Haha, Youngman, right?
Health Alert
- Thread starter Sheldon
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
Inodoro_Pereyra
Well-Known Member
As a librarian, I disapprove of this statement.
Ouch!. Sorry...
Ouch!. Sorry...
It's all good. I was just having a little fun.
Come to think of it, though, most libraries with a budget will get you great resources online as well, though you usually have to go through their portal, or authenticate via proxy on one of their sites, to gain access. If you have a decent public library in your area, it might be worthwhile to see what kinds of online resources they get you access to. You're paying for it anyway, so, might as well see if it's worth making use of, right?
Inodoro_Pereyra
Well-Known Member
I'm in Miami. "Decent" is not allowed here...
Either way, I may check it out in the future. Who knows? I might even find something useful...
Either way, I may check it out in the future. Who knows? I might even find something useful...
redcoat_or_rebel
Well-Known Member
redcoat_or_rebel
Well-Known Member
As a librarian, I disapprove of this statement.
But do you know what you don't know? You're quick to assert your complete certainty about your own views (re: what causes cancer) and even quicker to discount the arguments of others with skeptical reasoning. This sword is double edged, and you can't have it both ways.
I'm not actually arguing for any viewpoint here beyond a roughly agnostic one. That is, there just isn't enough evidence to prove a meaningful link in most cases. There is also a different threshold of proof needed in different cases. The kind of evidence needed for a scientist to prove to his peers that a causative link exists between X and a statistically meaningful increase in cancer rates is very different from the amount of evidence required to convince a mostly rational layman that he ought to, say, cut down on his drinking if he wants to avoid a significantly higher risk of cancer. It all comes down to how you phrase the question.
What I was trying to say is earlier is that you are indeed trying to convince people of a lot of things here (causes of cancer, limits of scientific knowledge, etc.). You're also providing very little evidence, and getting defensive, when people criticize the views you put forth. You're then arguing for viewpoints that undermine the very evidence you gave in the first place (hence, getting defensive). I'm all for a healthy debate, but I'd like it to be a well reasoned one.
I'm also all for getting this ship turned around to the original path again, but that may have run its course. There's just not enough evidence for the whole beer/stomach cancer link to generate any real worry for the moderate drinkers here.
I wouldn't classify my responses as defensive just because I don't agree with the mainline view of the validity of scientific studies/journals. If you re-read my posts i was pointing out that ample evidence is available beside the links I posted, it is obvious that those studies are not irrefutable proof of carcinogens. Heck some are just the abstracts.
To date no one has posted any evidence to contradict those links, other than the token "the science isnt sound" , how statistics work etc.
I am well aware of the gaps in my knowledge. When I say "I know what I know" it is because I am not going to post hours of research on various subjects that led me to my conclusion on a forum. everyone here is intelligent enough to do their own investigating. I think this is what you see as "defensive" - I definitely take issue with people claiming one view point is wrong because they view generally accepted science as almost infallable while really only looking surface deep.
again no one pointed to any studies (i know they exist) that say those things do not cause cancer. but who funded those studies? what type of studies have they done in the past? what type of studies have the funders funded in the past? what areas are the old studies being used for currently and by whom? who published the study? what have they published in the past? what have they refused to publish in the past?
i brought this up in another thread but "global warming" is the best current example - all the science is completly fraudulent and the top scientists involved actively hid and distorted the data and models to get the results they wanted. but you know, the science looks sound. *The enviornmental scare: 1970's-80's - new ice age coming. 80's-90's CFC's and ozone depleting. 90's-2000 - Global Warming. 2000-2010 Climate change.
Inodoro_Pereyra
Well-Known Member
Thank you.
Hmmm...I have no words to explain what an enormous effort it is to me not to reply to this last statement...
redcoat_or_rebel
Well-Known Member
Inodoro_Pereyra
Well-Known Member
haha not even in Spanish?!?!
Not even in Spanish.
If you had made that comment on another forum I was a member of, until a couple of years ago, you'd be the center of a flame war right now.
Fair enough as a reply in general. If I misunderstood your stance as defensive before, and falsely attributed that to you, I apologize. As to the above quote, there aren't really any such things. There are studies that fail to find a correlation, but that's not the same thing by a long shot. Proving a negative is, depending upon what field you're talking about, difficult to impossible.
I have no doubt that exposure to all of the things mentioned would pose a general health risk, but the questions then become how much exposure leads to what increase in risk, and for whom? I sure don't have the answers to all of these, but I'm not going to start wearing gas masks everywhere I go or something equally mad every time some dude, in a web publication, starts beating the doom drums. Am I wrong, or a bit daft? Perhaps. I'll be the first to admit I don't have a particularly sophisticated mind nor a great grasp of epidemiology. I suppose, for better or worse, if such things really had a tremendous health risk for us all, I have the gut feeling that there would be a greater preponderance of evidence. If I'm totally off on this, then this is a truth the majority of even the best scientific minds have been unable to put together in large consensus, and I can't very well feel bad for not changing my actions for the better in its light.
Oh, and I'm not touching the global warming/climate change thing either. They're the same, by the way. One is just a more general term than the other. That's all I'll say.
cklages
Well-Known Member
Oh come on, can't we drag this to the debate forum? Or is there already a thread on this there already....
Here's something else scary. Anyone heard of this? Testicular atrophy?
http://correct-weight-loss.net/2009...lity-and-how-it-affects-your-body-definition/
I was thinking though, in women it should be great! Superfeminised beer swilling gurls!
http://correct-weight-loss.net/2009...lity-and-how-it-affects-your-body-definition/
I was thinking though, in women it should be great! Superfeminised beer swilling gurls!
I've heard some of the compounds in hops have estrogenic properties, as well. I haven't taken the time to verify that, though, nor to find out how strong an effect they have on men, if so. I guess if you want your girlfriend/wife to grow larger breasts, you could always try to get them hooked on IPAs! But, more than likely, the caloric content would make its ugly self shown before the hop estrogens would.
Pick
Well-Known Member
Is this why many men who drink excessive amounts of beer, look pregnant?
cklages
Well-Known Member
Is this why many men who drink excessive amounts of beer, look pregnant?
There was actually a study on this as well....
