- #1 andyt: Well, let's ban alcohol then. Works so well for pot.
Class 1 carcinogen, same as asbestos - that's heavy.
- #2 Anonymous: Curtman? is that you?
- #3 DrCaleb: Well, good. Because I don't live in Ontario.
*hic*
- #4 andyt: never understood the hic thing. I didn't hiccup when I got drunk, didn't know anybody who did.
Anyway, alcohol also causes brain damage, so i guess you don't really notice the cancer as much.
- #5 OnTheIce:
"andyt" said
Anyway, alcohol also causes brain damage
Heavy drinker, are we?
- #6 Regina:
"DrCaleb" said
Well, good. Because I don't live in Ontario.
*hic*
- #7 DrCaleb:
"andyt" said
never understood the hic thing.
Goes back to the Andy Capp cartoons.
- #8 BartSimpson: Next time I'm in Ontario the first round's on me!
- #9 bootlegga: If you believe the news, we can't breath the air we have, drink the water from our taps, eat the food we produce, etc.
I say everything in moderation...
- #10 Yogi: Cancer research is a cash cow. Got to keep coming up with 'reasons' to keep the donations flooding in.
- #11 andyt:
"bootlegga" said
I say everything in moderation...
Sure, but when it's classed as the same hazard as asbestos, you don't breathe in moderate amounts of asbestos, do you?
- #12 Gunnair:
"andyt" said
I say everything in moderation...
Sure, but when it's classed as the same hazard as asbestos, you don't breathe in moderate amounts of asbestos, do you?
Ride your bike for the daily commute and you breathe in moderate amount of carcinogens too.
- #13 andyt: Yeah, that's true. Guess you can't get away from it. The health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks, tho, to my mind.
- #14 Zipperfish: Sigh. If I'm a scinetist looking at this report--which I am--my first question is why alcohol-related cancer is going up so much when alcohol consumption is modestly decreased in the last 40 or 50 years. No explanation. Has alcohoil chnaged? We drink more wine and less spirits, so is it the wine? Is there some mutagenic property of alcohol previously unaccounted for? If so, to what cause did we previously assign alcohol-related cancers. Nothing. Nothing. And Nothing.
It's the same with these smoking studies that show ramped up casualites from smoking despite very significant decreases in the use of tobacco.
The recommednations of the report (which are all policy recommendations) point to the reason why this is: the policies were desired prior to the study. The study was an exercise in confirmation bias.
We have a similar outfit in BC (Centre for Addiction Research at UVic). Proponents of this Big Government "Health Promotion" approach dreamed up by the UN, of course, to extend the reach of governance. Essentially an advoicacy agency masquerading as science.
- #15 Thanos: Sigh. At least five spelling mistakes in there.
Fuck it. I'm gonna go get drunk. 
