#IARC

[desertfragments]

:dead its finals week

[universalhealthcoverageday]

Health education with film sequences for better access to quality care and prevention.

Screening and panel discussion with the WHO Academy in Lyon, IARC and the Universal Health Coverage Partnership conference on the theme of health education with film sequences for better access to quality care and prevention.

Can a film sequence influence our behaviours to better combat antimicrobial resistance during treatment? Can it promote more holistic management of mental health? Or help general practitioners and their patients to better integrate social or cultural determinants into their approach to health?

These three themes and a few more will be addressed by the short films screened on 13 December in Lyon in the auditorium of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), on the occasion of the Global Health Festival organized by the French authorities in honour of the inauguration of the WHO Academy.

This screening will inspire a debate on health education through film between high-level experts at the WHO, including representatives from IARC and the WHO Academy. The audience will be composed of WHO representatives from various French-speaking countries and a public based in Lyon composed of health professionals and students in public health, social sciences and cinema.

Speakers include:

Dr David Atchoarena, Executive Director of the WHO Academy.

Dr Jérôme Salomon, Assistant Director-General, Universal Health Coverage, Communicable and Noncommunicable Diseases.

Dr Elisabete Weiderpass, Director of the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer.

A trophy will be awarded to Elisa Tiozzo, a young French director who won the Student Film Prize at our Health for All Film Festival (HAFF) in 2024. Elisa is the author of an animated film that she made when she was a student at the Emile Cohl School in Lyon. Her film deals with a scene from everyday life between a woman with cancer and her young daughter. The panel discussion will focus on, among other things, the potential impact of this film: how to support the loved ones of a patient so that they can better cope with the treatment and its consequences?

Other short films selected by the WHO Health For All Film Festival will also be shown during this session:

"4000 meters above pain", a reportage by Christophe Blot and Thibaut Ras produced by the Georges Boissel Foundation about an innovation in a mental health care process highlighting physical activity and even a sporting challenge!

"Theory versus Reality", an audiovisual testimony by Dr Nanethida Nouanesengsy of the therapeutic education association Asalée Polynésie. This testimony full of humour and gravity shows the importance for general practitioners to consider the cultural and social determinants of health during their consultations with patients.

View a full playlist of all WHO Health for All Film Festival past winners here.

How to participate?

Attention: Limited number of places! Reservation essential (https://events.iarc.who.int/event/102/)

Films in French and English. Discussion in French without English interpretation.

Reception in the IARC building from 5:30 p.m. to obtain an entry badge upon presentation of an identity document and based on reservations already made.

25, avenue Tony Garrnier – Lyon 7e – Métro Stade de Gerland Le Lou. The auditorium opens at 6 p.m. and the session begins at 6:30 p.m. sharp. After the session, an informal discussion from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. will be possible for participants available who wish to participate. Live broadcast in French on the WHO Youtube channel from 6:30 p.m. to 7:45 p.m. CET

[drgaellon]

Also, the research on which their recommendation is made was based on consumption of 50mg/kg/day of aspartame. For an average-sized American (83kg), that’s more than FORTY CANS of diet soda daily, every day for years. It’s the same foolish argument that was made about saccharine fifty years ago, and news organizations misunderstanding the science, or deliberately misinterpreting it for attention.

[sns124]

Guidelines for Usage of Artificial Sweetners -Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

source: Posted On: 08 AUG 2023 5:08PM by PIB Delhi Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has informed that assessment of the health impacts of the non-sugar sweetener aspartame conducted by International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as well as World Health Organization – Food and Agriculture Organization (WHO-FAO) Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) cite “limited…

[nuadox]

Does this cause cancer? How scientists determine whether a chemical is carcinogenic – sometimes with controversial results

- By Brad Reisfeld , Colorado State University , The Conversation -

People are exposed to numerous chemicals throughout their lifetimes. These chemicals can be from the air, foods, personal care items, household products and medications. Unfortunately, exposure to certain chemicals can cause harmful health effects, including cancer. 

Substances that cause cancer are called carcinogens. Familiar examples include tobacco smoke, radon, asbestos and diesel engine exhaust.

To protect the health of the public, national and international health agencies evaluate many new and existing chemicals to determine if they are likely to be carcinogens in a process called cancer hazard identification. If agencies judge the chemicals to be carcinogenic, they conduct further assessments to determine the level of risk, and legislators may put regulations in place to limit, or completely halt, the production and use of these chemicals.

I am a scientist who studies how the human body processes foreign chemicals, like environmental pollutants and drugs, and the effects of these chemicals on health. As part of my work, I have participated in chemical and cancer hazard identifications for several agencies, including the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer. Here’s how chemicals can cause cancer, and how we classify chemicals based on on how carcinogenic they are – sometimes with controversial results.

How do chemicals cause cancer?

The mechanisms behind how toxic chemicals can lead to cancer are complex.

After a person is exposed to a carcinogen, the chemical is generally absorbed into the body and distributed into different tissues. Once the chemical has moved into the cells, it often undergoes chemical reactions that convert it into other forms.

The products of these reactions can directly or indirectly affect the cell’s genes. Altering genes, which contain the cell’s instructions on how to produce specific molecules, or the processes that regulate them can ultimately result in dysfunctional cells if the genetic damage isn’t repaired. These cells don’t respond normally to cellular signals and can grow and divide at abnormal rates, which are characteristic features of cancer cells.

How are chemicals classified for carcinogenicity?

To help safeguard the public and reduce the incidence of cancer, several agencies have developed procedures to classify and categorize chemicals based on their potential to be carcinogenic.

Among them are the International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC Monographs; the National Toxicology Program, or NTP; and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA. In general, these agencies examine a critical question: How strong is the evidence that a substance causes cancer or biological changes that could be related to cancer in people? Understanding the procedures used to answer this question can help with interpreting the decisions these agencies make.

The procedures used by the IARC – because of its long history, credibility and strong international reputation – provide a good example of how this process works. It’s designed to be transparent and minimize bias, spanning over a year from selecting a chemical for evaluation to its final classification.

In this process, the IARC selects and invites a panel of scientific experts on the chemical to be evaluated. The panel does not conduct new research on its own, but carefully reviews all available papers in the scientific literature on the chemical’s carcinogenicity in cell and bacterial cultures, animals and people. To assess the strength of the evidence, the panel carefully considers the number of studies that are available and the consistency of the results, as well as the scientific quality and relevance of each study to cancer in people.

Chemicals can be carcinogenic to varying degrees.

After discussing and deliberating on the results, the panel makes a final consensus classification. This classification places the chemical into one of four groups: Group 1 indicates that the chemical is carcinogenic to people, Group 2A that it is probably carcinogenic to people, Group 2B that it is possibly carcinogenic to people, and Group 3 that it is not classifiable. A Group 3 classification does not indicate that the compound is not carcinogenic, but rather that the panel could not draw a conclusion about whether there is a causal link between the chemical and cancer from available studies. For example, exposure to several chemicals can make it unclear which ones are responsible for a later cancer diagnosis.

During its 50-year history, the IARC has evaluated and classified over 1,000 chemicals and other hazards. Many of these classifications have had broad societal implications, such as those for tobacco smoke, ambient air pollution, diesel engine exhaust and processed meat. All were classified as Group 1, or confirmed to be carcinogenic to humans. Electromagnetic radiation emitted by mobile phones was classified as Group 2B, or possibly carcinogenic, and red meat was classified as Group 2A, or probably carcinogenic. Though they haven’t directly led to any regulations, these classifications have motivated additional scientific studies. While the IARC can advise regulators, it’s up to countries to implement policies.

It is important to note that classifications do not indicate the size of the risk but are important in supporting health agencies worldwide as they implement actions to limit exposures to known, probable and possible carcinogens. In 2020, when the IARC classified opium consumption as Group 1, or carcinogenic to humans, this led the government of Iran to implement policies to reduce opium addiction in the country.

Controversies in carcinogenicity classifications

Though classifications from the IARC are based on robust scientific evidence, some have proved to be controversial.

For instance, in 2015, the IARC evaluated the carcinogenicity of glyphosate, a widely used weedkiller found in products like Roundup, which is produced by Monsanto. A panel of 17 experts from 11 countries systematically reviewed results from over 1,000 scientific studies and classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” or Group 2A.

Owing to its widespread usage and multibillion-dollar market value, a cancer classification decision for glyphosate has significant potential financial and legal consequences. Following its evaluation, the IARC received support from many regulatory and scientific bodies but was criticized by others. Other agencies, including the EPA, have seen similar controversies and politicization of their hazard identifications and regulatory decisions.

I believe that agencies like the IARC play a critical role in evaluating the health effects of certain chemicals and in reducing exposure to potential carcinogens. Helping people better understand how these agencies evaluate chemicals can go a long way to ensure transparency and help protect environmental and public health.

Brad Reisfeld, Professor of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Colorado State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

--

Read Also

Pesticide seed coatings are common yet underreported

[mindblowingscience]

The World Health Organization's cancer agency on Friday classified talc as "probably carcinogenic" for humans, however an outside expert warned against misinterpreting the announcement as a "smoking gun". The decision was based on "limited evidence" talc could cause ovarian cancer in humans, "sufficient evidence" it was linked to cancer in rats and "strong mechanistic evidence" that it shows carcinogenic signs in human cells, the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) said. Talc is a naturally occurring mineral which is mined in many parts of the world and is often used to make talcum baby powder.

Continue Reading.

[ms-demeanor]

not be suuuuuuper annoying but the concerns raised about aspartame by the WHO are almost entirely regarding its potential carcinogen status and not seizures. specifically, as a "possible" carcinogen, group 2B, which, while very far removed from confirmed carcinogens, becomes a very real concern because some people consume aspartame in very large quantities on a daily basis, like 12 cans of diet coke a day, no problem.

so yes, there's a great deal of ridiculous charlatan-style behavior surrounding aspartame, but that's not really related to the actual research being done. we can't look to rodent studies as the end-all-be-all, and even human observational studies dimly linking cancer to aspartame must be taken with a huge grain of salt, because, again, observational study, but when it comes to super-long-term-consumption of an ingredient and the potential for cancer, it's not unreasonable to evaluate your personal risk tolerance and decide it's not a bad idea to reduce or eliminate aspartame from your diet

tldr (do people still use this term?): the actual concerns about aspartame aren't about sensitivity or seizures and it cannot be conclusively said to be completely safe, but at the same time it's not a huge deal especially if you don't ingest that much of it regularly

sorry for being so annoying about this shit :( <3

So that report came out a year after I had started doing the research so it obviously didn't come up in my original deep dive and the WHO's findings on aspartame as being possibly carcinogenic are pretty much in line with prior recommended limits on aspartame consumption.

I'm not going to deny that there are some people who consume 12 cans of diet sodas a day, but I do want to point out that people who are consuming 12 cans of diet soda are drinking more than a gallon of soda each day. This is a tiny number of consumers (the vast majority of consumers drink 16oz or less a day of *any* kind of soda, diet or otherwise). At that point you don't just need to worry about the aspartame, you need to worry about what that's doing to your sodium intake as a much more proven risk (12 cans of diet coke a day gives you about half a gram more salt than would otherwise be in your diet), or be concerned about the possible connection between artificial sweeteners and metabolic syndrome.

And I really just cannot emphasize enough that the vast, vast majority of people aren't consuming more than 5 cans of diet soda daily, let alone 10 - aspartame consumption among people who use aspartame is in the 5-13mg/kg range, not in the 40-50mg/kg range except for a few very rare cases.

Humans are bad at risk assessment. People look at the IARC reclassification and look at their own (typically very small) aspartame consumption, and will stop drinking diet drinks (and will often tell other people to stop drinking diet drinks).

Drinking somewhere in the neighborhood of a gallon of diet soda each day is possibly carcinogenic, or at the very least *not provably not cancer-causing* and people have been talking about it and writing thinkpieces about it and the anti-aspartame crew has been insufferable about it since July made.

So what has happened here is that a very reasonable organization has made a very reasonable category change to a chemical that switched it from "known not to cause cancer" to "not known to not cause cancer" and the anti-aspartame crew has continued to list cancer, and neurological problems, and seizures, and a whole host of other things as the results of aspartame consumption.

And, like, I'm not calling these people charlatans for this paper but jesus christ:

Actually maybe I am going to call these people charlatans. This all links back to the "aspartame metabolizes as formaldehyde and poisons you" thing (which a lot of the extremely suspect research on aspartame does).

People are *absolutely* still doing research into the more absurd claims of anti-aspartame activists. This paper was published *this month* (and relies on the self-reported memories of mothers of autistic children to recall how much aspartame they consumed during pregnancy, which is not going to be a *great* set of data to analyze)

But anyway, before I go down that rabbit hole, let's get back to cancer and cancer risk. It is, of course, totally okay for you to look at the designation of aspartame as a 2B substance and decide that you don't want to use aspartame anymore, that you think it's too much of a risk.

You know what's in IARC category 2A, or probably carcinogenic to humans?

Drinking hot tea. Or coffee. Or water. Or cocoa.

Drinking liquid over 65 degrees Celsius/ 149 degrees fahrenheit is biologically plausible as a cause of cell damage that may lead to cancer. There is more evidence of this connection than the connection between aspartame and cancer.

You know what we called 150 degrees when I was working at the coffee shop? Kid hot. Because that's how hot you can make hot cocoa for kids so it is warm enough to be hot cocoa but won't burn their tongues. If you serve most adults coffee or tea at 150 degrees they'll consider it cold (or at least not as hot as a hot drink should be). Starbucks doesn't serve hot coffee at under 165F and if you ask for extra hot it'll be closer to 180.

The IARC report listing hot beverages as category 2A means that it's not unreasonable to evaluate your personal risk tolerance and decide it's not a bad idea to reduce or eliminate liquids over 65C from your diet.

But nobody is doing that.

Basically more research needs to be done on everything and you're not being annoying, the way that human brains work and assess risk and set up phantoms to get scared of even when there are much bigger and realer risks (like consuming any amount of alcohol on a regular basis) that people are perfectly willing to overlook.

It's like being afraid of plane crashes but cheerfully getting in your car for a 20 mile daily commute with no concerns or worries because it's something you do every day.

Brains! They're annoying!

[prapasara]

16 ประโยชน์ของกาแฟดำ

 16 ประโยชน์ของกาแฟดำ

1. กาแฟดำช่วยเพิ่มประสิทธิภาพในการออกกำลังกาย

การดื่มกาแฟดำช่วยเพิ่มประสิทธิภาพในการออกกำลังกายให้ดียิ่งขึ้น นี่คือเหตุผลว่าทำไมเหล่าฟิตเนสเทรนเนอร์ถึงแนะนำให้คุณดื่มกาแฟดำก่อนออกกำลังกาย เพราะกาแฟดำจะช่วยเพิ่มระดับอะดรีนาลีนในเลือด ซึ่งมีผลทำให้ร่างกายอึดทนต่อการออกกำลังกายที่หนักได้ดียิ่งขึ้น อีกทั้งกาแฟดำยังช่วยเผาผลาญไขมันได้ดียิ่งขึ้นอีกด้วย

2. กาแฟดำดีต่อตับ

ตับถือเป็นอวัยวะที่สำคัญที่สุดอวัยวะหนึ่งของร่างกาย เพราะว่าตับมีหน้าที่สำคัญๆ หลายประการและคุณทรา��หรือไม่ว่า กาแฟดำมีส่วนช่วยป้องกันการเกิดมะเร็งตับ ไวรัสตับอักเสบ ลดไขมันสะสมที่ตับ และล���การเกิดโรคตับแข็งจากการดื่มสุรา นอกจากนี้ 80% ของผู้ที่ดื่มกาแฟดำ 4 แก้วขึ้นไปในทุก ๆ วัน มีอัตราการเกิดโรคที่เกี่ยวกับตับต่ำกว่าผู้ที่ไม่ดื่มกาแฟดำ การดื่มกาแฟดำ 2 แก้วเป็นประจำทุกวันจะช่วยทำให้คุณรู้สึกมีความสุข อีกทั้งยังช่วยลดภาวะซึมเศร้าได้อีกด้วย หากต้องการเพลิดเพลินไปกับการดื่มกาแฟอเมริกาโน่ ทั้งเมนูอเมริกาโน่เย็นและร้อน ที่มีรสชาตินุ่มละมุน แล้วล่ะก็ เราขอแนะนำกาแฟอเมริกาโน่ จากกาแฟแคปซูล Cosi, Volluto, Capriccio, Nicaragua หรือ India ค้นหากาแฟอเมริกาโน่ชนิดแคปซูลที่เหมาะกับคุณ

3. กาแฟดำช่วยลดความเครียด

การทำงานที่แสนตึงเครียดในแต่ละวันอาจบั่นทอนสุขภาพของคุณในระยะยาว การดื่มกาแฟดำจะช่วยให้อารมณ์ของคุณคงที่ กระตุ้นระบบประสาท และเพิ่มการสร้างสารโดพามีน สารแห่งความสุข

4. กาแฟดำช่วยลดความเสี่ยงของการเป็นโรคเบาหวาน

กาแฟดำแบบที่มีคาเฟอีนและไม่มีคาเฟอีน (ดีแคฟ) มีประโยชน์ในแง่ของการช่วยลดความเสี่ยงของการเป็นโรคเบาหวาน เพราะกาแฟดำจะช่วยควบคุมระดับน้ำตาลในเลือดและช่วยเพิ่มการสร้างอินซูลิน กาแฟแคปซูลดีแคฟเป็นความเหมือนที่แตกต่างกับกาแฟแคปซูลปกติ อย่าง Volluto Decaffeinato, Arpeggio Decaffeinato และ Ristretto Decaffeinato จาก Nespresso ที่เราได้สกัดคาเฟอีนออกเพื่อที่คุณจะได้ดื่มด่ำกับกาแฟที่ไม่มีคาเฟอีนแก้วโปรดได้ตลอดวัน ค้นหากาแฟดีแคฟชนิดแคปซูลที่เหมาะกับคุณ

5. กาแฟดำช่วยลดน้ำหนัก

การดื่มกาแฟดำก่อนออกกำลังกาย 30 นาทีจะช่วยให้คุณออกกำลังกายได้ยาวนานขึ้น อีกทั้งยังช่วยเพิ่มการเผาผลาญได้ถึง 50% นอกจากนี้การดื่มกาแฟดำยังช่วยกระตุ้นระบบประสาทซึ่งจะส่งสัญญาณบอกร่างกายให้ทำลายเซลล์ไขมันและดึงไปใช้เป็นพลังงาน

6. กาแฟดำอุดมไปด้วยสารต้านอนุมูลอิสระ

ประโยช์ของกาแฟดำอีกข้อที่สำคัญ คือ กาแฟดำเป็นแหล่งของสารต้านอนุมูลอิสระ และยังอุดมไปด้วยวิตามิน B2, B3, B5, แมงกานีส, โพแทสเซียม และแมกนีเซียม

7. กาแฟดำดีต่อหัวใจและหลอดเลือด

การดื่มกาแฟดำวันละ 1-2 แก้วจะช่วยลดความเสี่ยงของการเป็นโรคหัวใจและช่วยลดการอักเสบในร่างกายได้

8. กาแฟดำช่วยลดความเสี่ยงของการเป็นมะเร็ง

กาแฟดำช่วยลดความเสี่ยงของการเกิดมะเร็งในบางชนิด เช่น มะเร็งตับ มะเร็งเต้านม มะเร็งลำไส้ใหญ่ และมะเร็งทวารหนัก เพราะว่าสารในกาแฟดำจะช่วยลดการติดเชื้อในร่างกายอันเป็นสาเหตุของการเกิดเนื้อร้าย

การศึกษาล่าสุดโด��โครงการ Monographs ของสำนักงานกลุ่มงานวิจัยเกี่ยวกับมะเร็งขององค์การอนามัยโลก (IARC) ได้ระบุว่าไม่มีหลักฐานใดในการสนับสนุนความเกี่ยวข้องระหว่างกาแฟและความเสี่ยงที่เพิ่มขึ้นของมะเร็ง

ตามข้อมูลอิเพดิมิโอโลจิคัลล่าสุด วงการวิทยาศาสตร์ตกลงที่การบริโภคกาแฟอาจเกี่ยวข้องกับความเสี่ยงที่น้อยลงโดยรวม โดยเฉพาะในมะเร็งตับและมะเร็งลำไส้ใหญ่

9. กาแฟดำทำให้ฉลาดขึ้น

อีกหนึ่งประโยชน์ของกาแฟดำที่คุณอาจจะยังไม่รู้ คือในกาแฟดำมีสารกระตุ้นจิตประสาทซึ่งเมื่อทำปฏิกิริยากับร่างกายแล้วจะช่วยเพิ่มพลังงาน ความสามารถในการจดจำ และทำให้คุณฉลาดขึ้น

10. กาแฟดำช่วยทำความสะอาดช่องท้อง

กาแฟดำเป็นเครื่องดื่มที่มีฤทธิ์ในการขับปัสสาวะ นั่นเป็นเหตุผลที่ว่าทำไมเวลาที่คุณดื่มกาแฟดำ แบคทีเรียหรือสารพิษต่าง ๆ ถึงถูกกำจัดออกมาทางปัสสาวะอย่างง่ายดาย

11. กาแฟดำช่วยให้ดูอ่อนเยาว์

การดื่มกาแฟดำโดยไม่เติมน้ำตาลลงไปจะช่วยให้แลดูอ่อนเยาว์ทั้งร่างกายและจิตใจ นอกจากนี้ กาแฟดำยังช่วยป้องกันโรคพาร์กินสันได้อีกด้วย

12. กาแฟดำช่วยป้องกันการเป็นโรคเกาต์

จากงานวิจัยพบว่า ผู้ที่ดื่มกาแฟดำมากกว่า 4 แก้วต่อวันจะสามารถลดการเกิดโรคเกาต์ได้ถึง 57% โดยกาแฟดำจะช่วยลดระดับกรดยูริค และยังช่วยบรรเทาอาการของผู้ที่เป็นโรคเกาต์ได้

13 . กาแฟดำช่วยเพิ่มระดับฮอร์โมน G-CSF ซึ่งเป็นสารที่ช่วยลดความเสี่ยงเป็นอัลไซเมอร์

การดื่มกาแฟดำอาจช่วยลดความเสี่ยงในการเป็นโรคอัลไซเมอร์ได้ เนื่องจากกาแฟดำมีสารต้านอนุมูลอิสระที่ช่วยป้องกันการเกิดเซลล์มะเร็ง แต่การดื่มกาแฟดำไม่สามารถใช้แทนการรักษาโรคอัลไซเมอร์ได้ ทั้งนี้ผู้ป่วยต้องปรึกษาแพทย์เพื่อรับคำแนะนำในการรักษาโรคอย่างเหมาะสม

14. กาแฟดำช่วยป้องกันโรคหอบ

การดื่มกาแฟดำอาจช่วยลดความเสี่ยงในการเกิดโรคหอบหืดหรือภูมิแพ้ในบางคน ซึ่งเป็นเรื่องที่ยังไม่ได้รับการพิสูจน์ว่าเป็นจริงหรือไม่ แต่มีการวิจัยพบว่ากาแฟดำมีส่วนช่วยลดการอักเสบในระบบทางเดินหายใจ ซึ่งเป็นสาเหตุหนึ่งของโรคหอบหืดหรือภูมิแพ้ อย่างไรก็ตาม การดื่มกาแฟมีผลข้างเคียงที่อาจเกิดขึ้น เช่น การเพิ่มความตึงเครียดหรือไม่สามารถนอนหลับได้ ดังนั้น ควรดื่มกาแฟในปริมาณที่สมดุลย์เพื่อป้องกันผลข้างเคียงที่อาจเกิดขึ้นได้

15. กาแฟดำช่วยลดความเสี่ยงโรคกระดูกพรุน

การดื่มกาแฟดำอาจช่วยลดความเสี่ยงในการเป็นโรคกระดูกพรุนได้ การดื่มกาแฟดำมีสารช่วยกระตุ้นการสร้างกระดูกและเสริมสร้างความหนาแน่นของกระดูก ทำให้กระดูกแข็งแรงและลดความเสี่ยงในการเกิดโรคกระดูกพรุน

16. กาแฟดำช่วยลดอาการเมาค้างและปวดศีรษะ

การดื่มกาแฟดำอาจช่วยลดอาการเมาค้างและปวดศีรษะได้ กาแฟดำมีสารคาเฟอีนที่ช่วยกระตุ้นระบบประสาทส่วนกลาง ช่วยขยาย���ลอดเลือด ทำให้ตื่นตัว ระบบไหลเวียนโลหิตทำงานมากขึ้น ทำให้ร่างกายได้รับพลังงานและควบคุมการทำงานของระบบประสาทได้ดีขึ้น ทำให้ลดอาการปวดศรีษะได้

เคล็ดลับกินกาแฟดำให้ดีต่อสุขภาพ

1. หลีกเลี่ยงการดื่มกาแฟดำตอนท้องว่างหรือดื่มแทนอาหารมื้อหลัก เพราะกาแฟมีกรดที่อาจกัดกระเพาะได้

2. ไม่ควรดื่มกาแฟดำเกิน 4 แก้วต่อวัน หรือรับคาเฟอีนได้ไม่เกิน 300 - 400 มิลลิกรัมต่อวัน

3. หลีกเลี่ยงการดื่มกาแฟระหว่างออกกำลังกายและหลังออกกำลังกาย เนื่องจากอาจทำให้ร่างกายสูญเสียน้ำมากเกินจำเป็น

4. หลีกเลี่ยงการดื่มกาแฟหลังเวลา 14.00 น. เพราะอาจทำให้นอนหลับยาก

กาแฟดำกับผู้ตั้งครรภ์และเด็ก

การศึกษาในช่วง 10 ปีที่ผ่านมารายงานว่าการบริโภคคาเฟอีนปริมาณปานกลาง รวมถึงคาเฟอีนจากกาแฟ ไม่เป็นเรื่องที่น่าเป็นห่วงสำหรับหญิงตั้งครรภ์ที่มีสุขภาพดี หญิงที่ตั้งครรภ์และกำลังให้นมบุตรยังคงสามารถดื่มกาแฟธรรมดาได้ แต่อย่างไรก็ตาม แนะนำให้ลดปริมาณการบริโภคคาเฟอีนให้เหลือ 200 มิลลิกรัมต่อวัน

ไม่มีผลวิจัยเเละการศึกษาใดๆ ที่กล่าวถึงเรื่องผลกระทบของกาแฟหรือกาแฟที่ไม่มีคาเฟอีนต่อเ���็ก ดังนั้น เราขอแนะนำให้จำกัดการบริโภคกาแฟและคาเฟอีนในเด็ก

Benefits of black coffee    ,   ประโยชน์ของกาแฟดำ   ,   ประโยชน์ของกาแฟ

CR  ::    https://www.nespresso.com/th/th/black-coffee  ,   https://prinkotakoon.blogspot.com/2024/10/benefits-coffee.html

[domidextrus]

Sometimes, looking up what kind of age rating a specific game got in a specific country leads you to find some bizarre results.

There's this game called Absolute Drift, a top-down driving sim with minimalistic 3D graphics and zero violence where your goal as the lone car driver is to drive along a bunch of tracks and carefully execute drift maneuvers to earn points.

You got the rating boards of Europe (PEGI), Australia (ACB), North America (ESRB), Mexico (SMECCV), Brazil (ClassInd), and Chile (BCN) all giving the game their equivalent of the "all ages" rating, and even the IARC (an international coalition that seeks to streamline the acquisition of content ratings across the globe) gives it a 3+.

And then there's the Russian ratings board (RARS) slapping a 16+ on it.

Need I remind you that there are no other drivers (let alone pedestrians) in Absolute Drift? The only things you can run over are red blocks.

The only conclusion I can take from this incongruence is that Russia takes driving etiquette extremely seriously.

[pollicinor]

Il talco è stato oggetto di numerose ricerche e, nel corso degli anni, è stato associato a diverse condizioni mediche, come la talcosi e il carcinoma ovarico. Dopo anni di intensi dibattiti sulla sicurezza del composto, il cui rischio è parzialmente attribuito alla possibile presenza di piccole concentrazioni di quarzo e amianto nella polvere ottenuta dalla lavorazione, la Iarc ha deciso di classificare il talco nel Gruppo 2A, che include sostanze probabilmente cancerogene per l’uomo. Questo gruppo comprende anche carni rosse, steroidi, composti rilasciati dalla frittura ad alte temperature, acroleina, bitumi, cisplatino, Ddt, glifosato, bevande molto calde (oltre i 65 °C), alcuni composti utilizzati per la cura dei capelli e molte altre sostanze. Il Gruppo 2A è appena al di sotto del Gruppo 1, che comprende sostanze sicuramente cancerogene per l’uomo, come il fumo di sigaretta, le carni lavorate, i fumi delle saldature e altre.

Dall'articolo "Il talco è 'probabilmente cancerogeno' per gli esseri umani, arriva la conferma dall’Oms" di Giorgio Pirani

[darkmaga-returns]

In recent years we have researched the health problems caused by shampoo, sunscreen, soap, underarm deodorants and tampons. The dangers of these products stems from both chemical toxicity and their interference with beneficial bodily processes. However, there is another class of products that needed to be addressed: makeup.

Now we know that there are a lot of men in the audience but I seriously encourage all of them to watch this video for a couple of reasons. The first is that they can share this information with those important females in their lives whether they be wives, partners, daughters or mothers. The second is that male products such as shaving creams, aftershaves, and cologne can also be equally toxic.

In this video I outline some of the most toxic ingredients that are found in these products and why some are not even disclosed by the manufacturers. We will also expose production contaminants and how combinations of certain compounds can enhance toxicity. And finally I will share my easy solution to the whole problem.

References

MGNaturals Makeup – Use discount code DRBAILEY to receive 10% off your first order

“Here’s Why I Quit Shampoo”, Dr Sam Bailey, 17 Jun 2023

“Does Sunscreen Cause Cancer?”, Dr Sam Bailey, 23 Sep 2023

“Better Skin With No Soap”, Dr Sam Bailey, 29 Jul 2023

“The Deodorant Detox”, Dr Sam Bailey, 14 Oct 2023

“Toxic Shock: Bacteria vs Terrain”, Dr Sam Bailey, 27 Jul 2024

“IARC group 2B” (“possibly carcinogenic to humans”), Wikipedia (accessed 1 Dec 2024)

“IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans”, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1986

“p-PHENYLENEDIAMINE”, The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (archived)

“Consumers: Commission improves safety of cosmetics”, European Commission, press release, 26 Sep 2014

“Direct Human Contact with Siloxanes (Silicones)”, Frontiers in Pharmacology, 30 May 2016

“Critical substances in creams, lip care products and petroleum jelly”, Stiftung Warentest, 26 May 2015 (translated from German)

Cosmetic database ingredient checker: https://www.ewg.org/skindeep/

[kennak]

[IARC]核施設労働者のイオン化放射線への低線量ばく露後の白血病、リンパ腫、多発性骨髄腫死亡率(INWORKS)：国際コホート研究の更新知見 Leukaemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma mortality after low-level exposure to ionising radiation in nuclear workers (INWORKS): updated findings from an international cohort study – IARC (who.int) https://www.iarc.who.int/news-events/leukaemia-lymphoma-and-multiple-myeloma-mortality-after-low-level-exposure-to-ionising-radiation-in-nuclear-workers-inworks/ The Lancet Haematologyに発表 イオン化放射線への低線量長期暴露と白血病（慢性リンパ球性白血病を除く）、慢性骨髄性白血病、急性骨髄性白血病、骨髄異形成症候群、多発性骨髄腫による死亡率とに正の関連を発見した。1グレイ当たりの白血病による死亡率の増加は250%以上と推定され (excess relative rate [ERR] per Gy, 2.68; 90%信頼区間, 1.13–4.55)、過剰率は線形用量反応モデルで合理的に記述できる。この研究での労働者の被ばく線量は0.016Gyと低く、放射線による白血病での絶対死亡率は10万人35年間あたり13と推定された（放射線暴露のないヒトでの慢性リンパ球性白血病を除く白血病の死亡250と比較） この研究で推定されたEERは日本の原爆生存者での放射線影響研究で推定された2.75/Gyと近い。

2024-09-03 - 野良猫　食情報研究所

[pinkprettycure]

I linked the contents warning on the itch page and the websites about page for the game.

The T rating is based from the google play IARC questionnaire i did the other day so it should be pretty accurate. it's not just me feeling for a vibe lol.

I think the jarring part of the CWs probably just comes from the aesthetic being so bright and colorful then u see the warnings and are beat over the head with a chair with "abuse, body horror, and death" 😭 most of this stuff isn't going to be TOO shocking if u already played the og demo tho which already had blood and mentions of death, but the stakes get a lil crazier in later eps... Ppl who already played those ones know what to expect lol, some of the descriptions were polished some between builds but yeah.

I promise its not anything crazier than some the stuff in kamen rider n shit lmao and im not tryna pull a madoka on yall 😭

[gorgeousgreymatter-x]

my face when everyone I know tries to gloat to me about aspartame MAYBE getting added to the IARC 2B classification as a POSSIBLE carcinogen and I have to tell them the bad news about coffee and aloe vera and pickled vegetables (and not pictured but on the list: things tumblr is known to enjoy such as *checks notes* ah yes HOT BEVERAGES)

[arcobalengo]

"Uno dei dolcificanti artificiali più comuni al mondo sarà dichiarato il mese prossimo possibile cancerogeno da un importante organismo sanitario globale, secondo due fonti a conoscenza del processo, contrapponendolo all'industria alimentare e regolatori.

L'aspartame, utilizzato in prodotti dalle bibite dietetiche della Coca-Cola alla gomma da masticare Extra di Mars e alcune bevande Snapple, sarà elencato a luglio come "possibile cancerogeno per l'uomo" per la prima volta dall'Agenzia internazionale per la ricerca sul cancro (IARC), il braccio di ricerca sul cancro dell'OMS, hanno detto le fonti a Reuters."

Credo di saperlo da tipo 15 anni... Non hanno lavorato alla "velocità della scienza" in questo caso.. 🤨

Unisciti al mio canale Telegram

@monicaelis

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/whos-cancer-research-agency-say-aspartame-sweetener-possible-carcinogen-sources-2023-06-29/#:~:text=Aspartame%2C%20used%20in%20products%20from,research%20arm%2C%20the%20sources%20told

IARC.. Ci fosse ancora Lorenzo Tomatis come direttore... Leggetevi il suo libro "Il fuoriuscito"

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Brazilian authority follows WHO on aspartame warning

Brazil’s National Cancer Institute (INCA) has issued a warning against the consumption of aspartame, after the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the artificial sweetener as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) of the WHO and the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) released an assessment of aspartame’s health impacts last week. The findings of their “separate but complementary reviews” concluded that there is limited evidence of the additive causing cancer in humans. The JECFA re-affirmed the acceptable daily intake limit for aspartame of 40 mg/kg of body weight.

WHO scientists stressed that the findings indicate the need for more and better independent research on aspartame, which has been widely used as an artificial sweetener in food and beverages since the 1980s. It is typically found in foods labeled as low-calorie and sugar-free drinks such as Diet Coke, and can also be present in products such as sugar-free gum, toothpaste, and medications such as cough drops.

Continue reading.