Slashdot Mirror


WHO: Drinking Extremely Hot Coffee, Tea 'Probably' Causes Cancer (usatoday.com)

An anonymous reader writes from a report via USA Today: The World Health Organization reports that drinking coffee, tea and other beverages at temperatures hotter than 149 degrees Fahrenheit may lead to cancer of the esophagus. These hot beverages can injure cells in the esophagus and lead to the formation of cancer cells, said Mariana Stern, an associate professor of preventative medicine and urology at the University of Southern California's Keck School of Medicine. But scientists did say that if you drink coffee at cooler temperatures, it is not only safe but it may decrease of the risk of liver cancer by 15%, according to research published in Lancet Oncology. Previously, the International Agency for Research on Cancer ruled coffee was a "possible carcinogenic" in 1991. The research involved Stern and 22 other scientists from 10 countries, who examined about 1,000 studies on more than 20 types of cancer.

274 comments

  1. mcdonalds to get sued? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    They used to have Extremely Hot Coffee.

    1. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if you put the coffee cup between your thighs and drive off.

    2. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by tomhath · · Score: 0

      Keeping it in the cup is fine. Pouring it on your crotch and then sitting there letting it soak in might give you a reason to sue McD's though.

    3. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Snopes is your friend to help you from continuously embarrassing yourself by tossing out flippant remarks to things you seemingly know little or nothing about.

      http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=107;t=000479;p=1

      McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

      McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

      McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

      McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

      McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

      McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

      McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

      McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

    4. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      suggest you watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCkL9UlmCOE

    5. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Solandri · · Score: 4, Informative
      Most of that is cut and paste from the web site of the legal firm who represented the woman. Let's see how much of this I can recall from memory.

      McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

      McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

      The temperature of the McDonalds coffee machine specified in the lawsuit (195 F) was within the temperature range recommended by the National Coffee Association and Bunn, the largest manufacturer of coffee brewing machines sold in the U.S. 195 - 205 F.

      The legal team for the woman surveyed temperatures of coffee machines at a half dozen restaurants nearby the McDonalds, and deceptively reported that temperatures at other restaurants were "as low as" 165 F. Which is a useless statement since one restaurant could've had a broken machine and the other 5 could've been serving coffee at a higher temperature than McDonalds and the statement still would've been true. This is classic tricky phrasing used by lawyers to mislead the jury. It's where the "20 degrees hotter" statement comes from. The adjective that belongs in front is "at most 20 degrees hotter," but because of the tricky way the lawyers phrased it people mistakenly think it's "at least". If their research had actually shown McDonalds was serving coffee too hot, they would've reported the temperature of all 6 other restaurants they surveyed, not just one.

      McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

      Those 700 incidents were over a period of something like 13 years when McDonalds sold billions of cups of coffee. I number crunched the statistics once. If you lived 5 miles from McDonalds and drove there to buy a cup of coffee and took it home, you were more likely to die in a traffic accident than to scald yourself by spilling their coffee. If their coffee was too dangerous for the public, then so is every car on the road.

      I want to say the figure was 18 billion cups of coffee served in that time, but honestly I don't recall exactly. If the 18 billion figure is correct, then those 700 incidents are equivalent to buying a cup of coffee at McDonalds every day, and spilling it on yourself once every 70,000 years. If anything, McDonalds should be getting an award for making a portable and minimal hot beverage container so safe.

      McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

      McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

      Unfortunate, but ultimately irrelevant. The question isn't is hot coffee dangerous. Of course it is. So is hot tea,

    6. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by sexconker · · Score: 2, Informative

      Fuck you.

      Coffee is to be served hot. There's no problem with serving it hotter than other restaurants do. I'd see that as a good thing. Unless you can point to standards and regulations that require coffee to be served below a certain temperature, your "McFact No. 1" is a failure.

      Hot coffee can cause burns. McDonalds settling cases is no different than a super market settling cases when idiots slip and fall despite the wet floor signs. it does not indicate a problem with the coffee, it indicates problems with the customers (they're idiots) and the legal system (it's easier to pay idiots to go away than it is to fight them in court and hope the idiots on the jury side with you against a fellow idiot). "McFact No. 2 is a failure.

      I don't care how serious the woman's injuries were. They were caused by HER spilling the coffee she knew to be hot. If you buy a knife and cut yourself like an idiot, can you sue for the knife being too sharp? But what if you like, cut yourself really badly? Does that somehow change who is culpable? (I wouldn't be surprised if you could trot out cases where exactly this happened. That doesn't make the reasoning any less ludicrous, however.). "McFact No. 3" is a failure.

      Yes, the little old lady said she was a nice little old lady and only wanted her medical bills paid. Is she also selling a used car that she only ever drove on Sundays, to and from church? "McFact No. 4" is a failure because it has nothing to do with anything.

      A rando (no typo here) McDonald's employee claimed McDonald's was aware of the risk? Of course they're aware. They're also aware of the risk of operating a drive through window. People could incorrectly drive their cars and hit things! Further, the rando employee cannot speak to whether or not "most customers wouldn't think it was possible". If such testimony as admitted, McDonald's lawyers failed. "McFact No. 5" is a failure. A rando employee's comments about McDonald's awareness that coffee is hot doesn't mean McDonald's is at fault for someone spilling coffee on themselves. Coffee being hot, and hot things causing burns, is common sense. You'd be hard pressed to find an animal that doesn't know this, let alone a human.

      Careful deliberation? You know nothing of what went on in that room. The verdict was absurd, as was the reward. Comparing it to McDonald's revenue has no bearing on anything. "McFact No. 6" is a failure.

      Lowering the award? Who cares? It's still the wrong fucking decision. "McFact No. 7" is a failure. It doesn't change how wrong the decision was.

      Hot coffee still burns? WHAT A SHOCK! "McFact No. 8" is the biggest failure of all. What are you trying to prove with that? It's meaningless!

      The hot coffee fiasco is a groundbreaking case because the decision was 100% wrong and it exemplifies just how fucked up the legal system is, and how fucking stupid juries are. I don't give a shit about McDonald's, and they can easily pay ridiculous awards in these cases (and let's be clear, they're fucking awards - prizes for being an idiot). But if you fail to see that this isn't about a little old lady fighting an evil mega corp you're just as dumb as she was. Lawsuits are fucking out of control in this country, and shit like this is why companies have resorted to binding arbitration clauses for everything from cell phones to medical care. It's harder and harder to recoup damages from real injury caused by malicious or negligent corporations, but it's easier than ever to sue for hollow, illegitimate shit.

    7. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would except for those "McFact"s makes him sound like a Duche.
      Now I admit McDonalds was justly accused for wrong doing in this case. But I don't get the hatetrid of McDonald's as a company.
      They never say eat with us every day. They offer healthier options.
      Oh they advertise towards kids. It is up to the parents to know that eating out is a rare treat not a nutrition plan.
      They pay just as well if not better than Burger King, Wendies and Yumm food.
      Now if want some bad business behavior Burger King sell to Tim Horton to avoid taxes.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    8. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "McFact": kind of like a fact, but not quite.

    9. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by omnichad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      within the temperature range recommended by the National Coffee Association [ncausa.org] and Bunn [bunn.com],

      Two organizations that are far more concerned with the sale of coffee than safety. Whether there were dozens of other restaurants doing the same thing doesn't make it OK. It just means more companies are doing something unsafe. There is no reason to serve a drink just shy of boiling. Especially when cups can fail and nobody can drink it at that temperature anyway.

    10. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by omnichad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They were caused by HER spilling the coffee she knew to be hot. If you buy a knife and cut yourself like an idiot, can you sue for the knife being too sharp?

      There's a difference. The purpose of the knife is to be sharp enough to cut things. The purpose of coffee is to be hot enough to drink, not cause 2nd and 3rd degree burns. If the temperature exceeds the purpose, there's no good reason - especially since cups and lids can fail (especially when you're a mass market chain who goes as cheap as they can on things like that).

      You can say the verdict was absurd, but the medical bills were just as absurd.

    11. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the fuck was she trying to drink while driving? Why the fuck was she holding the coffee between her legs while driving? She should have had her license taken away for such negligence and indifference to the safety of all of those around her.

      When you go through a drive-through, you set the shit aside and focus on driving. Serving coffee hotter at a drive-through makes sense because it stays hot longer because you should not be trying to drink your coffee while driving. You should be focusing on driving until you get where you are going. If you absolutely can't wait, then you find a safe place to pull over to, shut off your fucking car and then have your drink or pig out.

      I always report people to the cops if I see them driving unsafely or using their phones, eating, drinking, putting on make-up, etc. while driving. I've gotten quite a few of those people cited for reckless driving too.

    12. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As well, a survey of coffee temperatures with "surrounding restaurants" would really only be relevant if those restaurants had a substantial take-out business for their coffee. If many of your customers take your coffee, put it in their car/truck and don't drink it until they arrive at their jobsite 15 minutes later, it would be reasonable to sell the coffee at a higher temperature than if it was mostly drunk immediately upon serving.

    13. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by guises · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I will second the opinion that McDonald's gets more flack than they deserve most of the time, but I think you're letting them off the hook too easily in this case. Not only did they treat this woman very poorly, not only did they know that serving coffee so hot was a risk, but they kept right on serving their coffee at this temperature even after this case was resolved. This shouldn't be brushed aside.

    14. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      McFact 1: MCDonald's knows that people like their coffee hotter than they can drink, as they rarely drink it immeidately, and often take it to another desintation, like work, to drink it, or like to hold the hot cup to warm cold hands.
      McFact 2: coffee should be brewed at near-boiling, so "proper" temperature coffee is, by definition, stale.
      McFact 3: serving cold coffee would lose them more money than the suits (at least according to bean counters, probably hired from Ford, after they were fired for counting the Pinto's beans).
      McFact 3: the person in question literally poured it on herself. She took off the lid, that prevents deformation of the circular opening of the cup, then crushed the cup with her legs, forcing the liquid out and onto her body. Had she left the lid on, or used a cup holder, the incident would never have happened.

    15. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by pete6677 · · Score: 2

      Damn it, look what you did. You brought up the McDonald's Hot Coffee lawsuit on Slashdot, which always elicits 50+ posts of pedantic nerds re-debating the merits of the suit. Let it go, people. That was years ago.

    16. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Informative

      Coffee is to be served hot.

      No, not nearly that hot. Most drip coffee machines *brew* it at the McDonald's temperature, but it is kept at a much lower temperature (around 160F) in the carafe. One reason for this is that it rapidly loses quality if you keep it too hot.

      People know what temperature coffee is almost universally served at, and they take the appropriate care. If you fill a cup of coffee from a coffee machine to the brim and carry it around, you just don't need to be that careful because it's just not that hot (unless it's from McDonald's). If you fill the same cup to the brim with water at a full rolling boil out of a pot, you're damned well going to be instinctively much more careful with it, because a small splash could give you serious burns.

      You may now post one of your typical obscenity-laced abusive replies. It won't make you any less wrong.

    17. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by MrKaos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wouldn't know, I don't eat their food as I don't find it appealing. Sure Mr AC was being a bit of a douche, but the facts were right - what did you want me to do, edit the post so it was more palatable?

      Never been modded down for suggesting someone be modded up though, so people are probably a little sen-si-tive about the issue of criticizing McDonalds.

      My concern was the lady who got hurt was being derided because people think she was being litigious, when in reality she suffered burns due to a company who didn't care enough about their customers to not have malfunctioning cup lids on super hot coffee served by industrial grade machines. What's the problem with turning them down a bit and why did it take a court case to do so?

      They were told people were getting hurt, they did nothing, then the person who had the courage to face a multi-billion dollar company and all it's resources so others wouldn't get hurt gets ridiculed by people who haven't bothered to check the facts. Why should this poor woman suffer humiliation on top of injury when company X has millions of dollars of advertising money the news agencies want access to and can shape opinion.

      There is a reason you aren't supposed to advertise to kids, so parents don't get nagged. They do and they all seem like a good reason for some vitrol and hatred to me.

      So I don't really understand why you are shilling in marketing speak about 'healthy options', it sounds to me a lot like 'lite cigarettes'. Just don't try to allude that they care about anything else than another dollar.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    18. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awesome rant, fagotron. I guess by driving a car you agree that operating a car may be dangerous and any defects in the car and now your fault too. Stick to the fucking cow trolls plz.

    19. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why the fuck was she trying to drink while driving? Why the fuck was she holding the coffee between her legs while driving?

      She wasn't driving. She was in the passenger seat and the car was parked.

    20. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still people complain when their coffee isn't hot enough. When more people complain about the cold coffee then it is definitely a flawed product.
      You, as a customer, can easily fix hot coffee by applying rapid air flow over it, using your mouth.

    21. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 5, Informative

      The "195 - 205 F" recommended temperature range you quote is the brewing temperature, not the serving temperature. Unless McDonalds serves each cup as soon as it's brewed, and I doubt that they are, they are purposely holding the temperature high before serving it. In fact, keeping brewed coffee hot diminishes its flavor, so what they are doing makes no sense except to keep some customers from complaining that by the time they brought their cup of coffee to the office it wasn't hot anymore.

    22. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and the stupid cunt deserved them. Pour hot coffee on yourself and you get hurt. It's as simple as that.

      Someone needs to take a Phillips screwdriver and ram it directly in to your larynx so we don't have to continue to listen to the disease-ridden shit that comes out of your mouth. Take responsibility for your actions and stop trying to blame everyone else you pussy. You're a waste of basic resources that could be expended on someone far more worthwhile.

    23. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by bingoUV · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Serving at a temperature has absolutely nothing to do with consuming at that temperature.

      Hot drinks are served hot because that brings out more subtle aromas when your mouth is around the surface of the drink and nose is just above it. If you take in a very small sip, you are not scalded for 3 reasons :

      1. You might suck in the foam, that is of slightly lower temperature, and very low specific heat being mainly air.

      2. Even if it is not foam, a sample from the surface is of a lower temperature than from deep within the cup. This way you can enjoy the aroma longer - which is over half the fun in most hot drinks anyway.

      3. Heat from a very small sip quickly dissipates around your external skin - which is typically colder than internal body parts like gums, back of the tongue etc.

      There are restaurants allowing / encouraging people to barbecue their food themselves - it doesn't mean people have to eat the 400 degree F food straight from the barbecue, or poke their eyes with firewood at 1000 degree F. All Americans should sue their own mothers for not permanently attaching glasses at birth which read "Caution : life has risks", except of course the mothers who have been prudent enough to do this.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    24. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by jandersen · · Score: 2

      Now I admit McDonalds was justly accused for wrong doing in this case. But I don't get the hatetrid of McDonald's as a company.

      American burger chains have historically been known for some very bad practices; McDonald was for many years the largest or even the only one in many countries, so they have become the posterboy for what they all used to do. It is true that they have all changed their behaviours somewhat, after consumer pressure and also because people started abandoning them in favour of smaller burger restaurants with significantly better quality food. But I can still remember, not so many years ago, when we used to refer to a BigMac as 'the vegetarian option' because of the obviously high content of soy bean in what should have been beef. So, they may be OK now (I only eat there when I really have no other options), but there are solid, historical reasons why they have a bad reputation. It is just another demonstration of the fact that it is very easy to destroy trust, and it takes very long time to repair it afterwards.

      And another thing: the fact that these companies are so very American doesn't help. This may easily be seen simply as anti-Americanism, but it isn't, at least not in the usual sense. What people in America see as cozy, folksy-wolksy quirkyness, too often comes across as jarringly bizarre in Europe, fairly or unfairly. As an example, I came across a web page for some sort of food-fair - the one thing that made almost retch was the "deep fried butter"; and then there are the eating competitions. I try to be open to the suggestion that Americans see these things as fun, but to many in Europe, it does not inspire a lot of trust in the judgement of the people at McDonals, when the assure us that their prodcts are "good food": we have seen what Americans think of as food. And I don't think I am a prude when it comes to food - I have tried things like silk worms, birds nests, sea cucumbers and other regional delicacies (not that I liked them much) but I really couldn't get myself to try deep fried butter.

    25. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      No, not nearly that hot. Most drip coffee machines *brew* it at the McDonald's temperature, but it is kept at a much lower temperature (around 160F) in the carafe. One reason for this is that it rapidly loses quality if you keep it too hot.

      Great that you make a distinction between brewing temperature and serving temperature. How about you make a distinction between serving temperature and swallowing temperature too? And how it rapidly loses perceived quality when at a lower temperature?

      This is how and why hot drinks are enjoyed : https://slashdot.org/comments....

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    26. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by aevan · · Score: 1

      Never make me tea.

    27. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The temperature of the McDonalds coffee machine specified in the lawsuit (195 F) was within the temperature range recommended by the National Coffee Association and Bunn, the largest manufacturer of coffee brewing machines sold in the U.S. 195 - 205 F.

      The instructions on the side of pastry dough box say that they should be baked in 430F. This doesn't mean that the manufacturer recommends that I also eat the pastries at that temperature and I'm not going to try that. Because that would be dumb.

      The same way, it's not a good idea to serve or drink coffee that's at the brewing temperature.

    28. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are the product of a pr campaign.

      A southern lawyer can explain it to you:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rbKywI3ww8

    29. Re: mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah I guess if you want to blow on it for 10 minutes, then realise it's still too fucking hot.
      There's reason, then there's going overboard, then there's what McD's did...go freakin nuclear.
      Ooh, a customer complained! Color me surprised. Obviously when you open an avenue to free food over an opinion some people will say you are the worst, but then they still want the food. They just don't want to pay. Those fuckers make people with legit concerns seem like assholes.
      That's why if I ever get something bad at a restaurant I keep my mouth shut and never go back. They'll figure it out or fail on their own.

    30. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      I don't buy these arguments. You see, I am a tea aficionado. I usually have about 30 kinds of tea at home - not the teabag crap but better quality loose teas (15 euros for 100 g on average, goes up to 100 euros for 100 g for a very good gyokuro). If the tea is too hot, most of the finer aromas are impossible to taste, the tea is just hot and bitter. Yes, it smells good, but tastes like crap. 40C is about the right drinking temperature, it still smells good but now also has a variety of taste.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    31. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      May all be true, but it still hurts to see idiots get rewarded for doing something incredibly STUPID.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    32. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by bingoUV · · Score: 2

      Tea doesn't have to be poured down your throat at the same temperature as in the cup. FYI.

      When a hot drink is sold, it a lot about how LONG it will remain hot enough without spending on insulating container, rather than how high the temperature is right now. A simple plastic cap does triple duty as structural support to paper cup, protecting some aroma from escaping, and a rudimentary insulation.

      PS : As far as tea is concerned, many teas - especially high quality ones, are even brewed at a lower temperature. 75-80 degree C is common. Some do have subtle aromas that escape at higher temperatures - seller of such a tea obviously won't serve it too hot.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    33. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Dogtanian · · Score: 4, Informative

      Arguably the most stomach-churning food I've ever seen came from the Americans:- Pork brains in milk gravy (More here).

      It's the pink-coloured "milk gravy" that makes this truly nauseating. :-6

      I mean, really? And you have the nerve to get squeamish about haggis, FFS?!

      Never mind the fact that hot dogs are probably as bad (in terms of what they contain) as haggis, if not far worse. Of course, *they* have the advantage of being ludicrously processed to the extent that there's no sign of their origins for ignorance-is-bliss Americans who like to argue about whether ketchup or mustard is the preferred topping for their sausageful of ground-to-atomic-size pigs' lips and assholes...

      Pork brains in milk gravy, though? So far ahead of either in the retch-inducing stakes it's not even funny.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    34. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You launched one of the biggest shillstorms I have seen on this site outside of Snowden stories in years. Congrats.

    35. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Third degree burns and skin grafts are only irrelevant to the people who haven't suffered them. What Bunn of the NCA recommends is what's irrelevant here. I recommend eating broken glass for people like you. That makes it ok.

    36. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Coffee is to be served hot. There's no problem with serving it hotter than other restaurants do. I'd see that as a good thing. Unless you can point to standards and regulations that require coffee to be served below a certain temperature, your "McFact No. 1" is a failure.

      Can you recognize that there is a temperature at which McDonalds would serve coffee that would be too hot?

      Or do you want there to be standards and regulations, and until there are, what do you want McDonald's to do? Serve coffee? Stop serving coffee? Not be idiots, serving coffee they know can cause severe burns?

      Hot coffee can cause burns. McDonalds settling cases is no different than a super market settling cases when idiots slip and fall despite the wet floor signs. it does not indicate a problem with the coffee, it indicates problems with the customers (they're idiots) and the legal system (it's easier to pay idiots to go away than it is to fight them in court and hope the idiots on the jury side with you against a fellow idiot). "McFact No. 2 is a failure.

      Not at all, it indicates a failure to address a problem because they believed they had a cheaper option. McDonald's found out that the public in the form of this jury didn't buy it. So perhaps they changed their behavior.

      Go to McDonalds. They add the cream and sugar.

      I don't care how serious the woman's injuries were. They were caused by HER spilling the coffee she knew to be hot. If you buy a knife and cut yourself like an idiot, can you sue for the knife being too sharp? But what if you like, cut yourself really badly? Does that somehow change who is culpable? (I wouldn't be surprised if you could trot out cases where exactly this happened. That doesn't make the reasoning any less ludicrous, however.). "McFact No. 3" is a failure.

      Let's say the knife was stored in a case provided with it, but it was designed improperly, and cut through it? would you blame the manufacturer or not? What if the knife instead of cutting through your flesh, cut through your bone, your car, and in effect, was a light-saber? Would you say that's a problem?

      I get it, you want to characterize it as the actions of an idiot. That's the story YOU want to push.

      What about other stories? How do you react? We don't know, because, of course, you want to come across in a certain way, without realizing how you really sound.

      Yes, the little old lady said she was a nice little old lady and only wanted her medical bills paid. Is she also selling a used car that she only ever drove on Sundays, to and from church? "McFact No. 4" is a failure because it has nothing to do with anything.

      Not at all! Her character was widely assailed during this case, she was portrayed as seeking a payday. Or an idiot. Just like you did.

      That's why this is relevant. Either she's an idiot, and behaved improperly, or not.

      A rando (no typo here) McDonald's employee claimed McDonald's was aware of the risk? Of course they're aware. They're also aware of the risk of operating a drive through window. People could incorrectly drive their cars and hit things! Further, the rando employee cannot speak to whether or not "most customers wouldn't think it was possible". If such testimony as admitted, McDonald's lawyers failed. "McFact No. 5" is a failure. A rando employee's comments about McDonald's awareness that coffee is hot doesn't mean McDonald's is at fault for someone spilling coffee on themselves. Coffee being hot, and hot things causing burns, is common sense. You'd be hard pressed to find an animal that doesn't know this, let alone a human.

      What are you talking about? Animals don't know that well at all, that's why Zoos and other animal care facilities have to take SEVERE precautions when it comes to stuff being hot. It's like you know nothing about facilities management. So do areas that have children. You may

    37. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by PostPhil · · Score: 2

      Please stop diverting the topic towards irrelevant defenses of entitlement culture and the obsolescence of a responsible public.

      The article claims a link between coffee and tea to cancer, but only via the temperature. So the pertinent question is:

      HOW IS THIS ANY DIFFERENT THAN HOT WATER? Yes, I actually read the PDF document of the WHO report itself. It does not mention hot water, only that "hot beverages" can have a carcinogenic effect. Is click-baiting the only driving force behind "scientific" articles nowadays?

      Here, let me try:
      "Study finds water linked to not only cancer, but global terrorism and kittens drowning."
      (Notice this is all true, but pointless.)

    38. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like a "Duche"? You mean like an Italian dictator?

    39. Re: mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, I agree with all those facts. I guess I just assign responsibility to the person who split the coffee on themselves. After all, that was the critical element. Everything else is of secondary importance to me.

    40. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you, ambulance chaser!

    41. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by The-Ixian · · Score: 2

      You are looking at it the wrong way.

      Who cares about the "idiot" who gets rewarded? This is about holding corporations accountable for dangerous products.

      It's sort of like a car manufacturer who makes a car without any safety features. If someone gets hurt and the company knew that they could have made a safer product but didn't, that's a problem that should be corrected.

      The law suit is about correcting a problem that then benefits everyone. Forget about the fact that one person got some monetary gain (at the cost of severe pain and suffering). That's not important.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    42. Re: mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You shouldn't drink hot water, no. Or even cook with it.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/health/29real.html

      Better to use cold.

    43. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      HOW IS THIS ANY DIFFERENT THAN HOT WATER?

      It isn't different.

      If you haven't noticed by now, /. works by user submissions. User's have agendas and opinions and inject their views into their summaries.

      You have to not be so pedantic and think about the intent of the story/news item and not worry so much about the slant in the summary.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    44. Re: mcdonalds to get sued? by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      The problem is expectation levels.

      Sure, everyone knows that coffee is hot.

      However, most coffee drinkers have also had the experience of spilling coffee on themselves at some point.

      There is never the expectation that spilling coffee on oneself will result in 3rd degree burns which will require skin grafts.

      I have even had my fingers under a fresh stream of drip coffee come flow over my fingers and not been burned.

      Why should I expect that a cup of coffee would cause severe burns? I wouldn't unless there were warnings on the cup stating such a thing.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    45. Re: mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Literally poured it on herself? Could you get any further from the truth?

      She was adding cream and sugar to it, which McDonald's had provided to her. If their cups are so unable to retain their shape without a lid, they don't have one problem, they now have two.

      Probably why they started adding that stuff to the coffee before they serve it to you and handing it in a frame.

    46. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      McFact #9: She was the passenger in the car, and the car was parked at the time.

    47. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      It was 1994. Lots of vehicles lacked cupholders back then.

      In fact, in the history of cupholders her burns are mentioned specifically as accelerating adoption of cupholders.

      "but the life-or-death necessity of the cup holder was proven in the infamous 1994 lawsuit, Liebeck v. McDonaldâ(TM)s Restaurants. If youâ(TM)re too young to remember the hot coffee case (or happened to spend that year renting a nice cave in the Poconos), Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman, sued McDonaldâ(TM)s for damages after spilling 180-degree coffee on her lap in a stationary car. She got third-degree burns from the spill, and was awarded $2.7 million (reduced to $640,000 on appeal) by the jury. The case became fodder for endless Leno monologues and a national argument about tort reform, but it was also a strong argument for industry-wide adoption of the cup holderâ"if the car sheâ(TM)d been sitting in, her grandsonâ(TM)s Ford Probe, had had even one single cup holder, the whole ordeal might have been avoided."

      You probably weren't born yet...

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    48. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by slack_justyb · · Score: 1

      Damn it, pete6677 tried to warn us with

      Damn it, look what you did. You brought up the McDonald's Hot Coffee lawsuit on Slashdot, which always elicits 50+ posts of pedantic nerds re-debating the merits of the suit. Let it go, people. That was years ago.

      Just look at where we are at. Exactly in the spot that he warned us all about. When will we ever learn?! When? /s

    49. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

      You missed how this woman got into this state. She placed the coffee in her groin and set off driving. She was wearing sweatpants that she could not slip off. Unsurprisingly, she crushed the cup and spilled the coffee into her groin. It soaked into the sweatpants which meant it kept burning her. She exited the vehicle and it took her a very long time to remove her sweatpants.

      It is incredibly stupid to take anything hot enough to scald in under 30 seconds and place it mere millimeters from your crotch while wearing something absorbent and difficult to remove in that area (and, FWIW, 165 F coffee will still cause serious burns after a couple of seconds contact with skin, so any of the temperatures she found were dangerous).

      But nobody likes to think about the fact that just maybe she might have literally been one of the dumbest people alive. They just like to hate on McDonald's.

    50. Re: mcdonalds to get sued? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There's also an expectation that, if you buy a cup of coffee and it comes with cream and sugar, that there will be a safe and obvious way to put the cream and sugar into the coffee. Had the cup been able to function without the lid, there would have been no injury and no lawsuit.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    51. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you cannot be trusted to handle what you know is hot wtf are you doing buying coffee. This has nothing to do with mcdonalds being dicks or coffee being brewed at any temperature this is only about personal responsibility are you or are you not responsible for own actions the second you say someone who should have been eliminated by natural selection is not responsible for their own action you open the door to endless lawsuits paid for by who?
      I swear only in the most fucked up country in the world is this even debatable.

    52. Re: mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      She was adding cream and sugar to it while driving, yes? Not exactly a safe practice.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    53. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Putting a cup of scalding hot coffee between your legs in a vehicle that's prone to shake and spill said coffee should not be something that gets rewarded by money as soon as (not if, not even when) the coffee does what is to be expected by any sane person.

      Even forgetting that someone got money out of it, it is still wrong. If she died at least Darwin would have been right for once. Stupidity should be punished. Not rewarded. What she should have gotten out of that behaviour is a burned crotch and ridicule for being so insanely stupid to put the cup there.

      I would be with you if she got her mouth burned by drinking it. Because then she would have acted the way you're supposed to act with a cup of coffee. I would be with you if she got burn damage to her mouth by those hot pockets that insidiously feel warm on the outside with lava on the inside. In both cases you'd have a person doing what a normal, sane person does with food. Being hurt in that case would clearly be grounds for a lawsuit.

      Not if you are too fucking stupid to be allowed to live.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    54. Re: mcdonalds to get sued? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Literally poured it on herself? Could you get any further from the truth?

      She deformed the container with force in a manner that forced the liquid out of the cup. That's a "pour". The first surface it struck after she "poured" it from the cup is her body. She poured it on herself.

      That you don't like the implication of the words doesn't make them wrong.

    55. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Unnamed+Chickenheart · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if I recall correctly: Did they not pay their workers as low as 7$ per hour?

      If so; That is in a sense slavery.

      --
      urd
    56. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Here's the deal.

      You have a beverage that is so hot that it will deliver full thickness (3rd degree) burns to the skin within seconds of contact.

      In addition, the beverage comes in a flimsy cup with a removable lid and extra ingredients which the company clearly expects you to add to the beverage (sugar, cream, etc) after they hand it to you.

      There is absolutely 0 warning, verbal or written that the contents of this cup will severely burn you if it makes contact with your skin.

      Come on, everyone has spilled coffee on themselves at some point and not been burned so why would there be an expectation that this situation would be any different?

      It's like handing someone who has only ever had experience with bb gun a shot gun loaded with magnum slugs and expect them to treat it with a different level of caution. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but if you don't tell them, you have some level of culpability.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    57. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Um, were you reading a different account of the incident than anyone in the courtroom?

      The car was stopped.
      She was a passenger.
      The cup spilled when she removed the top because the foam of the cup failed.
      The burns happened in 2 seconds, not 15 minutes.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    58. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you buy a cup of McDonalds coffee today, the machine is set to the same temp it was before the trial and verdict. See above about balancing risk with benefit.

      But they also have labeling on there now

    59. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      despite the wet floor signs.

      which McDonalds wouldn't have had at that time. Part of the complaint was the lack of indication that the coffee was so extremely hot.

    60. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't remember that case because I didn't live in the United States in 1994. Some of us had jobs that took us to other parts of the world.

      I suppose you were still crapping your pants and so you'd have had plenty of time to sit around doing nothing but watching TV.

    61. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      $480000 sounds like a fairly reasonable payout in this case, and it sounds like you aren't entirely opposed to that (or at least the amount of her huge medical bills, whatever it is), so I don't think we necessarily disagree (except others have covered serving vs. brewing temperatures). I have a bone to pick with this argument:

      Those 700 incidents were over a period of something like 13 years when McDonalds sold billions of cups of coffee. I number crunched the statistics once. If you lived 5 miles from McDonalds and drove there to buy a cup of coffee and took it home, you were more likely to die in a traffic accident than to scald yourself by spilling their coffee. If their coffee was too dangerous for the public, then so is every car on the road.

      That's a pretty nonsensical argument. If I had to swim through shark-infested waters to an island to go rock climbing, then the risk of me dying from a shark attack would exceed the risk of me dying from a rock climbing accident.

      Yes, cars are dangerous, and that's why their use is carefully licensed and car manufacture, sale, and driving is one of the most regulated industries. It's an irrelevant benchmark because driving cars is not drinking coffee, and even if it were relevant it makes for a very poor benchmark in your case a lot of things can be safer than cars and regulated less than cars and still regulated a lot more than coffee.

      In this case, the problem wasn't even that McDonald's served the coffee this hot, it's that it served it this hot with no warning.

    62. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      You know... once you pass saying shit you have no clue about and being willfully ignorant, you are actually in the land of stupid. Ignorant can be cured by educating yourself but stupid is there to the bone.

      You are not only ignorant. You are also dumb and rude.

      Anyway you asked why she had it in her lap. I answered.. "no cupholders".

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    63. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You probably weren't born yet...

      You know... once you pass saying shit you have no clue about and being willfully ignorant

      Pot kettle black.

      Now go die in fire, junior.

    64. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the fuck was she trying to drink while driving? Why the fuck was she holding the coffee between her legs while driving?

      She wasn't driving. She was in the passenger seat and the car was parked.

      It was negligent to get into a vehicle under those circumstances. She clearly didn't understand the danger posed by a hot liquid in an inappropriate container, which means the liquid could just as easily have spilled on the driver while the vehicle was in motion. That in turn could have caused all kinds of havoc, including running over and killing a child.

      Thus, we have multiple negligent parties on this incident. Both plaintiff and defendant were negligent. The lawyers for the defendant were also unethical: they should have known that their client was involved in wrongdoing, and insisted on making a settlement.

      There is a further problem in this case. It's reasonable to asses punitive damages against a party guilty of a tort, however, it is a violation of the right to ethical practice of law (protected under the 9th Amendment as a right 'retained by the people') for the defendant or the defendant's lawyers to profit from the punitive damages. If the defendant can profit, that creates an incentive for juries to award overly high damages in the hopes that someday they will be in the same position. If the defendant's lawyers can profit, that creates an ethical conflict of interest for all legal professionals with respect to abusing tort law.

      This latter conflict of interest is likely the primary reason we have so many abuses of tort law, and the USA is known (and mocked) the world over as being the Land of the Lawsuit: the lawyers collectively have decided it's ok to take 50% or even more of the award in cases like this, instead of actual expenses, which creates massive incentive for abuse in arranging for huge awards for all the legal professional's involved (both sides, and the judge).

      Associations of lawyers have been giving massive amounts of campaign contributions to politicians for years (under rules for such contributions decided by other lawyers), no doubt to ensure that reform of the tort system doesn't happen, and that nobody rocks the ethics boat in law.

      The punitive damages (as opposed to actual damages) should be given to the defendant who is them required to give that portion of the money to some charity that doesn't operate locally (again, to avoid conflict of interest on the part of jurors).

    65. Re: mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She deformed the container with force in a manner that forced the liquid out of the cup. That's a "pour".

      The first surface it struck after she "poured" it from the cup is her body. She poured it on herself.

      That you don't like the implication of the words doesn't make them wrong.

      Thanks for acknowledging the implication, because what makes them wrong, is actually that implication, of it being a deliberate act, that you almost certainly chose with the intent to misrepresent the situation.

      That you defend the misrepresentation caused by your choice of words, doesn't make them accurate. Most especially not in the sense of being "literally" so, as you claimed. Putting that much emphasis only reveals the character behind the words, it doesn't bolster them.

      Or are you just so obtuse you didn't realize it?

    66. Re: mcdonalds to get sued? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I never said or implied "deliberate". That you inferred it doesn't mean it was implied. She didn't intend to give herself 3rd degree burns, but it was her actions and her actions alone that forced the hot liquid onto her skin.

    67. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      McFact 1: MCDonald's knows that people like their coffee hotter than they can drink, as they rarely drink it immeidately, and often take it to another desintation, like work, to drink it, or like to hold the hot cup to warm cold hands.

      I can tell you've never worked a burger chain drive-up window during breakfast hours. I did, though not at McD. Far more often than not, morning customers would be starting to drink the coffee even before the cashier handed the change back (few of the restaurants where I managed had double windows, so the process was typically payment in, drinks out, change out, food out). I knew people who worked at other venues with drive-up breakfast, and this was considered a common behavior - we notice because the drinking of the hot coffee delays the drivers' responsiveness to the handing back of change, thereby lowering the "through time" score of the employee(s) running the window. But maybe the McD drive-up coffee drinkers are all completely different from everybody else.

      Plus, everyone knows that a 165F liquid served in the cheapest possible mass-produced cup cannot possibly be used to warm hands. I'm sure there was a big meeting about that very important issue at McD corporate HQ, with the obvious decision being to serve dangerously hot coffee just so that some people might be able to warm their hands - regardless of season, no doubt.

      McFact 3: serving cold coffee would lose them more money than the suits (at least according to bean counters, probably hired from Ford, after they were fired for counting the Pinto's beans).

      Ah, there's some of that classic AK Marc hyperbole: 165F coffee (typical carafe temperature) is "cold". Brrr!

      McFact 3[sic]: the person in question literally poured it on herself. She took off the lid, that prevents deformation of the circular opening of the cup, then crushed the cup with her legs, forcing the liquid out and onto her body. Had she left the lid on, or used a cup holder, the incident would never have happened.

      You got called on "literally poured" by another poster and your response was as laughable as this original claim. Right after you wrote "literally poured", your own description of what she did doesn't fit any reasonable interpretation of that term.

      Moreover, for 165F coffee, what she did wouldn't have caused her more than immediate pain and lasting redness, or at most perhaps 1st degree burns if she had the weak, thin skin common to the elderly. She did something inadvisable that many people (probably including her) have done every day without suffering burns that require in-patient treatment when they screw it up. The serious medical consequences were caused by the 195F coffee, not her folly, which would have caused no civilly actionable harm at 165F.

      Your usage of "literally pour" here is about as dishonest as your usage of "blind alley".

      Does the stuff you post sound reasonable in your head before you post it? Do you even bother to re-read it at least once before submitting?

      - T

    68. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Wow, my very own AC stalker. And you didn't manage to disprove anything, just insults deflections, and hyperbole.

    69. Re: mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never said or implied "deliberate". That you inferred it doesn't mean it was implied.

      Wrong, it was implied, that's why I was glad you already acknowledged that implication was there.

      Are you now denying it is present? Ok, well, then you are either deluding yourself, lying to me, or so obtuse that you are unaware of the implication that your choice of words by claiming that she "literally poured it on herself." as you said. When you say something is literal, you are claiming that it is exactly true as written.

      That means you are very much making the implication that she poured it on herself, in a deliberate and willful act of exposure, as opposed to an accidental one.

      If you don't want to allow such an implication, you would want to choose a different phrasing. And personally, I find it doubtful you didn't know. But you should be now, and if you want to show your integrity, you can avail yourself of a free opportunity to find another way to express your sentiments without making an implication you did not intend. I'll let you do it.

      And I'll help further, since you also claimed that she "crushed the cup with her legs, forcing the liquid out and onto her body" which if you did not want there to be any implication of deliberate acts, you should also phrase the statement differently. Especially since you don't know that's what happened, you don't know her legs moved at all, and I suspect you'd find it hard to prove without a time machine. Even if the cup was duly entered into evidence, while that might be sufficient to show it was crushed or not, that could also have happened after the burns.

      She didn't intend to give herself 3rd degree burns, but it was her actions and her actions alone that forced the hot liquid onto her skin.

      Nope, couldn't have been her actions alone, since a McDonald's employee heated the hot liquid, and put it in the cup, which they provided to her as part of their business strategy, in the car driven by someone else, and then she added further items that they provided to her, rather than doing it themselves as they do now, or putting it in a cardboard frame to hold it, as they could have.

      But hey, that's why the Jury split the responsibility. It's like they didn't see one side or the other as wholly responsible.

    70. Re: mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She was adding cream and sugar to it while driving, yes?

      No, she was a passenger, and the car was parked. FWIW, the car did not have cup holders.

      Not exactly a safe practice.

      For 165F coffee, it's a potentially very unpleasant practice when it goes wrong, though people do it every day, yet unlikely to cause serious burns. For unanticipated 190F coffee, expect hospitalization when it goes wrong.

      - T

    71. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No, to be honest, I never spilled coffee onto myself. Then again, I know that coffee is a liquid and prone to spilling if handled without care.

      I didn't know that I'm so special and awesome that I knew without someone telling me that coffee is liquid. I hope I don't give away a trade secret by telling you now that water is wet.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    72. Re: mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love pouring air out of all the balloons at your birthday party.

    73. Re: mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you meant popping, as in, "I love pouring air out of all the baloons at your popping birthday party."

    74. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, my memory failed me on the temperature of the coffee. According to a couple of sources I checked after my prior response to you, it was estimated to be 180F to 190F. Of course, her attorneys used the 190F in court, because that's what attorneys do. Regardless, my use of 195F was erroneous.

      Wow, my very own AC stalker.

      Stalker? No, not at all. That seems like a leap to judgement from my point of view. I've had more discussions here, even contentious ones, with other account holders without being tagged as such by them.

      That seems about as prudent a conclusion as me deciding that you frequently post inflammatory drivel just to see if I happen to be lurking in my usual topics of interest in any given week. Imagine all the fact-twisting posts I've missed when I'm not here for a month or three! Odd how two perspectives on the same thing can be so different...

      And you didn't manage to disprove anything, just insults deflections, and hyperbole.

      Well, perhaps we''ll just have to agree to disagree on whether I disproved three of your four McFallacies (#2 was obviously silly). I'll note that in #1, you provided no citation or relevant experience as a basis for your assertion that most (drive-up) customers wait to drink their coffee until they get to their destination, while I did at least provide my own experience. In case your #2 isn't obviously silly to everyone, here's a counterpoint. For #3, what evidence can you show that 165F coffee is generally considered "cold" or what market research (or summarization of such by McD, etc.) showing that 165F coffee would lose more sales than potential litigation over 180F-190F coffee? None, of course. Your second #3 was logically inconsistent as you originally wrote it, and your second attempt to defend your usage of "literally poured" to another poster is objectively laughable, just like the first - no formal proof necessary, QED by casual inspection.

      And don't sell yourself short - you've earned the (mild, IMHO) insults and hyperbole. Enjoy them!

      - T

    75. Re:mcdonalds to get sued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To make coffee you boil water, and you pour it over the coffee and then you serve it.
      If coffee is served at a lower temperature than 100 degrees C minus how much it cools during however long it takes to walk it over t your table I would be surprised.
      Do you sue yourself if you make tea at home and burn your mouth because you are basically drinking boiling water straight from the kettle?

  2. Not worried, frankly. by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I had a customer some years ago who was an oncologist. He told me that the reason we see so much cancer these days is that we live long enough to get cancer.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Not worried, frankly. by msauve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's an indirect way of stating that we've found solutions to most of the diseases which historically killed people. That leave the ones we haven't cured, such as cancer, to increase in relative proportion. You're oncologist's statement doesn't do anything to explain the reason a teenager might get cancer.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re:Not worried, frankly. by msauve · · Score: 1

      s/You're/Your/

      Sometimes my muscle memory gets ahead of me, and previewing short comments is a hassle.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    3. Re:Not worried, frankly. by Calydor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Very similar to what my mother's coworker once said, that cancer is simply nature's failsafe to make sure that eternal life just does not happen. Survive all the other stuff and the cancer WILL get you eventually.

      Here's the really, REALLY big question.

      Do you want to live a life of fun, good food, fun entertainment and hot beverages, then die at 70, or do you want to live a life of measuring everything daily in a state of panic that you might get cancer and then die at 74 - that is, if you don't accidentally walk in front of a bus when you're 40?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    4. Re:Not worried, frankly. by geekmux · · Score: 1

      I had a customer some years ago who was an oncologist. He told me that the reason we see so much cancer these days is that we live long enough to get cancer.

      -jcr

      And here I thought I would never find a more pointless statement that would somehow beat "everything causes cancer these days"...

    5. Re:Not worried, frankly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Teenagers get cancer because of bad luck. If each cell division has a tiny chance of causing cancer some teenagers will get it, and many more people will have it by the time they are 80.

    6. Re:Not worried, frankly. by TeknoHog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here's the really, REALLY big question.

      Do you want to live a life of fun, good food, fun entertainment and hot beverages, then die at 70, or do you want to live a life of measuring everything daily in a state of panic that you might get cancer and then die at 74 - that is, if you don't accidentally walk in front of a bus when you're 40?

      The same question always comes up in discussions of health food, smoking, meat eating etc., and it's always a false dichotomy. The way you eat and exercise has an immediate effect on your quality of life, and more so as you get older. Also, you don't have to be a nutrition nazi to enjoy a better life -- think of the big picture instead of worrying about every single bite. The cognitive benefits may even help you avoid the bus accident.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    7. Re: Not worried, frankly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another interesting point, more men will die with prostate cancer, than from prostate cancer.

    8. Re:Not worried, frankly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Statistics explain why a teenager might get cancer.

    9. Re:Not worried, frankly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So horribly incorrect it hurts.

      The shit we are putting in our body is massively increasing our chances of cancer, from overcooked vegetable oils directly causing inflammation (basically ALL vegetable-oil cooked foods!), stupid amounts of sugar shitting all over our biology and NOT eating things good for you because food companies want to sell you the new latest and greatest hipster diet foods.
      You know, stuff like fat, complex carbs, grains, you know, those things every healthy 75+ life expectancy country eats.
      But nooooo, obviously lies. Why would the food industry lie about all these healthy foods? It has health on it, totally healthy.

      The last part is one of the biggest reasons cancer is so common now.
      Humans went from eating healthy foods to completely watered down foods filled with vegetable oils and fructose, which is all kinds of bad for you in any high quantity.
      The majority of food out there in America and UK these days is less healthy than a fucking VITAMIN TABLET.

      People aren't getting the nutrients the body needs for proper cell division, for proper immune response, for proper repair.
      They are eating too many inflammatory foods, which is draining their immune systems ability to respond in the first place, as well as causing massive scar tissue all over the body, which is highly unstable. And the younger this happens, the worse the damage becomes as you age.
      Scar tissues overall damage on your body scales with age. It is like drawing a dot on a unblown balloon, then blowing it up. Exact same ratio from scar to non-scar, but there is STILL more scar tissue.

      The inactivity part is also making things a lot worse too. Activity cycles things around the body quicker.
      Oxygen is a huge component in the immune response too.
      On top of that, people are over-eating omega 3 as well, which is leading to gimped immune systems. HEALTHY. Can't overeat healthy things!

      EVERYONE develops cancerous cells. There is not a person above 5 that hasn't.
      The thing is, most people actually do eat properly. Outside of America and the UK that is. (and any region touching them, usually)
      The ones that don't are usually the ones that end up with cancer out the ass.
      The ones that do and still get it are the ones unlucky enough to fall prey to lucks hatred of them.
      Said unlucky people are also usually the most extreme cancers, the ones that spread crazy-fast and have mutated an advanced protection against the immune system we still don't understand.

      tl;dr
      Trying to run an unleaded on diesel.
      Might work, but enjoy your eventual craptastrophe.
      Horrible simplification is horrible.

    10. Re:Not worried, frankly. by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this seems to be yet more "science" designed to get media attention and therefore more funding. I'm absolutely certain the WHO has a PR firm.

    11. Re:Not worried, frankly. by Fragnet · · Score: 2

      Statistics doesn't explain though, it describes.

      Anyway according to a physicist who's take on cancer is most interesting, it's a kind-of pre-programmed behaviour from the very early days of Eukaryotic evolution. That is to say, some cells will go into nuts mode when their general environment has deteriorated somehow. Note this guy was funded to look into cancer because researchers were bungling and faffing about, not really making any progress on it. He may be completely wrong of course.

    12. Re:Not worried, frankly. by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your indifference.

      My dad died of oesophageal cancer, so at least for me it's a grave concern. He did live to a reasonable age but the last 18 months of his life were miserably wretched and I wouldn't wish the condition on my worst enemy.

      The survival rates are despairingly low whilst the public consciousness seems to focus on the 'sexier' cancers such as prostate, breast, melanoma, bowel, lung etc

    13. Re:Not worried, frankly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you want to live a life of fun, good food, fun entertainment and hot beverages, then die at 70, or do you want to live a life of measuring everything daily in a state of panic that you might get cancer and then die at 74 - that is, if you don't accidentally walk in front of a bus when you're 40?

      I'LL TAKE THE BUS.

    14. Re:Not worried, frankly. by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      You're oncologist's statement doesn't do anything to explain the reason a teenager might get cancer.

      Sure it does. One of the main causes of teenagers getting cancer is not dying in infancy.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    15. Re:Not worried, frankly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great answer, if I had the time, energy or account with mod points I would mod you up.

    16. Re:Not worried, frankly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are we seeing a higher percentage of teenagers with cancer these days as compared to, say, the 1950's? And if so, is it higher because we can now diagnose it as such, but might not have 60 years ago? Just curious.

    17. Re:Not worried, frankly. by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      That would be true only if teenagers with cancer would have been more likely to die as an infant, or if teenagers used to die of cancer, but the cause of death was misstated because autopsies were not done, or weren't done to modern standards. The second seems much more likely. "Since the late 1970s, cancer incidence rates in teenagers and young adults have increased by almost three-fifths (55%) in Great Britain.", so why are there 50% more cancer cases per 100 teens? Randomly killing 90 of them in infancy should give the same cancer rate, so just being dead doesn't change the rate.

    18. Re: Not worried, frankly. by Type44Q · · Score: 0

      Bullshit, you ignorant nitwit; teenagers get cancer because of all the fucking carcinogens in our air, food and water. Nitwit (did I mention that part?).

    19. Re:Not worried, frankly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that we're talking about the temperature of coffee here. Which has no immediate health benefits either way.

    20. Re:Not worried, frankly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's the really, REALLY big question.

      Do you want to live a life of fun, good food, fun entertainment and hot beverages, then die at 70, or do you want to live a life of measuring everything daily in a state of panic that you might get cancer and then die at 74 - that is, if you don't accidentally walk in front of a bus when you're 40?

      I would like to know if the assumptions made can be backed with facts -

      1) A life of fun, good food, fun entertainment and hot beverages (enjoyment/indulgences, i supposed) would only just have a slightly shorter lifespan (as implied)?
      2) does awareness on the choice (and in this case, temperature) of food/beverage consumed conclusively indicates the person to be living in a state of panic (panaroid, i supposed)?
      3) the probability of accidentally walk in front of a bus (dying by road accident) is significantly high?

    21. Re:Not worried, frankly. by aevan · · Score: 1

      Depends which day of the week. Last I checked it mitigated liver damage from alcohol. Not sure if that was before or after they study saying it raised heart disease which was countered by drinking wine unless the grape was from a vineyard from higher altitu...

    22. Re:Not worried, frankly. by jandersen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Very similar to what my mother's coworker once said, that cancer is simply nature's failsafe to make sure that eternal life just does not happen. Survive all the other stuff and the cancer WILL get you eventually.

      Not necessarily; much research over the recent decade suggests that we die, eventually, of old age, when the body runs out of viable stem cells, because every time they divide, they lose a bit of the telomeres: the bit of DNA at the end of each chromosome, if my memory serves me. When the telomeres are too short, the cells can divide anymore. There was an interesting article a few days ago, about one of the world's oldest women - apparently all of a certain line of cells in her blood could be seen to arise from just two, individual stem cells, where a younger person would have - thousands? Certainly a lot more than two. When we run out of stem cells, we can no longer repair our bodies.

      Cancer is seen more in the elderly for that very reason too. Every time cells divide, there is a certain likelyhood that something goes wrong; in a sense we all have cancer all the time. Fortunately our immune system is able to keep up, clearing out the failed cells that don't kill themselves in apoptosis. If the immune system is under too much pressure, whether it is because of lack of nutrition, stress or repeated tissue damage, the risk of cancer increases, so it isn't surprising if consuming too hot food or drinks can contribute to cancer. Every time a tissue is damaged, it is replaced by tissue that is slightly less well supplied with blood, which means that the immune system cannot patrol the tissue as effectively: cancer cells get the chance to survive longer.

      Here's the really, REALLY big question.

      Do you want to live a life of fun, good food, fun entertainment and hot beverages, then die at 70, or do you want to live a life of measuring everything daily in a state of panic that you might get cancer and then die at 74 - that is, if you don't accidentally walk in front of a bus when you're 40?

      Can you only enjoy life by hurting yourself? I used to drink too much and eat loads of unhealthy things; I feel I enjoy life so much more now that I don't touch alcohol or eat foods with too much sugar, salt and fat. And it's not about feeling holier-than-thou, it has much more to do with the fact that I can enjoy doing things I would not have been able to before, like walking for a whole day in nature or working on one of my projects that involve heavy lifting and strenuous work. Getting drunk or high is fun, but only for a short while - it's like pissing youself to keep warm.

    23. Re:Not worried, frankly. by jandersen · · Score: 1

      Just a followup on my previous posting - I found the article I referred to: https://www.newscientist.com/a...

    24. Re:Not worried, frankly. by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      Do you want to live a life of fun, good food, fun entertainment and hot beverages, then die at 70, or do you want to live a life of measuring everything daily in a state of panic that you might get cancer and then die at 74 - that is, if you don't accidentally walk in front of a bus when you're 40?

      If the last 20 of those 70 years are going to be plagued by vascular and respiratory diseases, and every other kind of malady caused by heavy drinking, unhealthy food smoking and lack of exercise, then those years are useless and painful.

      I'd much rather take just a bit more care, get some exercise and have some actual quality of life, even in old age.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    25. Re: Not worried, frankly. by DThorne · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I see you're following the standard Slashdot policy of letting no single comment ever lie with just a nod of the head, you must complain, whine, humiliate that in some way the poster is WRONG and MISSED THE POINT. Jesus, this annoying community.
      That person's oncologist made a solid point, it's basically true, and wasn't trying to explain your hypothetical "teenager with cancer", even though guess what? Teens in medieval times got cancer too!
      WHO is a useful organization that does a lot of useful things, but they are subject to the same sloppy data analysis that plagues a lot of scientific papers nowadays - all too influenced by outside economic forces and preconceived notions. Even their lame-duck backpedaling on coffee was caveated with "maybe hot drinks", which is another stab in the dark at what might have conceivably tainted their findings.
      Chevy Chase said it best - "scientists have determined that saliva causes cancer, but only when taken in small doses over a long period of time."

    26. Re: Not worried, frankly. by msauve · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're an asshole, and wrong to boot. You lack a basic understanding of cause and effect.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    27. Re:Not worried, frankly. by houghi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Also not that these things are true for groups of people, not about individuals.A doctor who investigates old people also noted that it is remarkable that of all the people she interviewed all had a very uplifiting and positive viuw on life.

      She only interviews people who are older than 100. The first person they investigated was my great aunt who was the oldest person in the world at that moment.

      She gave her body to science with the specific intructions that it should be used for others and as many as possible to learn. In a way, she open sourced her body.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    28. Re: Not worried, frankly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit, you ignorant nitwit; teenagers get cancer because of all the fucking carcinogens in our air, food and water. Nitwit (did I mention that part?).

      It's patently clear you have brain cancer. We all hope and pray you'll make a full recovery.

    29. Re:Not worried, frankly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The solution is obvious. Government issued food pellets. They have been formulated by top government scientists to keep you cancer free. Just ring the bell and we'll deliver one right to your door.

    30. Re: Not worried, frankly. by calmdude · · Score: 1

      The problem is that you don't die right away with cancer. One could suffer quality of life issues for decades. If you ask smokers suffering from late stage cancer whether the fun was "worth it" a year or two into chemotherapy, very few will say yes. Frankly, anyone who has dealt with late stage and terminal cancer personally or in a loved one knows no amount of "fun" is worth it. Your statement is very easy to say when you're healthy.

    31. Re:Not worried, frankly. by LeadSongDog · · Score: 1

      You're oncologist's statement doesn't do anything to explain the reason a teenager might get cancer.

      Sure it does. One of the main causes of teenagers getting cancer is not dying in infancy.

      The sole cause of teenagers is parents.

      --
      Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
    32. Re:Not worried, frankly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That and not drinking Mercury because it was good for you.

    33. Re:Not worried, frankly. by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      yeah, nothing like seeing a lifelong chain smoker with emphysema who is chained to an oxygen tank and can't even climb a flight of stairs at 50 years old to convince you to throw caution to the wind.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    34. Re:Not worried, frankly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like:

      Do you want to live a life of shallow fun, greasy food, passive entertainment and scalding hot beverages, then die of a massive heart attack at 50, or do you want to live a life with more energy, real fun and create your own entertainment by easily avoiding unhealthy foods and habits and die at 90 - that is, if you don't accidentally walk in front of a bus when you're 5?

      The former is someone who thinks drinking, smoking, partying, watching TV and eating a bucket of greasy chicken is fun. The latter is someone who thinks hiking, swimming, mountain climbing, travel and witnessing life and the beauty of nature is fun. I'm guessing you're more in the former camp and are trying to justify your lazy behaviour and disgustingly fat body.

      Also anyone could be killed by a freak accident at any time, but nice touch trying to apply that only to people who live healthy and care about their bodies.

  3. Crying Wolf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So does cold coffee, and steak, and broccoli, and water, and every other fucking thing.

    This is like those "Causes Cancer in California" shit all over the place. It's crying wolf and nobody pays attention to any of this anymore.

    1. Re:Crying Wolf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually cold coffee (or any coffee that isn't boiling hot) can help to fight cancer.

      Steak doesn't cause cancer directly, it's the method of cooking (ie. grilling, smoking) that can. I suppose the same could be said of broccoli if you were to sear it or smoke it or perhaps if it was covered in pesticides and you didn't wash it thoroughly. I don't eat steak, but I would recommend broiling, baking or pressure cooking it if you do. Broccoli is something I only eat raw because it tastes better and is more nutritious that way.

      Clean drinking water (not the chemical infused crap that comes straight from an unfiltered tap) at room temperature or from the fridge won't cause cancer. Water could possibly cause cancer if you drank it while it was too hot, much like the story talks about coffee and tea.

    2. Re:Crying Wolf by phrostie · · Score: 1

      i was wondering if hot food was a problem too then.

    3. Re: Crying Wolf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many people who drink water get cancer, while few people who don't drink water (in any form) at all get cancer. Thus I conclude that drinking water causes cancer and it should be banned.

  4. It could be worse... by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    Given my love of five-alarm chili, I have to suspect that at the other end of the system, things might not go well for me.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:It could be worse... by pauljlucas · · Score: 1

      It's talking about temperature, not spice level, or specifically amount of capsaicin.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    2. Re:It could be worse... by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      Given my love of five-alarm chili, I have to suspect that at the other end of the system, things might not go well for me.

      On the contrary, that burning ring of fire is probably beneficial...

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  5. WHO is full of crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plain and simple. Also wouldn't at all be surprised if they have some sort of political agenda that has nothing to do with people's health and everything with controlling peoples behavior.

    1. Re:WHO is full of crap by famebait · · Score: 1

      That's what they WANT you to believe.

      --
      sudo ergo sum
  6. ME: eating ice cream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    definitely causes ice cream headaches.

    1. Re:ME: eating ice cream by Ann+O'Nymous-Coward · · Score: 1

      Not always. I've eaten plenty of ice cream over way too many years, and I've never had an ice cream headache in my life.

      Mind you, I also like chewing ice cubes, so I'm probably Not Your Average (Polar) Bear.

  7. Hooray. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a weirdo who likes my coffee room temperature. A winner is me.

    1. Re: Hooray. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh god. I love finding a cup of hours old coffee I've forgotten about. We might need a support group.

    2. Re: Hooray. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh god. I love finding a cup of hours old coffee I've forgotten about. We might need a support group.

      No, you are getting sent off to a reeducation camp.

  8. Re:Can we stop indulging the special kid please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    --- Error: COMMIE DETECTED ---
    --- Error ---
    --- Error ---

  9. Unscientific claptrap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I literally have no idea what they're talking about as I don't speak backwardian. Come back when you've learned metric.

    1. Re:Unscientific claptrap by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      65 degrees Celsius

    2. Re:Unscientific claptrap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      338 Kelvin

  10. Re:Can we stop indulging the special kid please? by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Informative

    For those of us in the real world, 149 degrees Fahrenheit = 65 degrees Celsius.

  11. Lots Misunderstanding the Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before everyone loses their minds, there are a few things one should know about the report:
    First, there is still only limited evidence that hot beverages cause cancer, nothing is conclusive.
    Second, there's a clear pathway that very hot (scalding) water could increase the rate of cancer, although very slightly. If the water is hot enough it can damage the esophagus and trigger cell regrowth and scar tissue. These conditions are known to be slightly more cancer prone.
    Really, these results aren't terribly surprising, but the increase in rate of cancer is so small that the WHO taking notice of it is just supplying media fodder.

    More interesting though was that in this same report cancer was removed from the Group 2A possible carcinogens

    1. Re:Lots Misunderstanding the Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More interesting though was that in this same report cancer was removed from the Group 2A possible carcinogens

      Wait... cancer doesn't cause cancer? What?

    2. Re:Lots Misunderstanding the Report by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      in this same report cancer was removed from the Group 2A possible carcinogens

      Hooray! For a while I was living in fear that my cancer was going to cause cancer!

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    3. Re:Lots Misunderstanding the Report by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      in this same report cancer was removed from the Group 2A possible carcinogens

      Hooray! For a while I was living in fear that my cancer was going to cause cancer!

      kids today! when we were your age, we had cancer of the cancer! And we were grateful. We loved it!

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    4. Re:Lots Misunderstanding the Report by Ann+O'Nymous-Coward · · Score: 1
  12. Hot coffee, NOT hot tea by Dorianny · · Score: 4, Informative

    The non-sensational headline for those of us that don't care for them would read: "Repeatedly damaging the tissue lining the esophagus with very hot liquids probably contributes to an increased chance of that tissue becoming cancerous."

    1. Re:Hot coffee, NOT hot tea by pavon · · Score: 1

      You quote applies just as much to hot tea as it does to hot coffee.

    2. Re:Hot coffee, NOT hot tea by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      My dad was a tea-drinker and had the cancer.

      It's also prevalent in the South American nation of Uruguay where they drink copious amounts of yerba mate.

    3. Re:Hot coffee, NOT hot tea by omnichad · · Score: 2

      Or even more plain (and obvious): "More cell replication leads to higher chances of mutation."

    4. Re:Hot coffee, NOT hot tea by omnichad · · Score: 1

      So does the original headline.

    5. Re: Hot coffee, NOT hot tea by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      Yerba Mate, of course, in my limited experience, being served hot enough to strip the enamel off your teeth, (or so it seemed). I assume its served so hot to cover up the fact it tastes like lawn clippings.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    6. Re: Hot coffee, NOT hot tea by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      It's an acquired taste, to be sure. To me it's more like oolong tea strained through a used athletic sock! :)

      I prefer it to that other southern cone rite of passage, Fernet - ghastly stuff, even diluted with Coke.

    7. Re:Hot coffee, NOT hot tea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The non-sensational headline for those of us that don't care for them would read: "Repeatedly damaging the tissue lining the esophagus with very hot liquids probably contributes to an increased chance of that tissue becoming cancerous."

      Christ Almighty, that's a long headline. Excuse me, but I'll have to wait for the paperback edition of your article.

      Here's a headline that would actually fit on the page: WHO Says Hot Beverage Consumption May Increase Cancer Risk?

  13. Re:Can we stop indulging the special kid please? by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    For those of who aren't anti science

    That's 608.67 Rankine

  14. Be really surprised by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    If there weren't also benefits to hot drinks. They are pleasant and evolution tends to tie pleasure to desirable traits.

    1. Re:Be really surprised by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Yes, that explains why people love sugar so much...

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    2. Re:Be really surprised by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Most of the world is more worried about starvation than obesity.

    3. Re:Be really surprised by BronsCon · · Score: 2

      Obesity isn't the concern with sugar, though most people seem to think it is. Sugar, be it fructose, sucrose, or glucose in thigh enough levels, is processed in your liver the same way as alcohol and leads to the same liver damage if consumed in excess. Further, most regions of the world concerned with starvation have less access to sugar-loaded processed and shelf-stable foods and, thus, are at lower risk of obesity even if they suddenly had record harvests resulting in plentiful food for all.

      Don't get me wrong, I love me some sugar; I'm just not disillusioned about what I'm doing to my body when I eat it.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    4. Re:Be really surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually they are not processed in the same way at all.

      Glucose for example is metabolized everywhere in the body. Your brain can only use glucose in fact.

      Fructose is only metabolized in your liver and is indeed very bad for you and is the one that I would argue is worse than alcohol

      Sucrose is actually a glucose and a Fructose bonded together and is also bad for you like Fructose.

    5. Re:Be really surprised by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      If there weren't also benefits to hot drinks. They are pleasant and evolution tends to tie pleasure to desirable traits.

      but why don't animals like them?

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    6. Re:Be really surprised by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      glucose in thigh enough levels

      It seems you missed something. In high enough levels your liver will process the hell out of glucose to get rid of it.

      Here's a good lecture on the topic.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  15. Re:Can we stop indulging the special kid please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hah You are just too stupid to adjust your unit scales to suit the problem.

    In my new Onocological Temperature system 149 degrees Fahrenheit is 1.0

  16. 65 C by khchung · · Score: 3, Insightful

    149F = 65C, guess which unit was used originally?

    --
    Oliver.
    1. Re:65 C by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The unit widely used in most scientific contexts - as well as most parts of the world?

      I also stumbled over not having a clue how hot 149F would actually feel - and had to take a look at the original paper if the WHO actually published it in a nonsensical unit... ;-)

    2. Re:65 C by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      The unit widely used in most scientific contexts - as well as most parts of the world?

      I also stumbled over not having a clue how hot 149F would actually feel - and had to take a look at the original paper if the WHO actually published it in a nonsensical unit... ;-)

      I have no clue how 149F would actually feel either, and I'm a Yank living in Yankland. "Probably somewhere between uncomfortable and painful" would be my guess, but, then, that would have been my guess had they said "65C" as well. I don't think I've experienced personal exposure to temperatures outside the range [-18,38]C/[0,100]F, so all I'd say about temperatures outside that range is "somewhere between uncomfortable and painful".

      But now I'm curious enough that I might actually see if I can measure the temperature of our tea.

    3. Re:65 C by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      150F is roughly Medium done Beef, or a Rare cut of Pork. So if you want to know what long term exposure to 65C/150F would feel like, just imagine roasting yourself in an oven.

    4. Re:65 C by Tomahawk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Beef is cooked once it hits 58C (136.4F).

      My personal preference for cooking a steak is to put it in a 60C oven for an hour and a half, tightly wrapped in cellophane. This will ensure that the meat is fully cooked, but still rare (it's completely pink throughout). I then throw it in a hot pan for a minute on each side, and it's done. Juicy and tender.

      I got this method from a professional chef who cooks full fillets in this restaurant like this - when someone orders a fillet, he cuts a steak off the already-fully-cooked fillet and then just caramelises the outsides quickly in a hot pan. He'll use a thermometer to ensure that the beef is 58C before cutting it.

      Other chefs use a Sous Vide to do this.

    5. Re:65 C by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      A fresh cup of tea with milk that is perfectly drinkable will be over 80 Celsius. By the time it is down to 65 it would be in my view tepid and need drinking very quickly before it becomes vile.

  17. Obligatory plug: cold brewed coffee by rsborg · · Score: 1

    Cold brewed coffee is not only economical & convenient, it's also got less acidity than hot brewed.

    I like mine from TJs - 1 bottle lasts about 1-2 weeks for a small-time drinker like me.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  18. Re:Can we stop indulging the special kid please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, but we already have a medical terminology encoding system for use in medical fields like Oncology, and in that system 149 degrees Fahrenheit has been assigned Concept ID 1528951251210529 (for refererence, 149.1 degrees is Concept ID 1528951251210531 and 149.2 degrees is Concept ID 38)

  19. the cups are alright by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

    just tell me, again, why I would care what some aging band has to say about coffee?

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    1. Re:the cups are alright by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      just tell me, again, why I would care what some aging band has to say about coffee?

      Are you trying to put them down, just because they get around?

      They're not trying to cause a big sensation.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:the cups are alright by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      Are you trying to put them down, just because they get around?

      I can't explain.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:the cups are alright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, someone who didn't get fooled again!

    4. Re:the cups are alright by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      either way, blood flows.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  20. Re:Can we stop indulging the special kid please? by phrostie · · Score: 1

    Celsius' original scale had 100 as freezing and zero as boiling.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  21. Human Pain Threshold by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 4, Informative

    The human pain threshold for temperature is 106-108F (41-42C). Unless you're a masochist who likes to shotgun boiling hot liquids, so long as you don't get a painful sensation, you're fine. Realize that even if the liquid is much higher than this temperature, so long as you sip small quantities of it, it will rapidly cool to something closer to your body temperature when it enters your mouth. Most folks instinctively do this, because pain sucks.

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    1. Re:Human Pain Threshold by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      I can't say I knew for certain that the human pain threshold was 106-108F, but everything else you said seems like common sense to me. I have to think the WHO was just looking for an excuse to publish another new "finding" more than providing anything really useful for people.

      An awful lot of people don't even drink their coffee without diluting it with some creamer or milk first, and/or adding sugar and stirring. All of those processes will serve to drop its temperature too.

      But everyone I know takes really small sips of tea or coffee when it hasn't yet had a little time to sit and cool. Your body is self-regulating your drinking so you don't cause injury.

    2. Re:Human Pain Threshold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will cool rapidly, but still damage cells your mouth during that time, so while it helps against esophagus cancer, your mouth is still in trouble.

    3. Re:Human Pain Threshold by zmooc · · Score: 1

      I didn't RTFA but it seems somewhat unlikely to me that the hot liquid itself directly causes cancer. Wouldn't it be more likely if some kind of thermally induced (chemical) reaction, for example with saliva, would produce carcinogenic compounds?

      --
      0x or or snor perron?!
    4. Re:Human Pain Threshold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The human pain threshold for temperature is 106-108F (41-42C).

      Quick! Someone tell all the people living within 1000 miles of the equator.
       
      ... and tell all the people that serve and drink coffee:
      https://driftaway.coffee/temperature/
      Here at Driftaway Coffee, we tend to enjoy coffee best when it is between 120F and 140F.

      http://www.coffeedetective.com/what-is-the-correct-temperature-for-serving-coffee.html
      Coffee is best served at a temperature between 155F and 175F (70C to 80C). Most people prefer it towards the higher end, at about 175F.

      Calculating the optimum temperature for serving hot beverages:
      The preferred drinking temperature of coffee is specified in the literature as 140+/-15 degrees F (60+/-8.3 degrees C) for a population of 300 subjects. A linear (with respect to temperature) figure of merit merged the two effects to identify an optimal drinking temperature of approximately 136 degrees F (57.8 degrees C).

    5. Re:Human Pain Threshold by Gilgaron · · Score: 2

      It is likely just repeated tissue damage that requires regeneration: repeated sun exposure/sunburn, drinking too much (ie repair of liver damage), breathing in fine dust that tears up your lungs. You could probably increase likelihood of some odd cancer by repeatedly pricking yourself over and over. Basically, cancer is your cells growing when they shouldn't. Anything that promotes normal cell growth is going to promote cancer growth, as well.

    6. Re:Human Pain Threshold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure the exact numbers you've given are BS, unless there's some other parameter I'm unaware of.

      After a quick check with normal water and an old lab thermometer:
      110F - somewhat warm
      120F - comfortable coffee temperature
      130F - uncomfortable after a few seconds
      140F - immediately painful (if not sipping)

      When you consider that common microorganisms start to die off toward the higher end of the scale, it would make sense for a natural pain threshold to roughly align with it.

    7. Re:Human Pain Threshold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I understood it, the mechanism is that the heat damages the cells directly. Damage/repair cycles probably increase the risk of something being mis-repaired, so it seems plausible?

    8. Re:Human Pain Threshold by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      I didn't RTFA but it seems somewhat unlikely to me that the hot liquid itself directly causes cancer. Wouldn't it be more likely if some kind of thermally induced (chemical) reaction, for example with saliva, would produce carcinogenic compounds?

      any constant irritant to tissue is a cancer risk; that's the mechanism behind asbestos and alcohol for instance. probably why things like aspirin show cancer prevention sometimes.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  22. California Labeling? by IMightB · · Score: 1

    I want to know how California will label coffee now.

    This product is may or may not be know in the State of California to cause cancer

    1. Re:California Labeling? by Solandri · · Score: 1

      The state will require the Prop 65 warning on every hot water tap now.

    2. Re:California Labeling? by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      They will just make it illegal to serve it that hot.

  23. This post made me go and make a coffee! by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

    Murderer

  24. Not specifically tea or coffee. by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    The quote from the report is

    These results suggest that drinking very hot beverages is one probable cause of oesophageal cancer and
    that it is the temperature, rather than the drinks themselves, that appears to be responsible

    I don't know where they got 149F from, the report says 70C, which is 158F

    1. Re:Not specifically tea or coffee. by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      I don't know where they got 149F from, the report says 70C, which is 158F

      What The Fine Report - or, rather, The Fine Press Release - says is both

      Studies in places such as China, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Turkey, and South America, where tea or maté is traditionally drunk very hot (at about 70 C), found that the risk of oesophageal cancer increased with the temperature at which the beverage was drunk.

      and

      “Very hot” refers to any beverages consumed at a temperature above 65 C. See the Q&A for more details.

      What The Fine Q&A says is:

      Experimental studies with animals suggest that carcinogenic effects probably occur with drinking temperatures of 65 C or above. In cancer epidemiological studies, people have been asked to describe the usual temperature of beverages they drink. In addition, surveys from regions with a high incidence of cancers of the oesophagus have found that the temperature of very hot drinks was more than 65 C. Therefore, the definition of very hot beverages as temperatures of 65 C or above comes from studies in animals and is also supported by real-world measurements of drinking temperatures of beverages. In contrast, the typical drinking temperature for tea and coffee in most parts of the world is below 65 C.

  25. Words you can trust by Pfhorrest · · Score: 2

    I'd listen to this WHO guy if I were you all. He's a Doctor, after all.

    --
    -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
    "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    1. Re:Words you can trust by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      doctor jimmy?

      when I'm pilled, I don't notice him.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:Words you can trust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best exchange I'm likely to see on Slashdot this week.

    3. Re:Words you can trust by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1
      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  26. Then it isn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they've been looking at it for more than 25 years, and the best they can come up with is still "may" or "probably" cause cancer, then it doesn't.

    1. Re:Then it isn't. by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Perhaps because it's a combination of factors.

      My late father drank roughly 10 cups of tea a day, smoked as a youth before quitting in his early thirties, was overweight and suffered from reflux.

      These were his symptoms and while I can only offer personal anecdotes, yes I am worried about it.

  27. I can see the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tomorrow we'll see another study that will refute this one and say that drinking COLD beverages has a possible relation to cancer...

    So goddamn tired of these correlation based studies that prove nothing.... show me an actual cause and effect, ie. if you do X, it will cause Y which will lead to Z.

    Spend more time and money to figure out how shit works ffs...

  28. Anything by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    Anything drunk or eaten above 149 F (65 C) is potentially dangerous - not only tea and coffee.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  29. That's why by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    "...drinking coffee, tea and other beverages at temperatures hotter than 149 degrees Fahrenheit may lead to cancer of the esophagus."

    That's why I always cool my coffee to 148 degrees before drinking it. Ha ha, suck it, cancer!!

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  30. Re:Can we stop indulging the special kid please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I prefer kelvin for my absolute scales.

    149F = 338.1500K

  31. Re:Can we stop indulging the special kid please? by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

    I do find it hard to believe that the WORLD Health Organisation gave their numbers primarily in Fahrenheit.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  32. I don't want to wait for my coffee by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

    When I want coffee, I want it now and I don't want to have to wait for it to cool down either. I don't want it so hot that it burns my mouth and leaves a flap of skin hanging down. So when my coffee is too hot to drink I get a little irritated. I also don't want to have to put ice in my coffee either because watered down coffee is nasty.

  33. Tea Experiment by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    I drink hot tea, no milk, no sugar - lashings of the stuff. I happen to have a laser thermometer here so I decided I would find out the comfortable temperature that I start drinking and the time it takes to get there for a 250ml ceramic cup - the kettle is boiling now.

    Temperature of ceiling 19C, walls 20C. Windows open, no breeze heater or AC on in my office. 8 seconds from boil to pour.

    • Time start, 0 sec - 77C inside the cup, 48C outside cup
    • 1:30 72C i, 64C o
    • Now I really like a tea, and I'm usually wanting to drink some as soon as possible, my control is waning and I'm having a sip at:

    • 3:30 67C i, 65C o
    • second sip

    • 6:10 63C i, 60C o
    • third sip - getting perfect now

    • 7:10 62C i, 60C o
    • First gulp - still a bit burny

    • 8:20 59 i, 59 o
    • Perfect!

    • 9:26 57i, 54 o
    • Joy

    • 10:20 54, 50
    • two gulps - nice and nice 2/3s done

    • 11:50 54, 50
    • nom, nom

    • 14:40 49, 49
    • ok getting close to slurp phase, I moved the cup around

    • 16:22 50, 45
    • sluuurrppp - ahhhhhhhhhhh!

    • 17:28 49, 33
    • last gulp - that was nice

    • 18:40 48, 29

    I really like a cup of tea and I'll have at least 6 per day, so perhaps that first sip is the one I have to resist or have some cold water. That said, if I'm desperate then my lips or top of my mouth will get burned first - probably different if you have milk and sugar. Now I know.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re:Tea Experiment by Tomahawk · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I would suggest that if you are just taking a sip when the tea is above 63C, then it would have lost several degrees by the time it hits your throat. Unless, that it, you swallow that sip really fast.

      It interesting that the comfortable temperature to drink the tea is around 59C/60C. Our pain receptors tend to react to thing that are dangerous to us, and it's almost as if they are already saying that the tea it too hot and is dangerous. It would be interesting to see similar data from some other people for comparison.

    2. Re:Tea Experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing I find astounding about the GP's post is that it takes him 18 minutes to drink a cup of tea.

      I too drink about 5 or 6 cups a day, but with milk, no sugar. After adding, in order, tea bag, a generous splash of milk, and finally boiling water I leave the bag to steep for maybe 2 minutes, before removing it with a tea spoon, and squishing the remaining moisture out of the bag with my fingers. At this point I have no idea as to the exact temperature of the tea / bag - but I must admit to being curious now - but it feels (just) uncomfortably hot to my fingers. I'll have had the first sip from the cup within the next 10 seconds, as I leave the kitchen, and will generally (unless I get distracted replaying to some random post on /.) have reached the, subjectively, pleasantly warm gulp stage within the next minute and have completely finished the cup within two and a half minutes, tops.

      Obviously the addition of cold milk goes a long way towards lowering the initial temperature but ... I'll have to dig out a thermometer for an objective comparison with the GP.

    3. Re:Tea Experiment by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I would suggest that if you are just taking a sip when the tea is above 63C, then it would have lost several degrees by the time it hits your throat.

      You're probably right, I simply had no idea what the temperature was and never thought to have a need to measure it until I read the article and since the laser thermometer was right there...

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    4. Re:Tea Experiment by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      The thing I find astounding about the GP's post is that it takes him 18 minutes to drink a cup of tea.

      So did I!

      I too drink about 5 or 6 cups a day,

      It is probably a gross underestimate of my actual consumption. I frequently have one or two 1.5 litre *pots* in the afternoon.

      Obviously the addition of cold milk goes a long way towards lowering the initial temperature but ... I'll have to dig out a thermometer for an objective comparison with the GP.

      I think the cold milk does make a difference - I splash some cold water in the cup when I want to drink it fast. Generally I just like to drink it and enjoy it. I would be interested in how the milk changes it if you end up measuring that.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  34. Then most of chinese should have cancel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They seem to drink hot tea all the time thought out day even when it is hot!

  35. Re:Can we stop indulging the special kid please? by Guy+Harris · · Score: 2

    I do find it hard to believe that the WORLD Health Organisation gave their numbers primarily in Fahrenheit.

    And, as you're probably implying here, they didn't.

    The only place where, as a Yank, I might currently find Fahrenheit more familiar than Celsius are 1) "how hot/cold is it in here/out there?" and 2) "do I have a fever?", just because I'm used to the ranges; living outside Yankland I'd probably pick up the "yow it's {hot,cold} out there!" and "better take it easy and stay in bed today" values pretty quickly.

    65C and 149F are both "OK, how hot is that in real-world terms?" values for me; 65C is no more "so what does that mean in real life?" than is 149F. I know the water was 100C/212F at one point (when the teakettle was whistling), but I don't know how hot it was when 1) I took the first "a bit hot, I'll let it cool down" sip, 2) when I actually started drinking it, and 3) right now (although it's probably well below 35C, and perhaps even below 30C, now).

  36. Re:Can we stop indulging the special kid please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This might be a clue that its a fake article, or that it was not done by a real scientist.

  37. Not at all surprising by omnichad · · Score: 2

    Forcing your body to replicate cells more often leads to a higher chance of a mutation - that couldn't be more obvious. The more times you attempt a clean copy, the more chances for a bad copy. I think this would apply to any case where cells are constantly being damaged and repaired (sunburn).

    1. Re:Not at all surprising by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Physical exercise/exertion also leads to more cell damage and repair - but that is known/suspected to lower chances of cancer. So not any case, just some.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    2. Re:Not at all surprising by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Still a much smaller scale of repair, especially since these cells aren't already undergoing constant renewal.

      The cell damage and repair isn't what lowers your chance of cancer with exercise. It's a systemic benefit wholly unrelated to the cellular damage. I doubt exercise could very often cause the extent of damage we are talking about here anyway.

    3. Re:Not at all surprising by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Still, the cell flux in exercisers is more than that in non-exercisers. That contradicts your generalization.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    4. Re:Not at all surprising by omnichad · · Score: 1

      No, that's really not a contradiction at all. The cell flux is still too small to be significant enough.

    5. Re:Not at all surprising by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      The more times you attempt a clean copy, the more chances for a bad copy.

      The whole mechanism of muscle building by exercising is kind of about controlled cell breakage - which combined with good diet and rest leads to a better (mostly stronger, likely to be bigger) muscles. In what sense is it insignificant ?

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    6. Re:Not at all surprising by omnichad · · Score: 1

      In what sense is it insignificant?

      In quantity.

    7. Re:Not at all surprising by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Forcing your body to replicate cells more often leads to a higher chance of a mutation - that couldn't be more obvious. The more times you attempt a clean copy, the more chances for a bad copy. I think this would apply to any case where cells are constantly being damaged and repaired (sunburn).

      in the lab, one of the ways they promote tumor growth in rabbits is to just punch a hole in their ear with a hole punch.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    8. Re:Not at all surprising by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      The more times you attempt a clean copy, the more chances for a bad copy.

      So much insignificant that it becomes negative ?

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    9. Re:Not at all surprising by omnichad · · Score: 1

      You have a serious reading comprehension issue. I'm not going to handhold you.

    10. Re:Not at all surprising by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      The more times you attempt a clean copy, the more chances for a bad copy.

      This can only be true if you "insignificant" means "negative".

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    11. Re:Not at all surprising by omnichad · · Score: 1

      You just wrote something completely incomprehensible.

    12. Re:Not at all surprising by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      The more times you attempt a clean copy, the more chances for a bad copy.

      This can only be true if your "insignificant" means "negative".

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    13. Re:Not at all surprising by omnichad · · Score: 1

      It wasn't a missing word that made you incomprehensible.

      Maybe you should research how muscle fibers are rebuilt following damage before you go any further. Hint: It's mostly NOT cell division.

    14. Re:Not at all surprising by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      What cell division ?

      The more times you attempt a clean copy, the more chances for a bad copy.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    15. Re:Not at all surprising by omnichad · · Score: 1

      The more times you attempt a clean copy, the more chances for a bad copy.

      Yes, there is cell division involved in muscle repair. But NOT MUCH. Not enough that you're causing a significant amount of extra cell division. Meaning you're not significantly increasing your chances of a mutation during the replication process.

      Only the satellite cells that connect the muscle fibers divide during muscle repair. And the "damage" from exercise does not destroy a significant number of cells, either.

      What part are you not getting?

    16. Re:Not at all surprising by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      The more times you attempt a clean copy, the more chances for a bad copy.

      And if this "NOT MUCH" is positive, according to your statement quote above, it should result in at least a "not much" more chances of a bad copy.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    17. Re:Not at all surprising by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Yes. That's correct.

      Whether your immune system cleans up a mutation before it becomes cancerous is an entirely separate function, which as you said is dependent on exercise among other things. You can decrease your overall chances of getting cancer even while marginally increasing the chance of mutation. They're not incompatible concepts.

      You're saying that exercise reduces the chance of cancer. I'm saying that it also increases the chance of mutation. Not every mutation becomes a persistent cancer, especially if your immune system is up to the task due to better overall health.

    18. Re:Not at all surprising by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Then why were you harping on it being insignificant? The part of oesophagus exposed to high temperature is insignificant as compared to large areas of muscle growth over a long period of time of high exercise.

      It is not that it is insignificant, it is that it is diluted over more body cells, and may be accompanied by other cancer preventing effects of exercise.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    19. Re:Not at all surprising by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Because there's not much cell division going on with muscle damage and repair compared to esophageal tissue getting 1st and 2nd degree burns. Especially since esophageal tissue is being constantly renewed in the absence of damage - which is multiplied when there is damage.

      Your risks of esophageal cancer are reduced by exercise for the same reasons.

  38. That is the dumbest thing I've read all year by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    and I read fark. Sorry man, but come on. Where do I begin? Just because you might live long enough to be exposed to a risk doesn't make the risk go away. My Mom died of lung cancer from cigarettes in her mid-50s. By that logic it's OK to smoke because 100 years ago she would have died in child birth in her 40s. The correct response is to keep identifying and eliminating unnecessary risk factors. Smoking's one. Drinking stupidly hot coffee is probably another. I like it when people tell me these things. With the right drugs I might live happily into my 90s (check out what they're doing with Testosterone & Steroid therapy if you have enough money and if you can get people to stop whining about Athletes doping long enough to loosen the stupid ass regulations).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:That is the dumbest thing I've read all year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Visit some people in their 90's and tell me that what they're doing is really living. These people aren't really living, they're literally waiting for it to end. Everyone is in such a rush to live longer that they don't consider the fact that your quality of life at that age is terrible anyway.

  39. Nature's failsafe? by Atmchicago · · Score: 2

    Very similar to what my mother's coworker once said, that cancer is simply nature's failsafe to make sure that eternal life just does not happen.

    Why would "Nature" (which is not a willful entity) "want" to make sure that eternal life doesn't happen? By the way, when a bacterium divides, or when a sperm (alive) and egg (alive) join, guess what -- they stay alive. The germline cells are, in a very real sense, immortal. They can die by the usual physical means (e.g. getting crushed, eaten, etc...) but are nonetheless the means and result of rejuvenation.

    --

    You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.

    1. Re:Nature's failsafe? by Calydor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not talking about a willful desire to avoid eternal life.

      Bacteria is one thing. If larger lives, think mammals, reptiles, birds and so on were able to survive eternally then evolution would be stagnant - that, or the planet would eventually be so full of identical life that there would be no room for any more lives to be added.

      It is difficult to put into words, especially since English isn't my native language, but nature and evolution would be in trouble if things were able to, well, not die. That is what makes cancer a failsafe, a means of renewal in the bigger picture, a certainty that older creatures will eventually give way to younger ones.

      At the end of the day, cancer comes from the degradation of cells, shortening of some connectors whose names escape me at the moment. It is as close to a law of nature as you can get, a physical constraint on how long a given body can last. Some make it past 100, some only make it to 60, but those hundred years are still a long, LONG way from living forever.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    2. Re:Nature's failsafe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not talking about a willful desire to avoid eternal life.

      Bacteria is one thing. If larger lives, think mammals, reptiles, birds and so on were able to survive eternally then evolution would be stagnant - that, or the planet would eventually be so full of identical life that there would be no room for any more lives to be added.

      It is difficult to put into words, especially since English isn't my native language, but nature and evolution would be in trouble if things were able to, well, not die. That is what makes cancer a failsafe, a means of renewal in the bigger picture, a certainty that older creatures will eventually give way to younger ones.

      At the end of the day, cancer comes from the degradation of cells, shortening of some connectors whose names escape me at the moment. It is as close to a law of nature as you can get, a physical constraint on how long a given body can last. Some make it past 100, some only make it to 60, but those hundred years are still a long, LONG way from living forever.

      Yea? but what selection pressure would exist against an immortal life? Unless you're saying that every 100 years or so the life that exists is so much better (more adapted) than the life a century ago that an immortal line would be too inferior to reproduce? More likely selection just hasn't developed a good enough organism yet to survive forever.

      Think about fictional immortal creatures like vampires. Why would they not just be able to predate on every other living thing and out-compete everything else until they and the food crops they cultivated were the only living things. Much more likely that selection is just not perfect and the life currently stomping around on this planet isn't perfect yet either. If a man was immortally 30 and good looking, they would reproduce profusely, particularly considering the massive wealth they would accumulate from not dying or getting sick, not to mention the massive intellect they would accumulate.

      As humans, rather than as organisms, the greatest tragedy and economic catastrophe is that people get sick, old and die. Losing that knowledge and heritage is a great tragedy. From an organism perspective, of course, it makes little difference if we live long lives in mansions and reproduce infrequently, or wallow around in shit, reproduce profusely and live short lives. It really doesn't matter as a colony either if there are many of us controlling few resources each or few of us controlling many resources each, all that determines survivability is diversity of habitat and germ, and supply of suitable nutrients.

    3. Re:Nature's failsafe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the words you might be looking for are "immortality is not evolutionarily selected for".

    4. Re:Nature's failsafe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are referring to telomeres, and no, those aren't involved in cancer. At least not in any ordinary way. Telomere shortening is one of the key reasons why cells cannot divide indefinitely. In adults most cell lines can divide a finite number of times and then they lose that capability.

      You could say that cancerous cells don't experience telomere shortening. I believe that is true. However cancer overall is caused by a loss of control/damage to the cellular senescence system. AFAIK telomere preservation/shortening is only a small part of the story.

      Small correction. Telomeres are not connectors. They are caps at the end of chromosomes. Telomeres serve a protective function to the chromosome during cell division.

    5. Re:Nature's failsafe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > nature and evolution would be in trouble if things were able to, well, not die.
      Nature and evolution are not sentient and do not care about anything.
      Evolution is simply an observed byproduct of well adapted animals outliving non well adapted animals.
      If somehow some animal evolved the ability to live forever, it would quickly take over the planet, and then either die out, because of lack of food, or it would figure out how to keep feeding itself.
      Evolution would continue, because presumably all the individual immortal creatures would not be identical.
      Some would have more or less offspring than others for whatever reason, and over time those would become dominant.

  40. You know you could just by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    wait for your coffee to cool, right? In my experience if I'm drinking it that hot it's because it tastes like garbage. The Japanese don't drink Sake warm because of tradition, they drink it warm because cheap Sake tastes better that way.

    And there are _lots_ of other good things in life besides junk food and cheap, burnt coffee.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:You know you could just by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germans drink their beer warm because good beer shouldn't be cold. Budweiser (the fake American Budweiser) is usually drunk cold because it tastes less like piss that way.

  41. Your question misses the point... by bayankaran · · Score: 1

    Do you want to live a life of fun, good food, fun entertainment and hot beverages, then die at 70, or do you want to live a life of measuring everything daily in a state of panic that you might get cancer and then die at 74 - that is, if you don't accidentally walk in front of a bus when you're 40?

    Do the fun, good food, entertainment, hot/cold beverages and all that stuff you may die at 70. Agreed.

    But how will you die? You will probably die of some medical complication attributed to your lifestyle choices which makes such a hit on your quality of life that death is probably a better option.

    --
    Tat Tvam Asi
  42. Missing from summary by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

    Missing from the highly biased summary. The WHO actually downgraded the rating for coffee stating that their is no conclusive evidence to suggest drinking coffee causes cancer

    1. Re:Missing from summary by Githyanki · · Score: 0

      That would be correct. Coffee does not seem to be the culprit, it is drinking hot liquid. Drinking scalding hot water would give the same increased risk of esophageal cancer. I really couldn't fathom why anyone would drink hot water.
      Coffee doesn't kill people, hot water kills people! Keep our coffee free!

  43. highly overrated summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not sure about others but UDP definitely IS stopped by our firewall so saying this isn't prevented by firewalls is just bullshit. I would also not rate this as severe, it is probably important and should be patched in anyones next round of patching but not something you have to go around panicing about in a properly configured network.

  44. Metric conversion is... by blibbo · · Score: 1

    65 degrees Celsius. This information is very prominent in the article, I wish it made the /. summary too for slashdot's international readers.

  45. Re:Can we stop indulging the special kid please? by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

    And, as you're probably implying here, they didn't.

    Well, I was mostly having a go at Slashdot editors, but yes, that is what I was implying.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  46. Re:Can we stop indulging the special kid please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not anti-science. It's an American web site. The metric system is just as arbitrary as our units, and many (all?) customary units are now defined in terms of SI units, so shove it.

  47. not new, see 2009 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was already raised years ago

  48. This! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For fuck's sake, this!

  49. Luckly I prefer it at 136. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a few degrees cooler just for safety factor.

    I have one of those instant stick thermometers.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  50. Long suspected of yerba mate tea by Gamasta · · Score: 1

    There's already a long suspicion that the correlation between regular consumption of hot yerba mate tea in south america and incidence of esophageal cancer may be causative. It wasn't confirmed back in the days because there were other substances in the tea that might explain the higher incidence of cancer. Now there seems to be confirmation of this suspicion.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    reason defies logic
  51. Re:Can we stop indulging the special kid please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ‘65C is no more "so what does that mean in real life?" than is 149F.’ – I live in Europe, where we never use Fahrenheit, and I have got a general idea. Body temperature is about 37 degrees and your pain threshold is about 5 degrees higher than that. 50 degrees is scalding hot, 70 degrees is commonly used for hot tap water and coffee machines.

    P.S. Shame on Slashdot for stripping away the degree symbol (AltGr+:).

  52. Re:Can we stop indulging the special kid please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    338.15 Kelvin you worthless imperial fuckwit.

  53. 65C by Tomahawk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They actually said 65C, in case anyone was wondering why it was a strange number (149F).

    I really wish people would report what WHO actually said, and then put the equivalent units in brackets:

    "... at temperatures hotter than 65C (149F) ..."

    I also wish people would report in SI units always. Put local units also, but always have SI, either as the primary number, or a secondary in brackets. The preference would be SI as primary and local in brackets as secondary. (remembering, of course, that 6.6bn people use SI units, and 350-400m use those other ones)

    But that just my wish... I know it'll likely not happen. But one can always wish and hope...

    1. Re:65C by chihowa · · Score: 1

      As an (American) scientist, I wish things were reported in actual SI units (with proper use of prefixes and base/derived units), instead of the SI-"accepted" customary units like the tonne and hectare.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  54. Re:Can we stop indulging the special kid please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But the difference is that metric units make sense right away, while American units first need to be converted. Why not write it in metric units directly?

  55. Not if, but when by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

    And if the cameras become 'publicly identifiable'

    You mean "'When the cameras become publicly identifiable"'?

  56. That's 65 Degrees Celsius by Mortimer82 · · Score: 1

    Considering that only a handful of countries in the world use Fahrenheit, it would have been nice for the editors to have both Celsius and Fahrenheit in the summary text.

  57. Re:Can we stop indulging the special kid please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't NEED to "pick up the values" when it comes to Celsius. Especially when it comes to something like coffee, where 100 is boiling and 0 is frozen. Especially if you know that water cannot usually be heated past boiling point. You know, 100.

    As opposed to Fahrenheit where I still haven't remembered what the upper and lower values are supposed to be in what situations other than vague statements of "well it's what's comfortable" or whatever.

  58. What sort of scientist uses Fahrenheit by Martin+S. · · Score: 1

    When there is a perfectly good SI measurement for Temperature?

    1. Re:What sort of scientist uses Fahrenheit by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      When there is a perfectly good SI measurement for Temperature?

      If you use that socialist european temperature, then the terrorists have won.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  59. Celsius by stooo · · Score: 2

    >> 149 degrees Fahrenheit
    I don't drink at Fahrenheit temperatures, so I should be safe.

    --
    aaaaaaa
  60. Crackpots are also claiming cold beverages are bad by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

    Maybe a couple of years ago my step-mother found some crackpot pseudo-medical claim online that drinking cold beverages is also bad for you and causes cancer. She showed it to me to "help" me and if I remember, it claimed that any beverage not at a temperature close to the human body temperature was potentially very bad for you. It involved a bunch of ramblings about how your body has to use energy to warm up the cold beverage and using that energy is supposedly bad. So she stopped ordering any drinks in restaurants with ice and my poor late father started doing the same. I never asked him about it before he died, but I assume he decided that it wasn't a battle he wanted to fight and he'd just go along with her on it.

  61. Metric system != FREEDOM by dfm3 · · Score: 1

    But this is an American site! I want all my measurements to be in libraries of congress, football fields, and statues of liberty. For those who don't understand the metric system, 65C is approximately 1/20th the temperature of the inside of a blue 4th of July firework!

    1. Re:Metric system != FREEDOM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      football fields

      Rest-of-world or American football?

  62. Scientists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No scientists with respect for them self uses fahrenheit.

  63. Re:Can we stop indulging the special kid please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Significant figure fail, you ignorant fuckwit.

  64. Re:Can we stop indulging the special kid please? by chihowa · · Score: 1

    You don't NEED to "pick up the values" when it comes to Celsius. Especially when it comes to something like coffee, where 100 is boiling and 0 is frozen.

    For the temperatures he was referring to, he (hopefully!) does: 1) "how hot/cold is it in here/out there?" and 2) "do I have a fever?"

    As a scientist, who uses exclusively metric every day at work, I still don't have much familiarity with "how hot/cold is it in here/out there?" temperatures in Celsius.

    As opposed to Fahrenheit where I still haven't remembered what the upper and lower values are supposed to be in what situations other than vague statements of "well it's what's comfortable" or whatever.

    Which is entirely a matter of familiarity. The temperatures at which water freezes and boils are not the most useful reference points for most of our daily interactions with the world. For any temperature scale in use, those interactions require familiarity from daily use.

    --
    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  65. Is WHO bored, or something? by wcrowe · · Score: 1

    You would think that WHO would have something better to do. I mean, considering the billions of people who regularly drink hot coffee and tea, and the very low rate of esophageal cancer, the risk hardly seems worthy of discussion.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  66. roof of mouth, lips by EdZep · · Score: 1

    The temperature-limiting factors for me are the roof of my mouth -- first tissue to burn, and soon slough off -- followed by my lips.I can't even imagine burning my esophagus. Or, maybe I AM burning my esophagus, and don't even know it? At what temperature have my mouth and lips been burning?

  67. News Flash.......... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Disease cause by mistakes in cell replication occur more often in individuals who do things to cause cells to replicate.

    It's like I've always wondered about smoking, how much of it is the tar and chemicals actually putting something in your body, as opposed to them just choking the lining of your lungs and causing massive cell death and replication...thus increasing the chance of a cancerous mutation. Or the fact that more gay men have colon cancer...is the increased friction causing cells to die and regrow at an increased rate?

  68. Re:Can we stop indulging the special kid please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OMFG shut up already all you Celsius-insisting assholes

  69. Burn damage by phorm · · Score: 1

    More like
    "repeatedly burning your software tissue and causes regeneration that may lead to defects and cancer"

    Also applies to hot anything, including water!

  70. Farenheit was used originally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Farenheit was used originally. It was developed in 1724. Celsius wasn't developed until 1742 and it was backwards (0 C = boiling, 100 C = freezing).

  71. Re:Can we stop indulging the special kid please? by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

    You don't NEED to "pick up the values" when it comes to Celsius.

    So it's intuitively obvious, to somebody unfamiliar with Celsius, Fahrenheit, or any other temperature scale, other than knowing the values of the freezing and boiling points of water, that 20 to 25 Celsius is a reasonably comfortable temperature, that 30 Celsius is getting a bit warm (as in "you probably don't want to wear anything long-sleeved"), and 35 Celsius is in the "hot enough for you?" range? (Note: my choice of multiples of 5 is somewhat arbitrary.)

    Especially when it comes to something like coffee, where 100 is boiling and 0 is frozen. Especially if you know that water cannot usually be heated past boiling point. You know, 100.

    And that tells me what 65C is like, other than "in the range of 2/3 of the way from the freezing point to the boiling point"? I know drinking boiling water would not be good, but I don't know what 65C/149F water is like. (This whole discussion does mean I'd like to do some measurements so that I know what, for example, the temperature of my tea is once poured, and what it is when I find it comfortably drinkable. But the numerical values would be completely arbitrary, so either scale would work equally well for me.)

  72. lemme just point out by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    WHO guidelines for "probable carcinogen" are somewhat different than what most organizations in the US use. The WHO puts something on the probable carcinogen list if there is evidence that the compound is at all capable of causing cancer in any dosage, regardless of whether in reality it does or does not in normal use. This makes their list somewhat longer, but less meaningful. not sure how relevant that factoid may be here, but maybe.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  73. Breaking News..... More at 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Repeatedly damaging skin cells with liquid magma , may in fact over time contribute to Cancer Mutations..... OMG...

  74. Re:Can we stop indulging the special kid please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Celsius's original scale

    FTFY

  75. Hot Coffee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hot tea or coffee has much more immediate effects than cancer. Effects which, in any of the 7 billion of us alive, cause us to not drink our tea or coffee so hot.

    File this under: Stupid stories causing alarm in the stupid. More stupid News at 11.

  76. Actually, WHO reports 65 degree Celcius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't mind the submitter translating it into imperial measurements, but it would be nice to keep the original (SI) measurement in the text as well.