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.
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."
149F = 65C, guess which unit was used originally?
Oliver.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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=-
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...