UN: Drinking "very hot" beverages could raise cancer risk

[snoop1130]

UN: Drinking "very hot" beverages could raise cancer risk
MARIA CHENG, AP Medical Writer

LONDON (AP) — The World Health Organization's research arm has downgraded its classification of coffee as a possible carcinogen, declaring there isn't enough proof to show a link to cancer.

But the International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC, also announced in a report published on Wednesday that drinking "very hot" beverages of any kind could potentially raise the cancer risk, and it classified them as "probably carcinogenic" to humans.

In particular, it cited countries including China, Iran and those in South America, where teas such as the bitter herbal infusion mate are traditionally drunk at extremely high temperatures — above 65 or 70 degrees Celsius (150 or 160 Fahrenheit) — considerably hotter than drinks would normally be served in cafes across North America and Europe.

Experts convened by the Lyon-based IARC concluded that there was inadequate evidence to suggest coffee might cause cancer, according to a letter published in the Lancet Oncology.

"I'm not really sure why coffee was in a higher category in the first place," said Owen Yang, an epidemiologist at Oxford University who has previously studied the possible link between coffee and cancer. He was not part of the IARC expert group. "The best evidence available suggests that coffee does not raise the cancer risk," he said.

Drinking very hot beverages, however, just might.

Dana Loomis, deputy head of the IARC program that classifies carcinogens, said they began to look into a possible link after seeing unusually high rates of esophageal cancer in countries where drinking very hot beverages is common. He said that even at temperatures below 60 degrees Celsius (140 Fahrenheit), hot beverages can scald the skin, and that consuming drinks at even higher temperatures could be harmful.

-- (c) Associated Press 2016-06-15

[JetsetBkk]

Damn . There go my three pots of steaming hot tea every day.

[wabothai]

B U L L S H I T

[stevenl]

B U L L S H I T

Maybe, maybe not. But you base your opinion on what?

[Kabula]

The beverages will not kill you unless toxic chemicals, heavy metal, mold and more are in the water.

If that will not kill you the air may, or just a million other things.

Life is short.

Enjoy it.

[facthailand]

In fact, it was common knowledge among medical personnel at the Japanese hospitals where I worked in 1968 that the high incidence of stomach cancer in Japan is due to consumption of scalding green tea. Old news but true.

[Nasrullah]

Well i guess we can ignore this then.Has the UN ever got anything right since it was established?

[attrayant]

This comes up every time we have a "This [food/activity] causes cancer!" thread. The IARC's reports are not intended for consumption by the general public - in fact they're pretty much useless. IARC monographs are hazard assessments. You need to know how to manage a risk (to limit your exposure to a hazard). If you don't understand the difference between risk and hazard, then you shouldn't be reading IARC studies or using them in your soapbox diatribes about the latest scare campaign against whatever it is you don't like or disagree with.

Edited June 16, 2016 by attrayant

[humqdpf]

The beverages will not kill you unless toxic chemicals, heavy metal, mold and more are in the water.

If that will not kill you the air may, or just a million other things.

Life is short.

Enjoy it.

Since you can even get cancer through acid reflux where the stomach acids change the composition of the cells in the oesophagus. Would it not be possible that hot fluid might have the same effect?

[attrayant]

You're referring to Barrett's Esophagus, where the acid actually irritates the lower esophageal lining. The precursor is thought to be chronic inflammation of the cells. It's not out of the realm of possibility. Dermatologists often recommend the removal of moles and skin tags if they are in areas where they might be subject to frequent irritation, such as in the arm pit.

It's probably not a good idea to drink anything so hot that it could scald your esophageal lining. I can't understand how anyone could suppress their pain response and allow this to happen.

Edited June 16, 2016 by attrayant

[NovaBlue05]

You know what? You only live once. Are you going to wrap yourself in a sanitized existence and hope to be miserable for as long a time as possible or just roll the dice a bit and let the chips fall where they may.

[billd766]

This comes up every time we have a "This [food/activity] causes cancer!" thread. The IARC's reports are not intended for consumption by the general public - in fact they're pretty much useless. IARC monographs are hazard assessments. You need to know how to manage a risk (to limit your exposure to a hazard). If you don't understand the difference between risk and hazard, then you shouldn't be reading IARC studies or using them in your soapbox diatribes about the latest scare campaign against whatever it is you don't like or disagree with.

Are you qualified as a medical doctor or a cancer research specialist?

What qualifies YOU to decide what people should or shouldn't read?

If, as you say,the IARC's reports are not intended for consumption by the general public, then why are they published where the "ignorant" public can read them and draw their own conclusions?

[JetsetBkk]

I'm just finishing my warm cup off coffee. Horrible

Back to the microwave...

[attrayant]

If, as you say,the IARC's reports are not intended for consumption by the general public, then why are they published where the "ignorant" public can read them and draw their own conclusions?

Can you show me where it says "draw your own conclusion" on the IARC's web site? Or at the end of any scientific study, for that matter? You know what else is published online? The latest studies on string theory and loop quantum gravity. Perfect for the general public to draw their own conclusions!

The media seeks them out to create sensationalist and alarmist, attention-grabbing headlines. The general public lacks the education and training to read and accurately digest scientific research. For the exact same reason that the public is ill-equipped to interpret medical research - that's why we have medical doctors to see for guidance. All you have to do is read these very forums to see people ignorantly screaming how an IARC 2A or 2B substance is toxic and must be avoided at all costs.

Here a monograph picked at random. It's 567 pages long, just the right size for a housewife's lazy afternoon reading! Do you think the general public understands exposure data? Do they know the difference between a cohort study and a case-control study? A meta-study? Do they know what biomarkers are? The difference between correlation and causation? En vitro and en vivo? Can the public digest the statistical data presented in the monograph? What about functional changes at the cellular level versus the molecular level? Susceptibility data? Do you think the general public understands the significance of 'median concentration of 4-aminobiphenyl of 57 pmol/mL' ? And all this this is just from the preamble - there's still 530 more pages to go!

But maybe I'm being unfair. Dry text can be awfully hard to wade through. Maybe a data table would help the general public understand the report better. Here's one:

Boy that sure helps, doesn't it?

Okay okay, maybe a picture would help. I mean they're supposedly worth a thousand words, right? Let's see one from the same monograph:

Well now, that certainly clears things up!

Yes sir, this 537 page volume of sleep-inducing scientific data is just what the general public needs. I don't know why every newspaper in the world doesn't publish these monographs in their metro section.

Edited June 17, 2016 by attrayant

[Mosha]

And this weeks food scare from the UN is....

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

[billd766]

If, as you say,the IARC's reports are not intended for consumption by the general public, then why are they published where the "ignorant" public can read them and draw their own conclusions?

Can you show me where it says "draw your own conclusion" on the IARC's web site? Or at the end of any scientific study, for that matter? You know what else is published online? The latest studies on string theory and loop quantum gravity. Perfect for the general public to draw their own conclusions!

The media seeks them out to create sensationalist and alarmist, attention-grabbing headlines. The general public lacks the education and training to read and accurately digest scientific research. For the exact same reason that the public is ill-equipped to interpret medical research - that's why we have medical doctors to see for guidance. All you have to do is read these very forums to see people ignorantly screaming how an IARC 2A or 2B substance is toxic and must be avoided at all costs.

Here a monograph picked at random. It's 567 pages long, just the right size for a housewife's lazy afternoon reading! Do you think the general public understands exposure data? Do they know the difference between a cohort study and a case-control study? A meta-study? Do they know what biomarkers are? The difference between correlation and causation? En vitro and en vivo? Can the public digest the statistical data presented in the monograph? What about functional changes at the cellular level versus the molecular level? Susceptibility data? Do you think the general public understands the significance of 'median concentration of 4-aminobiphenyl of 57 pmol/mL' ? And all this this is just from the preamble - there's still 530 more pages to go!

But maybe I'm being unfair. Dry text can be awfully hard to wade through. Maybe a data table would help the general public understand the report better. Here's one:

monographtable.png

Boy that sure helps, doesn't it?

Okay okay, maybe a picture would help. I mean they're supposedly worth a thousand words, right? Let's see one from the same monograph:

monograph.png

Well now, that certainly clears things up!

Yes sir, this 537 page volume of sleep-inducing scientific data is just what the general public needs. I don't know why every newspaper in the world doesn't publish these monographs in their metro section.

Poor try at obfuscation.

Now why didn't you sue all of my post, especially this part?

Quote

Are you qualified as a medical doctor or a cancer research specialist?

What qualifies YOU to decide what people should or shouldn't read?

Can you answer those two pieces please?

[attrayant]

Poor try at obfuscation.

Now why didn't you sue all of my post, especially this part?

I answered the relevant part. Your attempt to take the issue to a personal level was noted and duly ignored.

What qualifies YOU to decide what people should or shouldn't read?

So everyone who makes a statement of opinion on the internet must be qualified now? Really? I am not an authoritative body and have no power to restrict your reading of whatever it is you like to read. I am merely pointing out that some material is indigestible for the general public. If you disagree with that after seeing everything I've posted about what's in the monographs, why not make a counterpoint? You don't need to be qualified to make a counter argument, you know.

Come on, put your money where your mouth is and explain how all of that mess in the monographs is suitable for the general public. And see if you can do it without making personal remarks about me, for a change.

[Scott]

Please stay on topic and refrain from the personal remarks.

[neverdie]

And this weeks food scare from the UN is....

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

Next week it will be cold water.

[Mosha]

And this weeks food scare from the UN is....

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

Next week it will be cold water.

Didn't one of their scares get refuted yesterday or the day before?

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

[neverdie]

And this weeks food scare from the UN is....

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

Next week it will be cold water.

Didn't one of their scares get refuted yesterday or the day before?

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

I don't know what I'm doing from one minute to the next without trying to keep up with these tossers 55555

[attrayant]

Didn't one of their scares get refuted yesterday or the day before?

They retracted their own earlier (1991) decision to classify coffee as probably carcinogenic, even though the number of studies supporting that link has grown since the earlier decision and there was a meta-analysis published in Nature earlier this year of 30 recent studies making the connection even stronger. That kind of thing makes a mockery of anything else they decide.

[GuestHouse]

Attrayant is off on his 'Science speak gig again'.

This is a language set and references to science that are intended to partition the discussion into the common area where opinion is worthless because its not coached in 'science speak' and the 'science speak' area where opinion is unassailable because its coached in.... 'science speak'.

But, as someone who's spent the last three years researching 'Risk' at three of Europe's leading universities I am at least pleased to see Attrayant's statement

If you don't understand the difference between risk and hazard, then you shouldn't be reading IARC studies or using them in your soapbox diatribes about the latest scare campaign against whatever it is you don't like or disagree with.

Passing Attrayant's test of worthiness to be even allowed to read IARC studies, much less use them in to support an opinion I might have is something of a milestone in my academic career.

Thank you Atrayant, and thank you again, I'm humbled by your generous acceptance that I, or anyone that meets your criteria might be allowed to read stuff and pass opinions on it.

I feel blessed.

[JetsetBkk]

Attrayant is off on his ...<snip>

Might be a woman (Attrayant = French for 'attractive')

[Mosha]

That coffee one was the one I meant. Thanks.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

[attrayant]

Might be a woman (Attrayant = French for 'attractive')

I'm male. The handle was suggested by a friend some years ago when I was younger and more, uh... attractive. Now it just feels conceited and Trump-like and I've been meaning to change it but just not gotten around to it.

[Berkshire]

As I've said on another thread, numerous scientific studies have shown that consumption of almost anything is unhealthy. Don't sweat it. Eat and drink what you want in moderation, exercise, and you'll be just fine.

[NovaBlue05]

New findings seem to indicate that saliva could raise cancer risk.....but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time.

[JetsetBkk]

New findings seem to indicate that saliva could raise cancer risk.....but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time.

So what's the cancer rate in China?