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.

Comments

mcdonalds to get sued?

[Joe_Dragon]

They used to have Extremely Hot Coffee.

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[Solandri]

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,

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[sexconker]

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.

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[jellomizer]

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.

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[omnichad]

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.

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[omnichad]

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.

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[guises]

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.

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[AK Marc]

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.

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[pete6677]

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.

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[Waffle Iron]

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.

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[MrKaos]

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.

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[No Longer an AC]

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.

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[Swave An deBwoner]

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.

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[bingoUV]

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.

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[jandersen]

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.

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[bingoUV]

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....

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[aevan]

Never make me tea.

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[dunkelfalke]

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.

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[Opportunist]

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

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[bingoUV]

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.

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[Dogtanian]

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.

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[PostPhil]

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.)

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[The-Ixian]

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.

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[The-Ixian]

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.

Re: mcdonalds to get sued?

[The-Ixian]

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.

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[Fwipp]

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

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[Maxo-Texas]

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...

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[slack_justyb]

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

Re: mcdonalds to get sued?

[david_thornley]

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.

Re: mcdonalds to get sued?

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

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

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[Opportunist]

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.

Re: mcdonalds to get sued?

[AK Marc]

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.

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[Unnamed Chickenheart]

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.

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[The-Ixian]

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.

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[Coren22]

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.

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[Your.Master]

$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.

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[Maxo-Texas]

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".

Re: mcdonalds to get sued?

[AK Marc]

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.

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[AK Marc]

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

Re:mcdonalds to get sued?

[Opportunist]

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.

Not worried, frankly.

[jcr]

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

Re:Not worried, frankly.

[msauve]

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.

Re:Not worried, frankly.

[msauve]

s/You're/Your/

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

Re:Not worried, frankly.

[Calydor]

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?

Re:Not worried, frankly.

[geekmux]

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"...

Re:Not worried, frankly.

[TeknoHog]

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.

Re:Not worried, frankly.

[pipingguy]

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.

Re:Not worried, frankly.

[Fragnet]

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.

Re:Not worried, frankly.

[ChunderDownunder]

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

Re:Not worried, frankly.

[Pseudonym]

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.

Re:Not worried, frankly.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Not worried, frankly.

[AK Marc]

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.

Re:Not worried, frankly.

[aevan]

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...

Re:Not worried, frankly.

[jandersen]

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.

Re:Not worried, frankly.

[jandersen]

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

Re:Not worried, frankly.

[KozmoStevnNaut]

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.

Re: Not worried, frankly.

[DThorne]

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."

Re: Not worried, frankly.

[msauve]

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

Re:Not worried, frankly.

[houghi]

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.

Re: Not worried, frankly.

[calmdude]

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.

Re:Not worried, frankly.

[LeadSongDog]

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.

Re:Not worried, frankly.

[gzuckier]

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.

It could be worse...

[hyades1]

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.

Re:It could be worse...

[pauljlucas]

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

Re:It could be worse...

[XxtraLarGe]

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...

Re:Can we stop indulging the special kid please?

[Yvan256]

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

Re:Unscientific claptrap

[Yvan256]

65 degrees Celsius

Hot coffee, NOT hot tea

[Dorianny]

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."

Re:Hot coffee, NOT hot tea

[pavon]

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

Re:Hot coffee, NOT hot tea

[ChunderDownunder]

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.

Re:Hot coffee, NOT hot tea

[omnichad]

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

Re:Hot coffee, NOT hot tea

[omnichad]

So does the original headline.

Re: Hot coffee, NOT hot tea

[Jarik C-Bol]

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.

Re: Hot coffee, NOT hot tea

[ChunderDownunder]

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.

Re:Can we stop indulging the special kid please?

[Crashmarik]

For those of who aren't anti science

That's 608.67 Rankine

Be really surprised

[Crashmarik]

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

Re:Be really surprised

[BronsCon]

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

Re:Be really surprised

[Crashmarik]

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

Re:Be really surprised

[BronsCon]

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.

Re:Be really surprised

[gzuckier]

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?

Re:Be really surprised

[BronsCon]

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.

65 C

[khchung]

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

Re:65 C

[Guy Harris]

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.

Re:65 C

[Tomahawk]

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.

Re:65 C

[jabuzz]

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.

Obligatory plug: cold brewed coffee

[rsborg]

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.

Re:Crying Wolf

[phrostie]

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

Re:Lots Misunderstanding the Report

[Qzukk]

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!

the cups are alright

[TheGratefulNet]

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

Re:the cups are alright

[93 Escort Wagon]

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.

Re:the cups are alright

[TheGratefulNet]

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

I can't explain.

Re:the cups are alright

[TheGratefulNet]

either way, blood flows.

Re:Can we stop indulging the special kid please?

[phrostie]

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

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

Human Pain Threshold

[Irate Engineer]

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.

Re:Human Pain Threshold

[King_TJ]

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.

Re:Human Pain Threshold

[zmooc]

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?

Re:Human Pain Threshold

[Gilgaron]

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.

Re:Human Pain Threshold

[gzuckier]

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.

California Labeling?

[IMightB]

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

Re:California Labeling?

[Solandri]

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

Re:California Labeling?

[Narcocide]

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

This post made me go and make a coffee!

[Harlequin80]

Murderer

Not specifically tea or coffee.

[viperidaenz]

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

Re:Not specifically tea or coffee.

[Guy Harris]

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.

Words you can trust

[Pfhorrest]

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

Re:Words you can trust

[TheGratefulNet]

doctor jimmy?

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

Re:Words you can trust

[K. S. Kyosuke]

This doctor? ;-)

Anything

[hcs_$reboot]

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

That's why

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

"...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!!

Re:Then it isn't.

[ChunderDownunder]

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.

Re:Can we stop indulging the special kid please?

[Pseudonym]

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

I don't want to wait for my coffee

[Stonent1]

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.

Tea Experiment

[MrKaos]

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.

Re:Tea Experiment

[Tomahawk]

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.

Re:Tea Experiment

[MrKaos]

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...

Re:Tea Experiment

[MrKaos]

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.

Re:Can we stop indulging the special kid please?

[Guy Harris]

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).

Not at all surprising

[omnichad]

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).

Re:Not at all surprising

[bingoUV]

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.

Re:Not at all surprising

[omnichad]

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.

Re:Not at all surprising

[bingoUV]

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

Re:Not at all surprising

[omnichad]

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

Re:Not at all surprising

[bingoUV]

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 ?

Re:Not at all surprising

[omnichad]

In what sense is it insignificant?

In quantity.

Re:Not at all surprising

[gzuckier]

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.

Re:Not at all surprising

[bingoUV]

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

So much insignificant that it becomes negative ?

Re:Not at all surprising

[omnichad]

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

Re:Not at all surprising

[bingoUV]

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".

Re:Not at all surprising

[omnichad]

You just wrote something completely incomprehensible.

Re:Not at all surprising

[bingoUV]

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".

Re:Not at all surprising

[omnichad]

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.

Re:Not at all surprising

[bingoUV]

What cell division ?

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

Re:Not at all surprising

[omnichad]

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?

Re:Not at all surprising

[bingoUV]

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.

Re:Not at all surprising

[omnichad]

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.

Re:Not at all surprising

[bingoUV]

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.

Re:Not at all surprising

[omnichad]

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.

That is the dumbest thing I've read all year

[rsilvergun]

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).

Nature's failsafe?

[Atmchicago]

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.

Re:Nature's failsafe?

[Calydor]

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.

You know you could just

[rsilvergun]

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.

Your question misses the point...

[bayankaran]

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.

Missing from summary

[bloodhawk]

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

Metric conversion is...

[blibbo]

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

Re:Can we stop indulging the special kid please?

[Pseudonym]

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.

Luckly I prefer it at 136.

[Maxo-Texas]

Sounds like a few degrees cooler just for safety factor.

I have one of those instant stick thermometers.

Long suspected of yerba mate tea

[Gamasta]

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/...

65C

[Tomahawk]

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...

Re:65C

[chihowa]

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.

Not if, but when

[ArylAkamov]

And if the cameras become 'publicly identifiable'

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

That's 65 Degrees Celsius

[Mortimer82]

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.

What sort of scientist uses Fahrenheit

[Martin S.]

When there is a perfectly good SI measurement for Temperature?

Re:What sort of scientist uses Fahrenheit

[gzuckier]

When there is a perfectly good SI measurement for Temperature?

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

Celsius

[stooo]

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

Crackpots are also claiming cold beverages are bad

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

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.

Metric system != FREEDOM

[dfm3]

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!

Re:WHO is full of crap

[famebait]

That's what they WANT you to believe.

Re:Can we stop indulging the special kid please?

[chihowa]

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.

Is WHO bored, or something?

[wcrowe]

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.

roof of mouth, lips

[EdZep]

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?

Burn damage

[phorm]

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

Also applies to hot anything, including water!

Re:Can we stop indulging the special kid please?

[Guy Harris]

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.)

lemme just point out

[gzuckier]

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.

Re:Lots Misunderstanding the Report

[gzuckier]

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!

Re:ME: eating ice cream

[Ann O'Nymous-Coward]

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.

Re:Lots Misunderstanding the Report

[Ann O'Nymous-Coward]

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/i...