice that i'm not advocating the use of supplements or trying to approach the situation as some kind of irradiation process. i am aware that attempts to protect against cancer growth by taking high doses of whatever vitamin cocktails have proven inconclusive - just as i am aware that tests on diets high in anti-oxidants have demonstrated themselves as having a lower cancer risk. and, there's no contradiction there, either.

the error that the neckbeards (who usually have little more than a high school education, if that) are making is in imagining that anti-oxiodants as some kind of magical potion, and then pointing out that they didn't ward off the evil spirits of cancer. "look", they'll claim, "not everybody who took these supplements of high concentrations of isolated anti-oxidants avoided getting cancer". well, ok. but, maybe that wasn't what anybody really thought in the first place.

we also know that diets that are high in anti-oxidants lead to lower risks of cancer.

i'm not telling anybody that drinking a glass of blueberry juice every day is necessarily going to ensure that they live to be 100 years old.

but, i am going to hold by the claim that there is good science that suggests that maximizing anti-oxidant counts in your diet is likely to lower your risks of cancer.