Love it.
Post-pub nosh neckfiller special: The WHO bacon sarnie of death
Earlier this week, the World Health Organisation (WHO) shocked the civilised bacon-eating world by classifying processed and red meat as "carcinogenic to humans" and "probably carcinogenic to humans", respectively. Now boasting a "Group 1" rating for the increased risk of provoking colorectal cancer, processed meat products …
COMMENTS
-
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Friday 30th October 2015 16:49 GMT MrT
"We seem to have a few minutes left...
...why not join me in a nice cup of tea?"
Kenny jumps into a giant cup of tea, stirs it around a bit with his arms and looks distressed
"Urgh! No sugar!!"
His best shows were the Thames TV ones - just catching the sound of the crew laughing out loud was way funnier than the later BBC versions - (Cupid was a BBC series creation), Captain Kremmen was a brilliant import from his radio show, made over in a mad Dangermouse style, the mad US general ("Parking problems? Not with a Sherman tank!" - icon is over the field where he rounded 'them' all up), all the pop/rock star friends as guests - brilliant stuff!
-
-
-
Friday 30th October 2015 14:56 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Food of the gods
You'll find the chemical suppliers are likely to ask you all sorts of strange questions as they keep you on the line while alerting various agencies. "Will that be construction grade As or poisoners' grade?" and the like... perhaps best if you don't mention wanting it to put in a sauce for a sandwich.
Perhaps you could substitute MSG - readily available from your local toxic meat and booze product purveyor.
-
Friday 30th October 2015 17:28 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Food of the gods
MSG is actually perfectly safe, less harmful than regular salt, my fellow AC. It is however testament to how it is much easier to tarnish the reputation of a foodstuff with one of these stupid food scares than it is to repair the reputation of same once the scare has proven to be entirely unfounded.
-
Saturday 31st October 2015 03:22 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Food of the gods
>"MSG is actually perfectly safe, less harmful than regular salt, my fellow AC."
I know, AC. That was part of the joke. A myth started by hippies (i.e. twats) at Berkley who took it upon themselves to arbitrarily attribute "Chinese restaurant syndrome" to a ubiquitous amino acid. Amazing how this sort of "truth" persists.
-
Saturday 31st October 2015 09:57 GMT Manolo
Re: Food of the gods (MSG)
While I also loathe all the BS being spewed about MSG, it can have effects.
I used to frequent a Chinese restaurant and would ask the owner to make me an extra spicy dish. The most vivid dreams would ensue. Not nightmares, just wild action movie style dreams, quite amusing actually. I found out that instead of adding more chillies, my Chinese friend was adding more MSG. And glutamate being an excitatory neurotransmitter, that makes a plausible explanation.
-
-
-
-
-
Monday 2nd November 2015 11:22 GMT JetSetJim
Re: Going hannibal with the weiners...
> "2% of hot dog samples tested contained human DNA "
That would be this report, which also concludes that 10% of vegetarian meat-substituted foods contain meat products.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Friday 30th October 2015 14:20 GMT SuccessCase
Turns out the WHO are good at their work but terrible at talking about it to the general public. Their categories identify if substances are known to be carcinogens, but not the degree. Being a carcinogen seems really bad, but actually there are many, many known carcinogens that we don't worry about too much, so for example burnt toast is a known carcinogen, yet we don't worry too much if there is a bit of burning because the risk is low. Walking in the forest when ferns are releasing spores, is apparently much more dangerous than people appreciate, so there is one, that is a known carcinogen, that actually is quite bad but we ignore (presumably because we feel walking in the Forrest simply must be healthy because "green" and "nature"). So now the category grouping given to bacon (and processed meats in general) is the same as for cigarettes because they have identified for sure there is a link to cancer, but the grouping says nothing about the degree. All the newspapers picked up "It's in the same grouping as smoking" and then concluded, falsely, 'IT'S AS BAD AS SMOKING."
No, it's not. I'm still eating bacon for breakfast. I feel sorry for the pig farmers. This is Edwina curry all over again but for pig sales instead of egg sales.
Oh should add, I read about this somewhere last night, but can't remember what the source was.
-
Friday 30th October 2015 14:43 GMT BlartVersenwaldIII
> Their categories identify if substances are known to be carcinogens, but not the degree. Being a carcinogen seems really bad, but actually there are many, many known carcinogens that we don't worry about too much
Regardless of how poorly the WHO may have prevented it, with the current media climate it would be impossible for the story to be published without at least seventeen periodicals trumpeting ZOMG MEAT EATERS ALL GOING TO DIE* or SICK FOREIGN SAUSAGES MADE OF CANCER-CAUSING POLONIUM DESTROYING HOUSE PRICES IN SO-CALLED "COSMOPOLITAN" AREAS.
Even without a frequently hysterical press, you'd still have it filtered through the collective branez of the intertubes with it's seemingly infinite number people who wouldn't know what a science was if they came home and found it in bed with their statistician, as well as there being so many pseudo-quacks trying to convincingly sell an answer for everything that it's caused a distortion in the space/time continuum to create localised singularities where the rules of logic will not - and indeed can not - apply.
* As Wash might put it, "that part'll happen pretty definitely".
-
Friday 30th October 2015 14:45 GMT Yet Another Anonymous coward
It's worse over here in Murika. We have the "this facility contains a substance known to the state of Ca to cause cancer" warnings on our office door. Because it applies to so many things (printer toner, floor cleaner, nail varnish remover) that it's impossible not to have it.
But our anodizing plant - full of really nasty chemicals - has the same warning message.
-
Friday 30th October 2015 15:05 GMT BlartVersenwaldIII
> this facility contains a substance known to the state of Ca to cause cancer
That's a fanastically good approach and seems to me like california has their head screwed on the right way when making legislation that makes total sense. Is the smog in LA generated in an attempt to blot-out the cancer-causing radiation from a nearby unshielded fusion reactor?
-
-
Friday 30th October 2015 15:14 GMT Anonymous Coward
Nuts!
Well peanuts really. Not nuts at all. Hideously toxic. Awesome GI & hepatic carcinogen. Perhaps the US peanut (cotton growing waste product) lobby has better access to The WHO than the Danish pig farmers.
Also haven't figured out why The WHO approve of Hg injections. Something to do with Eli Lilly telling them that using a safe alternative would be "too expensive" it would appear
-
Friday 30th October 2015 16:02 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Nuts!
US peanut (cotton growing waste product)
Peanuts are legumes (not nuts, as you point out) so it's quite possible that they're planted for their nitrogen fixing abilities. If that's the case (as seems likely) then the seeds themselves are more of a "bonus" product than a "waste" one.
-
Friday 30th October 2015 19:18 GMT x 7
Re: Nuts!
the toxicity problem with peanuts is the Aflatoxins which are produced when they go mouldy. Very carcinogenic. You can buy those from Sigma-Aldrich if you want - they make aflatoxins at their Makor plant in Israel. Along with synthetic cannabinoids and a range of militarily "interesting" products that no-one with half a brain would want to be near.....
-
-
Saturday 31st October 2015 12:20 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Nuts!
"Sola dosis facit venenum."
I suppose you're referring to the typical organic Hg dose being around half the WHO safety threshold. Somewhat disingenuous in relation to such a cumulative, indolent and insidious toxin.
Better remember not to allow them to give you a tetanus booster with your flu jab then. ...and for god's sake don't accidentally eat any seafish that day.
Not a big believer in numbers rackets and lotteries myself.
Why exactly is it better to lace vaccines with any organomercury than with none?
-
Saturday 31st October 2015 14:00 GMT x 7
Re: Nuts!
the organomercurial used in vaccines is Thiomersal - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal
Its very much been eliminated from most western medicine for the obvious presumed reasons, though there is no actual evidence that its a risk. Its been in use as a fungicide/bacteriocide for a long long time, and the benefit of using it in vaccines is that is doesn't reduce the vaccine efficiency compared with other preservatives (in fact I've read elsewhere that in some cases it can act as an adjuvant).
You will see it occasionally in western medicine - my last 'flu jab contained it, but thats probably an exception.
Its still used in third world medicine - probably because its more suitable than the alternatives in warm, non-refrigerated storage conditions
-
Saturday 31st October 2015 15:45 GMT Manolo
Re: Nuts!
"I suppose you're referring to the typical organic Hg dose being around half the WHO safety threshold. Somewhat disingenuous in relation to such a cumulative, indolent and insidious toxin."
No, I'm referring to actual toxicological studies, where they don't give a single dose once and conclude it is safe, but where those cumulative doses are actually given.
As for why it is better to use it see the insightful post of a fellow commentard.
-
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
-
-