There isn't always a positive outcome

This is a piece of a response to a friend whose husband died of cancer in December. While at a parade, the American Cancer Society was tossing t-shirts and she happened to get one that said "survivor," and it infuriated her. Can't blame her there. The shirt actually served to remind her that her husband did not survive, but she did and now has to go on without him. This did not inspire Pollyanna "the sun will come out tomorrow" feelings, it inspired sorrow and hopelessness. Maybe "that which doesn't kill you makes you stronger," but like any cliche, it also pisses you off.

I did say more than is written below but this is the only part that's relevant to the point I want to make.

My father gets the Stroke Connection magazine and he feels about it's approach the way you felt about the t-shirt. Not everyone survives cancer, and not everyone who has a stroke makes a full recovery and is able to go back to a productive life. While giving hope these organizations should also not be forgetting about the reality, about the people grieving the loved ones lost to cancer, about people grieving the functions lost to stroke.

Stroke Connection tends to focus on stories of people who have made good recoveries, in order to give new survivors hope, I think. In 2004, my father had a hemorrhagic stroke that affected the basal ganglion area of his brain. He did make some recovery, but he still walks very slowly and must use a walker. He never did get much function back in his right hand. He feels very bitter and disappointed. He wrote to Stroke Connection and told them that they should include stories about the other half of the people who had a stroke and did not have a miraculous recovery, who are enduring day to day. And I agree with him. The magazine is basically a good thing and he likes reading it, but he'd like to hear about more people like him who have to deal with being permanently quite handicapped.

I'm not trying to condemn the good works done by the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association, just imparting a thought.

Chemical Overuse

Here is a discussion post that I created for my biology class.

Chemicals can be useful in that they can eradicate disease carrying and crop destroying pests. But there may be ways to do this that do not involve chemicals. In terms of crops, natural predators can be introduced to eat the pests, as long as these predators are native to the areas they are being introduced to and won't disrupt the ecosystem. Praying mantises have long been favored for eating pests such as potato bugs. Ladybugs eat aphids. And dragonflies consume mosquito larvae.
Another problem with chemicals is the fact that they don't discriminate between which bugs are helpful and which are pests. They kill everything. Populations of natural predator insects have been badly damaged by the widespread use of chemicals to control garden pests and weeds. The time may be right to start re-introducing these natural predators and to cut back on the use of chemicals to control pests.
The chemicals used are not healthy for animals either, and this includes humans. If enough of them are introduced into the system of a larger animal such as a human, over time they will begin mutating cells into cancer cells. The lymph system will be overwhelmed, unable to trap and destroy all of these cancer cells, and the affected organism will develop cancer. And, as in the case of DDT, the shells of birds in areas exposed to the pesticide over a long period of time became thin and fragile due to mutations.
According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
"Exposure to DDT, DDE, and DDD occurs mostly from eating foods containing small amounts of these compounds, particularly meat, fish and poultry. High levels of DDT can affect the nervous system causing excitability, tremors and seizures. In women, DDE can cause a reduction in the duration of lactation and an increased chance of having a premature baby. DDT, DDE, and DDD have been found in at least 441 of the 1,613 National Priorities List sites identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)."
Cutting back on the use of toxic substances in agriculture will reduce contamination of ground water and may in the long run reduce the incidence of cancer.