lol…there was a time when 20 cigarettes meant 20 cigarettes and asking the cashier for a pack of 20 meant just that…but then there were 18 and often 17…
When I first got here I was surprised that 20 still meant 20…x 
1 Like
- vaccines - unlikely
- organophosphates/pesticides/herbicides - probably but way more of a risk for agricultural workers.
- antibiotics and vaccines and species inappropriate feed associated with intensive farming - probably not
I know how much you love vaccination Helen but there’s no evidence that they are running around causing cancer.
4 Likes
I’m trying to remember… . I had a job after school… and I think we sold cigarettes in 3’s, we certainly sold tobacco loose… I loved weighing it out… 
(and before anyone mentions it… yes, I was only 11 and not legally allowed to serve in the shop… but I wanted/needed the pocket money)
3 Likes
I’ve mentioned my Scottish great aunt several times who died at 103 having never been in hospital till her last year on earth…She smoked until she was in her 70s…I remember both her and my gran talking about woodbines…???
I’m trying to remember the brand they both smoked after that…they would no doubt have remembered the weighing out of tobacco…would love to be able to have a chat with them now…love all the memories of yesteryear/yesterday…
Sold fags in ones in the wee shop near our school.
I remember the wee fags, after Woodies, the name will come to me,
about 3a.m. 
1 Like
Beautifully put, however it’s statistical analysis if that is a science?
They do explain in the article how the alcohol can cause damage to cell DNA and hint at the damage being slower to recuperate. All in all an interesting read. I would like to spend more time examining the information sources, especially in those that are moderate to heavy drinkers. The reason for looking closely at that group is as stated early on in the report because there are other factors besides alcohol playing a part? It is data going back some time when drinking was heavier than today and many people would frequent bars etc rather than drinking at home and those people may well have smoked and had generally un healthy lifestyles. A clean study of non, through to heavy drinkers may happen now a lot of people have quit smoking, however processed foods with sodium nitrite etc preservatives are on an increase. (why is that compound still used in our food?)
If we go back several centuries, water sources were often too polluted to drink, The fermentation process cleaned up the liquid to allow safe consumption. If the reports data was extrapolated on the basis that 80% of all liquid drunk was alcohol the incidents of cancer would be far far greater? Or did previous generations of drinkers cause DNA mutations through too much alcohol and the results are now proving this?
1 Like
You are correct that these cohort studies can be subject to bias - generally the populations are matched for everything except the item of interest but, yes, something that goes along with alcohol could be the real culprit.
But I wonder why you are so keen to defend alcohol?
If I recall it is excellent at preserving food including preventing growth of Clostridium botulinum (as well as other nasties). If you want to go back to the days where tinned food could kill you that is fine but I will take mine with the preservatives, thanks 
Hi Paul, no interest in defending alcohol, but it’s lazy science to just jump on board with blame without real, quantifiable links.
Nitrites, can be replaced now with better alternatives although to date I have yet to find the items on sale. However with the huge cost both in financial terms and families ripped apart by this terrible ailment the WHO and governments should, if they really have our interests at heart put the nitrites on notice of withdrawal.
1 Like
Right with you there Mark. Cheers
1 Like