backtop


Print 145 comment(s) - last by TSS.. on Mar 3 at 11:59 PM


Cancer of a fine vintage? A new study shows that drinking just one glass of wine daily can significantly raise the risk of many types of cancer in women, particular breast and rectal cancer.  (Source: winebeersupermarket.com)
A new study showed that consuming a glass of wine daily raises cancer rates in women

A massive study by the prestigious University of Oxford reveals that drinking just one alcoholic drink a day, including a glass of wine, may significantly raise your risk of cancer

Researchers at the University of Oxford collected data on over 1.3 million people and found that just drinking a glass of wine a day caused approximately 7,000 additional cancer cases in women – with most cases being breast cancer.  The study, which used data on over a million women, showed that the risk increases even more substantially the more you drink.  It found that 5,000 cases of breast cancer -- about 11 percent of the 45,000 cases reported in the UK -- were directly attributable to alcohol consumption.

The study examined in particular women who consumed low to moderate levels of alcohol which is defined as three drinks a day or fewer.  The study, which lasted seven years, found that nearly a quarter of the 1.3 million women surveyed don't drink at all.  The remaining women mostly consumed 21 drinks per week or less, around 10g of alcohol per day -- the amount of alcohol found in a glass of wine.

Over 70,000 of the women developed cancer, and a correlation between consumption of alcohol and cancer arose.  Overall, one drink a day raised a woman's cancer risk by 6 percent in women up to the age of 75. 

For some cancers, though, the rise was much higher.  For breast cancer, the risk rose 12 percent; for rectal cancer it rose 10 percent; for gullet cancer it rose 22 percent; for mouth cancer it rose 29 percent; and for throat cancer it rose 44 percent.

For a population of 1,000 women, this means that 15 extra cases of these cancers -- comprising 11 breast, one mouth, one rectal cancer and 0.7 each for cancers of the gullet, throat and liver -- would arise.

The location of these cancers -- in areas closely exposed to ingested chemicals -- the digestive tract, fatty tissues (such as breast), and the liver, which breaks down alcohol strengthens the evidence that spirits are indeed to culprit for the increase in cancer rates.  Alcohol is thought to act as an agent creating exogenous DNA damage, through radical or epoxide reactions.

The study's authors say that no amount of alcohol consumption is safe, but they suggest that women at least limit their consumption to two to three units per day and men limit it to three to four units per day to reduce their risk.

Dr. Naomi Allen, lead author of the report says it punches holes in the poorly supported myths that a glass of wine a day is beneficial.  She states, "The findings of this report show quite strongly that even low levels of drinking that were regarded to be safe do increase cancer risk.  About 5 percent of all cancers in the UK are due to drinking something in the order of one alcoholic drink a day.  It is up to individual people to make their own decision. All of us to some extent have to weigh up the risks and take some responsibility for our health."

Dr. Sarah Cant of Breakthrough Breast Cancer, not associated with the study, comments, "We already know that drinking alcohol can increase your risk of breast cancer.  This study suggests that for women over 50 even drinking moderate amounts of any type of alcohol can have many health consequences, including a greater chance of developing breast cancer. Around 80 percent of breast cancer cases are diagnosed in women aged over 50, so limiting how much you drink is one step you can take to try to reduce your risk of developing the disease."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Good for me, bad for me.
By jaericho on 2/25/2009 9:21:12 AM , Rating: 5
So wine is bad for me this week. Are eggs good or bad for me I can't keep track anymore. Oh it doesn't matter, next week or month there will be another study reversing this one. I guess I'll just stick to 'everything in moderation'.

Now I'll just need to figure out if I am supposed to moderate the moderation.




RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By oab on 2/25/2009 9:24:11 AM , Rating: 2
Eggs are good for you. Protein, nutrients, etc.

The cholesterol (which is so feared) turned out to be not the pure bad kind, so they are okay to eat. 3 eggs a day is not okay, but iirc, it is one a day. Maybe one every other day.


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By arazok on 2/25/2009 9:30:45 AM , Rating: 5
What if I mix my eggs in with my wine? Will I live forever?


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By nglessner on 2/25/2009 9:37:38 AM , Rating: 5
You won't live forever, but you will be remembered forever as the guy who decided to put eggs in his wine. eww!


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By pequin06 on 2/25/2009 9:52:30 AM , Rating: 5
Iron Chef - Crab battle

poached egg in pinot noir


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By DASQ on 2/25/2009 11:01:06 AM , Rating: 2
I've encountered some kind of.... CAVE DEMON.


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By lotharamious on 2/25/2009 1:11:13 PM , Rating: 4
Snake, you're not making any sense!


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By DASQ on 2/25/2009 2:03:18 PM , Rating: 4
URGH.. I... I broke my knife!

(I don't think most people get it...)


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By Whedonic on 2/26/2009 2:04:55 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think I'm gonna make it out of here alive!


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By warrioryoko on 2/27/2009 3:28:18 AM , Rating: 2
ACK!!! ERR!!! CRAB BATTLE!!!

SNAKE!!! STOP SAYING THAT!!!

OLIOLIOLIOOOO!!!!

Yes. I also believe most people get the reference. As for myself, a best friend and I had an inside joke over this. Every time we saw each other at school, I'd shout across the college hallways "JESUS CHRIST!!! CRAB BATTLE!!!", to which he'd reply, "OLIOLIOLIOOOO!!!".

Ah, good times.


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By 306maxi on 2/25/2009 1:17:50 PM , Rating: 2
Yay! Another Iron Chef fan! I wish they'd release Iron Chef onto DVD, I'd buy it for sure.


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By vortex222 on 2/25/2009 4:27:20 PM , Rating: 2
you might give your cholesterol cancer


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By twjr on 2/26/2009 1:25:07 AM , Rating: 2
Or maybe your cancer might develop fatty deposits, get lazy and spend it's days watching American Idol instead of trying to spread throughout the rest of your body.


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By VoodooChicken on 2/25/2009 10:30:19 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Eggs are good for you. Protein, nutrients, etc.

The cholesterol (which is so feared) turned out to be not the pure bad kind, so they are okay to eat. 3 eggs a day is not okay, but iirc, it is one a day. Maybe one every other day.


Homer: So one of those Egg Council creeps got to you too, huh? You'd better run, Egg!!


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By The0ne on 2/25/09, Rating: 0
RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By General Disturbance on 2/25/2009 10:55:00 AM , Rating: 2
Poeple poeple people...be wary of the trees when trying to see the forest.

You know what's really good for you? Eating fresh raw fruits and veggies. Only when we start abusing our bodies with non-ideal foods can we start creating studies that show some "bad" foods are good for you and some "good" foods are bad for you. Fact is alcohol isn't a nutrient. Fact is if you ate a diet predominantly of raw fruits and veggies you wouldn't get heart disease.
This is well known, well documented, and paradoxically completely obvious while most of us are completely oblivious to it.


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By pequin06 on 2/25/2009 11:09:34 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Fact is if you ate a diet predominantly of raw fruits and veggies you wouldn't get heart disease.


You left out fresh raw meat.


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By The0ne on 2/25/2009 1:22:16 PM , Rating: 1
Fresh is subjective if you don't grow it yourself :)


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By GlassHouse69 on 3/2/2009 10:23:37 PM , Rating: 1
LOL NICE


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By Steve1981 on 2/25/2009 11:14:36 AM , Rating: 3
What's healthy is eating a balanced diet where one gets all the nutrients your body needs to function effectively, and keeping the other stuff to a minimum. Unfortunately, that tends not to be as pleasurable in the short term as stuffing yourself on a pepperoni lovers pizza.

quote:
Fact is alcohol isn't a nutrient.


Sure it is. It provides calories which your body can use. It just doesn't provide anything approaching an ideal mix of nutrients that you need to maintain a healthy body, and it like everything, it can be highly toxic in a large enough dose.


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By General Disturbance on 2/25/2009 11:38:58 AM , Rating: 2
I am sure most poisons provide you calories, even cyanide I am sure has some caloric value.

Doesn't mean you should go eat it. But, I guess we would if it made us feel good!


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By ChronoReverse on 2/25/2009 11:54:12 AM , Rating: 2
Not really. Alcohol is an organic chemical (a hydrocarbon). It's not surprising it can be further processed to get some energy out whereas something like arsenic has zero caloric value.


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By General Disturbance on 2/25/2009 12:12:01 PM , Rating: 2
There are many organic poisons....

...


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By Steve1981 on 2/25/2009 12:42:33 PM , Rating: 5
Everything is a poison in the right dose.


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By 67STANG on 2/25/09, Rating: -1
By General Disturbance on 2/25/2009 7:04:19 PM , Rating: 2
Is the contest to see how much water someone can consume in 20 minutes? I'm in! My kid would love it!


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By Steve1981 on 2/25/2009 7:08:25 PM , Rating: 4
You're referring to this I presume.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6263029.stm

quote:
Jennifer Strange had taken part in the "Hold Your Wee for a Wii" game, which promised the winner a Nintendo Wii. Afterwards she reportedly said her head was hurting and went home, where she was later found dead. Initial tests have shown her death is consistent with water intoxication.
Drinking too much water can eventually cause your brain to swell, stopping it regulating vital functions such as breathing, and causing death. So what happens?

WHO, WHAT, WHY?

A feature to the BBC News Magazine - aiming to answer some of the questions behind the headlines
Water enters the body when we drink and is removed primarily in the urine and sweat. The amount of water in the body is regulated to control the levels of certain compounds, such as salt, in the blood.
If you drink too much water, eventually the kidneys will not be able to work fast enough to remove sufficient amounts from the body, so the blood becomes more dilute with low salt concentrations.


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By Garreye on 2/25/2009 8:03:21 PM , Rating: 2
Well this most certainly is bad for you:
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By TSS on 3/3/2009 11:43:26 PM , Rating: 2
"There has never been a documented human fatality from marijuana. One estimate of Cannabis's LD50 for humans indicates that about 1500 pounds of marijuana would have to be smoked within 15 minutes."

"A lethal dose of marijuana would be at a ratio of of 1:40000. That means you would need to injest 40000 times the amount of marijuana that it would take to get you high. The lethal ratio for alcohol is between 1:4 and 1:10 "

sorry, i just couldn't resist :P dont do drugs kids!


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By ChronoReverse on 2/25/2009 12:52:05 PM , Rating: 2
There are many organic poisons but not all or even most poisons are organic.

Therefore, you comment that most poisons will also provide calories is incorrect.


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By FITCamaro on 2/25/2009 12:08:24 PM , Rating: 2
You enjoy your vegan diet. I'll enjoy eating well and still being able to enjoy things. There's absolutely nothing wrong with eating meat in addition to fruits and vegetables. I recently found that my cholesterol is high. So I'm just cutting back on red meat, eating more chicken and fish, and eating more fruits and grains.


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By General Disturbance on 2/25/2009 12:16:25 PM , Rating: 2
Don't get all in a "fit" and put words in my mouth to create your straw man arguments. I said "predominantly" fruits and veggies. A bit of meat is fine. There are a billion people in India though that show that it isn't necessary.
I do enjoy it occasionally though. Nothing like wine-braised short ribs! Hey, wine and meat lol.


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By glitchc on 3/2/2009 10:41:34 AM , Rating: 2
Ya, but have you checked rates of cancer incidence in India. It is not low by any standards.

Indians may be consuming only vegetables, but their diet is high in sugars, saturated fats from various oils, and habit-forming plants which are outright toxins (betel nut). Take it from a South Asian, the diet is far from healthy.


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By sc3252 on 2/25/2009 12:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. Every time I see studies about how wine is good for you to drink, all I can think about are tobacco related studies showing good results.


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By Reclaimer77 on 2/25/2009 12:39:14 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Fact is if you ate a diet predominantly of raw fruits and veggies you wouldn't get heart disease.


????

This assumes the ONLY cause of heart disease is dietary. Which is simply not true.

You can LOWER YOUR RISK of having it. But you can never eliminate the possibility.

I'm really amazed that you could make a statement like that while totally leaving lifestyle out of the equation. As if diet alone is the only cause.

Let's take your "whole foods" guy for example. He eats raw veggies, ok. He sits at a desk 40 hours a week and is on call at home. He is a very stressed out guy. He also sits on his ass at home as well. It goes without saying he gets poor sleep as well. He never works out either because he doesn't "have time" for it or he's too tired when he gets home. He also has a family history of heart disease and congenital heart failure.

Is this an uncommon scenario ? Hardly. So put in THIS context, a more realistic scenario, is Mr Veggie a canidate for heart disease ? You bet your ass he is.

quote:
This is well known, well documented, and paradoxically completely obvious while most of us are completely oblivious to it.


Talk about being oblivious...


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By molgenit on 2/25/2009 3:39:09 PM , Rating: 2
Lets not forget genetics also.


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By General Disturbance on 2/25/2009 5:30:47 PM , Rating: 1
Oblivious is not knowing the causes of heart disease, and making up stories.

Heart "disease" is caused by prolonged acidosis of the blood stream. That is a dietary problem.

"Congenital" heart problems are genetic, and your just plain f'd then without constructive surgury.


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By Steve1981 on 2/25/2009 5:47:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Heart "disease" is caused by prolonged acidosis of the blood stream. That is a dietary problem.


I always thought "heart disease" was a relatively broad term for a wide variety of disorders affecting the heart, with those different disorders having varying causes...


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By Reclaimer77 on 2/25/2009 5:57:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I always thought "heart disease" was a relatively broad term for a wide variety of disorders affecting the heart, with those different disorders having varying causes...


Of course it is. And he meant it as a broad term general indicator of heart health.

When I pointed out how flawed his statement was, he narrowed down what he "meant".


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By General Disturbance on 2/25/2009 6:08:27 PM , Rating: 1
Yes it is a very broad term. But they all generally revolve around lesions on arterial walls and the subsequent oxygen deprivation, hardening of the arteries, etc etc, and these are the myriad of disorders.
But the "first cause" are the lesions on the arterial walls. These are created when the Ph level of the blood becomes too acidic, essentially "dissolving" (very mildly obviously) the artery to some extent, weakening it. The body responds by reinforcing the artery wall where the lesions are with plaque, i.e. cholesterol.
Lesions actually first appear in our teens, which is subsequently when we generally eat the worst food that is highly acidic, such as cola pops, pizza, etc. This is not a coincidence.
A lifetime of eating acidifying food will obviously require more and more reinforcing of the artery wall, until it fails (or the heart fails etc).
Fruits and vegetables, (only) when consumed raw, have an alkalizing effect inside the body. That's why they're so important, but you need to eat enough of them and often enough for it to count.
Foods highly concentrated with protein, such as meat, are generally acidifying. That why, as other posters here have mentioned, a diet of lots of raw fruits and veggies plus small amounts of meat to meet protein requirements (which are largely met by the fruits and veggies anyway), is likely best.
But I've tested a raw food (fruit and veggie uncooked, no meat) diet for a period of 12 months and can definitely say that it makes a huge difference. Human trial experiments are the only way to know if it makes a difference, and so I did it on myself!
I grew up on a farm btw and have no problems eating tons of meat! It tastes good! But, I also know the results of my little trial.


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By Steve1981 on 2/25/2009 6:25:03 PM , Rating: 2
Source? Preferably a credible source...


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By General Disturbance on 2/25/2009 6:43:14 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, that would take a lot of work because there isn't really ONE source...and finding and reading the actual medical papers is extremely un-fun.

The only sources I can easily think of are books, but they are mainly books written by doctors promoting eating raw fruits and veggies, so most people would automatically question the credibility (even though they're written by doctors). This IS NOT to say that the books I would recommend are devoid of original source references from medical research papers - they are in fact very well sourced. I can give you a list if you like, but it is a lot of reading.

So, perhaps consider the "risk factors" associated with heart disease. These are, mainly: obesity, diabetes (type 2), high blood cholesterol, and of course smoking (plus others). Aside from smoking, most of the risk factors are also related to diet. So, maybe that gives some sort of indication.


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By Steve1981 on 2/25/2009 7:02:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm sorry, that would take a lot of work because there isn't really ONE source


Well reading through the information the Mayo Clinic posts about the causes of heart disease I don't really see any mention of the info you post.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/heart-disease/DS0...

While I won't claim it is a comprehensive review of the subject, I would imagine they'd post something about your blood's pH balance if it were a major factor.

I would also note that from what I've read about blood acidity, there isn't much mention of diet

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A8819652


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By General Disturbance on 2/25/2009 7:17:50 PM , Rating: 2
Well, unfortuntely they never go into enough detail. They do generally say that the cause is related to plaque build up, which is related to arterial lesioning, but then invariably stop there.
The cause is indeed plaque build up and lesioning. They just never say why the lesioning happens, which is unfortunate. What causes the lesioning is obviously the primary cause.

For lack of easily accessible answers to that question, acidosis of the blood stream seems a reasonable explanation. Doctors passionate enough to write books on their life's work seem to say so, and they give their sources.

Look up "Eat to Live" by Dr. Joel Fuhrman...well sourced, well referenced, and a real doctor. You can likely get it off Amazon used for a couple of bucks or something.


By General Disturbance on 2/25/2009 7:21:06 PM , Rating: 2
Oh also his book "Fasting And Eating For Health". It may have more of the background science.


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By molgenit on 2/26/2009 2:21:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But the "first cause" are the lesions on the arterial walls.


True

quote:
These are created when the Ph level of the blood becomes too acidic


Gross over simplification and not necessarly true.


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By theapparition on 2/25/2009 1:20:35 PM , Rating: 2
What's left out from those "well documented" cases is all the supplements necessary for lack of other nutrients primarily found in meats.

Balance is the key. Also, what's good for one person isn't necessarily good for the next. So take the balance recomendation and tailor it to your situation.

I know people that have smoked a pack of cigarettes a day for over 50 years and have no lung problems. I know people who never smoked and had lung cancer.


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By William Gaatjes on 2/26/2009 9:30:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I know people that have smoked a pack of cigarettes a day for over 50 years and have no lung problems. I know people who never smoked and had lung cancer.


It is very likely that some people have some genetic advantange which protects them against the negative effects of smoking. It can also be that that genetic advantage can work against you. Maybe the people who had lung cancer without smoking should have ben smoking.

It is the case that most genes are not used untill they are activated by a certain chemical.

I noticed that some people who smoke hardly ever get a cold. But when they do it is really serious, similair as having a flu.

A good example of why a particular genetic make up can be an advantage in a real life situation and can be a curse as well is cystic fibrosis and the protection against typhoid.
1 copy of the gene protects you from the disease, 2 copies make your life a living hell.

Also to be found some information about sickle-cell anemia and the protection against malaria. When reading the lower link you will also see and understand why inbreeding causes so many defects.

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

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1998/07.09/Cyst...

The enviroment you live in, the food you eat(mostly still your enviroment) and your genetic make up all decide what you age will be. But don't forget about the choices you make your self in your life as well.


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By William Gaatjes on 2/26/2009 9:52:04 AM , Rating: 2
I forgot to mention that when talking about smoking, it may very well be that the nicotine can protect people with the right genetic make up. The tobacca plant uses the nicotine as a poison the fend of insects that want to eat it.

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco#Nicotiana

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/08/...

It's like carrying your own poison against hostile invaders. Proven real life situations can be found in nature. I don't know the links, you have to google yourself if you are interested. There are cases where one lifeform consumes some form of food where bacteria live and gaining the toxity of the "pooped" out chemicals by the bacteria and this toxity prevent's it from being eaten by certain predators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Toxicology

Philosophical module = 1

Einstein once said "God does not throw dice"
When building the ground layer of the universe he was right. But when god cooked up nature he build in a lot of random number generators to make sure those dice keep rolling.

Philosophical module = 0


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By theapparition on 2/26/2009 6:46:12 PM , Rating: 2
BTW,
Nicotine toxicity towards insects was a core plot line for an X-files episode. Just thought I'd bring that up.


By William Gaatjes on 2/27/2009 7:10:27 PM , Rating: 2
I always enjoyed the x-files. It was always exiting to find what would happen and how they come up with an explanation. Many movies plot lines are based on real life nature examples. If i remember correctly, the plot of the movie alien was based on hawk wasps laying eggs in other insects like tarantula's.

Nice link about how scary these wasps are :
Imagine some parasite not only lays it egss inside you but dumps an virus inside you that make your body produce toxins against yourself.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16597-ancien...

I would not be surprised to find out George Lucas Starwars is based on the little energy factories inside our cells. The mitochondria in real life. The midi-chlorians in starwars...

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


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By Ammohunt on 2/25/2009 2:09:55 PM , Rating: 2
Q:What do you call a Vegitarian in the woods?
A: prey!


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By Alareth on 2/25/2009 5:02:03 PM , Rating: 2
If you are what you eat, what does that make a cannibal that only eats vegans?


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By sviola on 2/25/2009 5:49:59 PM , Rating: 3
hahahaha...

quote:
Vegetarian

1: A bad hunter. Someone who survives by consuming not food, but the stuff that food eats:

The vegetarian was forced to subsist on slower prey, such as the broccoli and carrot.



RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By General Disturbance on 2/25/2009 5:25:13 PM , Rating: 2
All I'm saying is that eating healthy helps make you healthy.

If you eat unhealthy things, things such as alcohol that are known to be unhealthy, then you might then expect more risk to un-health. It's putting two-and-two together, simple logic.

Of course a healthy person can still get radiation poisoning and cancer or something, but the risk is less.

But whatever, to each their own. This is such a rabid topic no matter what side you come from, and noone can seem to listen to anything.

But we should all realize that just because we eat, it doesn't make us experts on eating (...food that is healthy).


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By Reclaimer77 on 2/25/2009 6:10:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
All I'm saying is that eating healthy helps make you healthy.


Everyone knows that. Really, way to go Einstein !!! Brilliant observation.

What we have a problem with is you using this to get on your soapbox and spew a bunch of pro Vegan crap like the pompous jerk you are.


By General Disturbance on 2/25/2009 6:18:28 PM , Rating: 2
lol haha!

Okay, you're obviously yankimg my chian right? That gave me a GOOD laugh.

If not...who pissed in your cornflakes this morning?

Chill dude...life is nice and so are new ideas and comminucation.

Peace, Namaste, God Bless You, and all that.


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By Chiisuchianu on 2/26/2009 1:00:44 AM , Rating: 2
so much for 'science'


RE: Good for me, bad for me.
By FaceMaster on 3/3/2009 6:25:43 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I agree. This sort of news every week...

...can it (cause people to) run (rampant in a) crysis?


Waiting for the other shoe to drop
By oab on 2/25/2009 9:22:21 AM , Rating: 2
Though, what I have heard from the other studies is that a glass of red wine a day reduces the risk of heart disease.

Reduce heart disease, increase risk of cancer.

At least they used a giant sample size. I have to assume that there were no other factors for the increased risk to develop cancer (such as the people who drank daily may have drank more in their past compared to the non-drinkers, or they were more likely to smoke). I assume the researchers questionnaire would have attempted to resolve that.




RE: Waiting for the other shoe to drop
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/25/2009 9:30:32 AM , Rating: 2
"Teen drinking is very bad" -- J-Kwon

Perhaps, you are correct about the heart disease benefits, however exercise (or a healthy diet) also reduces cancer rates AND heart disease rates substantially. I mean I enjoy the occasional bottle of wine, but I know that any biologist or chemist will tell you that alcohol is a toxin to humans, one that puts a lot of stress on the body. Don't kid yourself that its not.

Obviously the dangers are related to the level of consumption, but even some exposure likely raises your cancer probability by a small, but substantial margin.


RE: Waiting for the other shoe to drop
By FITCamaro on 2/25/09, Rating: -1
RE: Waiting for the other shoe to drop
By Lord 666 on 2/25/2009 10:30:21 AM , Rating: 3
Just found out yesterday that my father has cancer of the liver and in one other area. He's going for a second opinion, but he's already asked to have "that" one on one chat this Saturday.

He's definitely had his fair share of drinks and proven that the only difference between an Irish wedding and an Irish funeral is one less Irishman at his own father's funeral.

Two other women I know (wife's mother - stage 4 colon cancer survivor, wife's sister - battling breast cancer now) were both big drinkers.

Yes, there is truth to this study and the link with cancer. However, one of the most reproducable studies is whenever you reduce an animal's caloric intake by 50%, cancer rate drops almost 50% or higher. Since wine and all alcohol are high in calories and it is hard to research what type/amount of food people ate historically, the sometimes conflicting research is a good guide.

Bottom line - eat around 2000 calories or less, don't smoke, do illicit drugs, exersise, and keep caffeine to a minimum for a long healthy life.


RE: Waiting for the other shoe to drop
By Lord 666 on 2/25/2009 10:32:53 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry - meant to say don't do illicit drugs.


By kkwst2 on 2/25/2009 10:41:58 AM , Rating: 5
[Puts down crack pipe...]

Rats.


By Parhel on 2/25/2009 1:34:19 PM , Rating: 2
I'm really sorry to hear that. I hope everything turns out alright.


By callmeroy on 2/25/2009 1:36:51 PM , Rating: 3
First, I'm sorry to hear about your dad. Cancer has taken the lives of close family members in my life so I know all to well what you may be feeling.

The rest of your post on life style is spot on as well....except for one detail --- the part where you say 2000 calories or less....caloric intake is not static from one person to another, bigger bodies need more calories. Smaller bodies require less calories. A 6 ' 5" tall guy could be in perfect health, not overweight, physically fit the whole nine yards and he would need more than 2000 calories to stay healthy and have proper nutrition.

Likewise a 100 pound 5 foot - nothing model type woman, may actually require LESS than 2k calories.

It all depends...but the important thing is to note that how many calories you take in to be healthy is directly tied to things like activity level, quality of the calories (ie. 200 cals from a salad or 200 cals from candy) and other lifestyle habits (drinking , drugs, smoking....sniffing glue.....snoring lines of sugar....oh I digress)....

But overall very good post.


RE: Waiting for the other shoe to drop
By maverick85wd on 2/25/2009 1:38:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bottom line - eat around 2000 calories or less, don't smoke, do illicit drugs, exersise, and keep caffeine to a minimum for a long healthy life.


If you exercise regularly 2000 calories is rarely enough. I work out all the time, but I have to eat 4-5K calories/day or I start to get weak and don't improve.


By molgenit on 2/25/2009 3:51:05 PM , Rating: 2
He is probably referring to caloric restriction studies. In these studies many animals (from flies to mice) seem to almost double their life spans when you cut their caloric intake by around 50%. Some think its reducing the amount of free radicals; there are probably other factors like slower mitotic index thus fewer opportunities for chromosomal errors. Burning 4-5k per day your either pretty active or pretty energy inefficient. Either way it will increase free radical build up so keep your anti-oxidants up.


RE: Waiting for the other shoe to drop
By Parhel on 2/25/2009 1:32:33 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I enjoy the occasional bottle of wine


Just out of curiousity, is it usually right before you write your articles? ;)


By Reclaimer77 on 2/25/2009 6:01:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just out of curiousity, is it usually right before you write your articles? ;)


AHAHAHAH !!!

Oh man, oohhh man ! +6 for you good sir.


By ironargonaut on 2/26/2009 3:56:48 AM , Rating: 2
I'll let you all in on a good site. www.sciencenews.org
They take a lot of these headline "news" stories and give you the real information. I have a child w/cancer so I really don't like BS.
Here is some information from the study you won't find in the Daily Tech story
quote:
Another interesting caveat mentioned in the new study, but omitted from today’s Post story: “Nondrinkers had an increased risk for several cancer sites compared with women who drank fewer than or equal to two drinks per week.” Naomi Allen and her colleagues at the University of Oxford note that this apparent protective effect of alcohol was statistically significant for cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx, esophagus, stomach, liver, lung, cervix and endometrium, and for renal (kidney) cell carcinoma.

Now doesn't that put a whole new twist on the story. Also, they AVERAGED the drinks over seven days. So, all the drinks may have been consumed only on the weekends. Which, totally changes everything.


RE: Waiting for the other shoe to drop
By rikulus on 2/25/2009 10:10:44 AM , Rating: 3
I'm not sure it's safe to assume they eliminated all other factors from their study. I'm sure nobody wants to run a study for this length of time and then come out with "inconclusive" as the result. So they see an increase of 7000 in 1.3 million (0.5%) for people that consume alcohol vs don't - and now "a glass of wine a day causes cancer."

It didn't sound like they changed anyones behavior, just filled surveys on their drinking habits. So maybe people that drink every day have other risk factors compared to those that don't? Like you mentioned, perhaps more likely to smoke? Maybe they don't eat as healthy, don't exercise as much, live/work in more polluted areas. I can easily imagine those and other risk factors paralleling alcohol consumption.

I don't doubt that alcohol can cause cancer... especially liver... but to say that the entire increase of breast cancer in this study is due purely to alcohol (and not other risk factors that might parallel people that consume alcohol) seems extreme.


By pequin06 on 2/25/2009 11:19:15 AM , Rating: 2
I'm calling BS and think there is a bias against alcohol in this study.
What other works / studies have these people done?


By walk2k on 2/25/2009 12:41:08 PM , Rating: 2
That's the problem with all of these studies. Unless you take a group of babies from birth and raise them in a plastic bubble their whole life and feed them only alcohol (or tobacco, or whatever) and do the same with another group of babies and do NOT feed them alcohol/etc, it's impossible to rule out other envionmental factors. Did any of these women live near a nuclear plant? etc etc...


By clovell on 2/25/2009 4:11:53 PM , Rating: 2
All very true, but the 0.5% you quote is the absolute increase in the incidence rate among drinkers. If 14,000 non-drinkers developed such cancer that would mean that drinkers were 50% more likely to develop cancer - now it seems like a big deal, eh?

Relative Risk is what it's usually called, but it's more formally known as an odds-ratio. Without the proper context, it's really hard to make heads or tails of it. And don't forget that all statistics have uncertainty in them - variance.

But - you've a good point. There are many other potentially confounding factors here which, from reading the article, we can't be certain were taken into account. In addition to this, the burden of proof is typically much higher in proving causal links than it is in proving mere association.


By molgenit on 2/26/2009 8:57:04 AM , Rating: 2
Confounders were included in the study. Are you implying a bias against alcohol in the study? A finding of no association would be just as valid a result as an association so there is no risk of any "inconclusive" result. I've read the study; it’s interesting and while I do not think scare mongering by the press is justified there has been MANY studies linking alcohol consumption with cancer. The difference with this study is that it looked at low levels of consumption in an all female cohort. Most studies look at 3 drinks per day (10g/drink) and have a bias toward males. Of course the vast majority takes into effect things like smoking and diet and many also had family history. You always match your groups with controls.


By TSS on 3/3/2009 11:59:54 PM , Rating: 2
the problem is related with chance calculations though. if a 6% increase in chance actually causes an increase of 0,5% of cases in the population, would a 12% increase of chance produce 1% more causes?

if so, a 100% incease in the chance of getting cancer will that yield 8,3% more cases of cancer in a population of 1,3 million?

what the hell is the baseline of chance for getting cancer? even people who lead a completly healthy life, can get cancer. say that 1 out of every 1000 people who lead completly healthy lives, they still get cancer, that's 0,1%, so if you live completly healthy but drink a glass of wine a day, you have a 6,1% chance of getting cancer?

the fact that most of the math in this comment is completly wrong just proves the arguement more:

quite confusing stuff, studies these days. if you don't understand the math, it's pretty darn scary.


By The0ne on 2/25/2009 1:23:58 PM , Rating: 2
The sample size was what caught my eye. Kinda makes it harder to argue against it with that many people. Of course, how they measure and what not can't still be debated :D


RE: Waiting for the other shoe to drop
By JRi on 2/25/2009 3:41:38 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly!

Even if your cancer risk increases, other studies show that you live longer by dinking a glass or two of red wine a day.

Benefits overweight the cancer risk.


RE: Waiting for the other shoe to drop
By ET on 2/25/2009 5:30:03 PM , Rating: 2
From what I've read, the study that concluded that wine reduces the risk of heart disease was flawed. The flaw was that the majority of people who were not drinking were those who were alcoholics before and stopped. The increase in heart attacks in that group could therefore easily be explained by previous effects of higher than average alcohol consumption.


This just in!
By Nirach on 2/25/2009 9:25:25 AM , Rating: 2
Not being born in, and living in, a coma greatly increases your chance of being injured by anything, but you could still suffer heart disease, cancer, or any number of diseases!

Don't forget that breathing can cause massive lung damage!

Yeah. Scaremongering.

Clowns.




RE: This just in!
By JS on 2/25/2009 9:45:13 AM , Rating: 3
Who are the clowns? The scientists for doing what seems to be solid science and publishing their finds? The BBC for reporting on the study? DailyTech for passing it on to you in a factual way?

In whose interest is it to scare people with this study? Did it scare you? To me it's just another scientific finding.


RE: This just in!
By Nirach on 2/25/2009 10:03:29 AM , Rating: 2
The BBC, primarily, for their method of writing the story up.

I have nothing against studying cancer, go absolutely nuts studying it, that's great. Hell, have some of my cash, too.

The way the BBC report reads is "Oh damn, you're going to die if you ever touch drink more than once a month!" If that isn't an attempt to incite fear, I don't know what is. It's not 'conventional' fear in the "Oh god, I'm going to get mauled by a zombie" but it most certainly is a degree of fear they want the reader to have.

The fact that it's in the Health section, when it could be better served as a piece of information in the Science & Environment section, written up as a scientific study. People would still get the information, but there would be less of the feeling that the writer feels the need to have you terrified of the next drink, are you going to get breast cancer next time you have a glass of white with a meal?

They're inciting fear, to keep people reading. It's crappy journalism, and there's nothing else to it.


RE: This just in!
By sviola on 2/25/2009 6:05:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's not 'conventional' fear in the "Oh god, I'm going to get mauled by a zombie"


hmmm...Correct me if I'm wrong, but getting mauled by a zombie definitely can't be considered conventional... /sarcasm


RE: This just in!
By clovell on 2/25/2009 4:15:42 PM , Rating: 2
The clowns are the people who decided not to print the Confidence Intervals, Standard Errors, or P-Values - though that probably was the journalists.


RE: This just in!
By molgenit on 2/26/2009 9:01:05 AM , Rating: 2
It’s the journalists; of course the study has confidence intervals and P-Values


RE: This just in!
By A Stoner on 2/25/2009 4:45:12 PM , Rating: 1
You call this solid science? They have NO CAUSAL reason for alcohol consumption to make people more likely to get cancer. Just that a small population of people they picked at random had a higher percent of people get cancer that just also happened to drink daily. People who drink daily likely have OTHER things going on in their lives that could be as responsible or more so than the alcohol. Maybe it is also that people who have cancer might be more likely to drink daily and enjoy the rest of their lives. The study does nothing SCIENTIFIC, it is a bunch of fucking worthless numbers that came out to a conclusion that was LIKELY what they were aiming for to begin with. How the hell do we know they did not just add in some people with cancer, or delete perfectly healthy people from the study in order to get a conclusion? We do not know crap because statistics is not a scientific method that is repeatable and testable. If you want to have some hard science, then what you do is have 50 other organizations try to prove your theory wrong, and if they fail, then you might possibly on to something, but it is still not FACT, it is therory.

I bet you also think that global warming is a scientifically proven fact.


RE: This just in!
By clovell on 2/25/2009 6:05:14 PM , Rating: 3
Easy there, tiger. Statistics actually is an integral part of the scientific method - most methods are repeatable, and I can assure you that every one is testable (because inference is the ultimate end of all statistics).

Having 50 other organizations repeat the experiment is not necessary for something to be accepted as fact. As a matter of fact statistics, and therefore, much of modern science, in the most literal sense, does not prove or disprove anything, but rather renders a hypothesis sufficiently implausible as to believe that it is not true.

It quantifies the level of implausibility through formal mathematical theory.

No, you're problem here isn't with statistics, but with the interpretations made on them. Numbers don't lie; people do.


White wine and red wine ?
By William Gaatjes on 2/26/2009 12:44:21 PM , Rating: 2
Red wine seems to be benifical in France even tho the food is very unhealthy with respect to the bad cholesterol and the alcohol in red wine.

quote:
Researchers at Northwestern University Medical School have found that a chemical in red wine believed to help reduce risk for heart disease is a form of estrogen. The substance, resveratrol, is highly concentrated in the skin of grapes and is abundant in red wine.


another quote :

quote:
Moderate consumption of red wine has been widely reported to reduce risk for cardiovascular disease. Some researchers have attributed this cardioprotective quality to the significant amounts of resveratrol naturally present in grape skin. Resveratrol protects grapes and some other plants against fungal infections. It has been shown previously to have a number of potentially beneficial properties, including antioxidant, anticoagulant, anti-inflammatory and anti-cancer effects. Resveratrol has a molecular structure similar to that of diethylstilbestrol, a synthetic estrogen. This prompted Barry D. Gehm, J. Larry Jameson, M.D., and colleagues at Northwestern to investigate whether resveratrol might have pharmacologic properties similar to those of estradiol, the major natural human estrogen. As reported in the Dec. 9 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the group's laboratory studies showed that resveratrol is estrogenic. (Specifically, it is a phytoestrogen, from the Greek word for "plant.") At concentrations similar to those required for its other biological effects, resveratrol activated expression of both artificially introduced "reporter" genes and naturally occurring estrogen-regulated genes in cultured human cells. The researchers also found that resveratrol could replace estradiol in supporting the proliferation of certain breast cancer cells that require estrogen for growth.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/12/97121...

and another source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine#Health_effects

To sum it up, leave the beer and go for a glass of red wine a day. I will when i find a red wine that is not so awfully sour. I can eat lemons, onions and garlic raw without a problem but drinking red wine still can be a challenge sometimes.




RE: White wine and red wine ?
By molgenit on 2/26/2009 2:16:40 PM , Rating: 2
Its not just the resveratrol, they are also a source of flavonoids. Leave the wine and eat grapes. Alcohol increases triglycerides; which for some increases cardiac risk. Keep in mind as you get older your testosterone levels will drop and ingesting high levels of resveratrol could lead to man breasts; if it truly is estrogenic. In reguards to your sour tastes some of the Beaujolais Nouveaus or non "white" Zinfandels are good.


RE: White wine and red wine ?
By William Gaatjes on 2/26/2009 2:31:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its not just the resveratrol, they are also a source of flavonoids. Leave the wine and eat grapes. Alcohol increases triglycerides; which for some increases cardiac risk.


The problem with fruits as with many "healthy" vegetables is
that nowadays so many pesticides are used. If it is not a combination of pesticides, it is the high amount. In my country, the amount of pesticides is limited buy law. But when i last watched a documentary about how healthy fruit really is, there where grapes found coming from greece with 23 different pesticides on the skin and partially inside the grape ! And with a high concentration as well. In Europe, Greece and Spain do very bad when it comes to fruit and using pesticides. You really have to be aware where your fruit comes from. Because the pesticides clearly reduce the amount of benifit's from the flavonoids and estrogen.

quote:

Keep in mind as you get older your testosterone levels will drop and ingesting high levels of resveratrol could lead to man breasts;


Yikes !


RE: White wine and red wine ?
By molgenit on 2/27/2009 8:45:05 AM , Rating: 2
I'll concede that point however; wine from those countries will also have that problem as fermentation (as opposed to distillation) will not remove them. Wine also has the possible problem of having some unscrupulous producers adding things like ethylene glycol to them.

btw I’m certainly not opposed to an occasional glass of wine


By William Gaatjes on 2/27/2009 8:12:17 PM , Rating: 2
If you wish to know how reveratrol does it work i suggest reading this link. It is a fun read.

http://www.physorg.com/news134309666.html

http://www.physorg.com/news146922348.html

http://www.physorg.com/news150642332.html

http://www.physorg.com/news146922212.html

Apparently, one of the reasons our cells age is because our cells have the fulle genome, only a large set of the genes are forced off by certain proteins called SIRT. But these proteins also aid in dna repair. As more dna damage occurs these proteins are no longer able to keep unwanted gene expression in check and our cells start to activate genses that should never be turned on. Reveratrol seems to influence these SIRT proteins.

philosophical module = 1

If we could ever improve our dna in the case that cells that become skincells for example lose the parts of dna that could be fatal for them by expressing the wrong genes, this could aid in slowering the aging process.
That is if the whole gene machinery in our cells is fully understood.

philosophical module = 0


By William Gaatjes on 2/26/2009 2:49:23 PM , Rating: 2
To scare people to stay of beer, i once read an article about beer containing estrogen too. Hop seems to contain estrogen but i do not know if the process used to make beer eliminates the estrogen.

I do remember this research article :

quote:
Scientists have recently found evidence that estrogen is present in some of the foods we consume. …red clover, yucca, hops and motherwort demonstrated significantly higher growth than control, indicating possible estrogenic effects.

Hop is one of the four key ingredients in beer. Thus, if estrogen is present in hops, it will be present in beer unless the distilling process manages to eliminate it. If estrogen is present in beer, males who imbibe beer may start displaying feminine characteristics.

To test this theory, 100 men were provided with nine 12 ounce cans of beer within one hour.
It was then observed that 100% of the subjects:
gained weight
talked excessively without making sense
became overly emotional
could not drive very well
failed to think rationally
argued over nothing
had to sit down to urinate

No further testing was considered necessary. Male beer drinkers should take a concerned look at their beer consumption.


By William Gaatjes on 2/26/2009 2:53:33 PM , Rating: 2
Pressing to much on the post comment can be iritating.

quote:
In reguards to your sour tastes some of the Beaujolais Nouveaus or non "white" Zinfandels are good.


I will keep it in mind. Thank you.


RE: White wine and red wine ?
By flurazepam on 3/3/2009 1:53:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Keep in mind as you get older your testosterone levels will drop and ingesting high levels of resveratrol could lead to man breasts; if it truly is estrogenic.


Firstly, resveratrol (3,5,4'-trans-trihydroxystibene)is rapidly metabolized and eliminated, strongly suggesting it doesn't remain in the system, and secondly, it slightly behaves as an estrogen agonist only in the absence of endogenous estrogens and is a strong antagonist in the presence of said estrogens. Moreover, no research has even hinted that resveratrol could produce man boobs.


To avoid cancer....
By Kenenniah on 2/25/2009 9:25:33 AM , Rating: 4
A few years ago after seeing so many studies blaming differing foods and beverages including even orange juice for causing cancer, I came to the following conclusion. If you don't eat or drink anything, chances are very likely that you will not die of cancer.




RE: To avoid cancer....
By Nirach on 2/25/2009 9:35:45 AM , Rating: 2
Nor will you get food poisoning!

A double benefit program!


RE: To avoid cancer....
By FITCamaro on 2/25/09, Rating: -1
RE: To avoid cancer....
By JS on 2/25/2009 10:32:23 AM , Rating: 3
Dude, what the study says is basically that your mom's chance of getting cancer during a seven-year period rose from about 5.4 % to 5.7 %.

I wouldn't call that being "riddled with cancer".


RE: To avoid cancer....
By HeavyB on 2/25/2009 1:05:07 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, understanding statistics usually requires being able to comprehend numbers larger than the numbers of digits one has. The bruncles among us typically have difficulty above the number 20 (or 19 or 21 for the extremely inbred among them).


RE: To avoid cancer....
By PhoenixKnight on 2/25/2009 1:07:45 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. A slightly increased chance does not equate to a guarantee. Perhaps someone who was brought to the hospital every other day for alcohol poisoning might have such a high chance of being "riddled with cancer," but in that case, cancer would be the least of their concerns.


another study... another worry
By RamarC on 2/25/2009 9:24:41 AM , Rating: 2
let's see, red wine is good for your heart. now white wine is bad for your breasts.

i'd much rather live a happy full life with lots of wine and pasta till i'm 70 than stick around to my 90s popping dozens of pills daily and on a no-this and low-that diet.




RE: another study... another worry
By Astrof on 2/25/2009 9:27:45 AM , Rating: 4
Last time I checked though, it wasn't the wine part that was good for you, it was the grape part; grape juice is just as good for your heart as wine (same antioxidants).


Some perspective is necessary here.
By d33pblue on 2/25/2009 10:01:42 AM , Rating: 2
While it does seem that alcohol does increase the risk of cancers in women - notably breast cancer - it also has been shown to decrease the risk of heart disease. Red wine has been shown to be very good for the arteries, especially with regards to plaque oxidation.

A more helpful statistic to look at would be "total mortality" as it relates to consumption of alcohol - specifically wines. If drinking a glass of red wine every night causes my risk of cancer to go up 10%, but causes my risk of heart disease to go down 20%, I think I just might take my chances.

One of the downfalls of studies like this is that the researches go into them trying to prove something. They look for nothing but the theories they are trying to prove, then they ignore most other things.

For instance, I could make a compelling case that people who go jogging three days a week are 10 times more likely to be struck by a car and die. Using this logic, if I had a personal vendetta against exercise, I could make the statement that one should not go jogging because they are far more likely to get hit by a car if they do.

That is misleading because:

- The odds of me being hit by a car are already *very* low.
- The benefits of jogging most likely outweigh any risks i incur by going for a run.

You have to look at the whole picture. Not only do we have the problem of these studies looking at highly selected risk factors, but we have researchers making the fundamental mistake of confusing correlation with causation.

Just because two things are correlated doesn't mean one caused the other. While it is very possible that the alcohol in the wine caused the cancers, it is also very possible that the women who consume the alcohol are involved in other risk factors that cause cancer as well.

There are just too many variables flying around in a person's life to say definitely that "this causes this" - especially if the relationship of cause and effect takes 10-20 years to manifest itself.




RE: Some perspective is necessary here.
By aapocketz on 2/25/2009 12:49:57 PM , Rating: 2
absolutely. I am sick of seeing correlation being confused with causation.

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


By Danger D on 2/25/2009 2:37:22 PM , Rating: 2
I can't believe this was an Oxford study.


By illuvatar81 on 2/25/2009 10:00:17 AM , Rating: 2
Next week we'll find out that this group at Oxford has been heavily funded by M.A.D.D. and everyone will discredit their work.

Seriously, can anyone not look at these Facts that science comes up with lately and not be 100 percent convinced that we have no idea what is going on.

Don't get me wrong, i'm all for science it just seems the more we learn the more we realize we don't know. I know I personally can understand because I am always greeting with new information daily that I never knew existed. Science just keeps trying to nail down this information and like the roller-coaster they are just as up and down.

Studies cannot and will not ever show 100 percent of the variables. There is no way for this is to ever be proven, the amount of variables in each individuals life is too high, taking into account 47,000 people, its just astronomical to think they have nailed down every last possibility here.

Just the same, we've always known alcohol is bad for us, did we need doctors to tell us that cigarettes were bad too.
These items drastically alter us, inside and out.

Who knows?




By A Stoner on 2/25/2009 4:55:14 PM , Rating: 1
It's not science. That is the fucking problem with all of this. Doing a god damned number crunch and spewing out information without actually repeating the study dozens of times by dozens of different teams trying to prove the first study false is not science. Get together 20 universities and have each of them pick out a few million people to follow, and see if this study is repeatable and sonsistant. Until that happens, this was not done with a scientific model. Even then, it does not prove any CAUSAL relationship between cancer and alcohol. That would require someone taking this study and going into the body and finding out why the alcohol causes the higher risk of cancer, or maybe finding out why people who are likely to get cancer like to drink.


By illuvatar81 on 2/25/2009 8:38:23 PM , Rating: 2
I will agree that this is not science, the problem is that is what it is sold to people as, SCIENCE.


I'm shocked at DailyTech
By Malhavoc on 2/25/2009 10:55:48 AM , Rating: 3
I just wanted to say that I'm very disappointed with this article. A study of of this sort does not prove any type of causation ever. This article and its title are nothing more than shock journalism or complete stupidity.

Perhaps next time a nutrition/health/science related article is posted on this tech site, the author will have had some experience with methods of scientific research. For a minute, I forgot I was on DailyTech and not watching Oprah.




RE: I'm shocked at DailyTech
By David44 on 3/1/2009 2:17:30 AM , Rating: 2
Your statement: "A study of of this sort does not prove any type of causation ever," is misinformed. Large epidemiologic studies such as this Oxford one are quite capable of establishing causation to a high degree of confidence if appropriately conducted and controlled for potentially confounding variables such as tobacco consumption, i.v drug use, and other "lifestyle" issues. I agree that the news article here is inadequate, but you can't rationally make that statement about the research study without access to the details of the primary publication.


I did a 136 year study.
By A Stoner on 2/25/2009 4:32:09 PM , Rating: 3
I have reviewed all documentation on the lives of people from birth to death and have come to the following conclusions.
100% of all people who breath oxygen at any point in time in their life have died within 136 years of their first breath.
100% of all people who drink water at any point in time in their life have died within 136 years of their first breath.
100% of people who eat, jog, work, are lazy, over weight or just happened to be born always die from what ever activity they are doing within 136 years.
Not one single person alive 136 years ago today is alive today, thus the act of being born causes certain death. STOP BEING BORN!

On to other news, eggs are good, bad, good, bad, good, bad.

Maybe these researchers who have found out that drinking alcohol causes breast cancer should find out the mechanism for this before spouting out that it has found evidence of the link? Let's see, maybe people who drink are more likely to smoke? Maybe people who drink every night are more likely to get lucky in bed every night, and have more groping of their breasts? Maybe there is no actual link at all except the fact that people who are likely to get breast cancer are also likely to enjoy drinking alcohol. There is also the possible fact that these retards took a huge number of people, fed them into a computer, and looked for anything that looked out of place and just made a million assumptions based on nothing more than chance. Considering the fact that there are likely millions of different things people do every day, it comes down to chance that people who get breast cancer might do one or more of these activities more than everyone else. Considering the fact that there are millions of diseases, it is also likely that people who drink alcohol might also get some diseases more often than others, and this is all by chance of the population you are looking at, not actual causation or linkage.




RE: I did a 136 year study.
By LumbergTech on 2/25/2009 7:46:49 PM , Rating: 2
to be fair, you have to actually read their published information...not daily tech's spin of it

the media loves to use sensationalist headlines to get people to read things.

new scientist magazine for instance had on their cover "Darwin was wrong" or something similar..

when you actually go to read the article it clearly states that he was in fact not wrong, but just didn't know all the information and that his ideas needed to be refined and expanded upon

of course every moron goes running with the title and doesnt even pay attention to the actually source material


Meh
By Steve1981 on 2/25/2009 10:02:07 AM , Rating: 2
Seems like everything causes cancer. For Pete's sake, enjoying a sunny day causes cancer.




RE: Meh
By molgenit on 2/25/2009 3:51:47 PM , Rating: 2
It can UV rays....


Pesticides
By v1001 on 2/25/2009 1:33:26 PM , Rating: 2
It wasn't mentioned but I'm betting it actually has more to do with the pesticides in the wine. The pesticides are sprayed on the grapes and make their way into the wine. I'm sure an accumulation of that over many many drinks can't be good.




RE: Pesticides
By Alareth on 2/25/2009 5:11:15 PM , Rating: 2
The study was about alcohol in general and the articles used wine as an example, most likely due to the belief that a glass a day is beneficial.


Precision
By clovell on 2/25/2009 4:03:52 PM , Rating: 2
It always pisses me off when I read stuff like this that toss percentages around like doubloons at effing Mardi Gras - how about we get some idea of the precision of these numbers, eh?

Would a confidence interval really be that much work? It's not like people don't understand them - we see error margins all the time around the elections.

^ One of in series of things that are pissing me off.




RE: Precision
By molgenit on 2/26/2009 9:03:19 AM , Rating: 2
It in the study, do not ask me why reporters do not use them, maybe to save paper or energy?


Lets not get our nickers in a twist
By molgenit on 2/26/2009 9:49:49 AM , Rating: 2
Come on people get a grip. The Journal the study was published in is not a fly by night rag it’s the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Of course there were control populations and they segregated out confounders like smoking weight ect. Look; the bottom line is the chance of getting cancer of the X (sounds painful) is Y in 1000, if you are comfortable with the odds feel free to ignore the study and drink. There are MANY studies clearly demonstrating a link with alcohol consumption and cancer. No it may not be directly causal, most things are not; but that does not mean the correlation is invalid. Alcohol is toxic to animal cells, that is a fact. Do not get me started on the anything is toxic in enough stuff thats just a lame and weak argument to throw off intelligent discussion. Alcohol removes water, denatures proteins and precipitates nucleic acids as well as the free radicals its metabolism can produce. Now an occasional drink will, most likely, not kill you but 3 beers a day almost every day will definitely increase your chances of developing cancer of some form. Genetics definitely has effects as does other protective actions, like antioxidants ect. All this study says is if you have a history of cancer or have other risk factors drinking just adds to the chances. You determine the risk you want to take. I'm sure there are many women who have had cancer or have a familial history who are not aware that not drinking may decrease their risk, this study is beneficial to them.




By Steve1981 on 2/26/2009 10:04:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do not get me started on the anything is toxic in enough stuff thats just a lame and weak argument to throw off intelligent discussion


Nah. Philippus Theophrastus Aureolus Bombastus von Hohenheim makes a useful point; this study does after all aim to find the dose at which alcohol becomes toxic.


Not a study of wine drinking!
By KITH on 2/27/2009 12:22:25 PM , Rating: 2
They said the amount of alcohol consumed was the equivalent of a glass of wine. Not actually drinking a glass of wine a day.

What they find is women who are boozers get more cancer.
Women who are more likely to drink more alcohol on more occasions are more likely to get cancer.

This is correlation not causation. They do not get cancer from drinking. What this tells you is that women who drink more often are more likely to be the type of person to get cancer.

It is a reflection of people's habits. Are they responsible people who do things to improve their health. Or do they have a drinking problem and likely do little for their health.




RE: Not a study of wine drinking!
By David44 on 3/1/2009 2:00:35 AM , Rating: 2
The statement: "What this tells you is that women who drink more often are more likely to be the type of person to get cancer." is not true. Unless you have genetic evidence to put forth, there is no TYPE of person who gets cancer. However, there are certainly behaviors which are affected by alcohol consumption and which lead to exposure to carcinogens (e.g. cigarette smoke) and infectious agents (e.g., hepatitis C virus ). In a study of this size, I assume that these potential confounders have been controlled for by standard statistical methods, but it would have been useful for the lead article here to have confirmed this.


My New Study
By lancito on 2/25/2009 10:18:34 AM , Rating: 3
I think reading these studies causes cancer.




Not so hidden agenda...
By Suomynona on 2/25/2009 10:38:47 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Dr. Naomi Allen, lead author of the report says it punches holes in the poorly supported myths that a glass of wine a day is beneficial.
Uh, not really. It doesn't contradict the finding that a glass of red wine a day reduces your risk of heart disease, it just adds a caveat to the idea that it benefits your health. This study just gives a fuller picture of alcohol's effects, and lets you decide whether you'd rather have a heart attack or get ass cancer.




Pffbt.
By austinag on 2/25/2009 10:18:31 AM , Rating: 2
If this study applied to the real world, then all of France would have cancer.




An irresponsible conclusion
By Danger D on 2/25/2009 11:16:37 AM , Rating: 2
Research requires money, and too many scientists overstate the significance of their work to improve their profile in that pursuit. This study shows a correlation between drinking and cancer rates. It does not show that drinking causes the increase in cancer rates. There’s a big difference, and it’s irresponsible for the report’s author to take that leap.

Scientists and academics are too often depicted as the unbiased third party in media reports. While they offer a valuable perspective, they do have agendas and interests of their own that are rarely vetted to the degree that other media sources are.




Gullet?
By Slug on 2/25/2009 12:25:09 PM , Rating: 2
They lost me as an interested party when they referred to the gastrointestinal tract as the gullet. I can't seem to find that organ in my anatomy textbooks.




This just in...
By maverick85wd on 2/25/2009 1:42:01 PM , Rating: 2
... drinking is bad for you...

yogurt and fruit... still all good.




correlation != causation
By CZroe on 2/25/2009 1:42:39 PM , Rating: 2
"...just drinking a glass of wine a day caused approximately 7,000 additional cancer cases in women."

"Over 70,000 of the women developed cancer, and a correlation between consumption of alcohol and cancer arose."

Get this straight: Correlation != Causation

Obviously, the life-styles of women who drink daily versus those that don't drink will be very different in many other ways, such as diet and exercise.

There was a correlation between diet soda drinkers drinking two or more daily & heart attacks, or rather the ABSENSCE of a difference versus those who drink high-calorie drinks. The reporting gave some people the impression that "diet sodas CAUSE heart attacks" (quote: my mother). One of the ways they did this was by reporting it as if diet sodas were supposed to reduce heart attacks because people with high-sugar diets are more likely to have them. HELLO! Those people are more likely to have them because of the OTHER things they eat with that kind of lifestyle! Fatty pastries and a cholesterol-laden breakfast are more likely for people who don't care about their bodies and eat large amounts or sugar, hence the CORRELATION. The reason the correlation is just as strong with diet sodas is because it is a substitue for one type of food in that diet that does not contribute to it. By limiting it only to people who had two or more a day, they pretty much guaranteed that they were looking at people who have high-cholesterol/sugar diets who only drink diet sodas so they don't compound the bad stuff they are getting elsewhere.

So, diet sodas "cause" heart attacks. Where are the plaque-forming ingredients? Where are the extra blood-pressure increasing ingredients?




?
By LumbergTech on 2/25/2009 7:36:10 PM , Rating: 2
What if people who are prone to alcohol consumption are more likely to get cancer...not because they drank alcohol.....but because they were already genetically susceptible to cancer




Too early to tell
By aquaknigit on 2/26/2009 8:55:17 AM , Rating: 2
Just reading the article, they do not seem to have proven that no amount is safe. There could be selection bias, 25% do not drink and get lower cancer rates may be because those most likely to not drink have
1> a different genetic pool (age, race, weight, etc.)
2> a different lifestyle. For example, if the 25% did not drink also had lower use of smoking, then the lower cancer could come from the lower smoking

Blue




Duh!
By Indianapolis on 2/26/2009 10:37:22 PM , Rating: 2
Gee...who would've ever thought that drinking poison might be bad for you?




Alcohol and Cancer
By David44 on 3/1/2009 1:41:32 AM , Rating: 2
One assumes this study is controlled for confounders, particularly tobacco consumption. If not, it's worthless. Since it is, I believe, well known that alcohol and tobacco consumption are related, i.e., there are more drinkers who smoke than nondrinkers who smoke, and tobacco is a known carcinogen. If not controlled for this, the study could be detecting the carcinogenic influence of tobacco instead of, or in addition to, that of alcohol.




Maybe cuz...
By smodd on 3/1/2009 2:27:40 AM , Rating: 2
Weel they say she have cancer in breast and butt maybe she gets horny and have sex cuz alcohol and thats why cancer appears in those zones?




By fatedtodie on 3/2/2009 2:45:18 PM , Rating: 2
This just in from a report by Dr Random Sampling. 100% of Cancer victims breathed air! It is advised that you limit your intake and begin breathing only from approved sources. Also an alternative to air is being worked on by NASA so we can settle on Mars.

The study conducted by Dr Sampling was conduted over 100 years and found everyone that had cancer breathed air, which means AIR causes cancer! Beware that next breath you take could be the one that causes cancer!!

In a lighter note, Dr Sampling was run over by a drunk driver shortly after publishing that report.




By SilthDraeth on 3/2/2009 9:08:44 PM , Rating: 2
Considering people get liver cancer without drinking alcohol, and people who drink don't get cancer...

It isn't like say comparing the amount of automotive fatalities when the occupants where not wearing seat belts, to the amount when they where.

I am almost 100% positive that these people where not lab grown in a controlled environment with controlled diet, and then given the alcohol and the other group not given any.

This study is pretty bunk. For all we know someone burnt their toast one morning and the burned bread caused the cancer, and not the glass of wine they had that evening.




Fear fear fear fear
By Reclaimer77 on 2/25/2009 12:28:36 PM , Rating: 1
Be afraid. You are all going to die. Every single thing you do will cause your death. Don't eat this, don't drink that. Don't microwave things in plastic containers. Do not eat, drink, smoke, have sex, smile, laugh, use soap. THEY ALL CAUSE CANCER !!! Did you hold a cell phone to your head today ? Guess what, you have cancer ! Chances are you ate something today that will make your heart explode !

It's a one in a million FLUKE that the human race got this far without modern day researchers to tell us how reckless we have been with our lives.




Oh well
By piroroadkill on 3/3/2009 12:43:39 PM , Rating: 1
So I might get cancer. Oh well, I'd be drinking if I actually had any booze left. Sometimes you have to just not give a shit:- remember throughout history people have been heavy drinkers, especially when water was usually less palatable, yet here we are, alive as a product of unbroken succession.

And drinking. I'll drink to that.




DailyTECH?
By therealnickdanger on 2/25/09, Rating: -1
RE: DailyTECH?
By DigitalFreak on 2/25/09, Rating: 0
RE: DailyTECH?
By therealnickdanger on 2/25/2009 9:41:50 AM , Rating: 2
OK... well it's obvious that people are disagreeing with me on this. It still doesn't make the article tech-related. Interesting, yes.


RE: DailyTECH?
By JazzMang on 2/25/2009 11:13:33 AM , Rating: 2
Do you not see the SCIENCE in this SCIENTIFIC study?

Really?


"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki