tmx3 Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 I just had mine, black, with no regrets—and I plan on having at least four more by the end of the night. Any thoughts on this? Is there any molecular biologist, geneticist, chemist, or whoever, who wants to chime in on that news article and explain why or why not the California judge’s ruling is harsher than it should be? Was it reasonable, or does it seem that there’s a motive behind passing the law that was passed (Proposition 65)? The dr in the article says odds aren’t likely that someone would develop cancer from drinking coffee (I guess because of this negative feedback effect—is it?—that coffee has on the liver as it detoxifies the liver after it’s worked long and hard to clean up the body’s toxins, protecting the liver from cancer despite potentially being carcinogenic itself)...but do the consequences of consuming large amounts of coffee depend on a specific diet—aka the “average american diet” that goes something like 3-5 meals a day, mostly meat, bad cholesterol, carbs, hardly ever much fiber, etc., or is it worse when following a vegetarian lifestyle? Is that possibly why the law was passed? If the law was passed for coffee, why not for other foods, as the article mentions (example: french fries)? Specifically, isn’t it the case that not only heated foods but also some nonheated foods have cancerous effects on the body? Your thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now