Ham causes cancer

Let's take a step back and think about this. Cancer happens all the time - it's whether or not your body, or nature, or whatever synthesis happens that leads it to be a health risk or not. Mutation of cells and multiplication of these "sick" cells and interaction with DNA and the whole immune system. This happens all around us all the time, however only some of them actually form into cancerous cells and cause us to have health problems. Some of it is down to genetics unfortunately, some of it is down to the strength of the cancer forming cells or the susceptability of the victim. You cannot categorically state that ham will cause cancer. Most things in excess can have the potential of causing or increasing the risk of cancer. Take UV light, in small doses it's bloody good for you, however in excessive doses it can cause skin cell mutations and lead to cancer cells forming. Ham whether processed or not (though I really really hate processed foods and keep away from them as much as I can) is going to be fine, but the manufacturing process can cause the protein strands and cells within the meat to change slightly - which in turn if you're unlucky and eat the right quantity you could have a chance of developing something - but really, honestly, you shouldn't worry about. Eat a balanced diet, lots of fruit and veg, keep your sat fats low, and exercise and you will minimise your chances - unfortunately with cancer no one is immune.
 
Would be more interested to see what the actual impact of it is. Increasing a small percentage by a small percentage isn't really going to worry me too much...
 
Don't these so-called "scientists" have anything better to do with their lives? Same for the newspapers that print this **** week after week.
 
a bit off topic..

could the chernobyl fallout have had any effect on the ammount of cancer cases that we get here?

the cloud did spread to America after all, and some sheep in north Wales still pick up radiation from the higher ground..
 
Ziggy said:
Don't these so-called "scientists" have anything better to do with their lives? Same for the newspapers that print this ****.
Click to expand...

To be honest it is mostly the newspapers. But that is what happens when you have humanities graduates commenting on science subjects, it is never going to be pretty...

The scientists have problably published a report in a journal somewhere and it has been picked up by some special interest group and then presented completely out of context.
 
RDM said:
To be honest it is mostly the newspapers. But that is what happens when you have humanities graduates commenting on science subjects, it is never going to be pretty...

The scientists have problably published a report in a journal somewhere and it has been picked up by some special interest group and then presented completely out of context.
Click to expand...

My mouth -> words.

It's just a small charity trying to get some attention through scaremongering.
 
RDM said:
To be honest it is mostly the newspapers. But that is what happens when you have humanities graduates commenting on science subjects, it is never going to be pretty...

The scientists have problably published a report in a journal somewhere and it has been picked up by some special interest group and then presented completely out of context.
Click to expand...

Yeah, true.

bledd. said:
chernobyl fallout
Click to expand...

I can't read that anymore without thinking of the old joke. :d
 
RDM said:
To be honest it is mostly the newspapers. But that is what happens when you have humanities graduates commenting on science subjects, it is never going to be pretty...

The scientists have problably published a report in a journal somewhere and it has been picked up by some special interest group and then presented completely out of context.
Click to expand...
It's the cancer charity sprouting rubbish, not really the medias fault in this case.

Marni Craze, the charity's children's education manager, said: "It is better if children learn to view processed meat as an occasional treat if it is eaten at all."
Click to expand...
Stupid ******
 
AcidHell2 said:
It's the cancer charity sprouting rubbish, not really the medias fault in this case.
Click to expand...

It is both to be honest. Surely the journalists have a responsibility to actually report it properly rather than just taking someones word for it? Part of the problem will be a general lack of understanding of scientific research by the media. Ben Goldarce's book "Bad Science" has quite a bit on the subject, worth a read even if he is a Guardian writer. :D
 
deuse said:
I was just stating the crap supermarkets put into their so called FRESH food ;)
Click to expand...

Last time I checked water was relatively "fresh". For that matter how "fresh" can processed food really be?

If you want food that is just 100% food, don't by processed.
 
They said that about skimmed milk as well. :rolleyes:

What next?

"Scientists discover breathing causes cancer!"

"On a survey taken, scientists discovered that people who do not breathe did not develop cancer, showing conclusive evidence that breathing must contribute to cancer"
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom