Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WHO says processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 106 posts

Re: WHO says processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes

#51

Post by rnovak »

federico3 wrote: post #33
zeveb wrote: post #27

And wood smoke is more carcinogenic than tobacco smoke. So what? I don't want to live in a world without bacon, sausages, roast beef, pipes and cigars! The fundamental fallacy is the idea that tobacco is so dangerous that it, and anything comparably dangerous, must be banned. Tobacco's dangerous. Cigarettes are a really bad idea. Eating meat for breakfast, lunch and dinner is a pretty bad idea. Don't do that so much.…

> The fundamental fallacy is the idea that tobacco is so dangerous that it, and anything comparably dangerous, must be banned. Please name a country where selling or buying cigarettes is not legal. > But you, I and everyone else on earth will die sometime, of something: whether it's cancer, congestive heart failure or something else entirely, we all die. Strawman. By that logic we would not use safety belts or cars.

>Please name a country where selling or buying cigarettes is not legal.

There ya go[1]. It would have taken you 5 seconds to google this. The Country is Bhutan.

https://www.google.com/search?q=country+cigarettes+illegal&o...

> Strawman. By that logic we would not use safety belts or cars.

No, it's really not. Are you trying to say that we won't all die at some point?

That's also the argument a lot of people give for having dangerous hobbies, so it's not a strawman in the least.

Re: WHO says processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes

#52

Post by andy_ppp »

myth_buster wrote: post #37
pilsetnieks wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's the Guardian's fault. The BBC article ( http://www.bbc.com/news/health-34620617 ) does mention some numbers: > Is meat as bad as smoking? > No. > Estimates suggest 34,000 deaths from cancer every year could be down to diets high in processed meat. > That is in contrast to one million deaths from cancer caused by smoking and 600,000 attributed to alcohol each year.

600,000 attributed to alcohol each year. That number is a bit misleading. Does that include the deaths say due to DUI,, liver damage, poisoning? It ideally shouldn't as we are discussing carcinogens. Edit: Added additional alcohol related deaths.

There are only about 30000 fatalities from all car driving per year.

Re: WHO says processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes

#53

Post by mazatta »

INTPnerd wrote: post #35
GordonS wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But surely not all processed meat uses nitrates?

Correct, but most of them do use it as a preservative. I agree the article should address this instead of just saying processed meats are bad. Also, high quality vitamin C can block the nitrosamine formation if you consume it with your processed meat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxWRxtS_cGI http://store.naturalnews.com/NanoNutra-Liposomal-Vitamin-C-1... http://store.naturalnews.com/Optimal-Liposomal-Vitamin-C--5-…

This might not necessarily refute your argument, but I wouldn't rely on Natural News as a source. They're a known source of pseudoscientific drivel.

Re: WHO says processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes

#54

Post by howlin »

monochromatic wrote: post #39

Ok, so "processed" meats are bad... but what's the "processing" that makes them bad?

It's from nitrate curing. Ham, bacon, mamy sausages, and most lunch meats go through this process. Sometimes the chemical is added directly via saltpeter, and sometimes indirectly via stuff like celery juice.

Re: WHO says processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes

#55

Post by omegant »

zeveb wrote: post #27

And wood smoke is more carcinogenic than tobacco smoke. So what? I don't want to live in a world without bacon, sausages, roast beef, pipes and cigars! The fundamental fallacy is the idea that tobacco is so dangerous that it, and anything comparably dangerous, must be banned. Tobacco's dangerous. Cigarettes are a really bad idea. Eating meat for breakfast, lunch and dinner is a pretty bad idea. Don't do that so much.…

Regarding that part of "everyone else on earth will die sometime, of something", is there an ideal death graph that we aim to? I mean, do we know were are we trying to go?.

Just a curiosity, but it will be interesting if somebody is modeling such an "ideal death statistics" (like 0 car accidents, 0 cancer, 0 murders, 80% age related heart failure, etc...).

Re: WHO says processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes

#56

Post by mikepurvis »

federico3 wrote: post #33
zeveb wrote: post #27

And wood smoke is more carcinogenic than tobacco smoke. So what? I don't want to live in a world without bacon, sausages, roast beef, pipes and cigars! The fundamental fallacy is the idea that tobacco is so dangerous that it, and anything comparably dangerous, must be banned. Tobacco's dangerous. Cigarettes are a really bad idea. Eating meat for breakfast, lunch and dinner is a pretty bad idea. Don't do that so much.…

> The fundamental fallacy is the idea that tobacco is so dangerous that it, and anything comparably dangerous, must be banned. Please name a country where selling or buying cigarettes is not legal. > But you, I and everyone else on earth will die sometime, of something: whether it's cancer, congestive heart failure or something else entirely, we all die. Strawman. By that logic we would not use safety belts or cars.

Really, we shouldn't use cars nearly so much as we do. But if we must, then the very modest inconvenience of having to wear a seatbelt is well worth the improvement in outcome should a crash occur.

That said, there's still plenty of controversy about all the laws around graduated carseats for children—that the carseat industry seems much more interested in emotional appeals than hard data is an obvious red flag.

Re: WHO says processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes

#57

Post by Turing_Machine »

josho wrote: post #30
mathgeek wrote: post #14

Anyone have a good source for articles that eschew the political commentary in favor of just presenting the study findings in a concise summary? Does anyone actually care that the global lobbyists for meat don't agree that meat is a carcinogen (or that any lobbyists against meat would care that it is)?

This is the plight of today's journalism. Students are taught to find both sides of the issue and treat them equally, despite the fact that one side has a clear conflict of interest.

All sides in such arguments usually have a conflict of interest. The meat lobby is after money. The "regulate everything" crowd is after power.

Re: WHO says processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes

#58

Post by AlexeyBrin »

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #36
bluedino wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nitrates used to preserve the meat. Although, your risk is elevated only a tiny fraction compared to say, smoking cigarettes.

Nope. The nitrates themselves aren't the issue. It's the cooking that's the issue because the nitrates convert to nitrosomenes under high heat. If nitrates were the issue, then we should stop eating celery because that's where the nitrates in processed meats come from, celery juice.

I'm pretty sure the concentration of nitrates is way smaller in a raw celery (as in taken from your garden) than what they actually put on meat.

Re: WHO says processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes

#59

Post by pilsetnieks »

myth_buster wrote: post #37
pilsetnieks wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's the Guardian's fault. The BBC article ( http://www.bbc.com/news/health-34620617 ) does mention some numbers: > Is meat as bad as smoking? > No. > Estimates suggest 34,000 deaths from cancer every year could be down to diets high in processed meat. > That is in contrast to one million deaths from cancer caused by smoking and 600,000 attributed to alcohol each year.

600,000 attributed to alcohol each year. That number is a bit misleading. Does that include the deaths say due to DUI,, liver damage, poisoning? It ideally shouldn't as we are discussing carcinogens. Edit: Added additional alcohol related deaths.

From the context it seems that it's just about cancer cases but it is very vague and could mean anything.
Post reply on HN