Three drinks a day ups breast cancer risk

Michael Kahn, "Three drinks a day ups breast cancer risk", Reuters UK,
September 27, 2007,
Link: http://uk.reuters.com/article/health...74615520070927

Three or more drinks a day, whether beer, wine or spirits, boost a
woman's risk of breast cancer as much as smoking a pack of cigarettes,
U.S. researchers said on Thursday.

The relationship between alcohol and breast cancer is known but there
has been little data on whether the choice of drink made a difference,
they told a European Cancer Conference.

In what the researchers said was one of the largest studies to
investigate links between breast cancer and alcohol -- found that
alcohol itself and the amount a person consumed were key rather than
the type of drink.

"Studies have consistently linked drinking alcohol to an increased
risk of female breast cancer, but until now there has been little
data, most of it conflicting, about an independent role played by the
choice of beverage type," Arthur Klatsky of Kaiser Permanente in
California and one of the researchers said.

Breast cancer is the second most common cancer killer of women, after
lung cancer. It will be diagnosed in 1.2 million people globally this
year and will kill 500,000.

Other studies have shown that light- to moderate alcohol use can
protect against heart attacks, though Klatsky said other mechanisms
were probably at work.

The heart protection likely comes from alcohol-induced "good"
cholesterol, reduced blood clotting and decreased diabetes risk. But
for breast cancer, the ethyl alcohol found in all booze likely ups the
risk, the researchers said.

The researchers looked at the drinking habits of more than 70,000
women from a variety of ethnic backgrounds who supplied information
during health examinations between 1978 and 1985. By 2004, nearly
3,000 of the women were diagnosed with breast cancer.

Among women who drank, the team examined a preference for a type of
alcohol and how much of each drink people consumed. They also compared
the total amount consumed and compared it to women who drank less than
one drink a day.

Women who drank between one and two alcoholic drinks per day increased
their risk of breast cancer by 10 percent compared with people who
consumed less than one drink each day, the study found. The risk of
breast cancer jumped by 30 percent in women who drank more than three
drinks a day.

The results were also similar in different age and ethnic groups, the
researchers said.

"Roman Bystrianyk" <rbystrianyk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190923848.220376.41490@57g2000hsv.googlegrou ps.com...
> Michael Kahn, "Three drinks a day ups breast cancer risk", Reuters UK,
> September 27, 2007,


Repeat after me............
"Correlation does not imply causation...."
"Correlation does not imply causation...."
"Correlation does not imply causation...."
"Correlation does not imply causation...."
"Correlation does not imply causation...."
"Correlation does not imply causation...."
"Correlation does not imply causation...."
"Correlation does not imply causation...."
"Correlation does not imply causation...."


Now go home and have a nice glass of your favourite tipple.

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:10:48 -0700, Roman Bystrianyk
<rbystrianyk@gmail.com> wrote:

>Michael Kahn, "Three drinks a day ups breast cancer risk", Reuters UK,
>September 27, 2007,
>Link: http://uk.reuters.com/article/health...74615520070927
>
>Three or more drinks a day, whether beer, wine or spirits, boost a
>woman's risk of breast cancer as much as smoking a pack of cigarettes,
>U.S. researchers said on Thursday.
>
>The relationship between alcohol and breast cancer is known but there
>has been little data on whether the choice of drink made a difference,
>they told a European Cancer Conference.
>
>In what the researchers said was one of the largest studies to
>investigate links between breast cancer and alcohol -- found that
>alcohol itself and the amount a person consumed were key rather than
>the type of drink.
>
>"Studies have consistently linked drinking alcohol to an increased
>risk of female breast cancer, but until now there has been little
>data, most of it conflicting, about an independent role played by the
>choice of beverage type," Arthur Klatsky of Kaiser Permanente in
>California and one of the researchers said.
>
>Breast cancer is the second most common cancer killer of women, after
>lung cancer. It will be diagnosed in 1.2 million people globally this
>year and will kill 500,000.
>
>Other studies have shown that light- to moderate alcohol use can
>protect against heart attacks, though Klatsky said other mechanisms
>were probably at work.
>
>The heart protection likely comes from alcohol-induced "good"
>cholesterol, reduced blood clotting and decreased diabetes risk. But
>for breast cancer, the ethyl alcohol found in all booze likely ups the
>risk, the researchers said.
>
>The researchers looked at the drinking habits of more than 70,000
>women from a variety of ethnic backgrounds who supplied information
>during health examinations between 1978 and 1985. By 2004, nearly
>3,000 of the women were diagnosed with breast cancer.
>
>Among women who drank, the team examined a preference for a type of
>alcohol and how much of each drink people consumed. They also compared
>the total amount consumed and compared it to women who drank less than
>one drink a day.
>
>Women who drank between one and two alcoholic drinks per day increased
>their risk of breast cancer by 10 percent compared with people who
>consumed less than one drink each day, the study found. The risk of
>breast cancer jumped by 30 percent in women who drank more than three
>drinks a day.
>
>The results were also similar in different age and ethnic groups, the
>researchers said.


Read some more at "European Journal of Public Health," 2007 at

http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/cgi...urcetype=HWCIT
look to the right side and "view responses"

On Sep 27, 10:00 pm, "Steph" <st...@vancouvers.island> wrote:
> "Roman Bystrianyk" <rbystria...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1190923848.220376.41490@57g2000hsv.googlegrou ps.com...
>
> > Michael Kahn, "Three drinks a day ups breast cancer risk", Reuters UK,
> > September 27, 2007,
>
> Repeat after me............
> "Correlation does not imply causation...."
> "Correlation does not imply causation...."
> "Correlation does not imply causation...."
> "Correlation does not imply causation...."
> "Correlation does not imply causation...."
> "Correlation does not imply causation...."
> "Correlation does not imply causation...."
> "Correlation does not imply causation...."
> "Correlation does not imply causation...."
>
> Now go home and have a nice glass of your favourite tipple.

Perhaps this will be of some help. Enjoy your day!

Roman

"Drinking 'fuels growth of tumour'", BBC News, May 1, 2007,
Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6611009.stm

Drinking just two alcoholic drinks a day when you have breast cancer
fuels the growth of tumours, a study says.

It has long-been known alcohol increases the risk of developing cancer
but the effect of drinking once cancer is present is less established.

A University of Mississippi team found giving mice the equivalent of
two to four drinks a day doubled the normal growth of a tumour after
four weeks.

Cancer patients are often just told to moderate drinking.

In the study, researchers gave female mice the human equivalent of two
drinks a day for four weeks, while a control group were given no
alcohol.

The mice were then injected with breast cancer cells.

Within four weeks, the tumours in the alcohol-fed mice weighed 1.4g on
average, almost twice the size of tumours in the control group.

The team, which presented the research to the American Physiology
Society, said alcohol caused cancer cells' blood vessels to grow which
in turn fuelled the growth of the tumour.

The mouse study builds on an earlier research with chicks that showed
alcohol consumption increased the expression of a protein known as
VEGF.

VEGF fuels tumour growth by spurring the development of blood vessels
in cancer cells that might otherwise die.

Normally, the immune system can kill off small tumours. However, when
they grow large enough the body can no longer fight off the tumour
cells.

Tumours

Lead researcher Jian-Wei Gu said: "The vast majority of tumours result
from over expressed VEGF.

"Every day, we produce a lot of cancer cells, but they don't become
bigger.

"But if the cells establish blood vessels, the tumour grows and
strengthens, a process known as angiogenesis."

And he added he would advise patients not to drink if they were
undergoing cancer treatment.

"I don't think two to four drinks per day is okay.

"The public needs to know of these results."

Ed Yong, Cancer Research UK's science information officer, said: "The
link between alcohol and breast cancer, and many other cancers for
that matter, is well known.

"But this is the first time I have heard of the impact of alcohol once
cancer is there."

He said more research was needed to see if the findings were
replicated in adults and whether it also applied to other cancers.

"Roman Bystrianyk" <rbystrianyk@gmail.com> wrote in message


> It has long-been known alcohol increases the risk of developing cancer
> but the effect of drinking once cancer is present is less established.

Oh goody, come on everyone, raise your glasses to that :-)
>

"Roman Bystrianyk" <rbystrianyk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190985725.055557.260660@n39g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
> On Sep 27, 10:00 pm, "Steph" <st...@vancouvers.island> wrote:
> > "Roman Bystrianyk" <rbystria...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1190923848.220376.41490@57g2000hsv.googlegrou ps.com...
> >
> > > Michael Kahn, "Three drinks a day ups breast cancer risk", Reuters UK,
> > > September 27, 2007,
> >
> > Repeat after me............
> > "Correlation does not imply causation...."
> > "Correlation does not imply causation...."
> > "Correlation does not imply causation...."
> > "Correlation does not imply causation...."
> > "Correlation does not imply causation...."
> > "Correlation does not imply causation...."
> > "Correlation does not imply causation...."
> > "Correlation does not imply causation...."
> > "Correlation does not imply causation...."
> >
> > Now go home and have a nice glass of your favourite tipple.
>
> Perhaps this will be of some help. Enjoy your day!
>
> Roman
>
> "Drinking 'fuels growth of tumour'", BBC News, May 1, 2007,
> Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6611009.stm
>
> Drinking just two alcoholic drinks a day when you have breast cancer
> fuels the growth of tumours, a study says.
<snip>
-----------------------
I drink just two alcoholic drinks a *year*, on average. I still got breast
cancer.

No one in my family ever had breast cancer before. I still got breast
cancer.

I'm not overweight. I still got breast cancer.

I had my first child in my 20s. I still got breast cancer.

I did not take birth control pills or HRT. I still got breast cancer.

I was told by a nurse who ran a support group I attended that 70% of breast
cancer patients had no risk factors. I don't know where she got that
figure, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were true.

Eva

"Roman Bystrianyk" <rbystrianyk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190985725.055557.260660@n39g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
> On Sep 27, 10:00 pm, "Steph" <st...@vancouvers.island> wrote:
>> "Roman Bystrianyk" <rbystria...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1190923848.220376.41490@57g2000hsv.googlegrou ps.com...
>>
>> > Michael Kahn, "Three drinks a day ups breast cancer risk", Reuters UK,
>> > September 27, 2007,
>>
>> Repeat after me............
>> "Correlation does not imply causation...."
>> "Correlation does not imply causation...."
>> "Correlation does not imply causation...."
>> "Correlation does not imply causation...."
>> "Correlation does not imply causation...."
>> "Correlation does not imply causation...."
>> "Correlation does not imply causation...."
>> "Correlation does not imply causation...."
>> "Correlation does not imply causation...."
>>
>> Now go home and have a nice glass of your favourite tipple.
>
> Perhaps this will be of some help. Enjoy your day!
>
> Roman
>
> "Drinking 'fuels growth of tumour'", BBC News, May 1, 2007,
> Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6611009.stm
>


If you think that is some kind of good evidence, I have swampland you might
be interested in......

"Eva" <EvaDStructionNOT@NOTverizon.net> wrote in message
news:txiLi.1900$1d2.132@trndny05...
>

>>
>> "Drinking 'fuels growth of tumour'", BBC News, May 1, 2007,
>> Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6611009.stm

I'm always sceptical of items reported by the BBC. They pick and choose just
like red tops.
>>
>> Drinking just two alcoholic drinks a day when you have breast cancer
>> fuels the growth of tumours, a study says.
> <snip>
> -----------------------
> I drink just two alcoholic drinks a *year*, on average. I still got
> breast
> cancer.

I dring three glasses of wine a day.
>
> No one in my family ever had breast cancer before. I still got breast
> cancer.

Same here.
>
> I'm not overweight. I still got breast cancer.

I wasn't overweight when I was diagnosed.
>
> I had my first child in my 20s. I still got breast cancer.

I was 21 for the first and 29 when I had the fifth, all were breast fed for
a long time.
>
> I did not take birth control pills or HRT. I still got breast cancer.

Same here.
>
> I was told by a nurse who ran a support group I attended that 70% of
> breast
> cancer patients had no risk factors. I don't know where she got that
> figure, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were true.

I haven't heard that but it seems to me to be as likely to be true as what
the BBC reported.

Mary
>
> Eva
>
>

"Steph" <steph@vancouvers.island> wrote in message
news:90jLi.253468$fJ5.54455@pd7urf1no...
>
>>
>> "Drinking 'fuels growth of tumour'", BBC News, May 1, 2007,
>> Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6611009.stm
>>
>
>
> If you think that is some kind of good evidence, I have swampland you
> might be interested in......

LOL! I don't understand that (would like to) but it sounds appropriate :-)

Mary
>
>

Mary Fisher wrote:
> "Steph" <steph@vancouvers.island> wrote in message
> news:90jLi.253468$fJ5.54455@pd7urf1no...
>>> "Drinking 'fuels growth of tumour'", BBC News, May 1, 2007,
>>> Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6611009.stm
>>>
>>
>> If you think that is some kind of good evidence, I have swampland you
>> might be interested in......
>
> LOL! I don't understand that (would like to) but it sounds appropriate :-)
>
> Mary
>>
>
>
Well it's like this Mary.

We are presented with two articles, one assert that the effect of
alcohol on cancer risk is irrespective of the way the alcohol is
consumed (beer, wine, spirit etc), and the other that moderate alcohol
intake in mice with cancer significantly accelerates tumour growth.

I haven't read the original articles so I don't know how sound these
conclusions are, but neither warrants the subject headline: that
assertion is only referred to as "known" in the first article.

Steph's observation is that a correlation found between two phenomena
does not mean that one causes the other (for example they may have a
common cause elsewhere). I presume he is referring to the headline
assertion: the mouse study clearly demonstrated causality in what it
described.

His final remark is along the lines of "there's one born every minute",
suggesting that anyone who jumps to conclusions on such slender evidence
is very gullible and might be expected to pay a handsome price for some
useless land in the middle of a swamp.

Tim Jackson

So, would you find more breast cancer in groups that drink more - for
example, according to popular thought, the French and Italians drink wine,
and Polish drink vodka, even the women. Do these groups have higher
incidences of breast cancer?

"James Michael Howard" <jmhoward@anthropogeny.com> wrote in message
news:b3vpf3pse197n3j767fo97q04kan2an79h@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:10:48 -0700, Roman Bystrianyk
> <rbystrianyk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Michael Kahn, "Three drinks a day ups breast cancer risk", Reuters UK,
>>September 27, 2007,
>>Link: http://uk.reuters.com/article/health...74615520070927
>>
>>Three or more drinks a day, whether beer, wine or spirits, boost a
>>woman's risk of breast cancer as much as smoking a pack of cigarettes,
>>U.S. researchers said on Thursday.
>>
>>The relationship between alcohol and breast cancer is known but there
>>has been little data on whether the choice of drink made a difference,
>>they told a European Cancer Conference.
>>
>>In what the researchers said was one of the largest studies to
>>investigate links between breast cancer and alcohol -- found that
>>alcohol itself and the amount a person consumed were key rather than
>>the type of drink.
>>
>>"Studies have consistently linked drinking alcohol to an increased
>>risk of female breast cancer, but until now there has been little
>>data, most of it conflicting, about an independent role played by the
>>choice of beverage type," Arthur Klatsky of Kaiser Permanente in
>>California and one of the researchers said.
>>
>>Breast cancer is the second most common cancer killer of women, after
>>lung cancer. It will be diagnosed in 1.2 million people globally this
>>year and will kill 500,000.
>>
>>Other studies have shown that light- to moderate alcohol use can
>>protect against heart attacks, though Klatsky said other mechanisms
>>were probably at work.
>>
>>The heart protection likely comes from alcohol-induced "good"
>>cholesterol, reduced blood clotting and decreased diabetes risk. But
>>for breast cancer, the ethyl alcohol found in all booze likely ups the
>>risk, the researchers said.
>>
>>The researchers looked at the drinking habits of more than 70,000
>>women from a variety of ethnic backgrounds who supplied information
>>during health examinations between 1978 and 1985. By 2004, nearly
>>3,000 of the women were diagnosed with breast cancer.
>>
>>Among women who drank, the team examined a preference for a type of
>>alcohol and how much of each drink people consumed. They also compared
>>the total amount consumed and compared it to women who drank less than
>>one drink a day.
>>
>>Women who drank between one and two alcoholic drinks per day increased
>>their risk of breast cancer by 10 percent compared with people who
>>consumed less than one drink each day, the study found. The risk of
>>breast cancer jumped by 30 percent in women who drank more than three
>>drinks a day.
>>
>>The results were also similar in different age and ethnic groups, the
>>researchers said.
>
>
> Read some more at "European Journal of Public Health," 2007 at
>
> http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/cgi...urcetype=HWCIT
> look to the right side and "view responses"

"Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:46fe13e8$0$760$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet.ne t...
>
> "Eva" <EvaDStructionNOT@NOTverizon.net> wrote in message
> news:txiLi.1900$1d2.132@trndny05...
> >
>
> >>
> >> "Drinking 'fuels growth of tumour'", BBC News, May 1, 2007,
> >> Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6611009.stm
>
> I'm always sceptical of items reported by the BBC. They pick and choose
just
> like red tops.
---------------
Okay....what are red tops?

Eva

"Tim Jackson" <tim@tim-jackson.co.uk> wrote in message
news:13fsj34j0q2ea64@corp.supernews.com...
> Mary Fisher wrote:
>> "Steph" <steph@vancouvers.island> wrote in message
>> news:90jLi.253468$fJ5.54455@pd7urf1no...
>>>> "Drinking 'fuels growth of tumour'", BBC News, May 1, 2007,
>>>> Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6611009.stm
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you think that is some kind of good evidence, I have swampland you
>>> might be interested in......
>>
>> LOL! I don't understand that (would like to) but it sounds appropriate
>> :-)
>>
>> Mary
>>>
>>
>>
> Well it's like this Mary.
>
> We are presented with two articles, one assert that the effect of alcohol
> on cancer risk is irrespective of the way the alcohol is consumed (beer,
> wine, spirit etc), and the other that moderate alcohol intake in mice with
> cancer significantly accelerates tumour growth.
>
> I haven't read the original articles so I don't know how sound these
> conclusions are, but neither warrants the subject headline: that assertion
> is only referred to as "known" in the first article.
>
> Steph's observation is that a correlation found between two phenomena does
> not mean that one causes the other (for example they may have a common
> cause elsewhere).

But the analysis does not negate the possibility of cause either - it simply
is not designed to determine cause.
I think encouraging women to ignore these data is irresponsible. The data
suggest that further study could determine that for a certain proportion of
women, alcohol may increase the chance of developing breast cancer.

Since the causes of this cancer are complex, the fact that certain
non-drinkers develop it does not negate the possibility that alcohol can
affect others. Since we don't know in which category we may fall, it seems
prudent to be moderate in the use of alcohol.

Alice

Alice wrote:
> "Tim Jackson" <tim@tim-jackson.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:13fsj34j0q2ea64@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> We are presented with two articles, one assert that the effect of alcohol
>> on cancer risk is irrespective of the way the alcohol is consumed (beer,
>> wine, spirit etc), and the other that moderate alcohol intake in mice with
>> cancer significantly accelerates tumour growth.
>>
>> I haven't read the original articles so I don't know how sound these
>> conclusions are, but neither warrants the subject headline: that assertion
>> is only referred to as "known" in the first article.
>>
>> Steph's observation is that a correlation found between two phenomena does
>> not mean that one causes the other (for example they may have a common
>> cause elsewhere).
>
> But the analysis does not negate the possibility of cause either - it simply
> is not designed to determine cause.
> I think encouraging women to ignore these data is irresponsible. The data
> suggest that further study could determine that for a certain proportion of
> women, alcohol may increase the chance of developing breast cancer.
>
> Since the causes of this cancer are complex, the fact that certain
> non-drinkers develop it does not negate the possibility that alcohol can
> affect others. Since we don't know in which category we may fall, it seems
> prudent to be moderate in the use of alcohol.
>

Oh absolutely, I am all in favour of moderation. I rather suspect that
the increased risk of breast cancer is outweighed by other
alcohol-related risks anyway. Personally I am not in favour either of
binge drinking or of sustained background dosing with alcohol. For a
start I can't afford it.

I don't know the magnitude of this risk, and neither of these articles
do anything to enlighten me. Now if some actual numbers were cited
maybe we could make useful decisions or recommendations about possible
alterations in behaviour.

It is equally irresponsible to use results such as this to scare people
into changing their behaviour in ways which may have unexpected
consequences. Neither of these articles contributes (in terms of better
statistics) to our knowledge of the relationship between alcohol
consumption and the risk of contracting cancer, they are both peripheral
to that issue. We are not mice and we are not being injected with cancer
cultures.

I repeat that neither of these articles actually demonstrates that
"Three drinks a day ups breast cancer risk". One shows that three
drinks a day increases the growth rate of existing cancers (in mice).
The other shows that whatever increase in risk occurs with alcohol
consumption is independent of the type of drink.

So the recommendations that might spring from them are
a) If you have cancer, your survival chances may be improved by cutting
alcohol consumption, and
b) Don't switch drinks in the hope of reducing cancer risk.

For non-patients, ignoring the above is basically harmless as (a) does
not affect them and (b) is what most people would expect anyway.

I also repeat that I would of course support a recommendation to keep
alcohol consumption moderate (in healthy people as well as patients) to
gain various health benefits including a reduction in cancer risk, but
point out that that issue is not addressed by these articles.

We do need reliable information on risk factors so that we can balance
our choices in a logical manner. For example I know that crossing the
road increases my risk of being hit by a bus, but I still do it. If we
strove officiously to minimise every risk factor we would still have a
man with a red flag walking in front of every car.

I continue to believe, as suggested elsewhere in this thread, that the
majority of causes of (or risk factors for) breast cancer remain unknown.


Tim

"Eva" <EvaDStructionNOT@NOTverizon.net> wrote in message
news:5DwLi.423$DF2.145@trndny09...
>
> "Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:46fe13e8$0$760$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet.ne t...
>>
>> "Eva" <EvaDStructionNOT@NOTverizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:txiLi.1900$1d2.132@trndny05...
>> >
>>
>> >>
>> >> "Drinking 'fuels growth of tumour'", BBC News, May 1, 2007,
>> >> Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6611009.stm
>>
>> I'm always sceptical of items reported by the BBC. They pick and choose
> just
>> like red tops.
> ---------------
> Okay....what are red tops?

Oh - sorry, it's what Brits call the 'tabloid' newspapers, nowadays I think
even serious papers are printed in that format so we call them red tops to
differentiate between the more reliable 'news' and the sensational stories.
The name of the paper is printed in red, I think.

We don't read any newspapers so I could be wrong - it has been known :-)

Mary
>
> Eva
>
>

"Tim Jackson" <tim@tim-jackson.co.uk> wrote in message
news:13fsj34j0q2ea64@corp.supernews.com...
> Mary Fisher wrote:
>> "Steph" <steph@vancouvers.island> wrote in message
>> news:90jLi.253468$fJ5.54455@pd7urf1no...
>>>> "Drinking 'fuels growth of tumour'", BBC News, May 1, 2007,
>>>> Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6611009.stm
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you think that is some kind of good evidence, I have swampland you
>>> might be interested in......
>>
>> LOL! I don't understand that (would like to) but it sounds appropriate
>> :-)
>>
>> Mary
>>>
>>
>>
> Well it's like this Mary.
>
> We are presented with two articles, one assert that the effect of alcohol
> on cancer risk is irrespective of the way the alcohol is consumed (beer,
> wine, spirit etc), and the other that moderate alcohol intake in mice with
> cancer significantly accelerates tumour growth.
>
> I haven't read the original articles so I don't know how sound these
> conclusions are, but neither warrants the subject headline: that assertion
> is only referred to as "known" in the first article.
>
> Steph's observation is that a correlation found between two phenomena does
> not mean that one causes the other (for example they may have a common
> cause elsewhere). I presume he is referring to the headline assertion: the
> mouse study clearly demonstrated causality in what it described.

I realise all that, but ...
>
> His final remark is along the lines of "there's one born every minute",
> suggesting that anyone who jumps to conclusions on such slender evidence
> is very gullible and might be expected to pay a handsome price for some
> useless land in the middle of a swamp.

.... ah! Thanks, O Fount of All Wisdom :-) I didn't want to mention the sale
of London Bridge ...

Mary

"Tim Jackson" <tim@tim-jackson.co.uk> wrote in message
news:13ftllvaea8dqed@corp.supernews.com...
> Alice wrote:

....

>> I think encouraging women to ignore these data is irresponsible. The
>> data suggest that further study could determine that for a certain
>> proportion of women, alcohol may

'may' is meaningless. I've eaten apples and drunk tea almost all my life and
got bc. I imagine that the same applies to most bc folk. Eating apples and
drinking tea may ...

>> increase the chance of developing breast cancer.
>>
>> Since the causes of this cancer are complex, the fact that certain
>> non-drinkers develop it does not negate the possibility that alcohol can
>> affect others.

Nor vice versa.

>> Since we don't know in which category we may fall, it seems prudent to
>> be moderate in the use of alcohol.

And eating apples and drinking tea.
>>
>
> Oh absolutely, I am all in favour of moderation. I rather suspect that
> the increased risk of breast cancer is outweighed by other alcohol-related
> risks anyway. Personally I am not in favour either of binge drinking or
> of sustained background dosing with alcohol.

Nor am I. I don't binge drink and don't consider my drinking alcohol to be
'dosing' - it's part of the enjoyment of our evening meal. I do know that it
might well have a deleterious effect on my health (other than bc) but that
will be the price I pay for pleasure - I've paid lots of other prices. I've
had too many babies because of lust (the lust continues). I've had broken
limbs and other injuries from cycling (the cycling continues, we've been out
this morning). I kept bees despite having occasional potentially
life-threatening reactions to stings. I gave up after twenty five years
because of arthritis, not stings. The list could continue.

> For a start I can't afford it.

We all choose our own ways of iindulgence :-)
>
> I don't know the magnitude of this risk, and neither of these articles do
> anything to enlighten me. Now if some actual numbers were cited maybe we
> could make useful decisions or recommendations about possible alterations
> in behaviour.

Thanks for that, Tim.
>
> It is equally irresponsible to use results such as this to scare people
> into changing their behaviour in ways which may have unexpected
> consequences.

Hear hear!

....
>
> I repeat that neither of these articles actually demonstrates that "Three
> drinks a day ups breast cancer risk".

....
>
> So the recommendations that might spring from them are
> a) If you have cancer, your survival chances may be improved by cutting
> alcohol consumption, and
> b) Don't switch drinks in the hope of reducing cancer risk.
>
> For non-patients, ignoring the above is basically harmless as (a) does not
> affect them and (b) is what most people would expect anyway.
>
> I also repeat that I would of course support a recommendation to keep
> alcohol consumption moderate (in healthy people as well as patients) to
> gain various health benefits including a reduction in cancer risk,

I agree.

> but point out that that issue is not addressed by these articles.
>
> We do need reliable information on risk factors so that we can balance our
> choices in a logical manner. For example I know that crossing the road
> increases my risk of being hit by a bus, but I still do it. If we strove
> officiously to minimise every risk factor we would still have a man with a
> red flag walking in front of every car.

Indeed. And most of us drive a car despite knowing the risk. When I was
advised to give up beekeeping I said that the most dangerous thing I did
when going to the apiary was gettiing into the car.

>
> I continue to believe, as suggested elsewhere in this thread, that the
> majority of causes of (or risk factors for) breast cancer remain unknown.

Indeed, that's well established.

Wine will continue to be on our evening menu despite being an unproven risk
for bc and we shall continue driving, crossing the road, cycling and doing
all sorts of other things which are proven risks.

As will, I suspect, most others in the group.

Mary


>
>
> Tim

> Since the causes of this cancer are complex, the fact that certain
> non-drinkers develop it does not negate the possibility that alcohol can
> affect others. Since we don't know in which category we may fall, it
> seems prudent to be moderate in the use of alcohol.

Alice, I respectfully disagree. I really don't want to spend the rest of my
life in a panic because some vague research has concluded that maybe
"Fill-in-the-blank" causes breast cancer.

Of course, my opinion is not set in concrete. I'm waiting for the day some
research group announces that broccoli causes cancer - or maybe spinach or
Brussels sprouts. Then I'll definitely pay attention.

S.K.

"SK" <shirleyken@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:EsQLi.17779$ya1.3772@news02.roc.ny...
>> Since the causes of this cancer are complex, the fact that certain
>> non-drinkers develop it does not negate the possibility that alcohol can
>> affect others. Since we don't know in which category we may fall, it
>> seems prudent to be moderate in the use of alcohol.
>
> Alice, I respectfully disagree. I really don't want to spend the rest of
> my life in a panic because some vague research has concluded that maybe
> "Fill-in-the-blank" causes breast cancer.
>
> Of course, my opinion is not set in concrete. I'm waiting for the day
> some research group announces that broccoli causes cancer - or maybe
> spinach or Brussels sprouts. Then I'll definitely pay attention.

I shan't. I LOVE all of them :-)

Red cabbage tonight. With roasted parsnips, potatoes, ultra-fresh runner
beans and Roast Traditional Hereford.

With a rather special Bordeaux :-)

Mary
>
> S.K.
>

"Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:46ffdd82$0$767$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet.ne t...
>

>
> Red cabbage tonight. With roasted parsnips, potatoes, ultra-fresh runner
> beans and Roast Traditional Hereford.
>
> With a rather special Bordeaux :-)

And it was worth every risk :-)

Mary

"R. Fizek" <fizkowie1@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:OhsLi.19713$jC5.8137@trnddc04...
> So, would you find more breast cancer in groups that drink more - for
> example, according to popular thought, the French and Italians drink wine,
> and Polish drink vodka, even the women. Do these groups have higher
> incidences of breast cancer?

From talking with another researcher who has another slant, my understanding
(unconfirmed by independent fact-checking) is that Polish women have less
breast cancer. However, she (researcher) correlates the reduced incidence
with consumption of raw or lightly cooked cabbage. She further has a
decent-ish biochemical reason to presume that the cabbage consumption is
causative of reduced breast cancer. (Research unpublished as yet;
respected researcher in mainstream research institution.)

In practice this stuff gets very, very complicated, if you try to translate
it into "scientific" lifestyle advice.

Meantime, eat more cole slaw, drink less alchohol. Can't hurt, might help!
<G>

Try the raw cabbage shredded with white wine vinegar, a little salt, and
some raspberry jam. Yum.

Ann T.
Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email

"Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:46ff8355$0$762$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet.ne t...
>
> Wine will continue to be on our evening menu despite being an unproven
risk
> for bc and we shall continue driving, crossing the road, cycling and doing
> all sorts of other things which are proven risks.
>
> As will, I suspect, most others in the group.
---------------
Hey, you left out GRAPEFRUIT!

Eva

"Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:46ffdd82$0$767$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet.ne t...
>
>
> Red cabbage tonight. With roasted parsnips, potatoes, ultra-fresh runner
> beans and Roast Traditional Hereford.
>
> With a rather special Bordeaux :-)
>

Mary, gosh darn it, there you go telling us about your delicious food again!
(As a vegetarian, I'd skip the Hereford . . . but roasted parsnips . . . can
I have doubles?)

Ann T. (seriously off topic)
Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 22:02:05 -0400, "A.P. Thorsen"
<annthorsendontsendspam@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Try the raw cabbage shredded with white wine vinegar, a little salt, and
>some raspberry jam. Yum.

Faints!
--
"It's easier to get forgiveness than permission."
Rear Admiral "Amazing" Grace Hopper

"Eva" <EvaDStructionNOT@NOTverizon.net> wrote in message
news:5CULi.155$Gk2.49@trndny04...
>
> "Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:46ff8355$0$762$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet.ne t...
>>
>> Wine will continue to be on our evening menu despite being an unproven
> risk
>> for bc and we shall continue driving, crossing the road, cycling and
>> doing
>> all sorts of other things which are proven risks.
>>
>> As will, I suspect, most others in the group.
> ---------------
> Hey, you left out GRAPEFRUIT!

Grapefruit?

Are grapefruit dangerous then??

Heavens! What would Sunday breakfast be without grapefruit???

Mary

"A.P. Thorsen" <annthorsendontsendspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fdp4hs$5mt$1@news.msu.edu...
>
> "Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:46ffdd82$0$767$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet.ne t...
>>
>>
>> Red cabbage tonight. With roasted parsnips, potatoes, ultra-fresh runner
>> beans and Roast Traditional Hereford.
>>
>> With a rather special Bordeaux :-)
>>
>
> Mary, gosh darn it, there you go telling us about your delicious food
> again! (As a vegetarian, I'd skip the Hereford . . . but roasted parsnips
> . . . can I have doubles?)

Sorry :-(

The beef was perfect though - and it will see us through a few more days
unless someone decides to drop in at a mealtime.

I made too many parsnips so they're available for any taker, not so good
cold though I'd have thought. No doubt I'll find out :-)

Mary

"A.P. Thorsen" <annthorsendontsendspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fdp4g4$5g5$1@news.msu.edu...
> "R. Fizek" <fizkowie1@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:OhsLi.19713$jC5.8137@trnddc04...
>> So, would you find more breast cancer in groups that drink more - for
>> example, according to popular thought, the French and Italians drink
>> wine, and Polish drink vodka, even the women. Do these groups have
>> higher incidences of breast cancer?
>
> From talking with another researcher who has another slant, my
> understanding (unconfirmed by independent fact-checking) is that Polish
> women have less breast cancer. However, she (researcher) correlates the
> reduced incidence with consumption of raw or lightly cooked cabbage. She
> further has a decent-ish biochemical reason to presume that the cabbage
> consumption is causative of reduced breast cancer.

I eat masses of raw cabbage! If it's cooked it's still crisp.
>
> In practice this stuff gets very, very complicated, if you try to
> translate it into "scientific" lifestyle advice.

I think that's the point we're all making in our own ways.
>
>
> Try the raw cabbage shredded with white wine vinegar, a little salt, and
> some raspberry jam. Yum.

Yuk. I draw the line at cabbage and jam. Hey, though, I thought you called
it jelly?

Mary

<x{yz}enophil44@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:thb0g3ds5u7qtha0mt31g4c3spvas66mv7@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 22:02:05 -0400, "A.P. Thorsen"
> <annthorsendontsendspam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Try the raw cabbage shredded with white wine vinegar, a little salt, and
>>some raspberry jam. Yum.
>
> Faints!

Must be a British thing!

Mary

Mary Fisher wrote:

> "A.P. Thorsen" <annthorsendontsendspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fdp4hs$5mt$1@news.msu.edu...
> >
> > "Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:46ffdd82$0$767$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet.ne t...
> >>
> >>
> >> Red cabbage tonight. With roasted parsnips, potatoes, ultra-fresh runner
> >> beans and Roast Traditional Hereford.
> >>
> >> With a rather special Bordeaux :-)
> >>
> >
> > Mary, gosh darn it, there you go telling us about your delicious food
> > again! (As a vegetarian, I'd skip the Hereford . . . but roasted parsnips
> > . . . can I have doubles?)
>
> Sorry :-(
>
> The beef was perfect though - and it will see us through a few more days
> unless someone decides to drop in at a mealtime.
>
> I made too many parsnips so they're available for any taker, not so good
> cold though I'd have thought. No doubt I'll find out :-)

I'd chop them, then roll them in some crumbs, then add them to a salad.
J

Hi Ann,

Actually there is one such study already published but there is such a BIG
difference in the way people live in Poland vs the US (don't know of other
countries) that I suspect it has more than cabbage to it. But you're right,
none of the suggestions are not worth incorporating into our lifestyles.

Tammy

"A.P. Thorsen" <annthorsendontsendspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fdp4g4$5g5$1@news.msu.edu...
> "R. Fizek" <fizkowie1@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:OhsLi.19713$jC5.8137@trnddc04...
>> So, would you find more breast cancer in groups that drink more - for
>> example, according to popular thought, the French and Italians drink
>> wine, and Polish drink vodka, even the women. Do these groups have
>> higher incidences of breast cancer?
>
> From talking with another researcher who has another slant, my
> understanding (unconfirmed by independent fact-checking) is that Polish
> women have less breast cancer. However, she (researcher) correlates the
> reduced incidence with consumption of raw or lightly cooked cabbage. She
> further has a decent-ish biochemical reason to presume that the cabbage
> consumption is causative of reduced breast cancer. (Research unpublished
> as yet; respected researcher in mainstream research institution.)
>
> In practice this stuff gets very, very complicated, if you try to
> translate it into "scientific" lifestyle advice.
>
> Meantime, eat more cole slaw, drink less alchohol. Can't hurt, might
> help! <G>
>
> Try the raw cabbage shredded with white wine vinegar, a little salt, and
> some raspberry jam. Yum.
>
> Ann T.
> Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email
>