.... I was definitively told that 'it' was dirty and nasty, and 'it' would even make you go blind. But, according to this from PlanetOut.com, it would appear that 'it' actually has quite an impact on reducing the chances of prostrate cancer in the males of our species!
I wonder how the NHS will tackle this information? I rather suspect that NICE may well have some interesting 'prescription guidelines' to work on here. Hmmmm .... Fiesta magazine on prescription for all widowers?
Showing posts with label CANCER. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CANCER. Show all posts
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Thursday, February 07, 2008
NEWS/GO3 PR - Reading below the lines
I normally have a fair bit of time for what comes out of the Green Party Press Office, and am usually happy to print it with little, if any comment 'as is'.
I fear that this must be an exception; not so much for the content (which you, as big boys and girls, can make judgements upon for yourselves), but as an example of what I personally don't like seeing, and as much as I do, in matters of headline grabbing.
Here's what I got:
CANCER ‘CAUSED BY POLLUTION’, MEP LUCAS TO TELL BRIGHTON WOMEN
Event: MEP Caroline Lucas speaks at ‘C’s the Day’ cancer prevention event
Place: Friends’ Meeting House, Ship St, Brighton
Time: Saturday, February 9th, 10am-4pm. Dr Lucas to speak at 2.15pm
CANCER is often caused by environmental factors including toxic chemicals added to household goods, pesticides and poor air quality, local Green Party MEP Caroline Lucas will tell a Brighton cancer-prevention day.
Dr Lucas said: “Levels of breast cancer are rising across the EU – especially in eastern Europe and the UK, where one woman in nine will be diagnosed with the disease at some point in their lives.
“An increasing number of scientists are pointing to the link between toxic chemicals – especially so-called gender-bending hormone-disruptors – and breast cancer, which kills more than 10,000 people each year in the UK alone.
“Similarly links are being found between pesticide use and cancers. Yet these technologies are all growing apace – the Government and EU simply must exercise caution, and put human health above the profits of their friends in the companies that manufacture them.”
I am in no doubt that amongst many consequences of modern life, 'pollution' (however that may be defined) is high on the probable causes of cancer.
However, I do not believe that headline to be an accurate representation of the situation, and while the more qualifying statements below do express it better I fear that, to me at least, this did not come across at all well, no matter how worthy the thinking (and, one presumes, call to action) of that last para.
I fear that this must be an exception; not so much for the content (which you, as big boys and girls, can make judgements upon for yourselves), but as an example of what I personally don't like seeing, and as much as I do, in matters of headline grabbing.
Here's what I got:
CANCER ‘CAUSED BY POLLUTION’, MEP LUCAS TO TELL BRIGHTON WOMEN
Event: MEP Caroline Lucas speaks at ‘C’s the Day’ cancer prevention event
Place: Friends’ Meeting House, Ship St, Brighton
Time: Saturday, February 9th, 10am-4pm. Dr Lucas to speak at 2.15pm
CANCER is often caused by environmental factors including toxic chemicals added to household goods, pesticides and poor air quality, local Green Party MEP Caroline Lucas will tell a Brighton cancer-prevention day.
Dr Lucas said: “Levels of breast cancer are rising across the EU – especially in eastern Europe and the UK, where one woman in nine will be diagnosed with the disease at some point in their lives.
“An increasing number of scientists are pointing to the link between toxic chemicals – especially so-called gender-bending hormone-disruptors – and breast cancer, which kills more than 10,000 people each year in the UK alone.
“Similarly links are being found between pesticide use and cancers. Yet these technologies are all growing apace – the Government and EU simply must exercise caution, and put human health above the profits of their friends in the companies that manufacture them.”
I am in no doubt that amongst many consequences of modern life, 'pollution' (however that may be defined) is high on the probable causes of cancer.
However, I do not believe that headline to be an accurate representation of the situation, and while the more qualifying statements below do express it better I fear that, to me at least, this did not come across at all well, no matter how worthy the thinking (and, one presumes, call to action) of that last para.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Blah, blah, blah.
Newsnight asked. I have replied.
To your specific questions: 'Do these reports do any good or are they counter-productive? If two-thirds of all cancers have nothing to do with lifestyle, is it wrong to give the impression that we can control the disease?
Constant, evolving research and hence further understanding of anything to do with something as impactful on the human condition as cancer is both vital and helpful.
However, rushing out every small step on the way, almost as raw data, to a news media that only understands and hence wants tomorrow's headline, is indeed counter-productive.
The moment I watched BBC Breakfast News and was greeted with 'red meat, even in small doses, can be...' I switched off. I am an omnivore living in a supermarket society in 2007 where meat is legal to produce and widely promoted. This information served no purpose as presented. Other than perhaps making me more likely to dismiss the next, possibly more worthy attempt at shaping our lifestyles as yet more spin being turned into hype.
And as for 'impressions' of 'control'. As with any science, when it can be done and is verifiable, then share it. The media culture of rushing out the next 'might one day', half-considered and always open to rebuttal, simply weakens the credibility of those doing the work and, if that's possible, the media acting as the conduit for such pointless messages.
BBC - Be thin to cut cancer, study says
Guardian - Stay trim and stop eating bacon, cancer report declares
To your specific questions: 'Do these reports do any good or are they counter-productive? If two-thirds of all cancers have nothing to do with lifestyle, is it wrong to give the impression that we can control the disease?
Constant, evolving research and hence further understanding of anything to do with something as impactful on the human condition as cancer is both vital and helpful.
However, rushing out every small step on the way, almost as raw data, to a news media that only understands and hence wants tomorrow's headline, is indeed counter-productive.
The moment I watched BBC Breakfast News and was greeted with 'red meat, even in small doses, can be...' I switched off. I am an omnivore living in a supermarket society in 2007 where meat is legal to produce and widely promoted. This information served no purpose as presented. Other than perhaps making me more likely to dismiss the next, possibly more worthy attempt at shaping our lifestyles as yet more spin being turned into hype.
And as for 'impressions' of 'control'. As with any science, when it can be done and is verifiable, then share it. The media culture of rushing out the next 'might one day', half-considered and always open to rebuttal, simply weakens the credibility of those doing the work and, if that's possible, the media acting as the conduit for such pointless messages.
BBC - Be thin to cut cancer, study says
Guardian - Stay trim and stop eating bacon, cancer report declares
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)