What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Band Hero view!
guitarhero.com - The biggest event music event of the year is now in your living room.
89 Comments
- lostlyrics, on 01/03/2009, -5/+45stop monsanto - or you'll eventually no longer
allowed to eat ANYthing without their chemistry. http://digg.com/world_news/The_World_According_to_ ... - sekone, on 01/03/2009, -4/+36in capitalist america, food eats you.....
- consonance, on 01/03/2009, -2/+33The story never mentions specific food additives to avoid. Real useful.
- Gemfinder, on 01/03/2009, -4/+28Between this, propylene glycol in grooming products and high fructose corn syrup, I think the FDA should be next in line for an administrative ass-kicking. Or at the very least, a citizen-based effort.
Come on, people, this is our health and bodies we're talking about here! At least with cigarettes, you know what you're getting and they're not necessary for continued life, but if this *****'s in your ***** FOOD...there's not a whole lot you can do about that. - skaag, on 01/03/2009, -2/+21Just stop eating processed foods guys. Buy good old vegetables, fruits, rice, home made Pasta, and make everything yourselves at home. Its really not that complicated. If we all do this, it will push prices down as well for those products, because supply will increase, etc. Stop eating junk food, as tasty as it is sometimes (god knows a Big Mac tastes real good sometimes). I have been following these rules for a while now and I feel so much healthier since I started.
- tschau, on 01/03/2009, -0/+14I'm convinced that's the exceedingly simple solution to the obesity problem in the U.S.
Unless you buy a deep fryer or eat copious amounts of red meat, it's so much easier to stay fit if you're preparing food yourself.
I figured I was pretty healthy before, but I've lost almost 20 pounds between making dinner at home and riding my bike to work. - SilverBlade2k, on 01/03/2009, -4/+18What food isn't tied to some form of cancer these days?
- algaeturd, on 01/03/2009, -2/+15I skimmed through this and at the bottom, I swear I thought it said, 'Lung cancer is the leading cause of laboratory mice."
By the way,
the link on the submitted story about Monsanto is down. Try this one:
http://wideeyecinema.com/?p=105 - wadd, on 01/03/2009, -1/+13Feel free to volunteer to take one's place...
- PorkFat, on 01/03/2009, -0/+10No kidding, what ingredients are inorganic phosphates? I sure as hell have never seen that in my ingredient list. But the past 5 or 6 years of my life I've made almost all my own food and scrutinize and research everything else.
- NiftyG, on 01/03/2009, -4/+13It's not the food, it's all the crap that is added to the food.
- DarkCloud515, on 01/03/2009, -0/+9If only everyone in the U.S. read Digg and this article had at least 150 million Diggs.
- DriverDan, on 01/03/2009, -0/+8Study abstract: http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract ...
NO WHERE in the abstract does it say tumor growth was SIGNIFICANTLY increased. This is a keyword in the analysis of research data. The data MUST be significantly different from the control group to accurately form a conclusion such as this. The statistics and actual data weren't mentioned anywhere.
Has anyone read the entire publication? Can anyone cite the actual data? - freedomjoe, on 01/03/2009, -5/+13Everyone should read this -- how scary...this stuff is in everything.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 01/03/2009, -1/+9No, the trend has been going back down a little.
Life expectancy is not advancing like it was. The Swedes, I believe, have the lead. Many European nations have better health outcomes than the USA. - consonance, on 01/03/2009, -1/+8The problem with the article is that a control group--mice with lung cancer that were not feed inorganic phosphate--is never presented to the reader. I don't know how the study was specifically performed. If there was a control group (I should hope so) and those mice did not see a growth of their cancer, then I would say that the study reached a conclusion. But you can't use an anecdote like "cancer grows pretty fast in mice" as a comparative baseline. That's not real science. The proper way would be to use a control group or cite the work of a previous inquiry.
- headgames, on 01/04/2009, -0/+7Yes you can do something about it.......STOP EATING THE GARBAGE......read the dam labels
- m0llusk, on 01/03/2009, -3/+10First we put poison in food, then many years later we do some basic testing. Isn't it obvious this model is completely broken? Food additives need to be more carefully controlled.
- tschau, on 01/03/2009, -2/+9that doesn't mean we should stop all efforts at improving health.
- wassamatta, on 01/03/2009, -0/+6start with cold cuts... all of them.
Bakery products?? WTF... like home made bread or crap that comes from pepperidge farms and the likes (like soft bake cookies), pilsbury? - tgc1, on 01/03/2009, -1/+7Well that's more money for the Pharmaceutical industry who will no doubt find a way to profit from this.
- Ne007, on 01/03/2009, -2/+8Yes...and not controlled by anybody that stands to profit from food and drug sales. Hint: that isn't the FDA.
Lobbying these people should be illegal and enforced with the death penalty. - FountainDew, on 01/04/2009, -0/+5You don't suppose eliminating smallpox, polio, invention of antibiotics, insulin, X-ray imaging, sterile surgery, etc have anything to do with living longer? Extending life does not mean we should take it for granted and ignore the fact that many people suffer and die from cancers caused by the products we consume.
- Branyers, on 01/03/2009, -0/+5Torrent, for maybe a little better quality:
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4098947/World_Acco ... - m0llusk, on 01/03/2009, -3/+8"seem to be"
- inactive, on 01/04/2009, -0/+5So what foods have inorganic phosphates? The article never mentioned....
- lostlyrics, on 01/03/2009, -0/+5thanks :)
Lo got a working link in her wordpress also
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/the ... with a lot of additional information of course :D
and yet some 'news' about
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/monsa ... - inactive, on 01/04/2009, -0/+5Then again...good point
- FountainDew, on 01/04/2009, -0/+4I don't have access to the full article, but a related article at Oxford journal by Jin et al, talks about inorganic phosphates(Pi) being a significant contributor to lung cell growth, and requires regulation for normal lung development. Therefore building on that idea, its easy to imagine that excess Pi actually causes overgrowth.......especially if the lung cells are cancerous already, as in the case of the lab mice used in the original article by Jin et al (the same group).
Link: http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/ ... - Quenlin, on 01/04/2009, -0/+4Medical research
1: Choose a foodstuff or medical term at random.
2: Toss a coin, if heads, link it to cancer. If tails, link it to obesity.
3: Get more rats. - khfn, on 01/04/2009, -2/+6Why are you being down-voted?
You are correct.
Hydrogenated oils, High-fructose corn syrup... aluminum in the bread dough, preservatives to expand the shelf-life for years, etc. You see that huge list of ingredients on the side of the muffin container in the bakery? Go to Australia and see if you find that long list. You won't.
Greed is contributing to poor health and no one is being held accountable. It's sad because most Americans have no idea their food has changed so much in the past 10 years =( - thayanmarsh, on 01/04/2009, -0/+4Inorganic phosphates means phosphoric acid, sodium phosphate, potassium phosphate, etc, etc. Phosphate is in everything and is essential to life, all this study did is show that high phosphorous diets increase the RATE of growth for lung cancer if it is related to a kRAS mutation (which not all lung cancers are). It doesn't CAUSE cancer.
- Akairenn, on 01/03/2009, -2/+6I own and often use a deep fryer and hit up fast food joints multiple times per week. I pretty much never exercise. And I'm steadily losing weight. Instead of starring on my own late night infomercial and charging you $200.00 to let you in on how I do this, I'll be altruistic for once.
The secret to weight loss is as follows:
Calories in < calories out.
That's it. There is nothing else. Mind you, weight loss itself has little to do with being healthy. My deep fryer is insanely unhealthy, and my arteries are slowly being clogged with delicious liquified bacon even as I lose weight. But as Patrick Henry said, "Give me bacon, or give me death!"
What is life, without bacon?
You can replace Doritos and McDonald's with all the home made crap you want and it'll make no difference to your spare tire, if you continue to suck down fifteen bajillion calories per day. Which I find more likely, simply because people seem to have a thing about wasting food when they've made far too much. - inactive, on 01/03/2009, -4/+7http://survivingyourwifescancer.com/blog/inorganic ... (not mine)
According to this processed foods are the issue. Which I belive. I think when you go to the supermarket you should follow a simple rule: Don't go down the center isle (processed), stick to the left and right (raw food) - drunkenoaf, on 01/04/2009, -0/+3Quite literally everything that ever lived. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine_triphosphat ...
- reamofpaper, on 01/03/2009, -2/+5This means we get to start smoking again. It was the rats!
- AaronCo, on 01/03/2009, -8/+11RTFA...
"In the study, Cho fed mice with lung cancer a diet containing .5% to 1% of inorganic phosphate, which is comparable to the average amount in a human adult's diet. At the end of the four-week study, analysis of the lung tissue showed an increase in the size and growth of the tumors."
They took mice that had lung cancer and fed them a diet w/ 1% inorganic phosphate. At the end of the month they found the cancer was bigger (well duh, cancer grows pretty fast in mice, and cell growth is geometric).
So no they didn't find that these "inorganic phosphates" caused cancer, or are even linked to the formation of cancer. What they found was that these chemicals didn't cure cancer.
In order to tie it all up they used a weasel phrase...
"Inorganic phosphates stimulate certain cell signaling pathways that have been linked to the development of non-small cell lung cancer."
Really? They do? According to whom? "Magic Experts?"
Give me a break. What a load of garbage. The only "tie" was the one that made up at the end.
I bet I could make up a story about how organic plasmoids (made up term) is linked to the formation of death crystals in mice by injecting mice with death crystals and then counting the number of magic plasmoids present in their blood at death. - spinur, on 01/04/2009, -0/+3FountainDew, did you read the paper? It had NOTHING to do with incidence of cancer. Both groups of mice were genetically modified to develop lung tumors.
Phosphate, inorganic or otherwise is in all food. It is sometimes added, but it's also naturally occurring; in everything. It's essential to all life and it's an essential nutrient.
You seem to have gotten the message that by lowering the amount of inorganic phosphate in a person's diet that it will reduce the risk of developing lung cancer and slow the course of the disease in people who already have it.
If that's the message you got from the LA Times story, then thanks, you've proven that bad journalism actually has an effect on society. - ATLien74, on 01/04/2009, -0/+3Inorganic phosphates = Bad
Marijuana = GOOD!!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.
The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.
"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect." - spinur, on 01/04/2009, -0/+3Everything except dirt.
Oh wait, no, dirt has phosphate in it too.
Good thing it doesn't cause cancer. - czeman, on 01/04/2009, -0/+3To think we were blaming it on cigarettes all this time.
- gemlarin, on 01/04/2009, -0/+3Wait a minute. There is something seriously amiss about this study.
"In the study, Cho fed mice with lung cancer a diet containing .5% to 1% of inorganic phosphate, which is comparable to the average amount in a human adult's diet. At the end of the four-week study, analysis of the lung tissue showed an increase in the size and growth of the tumors."
So the mice already had lung cancer, and they tested the mice 6 weeks later and found the tumors had grown in size? I am no oncologist, but wouldn't untreated tumors grown in size and mass regardless of weather or not they were fed phosphates? Isn't that what untreated tumors do?
What happened to the control group? No mention of that. Just what are inorganic phosphates? How do they differ from organic phosphates?
Article is alarmist, author is lazy and has poorly researched his topic. - gemlarin, on 01/04/2009, -0/+2You see, that's the problem. I was not in search of this information; the author felt it news worthy and presented it to me, the reader. I am neither a oncologist, nor a reporter. I am simply the recipient of the information. If you are going to present me with a news article on a topic you feel is indeed newsworthy, it us your job as the reporter to present the information in a concise, yet informative article. This article makes a bunch of claims without presenting any real scientific method to validate the claims. Therefore I deem it alarmist and uninformed.
How about instead of targeting me in your comment, you express your disagreement in what I have to say with some intelligent debate.
Edit: Nevermind, I see how it is that you debate.
"Look dickwad, if you are going to critique the science at least read the published scientific article, not some journalist's interpretation. "
I will just hold out for some more mature discussion. - thayanmarsh, on 01/04/2009, -0/+2But that's organic phosphate you linked to.
- JesseJ, on 01/04/2009, -0/+2Hmm.. so that stuff is in everything I eat?
All I have to do is to stop eating everything I eat! That's easy! - astorygirl, on 01/06/2009, -0/+2It's scary when you start to think about what we put in our bodies for "nutrition"
- milkandbananas, on 01/12/2009, -0/+2Just tell me I don't have to give up bacon. Please.
- thayanmarsh, on 01/04/2009, -0/+2FTA: "A diet high in Pi increased lung tumor progression and growth compared with normal diet." Agreed, it doesn't say *significant* but this is preliminary research, not a big study.
- lostlyrics, on 01/07/2009, -0/+2http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5292544.html
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620 ... - thayanmarsh, on 01/04/2009, -0/+2Wow, I had no idea that so many people on digg would misunderstand this article to such a degree. We can do better people.
-
Show 51 - 94 of 94 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is