In article >, casa bona > wrote:

> On 6/17/2013 3:38 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 01:07:01 -0700, isw > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> Bottom line: without putting some numbers on the risk, the article is
> >> totally useless, except to scare people into doing things they may not
> >> need to do.
> >>
> >> So, does anybody know (with numbers):
> >>
> >> How much does the risk of cancer increase due to eating grilled meat?
> >>
> >> What is the relative risk between grilled meat once a day, once a week,
> >> once a month, ..?
> >>
> >> Isaac
> >
> > Impossible to give accurate numbers. Cooking on the grill is not the
> > problem, it is the burning fat and stuff that comes back from the
> > fire. That varies from grill to grill to griller to griller to
> > different meats.
> >
> > One of the tips I saw was to use foil over the grill to avoid the
> > carcinogens. They are essentially taking the grill and making it into
> > a frying pan. WTF? Why not just use a fry pan?
>
> Oh good catch there.
>
> > It may be smart to avoid heavily charred meats every day, but I think
> > that properly grilled food a couple of times a week in summer is
> > minimal risk. I did read that in countries where people eat most all
> > their meals cooked over a wood fire have higher incidents of stomach
> > cancer.
>
> The data on this remains a mixture of non-discrete points:
>
> http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/f...k/cooked-meats
>
> Nevertheless, numerous epidemiologic studies have used detailed
> questionnaires to examine participants¹ meat consumption and meat
> cooking methods to estimate HCA and PAH exposures. Researchers found
> that high consumption of well-done, fried, or barbecued meats was
> associated with increased risks of colorectal (14), pancreatic (15, 16),
> and prostate (17, 18) cancer.

OK, but again: by *how much* is the risk increased? Without that info,
the results are useless (except for the scare factor).

Another trick I've seen in this kind of silly study is to add a ratio,
like "The risk is DOUBLED!!!", which sounds more precise, and also
really scary.

But if the original risk was one in a hundred million, then a doubling
is still only one in fifty million, which is way too low to worry about.

I cannot recall the last time I saw a "news" article on any sort of
medical risk study where there was enough information to actually allow
an informed decision.

Isaac