If it has your name on it tough.
1 Like
A lot of animals get cancer too, and as far as I know they don’t drink. I do believe that alcohol in excess or any addiction is bad for our health. We are always told not to do this or that. But, we are never told that is good to take pleasure in life, have a good laugh etc etc
5 Likes
No John - it is a risk factor not an absolute - a sliding scale; more alcohol = more risk but the baseline is not no alcohol = no risk.
You are aware that non smokers get lung cancer?
2 Likes
Yes very aware, now smoking is, outside of France at least in decline, it will be interesting to see if the incidence of passive smoking lung cancer reduces. Likewise with the demise of the diesel and also petrol cars. Meanwhile the search for the real switch for cancer will continue. As I said lowering alcohol intake has to help with general health but the cancer link?
John, I actually said ‘increases the risk of cancer’ not ‘causes cancer’, big difference.
OK, it’s rather a sweeping statement, but in my view… everything we put into our bodies… that is not natural…increases the risk of cancer.
So many foodstuffs/drinks have additives etc etc… yes, it’s the old, old story… but still pertinent. 
And… cigarettes of all kinds… put stuff into the lungs… 
All in all… we are expecting a great deal from our bodies… when we bombard them with such a wide variety of “naughties”…
And often its down to genetics, the “bad luck”…
Yes, indeed…
Moderation in all things… cross your fingers… and enjoy life…
3 Likes
The reason why cancer is such a bugger to sort out is there is not one type of cancer nor one cause. It’s a mega mix of genetics, causative factors etc. My mum, her brother and a first cousin all had lung cancer and all smoked. If ever I was tempted to try cigarettes that alone would put me off
3 Likes
In some cases, especially for women’s breast cancer yes, eg Angelina. Personally mine, I believe was because of a injury site. The pros don’t take that on board but big coincidence it was right on the point of the injury, I haven’t a gene pre disposition to cancer, don’t smoke, drink little am if anything under weight and very physically active, under the usual age for such a thing. About as far away from a usual sufferer as you could get.
1 Like
Tim, I am not being a pedant, but about the only proven thing is high alcohol intake can reduce recovery from just about any ailment.
It takes a brave person to stick their head up and admit it, far easier to go with the industry. Maybe when they make professor they can actually begin to speak.
Same with me and the pool industry, I and some others do things differently, saving time and money and based on actual chemistry, actual science. The industry trots out the same incorrect information to keep sales of unnecessary goods high. They are richer, in a world where rich is right …
1 Like
I hate it when people say ‘I am not being… but’. Consuming any sort of poison comes with a risk, it’s just common sense. Will leave it at that.
Yep not discussing things is a great help. There is a great long list of poisons we injest, all around the world cancer occurs apart from one tiny part of India which has zero recorded incidence apparently. An area of great interest to the pros studying it.
2 Likes
It is difficult to prove this type of link categorically - and never for an individual. Some people smoke and never get lung cancer, some people drink and do not get bowel cancer.
The research is statistical and hard to follow unless you are a cancer statistician but here is a 2015 paper on the subject - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4509170
This paper looked at the link between alcohol and bowel cancer, it is what is described as a meta-analysis - that is it takes, as its source data, other studies and pools them to try to tease out links over a larger population base.
The bottom line is that, overall drinkers are 13% more likely to get bowel cancer than non-drinkers. The risk was higher the more you drink so that for people who drink 1 unit per day the increase is 3% (and not statistically significant - i.e could be due to chance factors). For those who drink 2.5units/day the increase is 8%, for 5 units a day 14% and for 10 units per day 43%.
This is reliable science on the subject.
Put into figures - bowel cancer incidence is about 70 cases per 100,000 overall so a population of 100,000 moderate drinkers (2.5 units per day or just over the current UK recommended “safe” level) would have about 6 extra bowel cancers (compared with the same sized population of non drinkers) based on this data.
2 Likes
I think both drinking and smoking are the “easy targets” along with diet…the only thing I see wrong with a packet of 20 fags is the cost…extortionate…! In the U.K the cost increased and when asking for a pack of 20 it wasn’t uncommon to find that there were only 18 and sometimes 17…,
Jesting aside I think the causitive link to cancer will be found in vaccines and organophosphates/pesticides/herbicides sprayed on crops…and maybe also implemented will be the enormous amount of antibiotics and vaccines and species inappropriate feed associated with intensive farming…???
1 Like
Now that has got me wondering… a packet of 20 cigarettes only containing 17 or 18… ???
Who was nicking the ciggies??? and how did they do that without taking the cellophane off ??
4 Likes
Standard “pack shrinks, price stays the same” fare.
1 Like
Aha… so it wasn’t a packet of 20… it was a packet of ??? or whatever…
2 Likes
…and there was me thinking it was a Government initiative to reduce people’s dependence 
2 Likes