April 12, 2006

ARE NACHOS A FRUIT OR A VEGETABLE?

Beer may hike lung cancer risk (Tom Blackwell, National Post, April 12th, 2006)

Beer drinking, even if it is relatively moderate, heightens the risk of contracting lung cancer, while imbibing a little wine can have the opposite effect, suggests a striking new Canadian study.

The findings by Montreal-based researchers add to a growing body of literature linking alcohol consumption and cancer, though the reason for that connection is still largely a mystery.

Previous studies had indicated some kind of relationship between alcohol and lung cancer.

But most of that research did not factor in the effect of smoking on the subjects, making the results controversial at best.

In the new Montreal study, the authors took some pains to adjust for the participants' smoking habits and believe they have more accurately depicted the actual impact of alcohol.

"I thought the study was quite provocative and interesting," said Norman Giesbrecht, a senior scientist at Ontario's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health after reading the paper, which was published this month in the journal Cancer Causes and Control.

"There are signals that alcohol is potentially a carcinogen at relatively low levels of consumption, and one does not have to be a fall-down, chronic, dependent drunk to experience some risk," Dr. Giesbrecht said.[...]

In the first study, drinking beer increased the lung cancer risk by 20% for those who downed up to six brews a week, and by 50% for those who drank seven or more, the researchers concluded.

In the second study, beer consumption appeared harmful to men, as well, but not to those who regularly ate fruit and vegetables.

Presumably, according to the thinking that pervades these parts, if this research pans out and receives the ultimate modern theological imprimatur—AMA endorsement—we will have no choice but to conclude beer-drinking is a sin and pathology that no self-respecting third-way puritan nation could possibly tolerate.

Posted by Peter Burnet at April 12, 2006 8:29 PM
Comments

"There are signals that alcohol is potentially a carcinogen at relatively low levels of consumption [...]

So I'd better go for higher levels of consumption?

Posted by: Matt Murphy at April 12, 2006 8:38 PM

Matt:

Even better. ...one does not have to be a fall-down, chronic, dependent drunk to experience some risk," Dr. Giesbrecht said.

So, why worry?

Posted by: Peter B at April 12, 2006 9:00 PM

I guess I experience some risk :) Still off the floor, though.

Posted by: jdkelly at April 12, 2006 9:30 PM

That seventh beer is the one that gets you... every time.

Posted by: Pepys at April 12, 2006 9:40 PM

Pepys - Good thing they only sell 'em in sixes.

Posted by: pj at April 12, 2006 10:22 PM

A study from the French-leaning area of Canada says wine is good and beer will kill you -- this is a surprise?

Posted by: John at April 12, 2006 11:02 PM

New Study shows that 95% of all "Studies" are useless.

Posted by: Bruno at April 13, 2006 12:42 AM

Even if booze didn't cause cancer, it still causes a lot of death, certainly more years lost in life than cigarettes. But it's a vice that Orrin partakes in, so all that doesn't really matter.

Posted by: ted welter at April 13, 2006 7:54 AM

No man is drunk until he can fall down two flights of stairs without injury...or the same flight twice.

Posted by: Mikey at April 13, 2006 8:14 AM

let bacchus reign supreme.

Posted by: toe at April 13, 2006 3:24 PM
« THEN SLATHER WITH BUTTER AND NH MAPLE SYRUP: | Main | SCIENCE IS JUST POLITICS BY OTHER MEANS (via Tom Morin): »