Terrifying New Study Links Coffee to Glaucoma

[Yopaz]

So there's no difference in introducing genes that would never ever occur in in an organism and using genes already present in the organism?

Can you please explain the reasoning behind that?

E. Coli could never have started producing human insulin without a genetic modification. A tomato could and have naturally evolved to have 3 carpels. With selective breeding we just used that mutation because it gave us bigger fruits.

What you're saying here is that there's no difference between possible and impossible.

Sorry, maybe I'm jumping in early here but I see two pages that I'm not bothered to go through to see where this discussion ends up.

How is it impossible for E Coli to have produced human insulin by selective breeding? It would take a prohibitively long time, but mutations are random. Eventually, there would be an E Coli with the gene needed for the very first step, at which point it would be selectively bred until every tedious stage had been completed and it produced human insulin. If we had enough time, we could have humans with feathers, solely through selective breeding, if we had mapped out the evolution of feathers thoroughly enough. Selective breeding is a scientific, human, unnatural process. The only difference in my mind is that scientists have much less opportunity to see unwanted side effects and much more knowledge of what causes what.

Oh, right, the topic...OT: Don't drink much coffee but even if I did I'm not worried. Everything increases your risk of something, and I'd like to see what the absolute risk of glaucoma is anyway. Also, more studies please. I find it hard to believe that caffeine alone doesn't do it but neither does coffee without caffeine in it, yet caffeinated coffee does.

E. Coli is a bacteria and bacteria so it wont metabolize glucose the same way we do. Insulin is a part of the anabolic glucose metabolism. Since the bacteria does not have an anabolic glucose metabolism I think we can consider the possibility that they will encode proteins they don't need near impossible. In fact they bacteria is extremely efficient when it comes to regulating their genes.

You seem to have too much faith in the possibilities of what a random mutation can do. In most cases it wont do a thing, in some cases it will make a protein useless, in some cases it will change the properties of a protein and in the extreme rare it will lead to the creation of a new protein. Of course, the possibility exists that new proteins are created, otherwise we wouldn't be here, however the impact some of you seem to think it has astounds me.

While a bacteria may change its proteome it wont change it's physiology. A random mutation actually accomplishing what millions of years with evolution has accomplished. Also if this were to happen, it would have had to evolve a way of storing it and become a multicellular organism and thus it would no longer be E. Coli or even a bacteria for that matter.

Now humans with feathers? Also impossible. We might be able to get an analog character which reminds of feathers, but unless we suddenly share a common origin with birds, those wont be feathers. Seeing birds have evolved their feathers from reptile scales which is composed of beta keratin while our hair is composed of alpha keratin it is in fact not possible unless we go back to a point before two distinct groups of animals separated it isn't possible.

Edit: I do agree with your conclusion to the actual thread title though.

 

[Nantucket_v1legacy]

Smoking will give me cancer.
Drinking coffee will make me blind.
Eating too many carrots will make me orange.
Drinking too much milk will kill me.
Eating too much red meat is bad for you.

I still do all of the above.
When god says my time is up then my time is up. I'd rather live ten happy days than ten thousand unhappy ones.

 

[Marik2]

*Looks at my 2nd cup of coffee in my hand*

.. .. Always something. It's not like anything that exists can give me cancer, now having to much coffee (which I love my coffee) can lead me having vision problems to where I may obtain a disease in blindness. ... Argh. Less coffee a day then for me. *takes one long sip*

Better cut back on the caffeine and frappes

 

[lacktheknack]

There is some good news, however, if you prefer a non-coffee caffeine buzz. "We did not find associations with consumption of other caffeinated products (caffeinated soda, caffeinated tea, decaffeinated coffee or chocolate) and risk of EG/EGS."

Well then it's not caffeine that gives you Glaucoma. It's coffee.

Included in the "safe" stuff is decaf.

So there's two explanations: Either it's the double whammy of two different chemicals (caffeine and something else in coffee), or the results were just barely outside the margin of error, and the risk increase is minimal.

I'd be able to tell from the article source, but I've forgotten all the stuff from Statistics class.

 

[Carson Shindigg]

It is like everything in life, moderation is the key. If you drink tea whilst it is still hot (above 70 deg celsius), you increase your risk of cancer to the throat due to constant cellular damage by the hot liquid.

Coffee is usually roasted for consumption, so you are probably consuming a percentage of carcinogens with every cup anyway. The only drink that shouldn't pose any risk to the body is water. But even too much water can kill you by the removal of electrolytes (particularly sodium and potassium).

So yeah, everything can kill you. So drink responsibly

 

[McMullen]

snip

It would be nice to know how much higher the risk was. Simply stating that the risk is higher is not really helpful in this context. Saying how much higher and what the sample population was is better. Including the error margins is even better, but probably beyond the scope of a gaming magazine.

 

[nexus]

I bet it's not the coffee, but the contaminants and detergents inside the coffee machines. Espresso machines in particular, they have to be cleaned regularly, and most people use a rather unhealthy cleaner. I've noticed sometimes, after having a cappuccino, my vision would get worse as if I was going to have a migraine. This is usually after I've "flushed" my espresso machine with "Cafiza". Even though I make sure to rinse it extensively, trace amounts seem to give me problems. I've actually noted this, and it is definitely the detergent.

As for other machines.. they're usually plastic, and of course the liquid inside is super-heated and then sent through more plastic. Applying a lot of heat to bad plastic is never a good thing to do. Definitely not a good thing to drink liquid that's passed through it.. but hey.. take it for granted 'ey?

They say it's caffeine, but claim non-coffee drinks don't carry the same problem. How is that possible? What about guarana?

 

[Thedutchjelle]

Managed to get to the full paper thanks to my university subscribtion.

Going to read it now, wondering what details they left out in the Abstract.

While this is interesting, and there certainly is enough data points to satisfy the law of large numbers.... there isn't enough information about this study available to be conclusive. They only tracked coffee drinking and no other habits. People with a family history of a disease do not represent a genetic link like many people think (ie. a genetic weakness to some chemical found within coffee). The greater link tends to be learned habits. This learned habit could be coffee consumption, surely enough though. The study is interesting, but it's not conclusive. Also, they say the link is NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT. I'm counting the days till this shows up on the local news. They do love to spread inflammatory stories because there isn't enough bad news in the world.

They do track other variables of lifestyle etc. The NHS hands out questionnaires to participants with a wide variety of lifestyle and health questions.

 

[Denamic]

These statistical findings are statistically unlikely to affect me.
Therefore, very few fucks are given.
*sips coffee*

 

[Something Amyss]

No surprise there. People tend to not think twice about caffeine because its legal and has some positive benefits. Although people neglect to think about that caffeine has a slight but pretty addictive physicality. Meaning if you drink coffee for a year in heavy doses and stop cold turkey, you will crave it and/or get physical withdrawls. Not to mention that 1-10,000 deaths a year are from caffeine.

Moderation is the key.

I CAN QUIT ANY TIME I WANT, DAMMIT!

Actually, I can't, because caffeine is about the only thing that dents my migraines, so I'm pretty sure the minute my head started to cave in I'd be back on the caffeine, but I had to joke.

Also, it's not caffeine that's the issue here. It's coffee. Coffee does a lot of things caffeine does not.

Juuuuust for the record.

 

[Kuhkren]

snip

It would be nice to know how much higher the risk was. Simply stating that the risk is higher is not really helpful in this context. Saying how much higher and what the sample population was is better. Including the error margins is even better, but probably beyond the scope of a gaming magazine.

Yeah, usually the news don't go into detail about the study methodology and results. An error margin would be nice.

 

[GAunderrated]

No surprise there. People tend to not think twice about caffeine because its legal and has some positive benefits. Although people neglect to think about that caffeine has a slight but pretty addictive physicality. Meaning if you drink coffee for a year in heavy doses and stop cold turkey, you will crave it and/or get physical withdrawls. Not to mention that 1-10,000 deaths a year are from caffeine.

Moderation is the key.

I CAN QUIT ANY TIME I WANT, DAMMIT!

Actually, I can't, because caffeine is about the only thing that dents my migraines, so I'm pretty sure the minute my head started to cave in I'd be back on the caffeine, but I had to joke.

Also, it's not caffeine that's the issue here. It's coffee. Coffee does a lot of things caffeine does not.

Juuuuust for the record.

hey I have no problem with people correcting me. I'd just like to know what they are correcting me from. Blanket statements don't help. lol

 

[loc978]

is one cup a day okay?

yes.

-snip-
...and found that those who consumed 500mg or more of caffeine per day were at a higher risk for glaucoma.

"Compared to abstainers," those who drank three or more cups of coffee a day were at a higher risk -snip-

According to a few sources from a quick google search, a really strong cup of normal brewed drip coffee can have up to 200mg of caffeine in it.

Oddly enough, though, I've only ever met one person with glaucoma, and he can't stand the taste of coffee. He drinks (very specifically, by brand) Coca Cola like it's going out of style, though.

 

[Something Amyss]

hey I have no problem with people correcting me. I'd just like to know what they are correcting me from. Blanket statements don't help. lol

Blanket statements? Like what? I was referencing the same article you were, which states that caffeinated beverages other than coffee do not have this same effect. Coffee is the standout here.

 

[Fayathon]

And precisely zero fucks were given, I find coffee to be offensive in flavor and odor. I'll down Dew for my caffeine needs, thank you very much.

 

[Riff Moonraker]

Am I the only one that saw "F, K" in that coffee?

 

[UltraXan]

Indeed, this is a terrifying study! So terrifying that I just sent an e-mail to my coffee loving parents titled "Happy Halloween" with nothing but the link to this article... Oh, I'm gonna have fun when I get home tonight...