Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well I got in at 2am and fell over opening the front door..... And still laughed about it.
No this will not stop me or prevent me from going out and enjoying myself..... I could get run over by a bus tmrw and all
End of the day if people want to drink, smoke, do recreational drugs etc then it's THEIR choice all we can do is advise the younger generation should they need it, plus it's incredibly hypocritical to say " don't do this " or " you shouldn't do that "..... When we've done it a million times ourselves
All the PC bollox is exactly that bollox ........ What's next banning chocolate, sweets and anything else that's " bad " for health.....
I just drank a little cancer juice at 9:30 in the morning. I was only tasting some of my home brew to see how it's coming along, but at noon I'll be joining the neighborhood ladies and gentlemen for several servings of cancer in a can. We'll do it under the blazing Texas sun, so melanoma will likely follow unless I bathe my skin in chemicals that are surely cancer-causing.
Well yup I started at lunchtime yesterday so I think I will take you up on that offer mate
Do you think I'd be better with light beers?..... You know to reduce the risk of cancer? ..... NAHHHH!!!! lmao
You need the sun for vitamin D. People with different skin tones exist in different region to absorb the sun at different levels and maximise vitamind d absorption during the winter.
However you need unscreened sun for Vitamin D, you need UVB, sunscreens filter this out, because it's also one of the primary causes of skin cancer. So people lying on the beach covered in SPF30/40 sun screen are not creating any Vitamin D.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wickedness
Your body does not need alcohol.
Your body doesn't need many things that can cause illness, harm or damage. Your body doesn't need sex (I'm talking the body, personally I'm not sure I could have made it as a catholic priest for many reasons, but the primary being, no sex [at least no sex with consenting adults]), doesn't need bacon, doesn't need coffee or tea, doesn't need refined sugar, or refined flours, doesn't need cell phones, computers or the internet, doesn't need cars and the pollutants in their fuels and created by their combustion, you body doesn't need perfumes, deodorants and "air fresheners" (ironically just a stronger scent to overlay smells we consider unpleasant).
If we determined what we should or should not do based on "need" then we'd lead incredibly boring existences. As a completely unrepentant hedonist, I think that being forced to live under such conditions would well result in me (and many others) shaking off the mortal coil far earlier than the cumulative effects of hedonism. Which I'm sure that puritans would appreciate, then they could all live together being pure, and boring.
I believe that what i've highlighted above in blue is absolutely true, and I've not claimed anything to the contrary. By accepting your premise I've just negated to irrelevancy all the links you provided.
But your links are also superfluous and diversionary because the issue being discussed is not whether X or Y in isolation "causes" cancer, rather, what's under discussion is your implicit claim in your first post,
(because you made no comment, only posted links, and left everyone to infer what they will,)
that at reduction in alcohol consumption undermines the validity of the science.
Not so, the two are independent of each other, and that's why I said you don't get it.
I've noted twice now that my reference to wife beating was facetious, (not to be taken literally). I made it because it was clear to me that you didn't understand the issue, and you just now reinforced that belief, by posting a bunch of other irrelevant links.
I have made plenty of comments.
Binge drinking is on the decline among young people in the UK.
20% of the UK drinking population is now teetotal.
Cancer can be linked to a lot of different things.
Drinking in moderation is indeed desibrable, as is a healthy diet.
Obesity is one of the biggest causes of cancer.
As for being facetious, I am well aware of what it means, it means something taken lightly or not seriously, however I don't think wife beating in such a comparison can be taken lightly or not seriously and I suggest you use a different analogy, as I don't think wife beating is appropriate in this context.
Last edited by Brave New World; 07-24-2016 at 05:40 AM..
also, what happened to all that "Reserveratol" in red wine is good for you? isn't that meant to be anti-carcinogenic?
That was another load of eyewash that the drinks industry seized upon as there's nothing they'd like better than to promote a poison as a health food. If there ever was any slight benefit to it the degree of harm on the other side would completely swamp it.
It doesn't matter how much people justify it or trivialize it, the fact is it's the worst of all the drugs because it's so universally used and the harm it causes is probably beyond calculation.
'It's alright in moderation' is the common cry. Of course we're a nation of moderate drinkers aren't we - not.
Something like 9 million exceed the recommended limit. Oh, and by the way, the latest research confirms there is no safe limit. Something that's been known for a long time but not well publicised.
What the government needs to do is to take on the all powerful drinks industry head on just like they did with the tobacco industry, get alcohol out of supermarkets and the like, put proper warnings on all products and ban drinking in inappropriate places like planes etc.
And another thing whilst I'm having a go - get kids out of pubs. A pub is no place for a child.
That's something else that was unheard of years ago.
I will acknowledge here the welcome trend of more people deciding to go teetotal. That's great but there's a long way to go, and if the current recognition of the link with cancer is in any way good news it's that more people will respond to it.
And another thing whilst I'm having a go - get kids out of pubs. A pub is no place for a child.
That's something else that was unheard of years ago.
You kidding me, I'm just on the wrong side of 45, I remember being in pubs during summer holidays with my parents (whichever was off work), this was before I was old enough to be left alone (so under 12) during the summer holidays. Further we went to family parties and pubs during the evening (the lounge not the bar) at the same time. Sunday lunch at pubs got really popular in the mid-80's with pubs putting on the carvery. It was also well known that you could by beer if you were ordering food at 14 (not that it bothered me, I'd been drinking in pubs since 14 anyway, my 18th Birthday was held in my "local" and the manageress asked me who's birthday it was, she was shocked when she found out it was mine, she'd known me for 4 years).
So I don't know where you've been, but kids have been in pubs since I was a kid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff956
I will acknowledge here the welcome trend of more people deciding to go teetotal. That's great but there's a long way to go, and if the current recognition of the link with cancer is in any way good news it's that more people will respond to it.
How can anyone with half a brain not know that the metabolic pathways of ethanol do not produce carcinogenic substances as intermediaries? Acetaldehyde (ethanal) is the produce of ADH enzymes, remember the VOC's of the late 90's and early new millenium, Ethanal was one of those VOC's with benzene, toluene, Formaldehyde and... Acetaldehyde.
That said the link to cancer runs two ways, there's a link to lower risks of Hodgkins Lymphomas (2006 study estimated a 53% reduction in risk), Non-Hodgkins Lymphomas, Renal cell cancers.
The problem is that for a whole bunch of things there are risks associated, and there are benefits associated to those too. For every report of benefit often there's another report of a risk. For instance fructose, we need fresh fruit correct? But fructose certainly promotes pancreatic cancer cell growth, should we not eat fruit (with all it's known health benefits because it contains a cancer accelerating substance)?
We live in a carcinogenic and mutagenic biosphere on a planet bathed in carcinogenic rays. We all have cells that contain mutant DNA and are expressing erroneous proteins. Our bodies have evolved to deal with these, it's only when the mechanisms fail to suppress those cells that there is an issue. If you worry about every thing that is carcinogenic, your going to be pretty screwed, however bear in mind that the people saying particular things increase your risk are the same people who created Heroin from Morphine to reduce morphine's addictive effects, gave the world Thalidomide, and recommended lobotomies for various mental illnesses. That's not to say that they always get it wrong, but, it does indicate that not only can they get it wrong, but they can get it spectacularly wrong.
No one is going to live forever (yet, if ever, and if they ever manage it, then it's probably going to be irrelevant if you eat only eggs, bacon, drink a bottle of Scotch a day and smoke 2 packs of unfiltered smokes a day), it's up to you how you want to live, and there are far bigger risks to deal with. I mean 12,000 deaths per year are completely down to poor care That's not to slap the NHS, but 12,000 people, 1000 people a month can be saved just by some small changes and internal checks and balances, which is more people who die per year than all people from alcohol related issues. Maybe we should fix that first.
You kidding me, I'm just on the wrong side of 45, I remember being in pubs during summer holidays with my parents (whichever was off work), this was before I was old enough to be left alone (so under 12) during the summer holidays. Further we went to family parties and pubs during the evening (the lounge not the bar) at the same time. Sunday lunch at pubs got really popular in the mid-80's with pubs putting on the carvery. It was also well known that you could by beer if you were ordering food at 14 (not that it bothered me, I'd been drinking in pubs since 14 anyway, my 18th Birthday was held in my "local" and the manageress asked me who's birthday it was, she was shocked when she found out it was mine, she'd known me for 4 years).
So I don't know where you've been, but kids have been in pubs since I was a kid.
How can anyone with half a brain not know that the metabolic pathways of ethanol do not produce carcinogenic substances as intermediaries? Acetaldehyde (ethanal) is the produce of ADH enzymes, remember the VOC's of the late 90's and early new millenium, Ethanal was one of those VOC's with benzene, toluene, Formaldehyde and... Acetaldehyde.
That said the link to cancer runs two ways, there's a link to lower risks of Hodgkins Lymphomas (2006 study estimated a 53% reduction in risk), Non-Hodgkins Lymphomas, Renal cell cancers.
The problem is that for a whole bunch of things there are risks associated, and there are benefits associated to those too. For every report of benefit often there's another report of a risk. For instance fructose, we need fresh fruit correct? But fructose certainly promotes pancreatic cancer cell growth, should we not eat fruit (with all it's known health benefits because it contains a cancer accelerating substance)?
We live in a carcinogenic and mutagenic biosphere on a planet bathed in carcinogenic rays. We all have cells that contain mutant DNA and are expressing erroneous proteins. Our bodies have evolved to deal with these, it's only when the mechanisms fail to suppress those cells that there is an issue. If you worry about every thing that is carcinogenic, your going to be pretty screwed, however bear in mind that the people saying particular things increase your risk are the same people who created Heroin from Morphine to reduce morphine's addictive effects, gave the world Thalidomide, and recommended lobotomies for various mental illnesses. That's not to say that they always get it wrong, but, it does indicate that not only can they get it wrong, but they can get it spectacularly wrong.
No one is going to live forever (yet, if ever, and if they ever manage it, then it's probably going to be irrelevant if you eat only eggs, bacon, drink a bottle of Scotch a day and smoke 2 packs of unfiltered smokes a day), it's up to you how you want to live, and there are far bigger risks to deal with. I mean 12,000 deaths per year are completely down to poor care That's not to slap the NHS, but 12,000 people, 1000 people a month can be saved just by some small changes and internal checks and balances, which is more people who die per year than all people from alcohol related issues. Maybe we should fix that first.
Well I regret to say that I'm only just on the right side of 75 so my perspective is very different. However, when I was a boy kids didn't go into pubs - period. If my dad wanted some beer (which wasn't very often) I had to go down to the pub to get it but was only allowed in the 'Bottle & Jug' section which was for retail sales only and separate from the bar. I could look through and see men in the bar but never once entered. I wouldn't have dared.
Two points I'd like to make here:-
1. A number of responses to this thread have centred on the fact that there are many different substances which we consume or are exposed to that can cause cancer and there is little doubt that this is the case. However, the view adopted is often along the lines of "well if I can get cancer through A, B, or C then why worry about D?"
This an illogical argument because it casually reduces the equation to a loose assumption that the risks of these exposures are more or less the same. Using that logic, one might easily argue a case for smoking - 'after all I might get cancer from the broccoli I eat 3 times a week so why should I give up my cigarettes ?' No, it's very much a matter of degrees of risk. To lump them conveniently together is frankly a cop out.
2. Although slightly off topic, it's worth mentioning that alcohol is distinct from the other cancer risks in that it alone carries an additional social impact. Completely overlooked is the enormous burden inflicted on society by those that drink. I've already been through part of that list so I won't repeat it. The drinker may or may not pay the price of contracting cancer but society will surely pay the price of the drinker. None of the other cancer risk substances carry a third party risk. Not even tobacco. For all it's sins, apart from a limited effect on those around them it has little impact on society. Nevertheless, we choose to close our eyes to the effects of the sacred drug alcohol.
You refer to the 12,000 NHS patients who die each year from poor care in the context of it being more than those 'who die per year than all people from alcohol related issues'. This is completely misleading and requires clarification. There were 8,416 deaths in 2013 but this figure only refers to diseases directly attributed to alcohol i.e. cirrhosis of the liver.
It does not include other diseases where alcohol has been shown to have some causal relationship, such as cancers of the mouth, oesophagus and liver.
These statistics are more revealing:-
Alcohol is a causal factor in more than 60 medical conditions, including: mouth, throat, stomach, liver and breast cancers; high blood pressure, cirrhosis of the liver; and depression
In the UK in 2012-13, there were 1,008,850 hospital admissions related to alcohol consumption where an alcohol-related disease, injury or condition was the primary reason for hospital admission or a secondary diagnosis
However, if you include deaths where alcohol was a contributing factor (such as various cancers, falls and hypertensive diseases), the figure increases to 21,512: 13,971 for males and 7,541 for females
This is the real face of alcohol.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
all we can do is advise the younger generation should they need it, plus it's incredibly hypocritical to say " don't do this " or " you shouldn't do that "..... When we've done it a million times ourselves 
lmao
