Comments on: I’ll take the risk http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/12/30/ill-take-the-risk/ Feminist, anti-racist, pro-fat, plus whatever else we feel like talking about. Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:52:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: Frida http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/12/30/ill-take-the-risk/#comment-222919 Frida Tue, 02 Jan 2007 14:47:27 +0000 http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/12/30/ill-take-the-risk/#comment-222919 If the study's true, shouldn't there be a lot more men with breast cancer? If the study’s true, shouldn’t there be a lot more men with breast cancer?

]]> By: Elizabeth http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/12/30/ill-take-the-risk/#comment-222820 Elizabeth Tue, 02 Jan 2007 08:40:50 +0000 http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/12/30/ill-take-the-risk/#comment-222820 Sandy at JunkFoodScience has written about this one (http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/01/housework-latest-breast-cancer.html) and points out that "In total, moderate inactivity was associated with an 11% lower risk. Inactivity proved more protective than being the most active! (Being active was associated with a mere 8% lower risk)." Sandy at JunkFoodScience has written about this one (junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/01/hou…) and points out that “In total, moderate inactivity was associated with an 11% lower risk. Inactivity proved more protective than being the most active! (Being active was associated with a mere 8% lower risk).”

]]> By: Adrian http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/12/30/ill-take-the-risk/#comment-222603 Adrian Mon, 01 Jan 2007 01:51:52 +0000 http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/12/30/ill-take-the-risk/#comment-222603 The secondary source I read claimed that it was *specifically* housework that reduced the risk of breast cancer, and that the researchers were very surprised. They had sorted out a group of women who did 16-17 hours a week of housework, and compared their cancer statistics to a group of sedentary women of similar age, and to a group of women who said they took the recommended 30 minutes of exercise, at learst 3 times per week. They were very surprised to find that things like laundry and childcare could be healthier than jogging. It does not seem to have occurred to them to parse it an terms of "17 hours/week of mild exercise could be healthier than 90 minutes/week of more intense exercise." Of course, if they had said THAT, it would not have shocked anyone. The secondary source I read claimed that it was *specifically* housework that reduced the risk of breast cancer, and that the researchers were very surprised. They had sorted out a group of women who did 16-17 hours a week of housework, and compared their cancer statistics to a group of sedentary women of similar age, and to a group of women who said they took the recommended 30 minutes of exercise, at learst 3 times per week. They were very surprised to find that things like laundry and childcare could be healthier than jogging.

It does not seem to have occurred to them to parse it an terms of “17 hours/week of mild exercise could be healthier than 90 minutes/week of more intense exercise.” Of course, if they had said THAT, it would not have shocked anyone.

]]> By: RonF http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/12/30/ill-take-the-risk/#comment-222437 RonF Sun, 31 Dec 2006 04:33:24 +0000 http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/12/30/ill-take-the-risk/#comment-222437 Science reporting in MSM articles tend to really suck. I'm not surprised. Science reporting in MSM articles tend to really suck. I’m not surprised.

]]> By: Maia http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/12/30/ill-take-the-risk/#comment-222432 Maia Sun, 31 Dec 2006 04:10:46 +0000 http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/12/30/ill-take-the-risk/#comment-222432 I found fact that there was no link between activity in the job and a decrease in breast cancer quite interesting, but it makes sense to me. Assuming that the sample wasn't completely biased towards non-immigrant/middle class women there were probably some women who were doing cleaning as their job. I would find it really interesting if cleaning as a job didn't offer the same protection as cleaning at home, but as a union organiser it wouldn't surprise me. I would imagine that a high level of activity at work probably also coincides with as many negative factors (such as exposure to commercial cleaners) as positive impact from the exposure. I found fact that there was no link between activity in the job and a decrease in breast cancer quite interesting, but it makes sense to me.

Assuming that the sample wasn’t completely biased towards non-immigrant/middle class women there were probably some women who were doing cleaning as their job. I would find it really interesting if cleaning as a job didn’t offer the same protection as cleaning at home, but as a union organiser it wouldn’t surprise me. I would imagine that a high level of activity at work probably also coincides with as many negative factors (such as exposure to commercial cleaners) as positive impact from the exposure.

]]> By: belledame222 http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/12/30/ill-take-the-risk/#comment-222428 belledame222 Sun, 31 Dec 2006 03:30:19 +0000 http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/12/30/ill-take-the-risk/#comment-222428 jesus, that is a new nadir of something or other. yes, and particularly when you use heavily chemical-laden cleaning products, breathing the fumes all day, that is -great- for those cancer-fighting cells! builds strong bodies twelve different ways! YAY jesus, that is a new nadir of something or other.

yes, and particularly when you use heavily chemical-laden cleaning products, breathing the fumes all day, that is -great- for those cancer-fighting cells! builds strong bodies twelve different ways! YAY

]]> By: NancyP http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/12/30/ill-take-the-risk/#comment-222338 NancyP Sat, 30 Dec 2006 19:42:32 +0000 http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/12/30/ill-take-the-risk/#comment-222338 Definitions used by researchers may not be strictly followed by the women in their self-reporting. I'd tend to lump in walking to the store with housework, not recreation. Given the tendency of many Europeans to shop and launder locally (within walking distance), nonadherence to the research definition would shift a major source of caloric expenditure/ aerobic exercise to a different category. The conclusions they make are hampered by the lack of precise definitions clearly followed by the respondents, and by the low number of "manual" and "heavy manual" labor workers which encouraged the researchers to pool the two categories. I daresay a detailed record of actual tasks accomplished by specific methods would allow a more precise estimation of actual caloric expenditure in said housework, and in the various categories of labor. One would also like to see a description of the occupational exposures of the manual/heavy manual laborers. Altogether, the sort of study that is inconclusive for a number of reasons, not least of which is the lack of standard definitions, in caloric terms and in lack of info re: occupational exposures. I'd also like to do the primary correction by age and age at first birth. OCPs are a non-issue, at least in current formulations. HRT use really should be recorded as woman-years of use, not use at current time. Definitions used by researchers may not be strictly followed by the women in their self-reporting. I’d tend to lump in walking to the store with housework, not recreation. Given the tendency of many Europeans to shop and launder locally (within walking distance), nonadherence to the research definition would shift a major source of caloric expenditure/ aerobic exercise to a different category.

The conclusions they make are hampered by the lack of precise definitions clearly followed by the respondents, and by the low number of “manual” and “heavy manual” labor workers which encouraged the researchers to pool the two categories. I daresay a detailed record of actual tasks accomplished by specific methods would allow a more precise estimation of actual caloric expenditure in said housework, and in the various categories of labor. One would also like to see a description of the occupational exposures of the manual/heavy manual laborers.

Altogether, the sort of study that is inconclusive for a number of reasons, not least of which is the lack of standard definitions, in caloric terms and in lack of info re: occupational exposures.

I’d also like to do the primary correction by age and age at first birth. OCPs are a non-issue, at least in current formulations. HRT use really should be recorded as woman-years of use, not use at current time.

]]> By: pheeno http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/12/30/ill-take-the-risk/#comment-222314 pheeno Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:52:58 +0000 http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/12/30/ill-take-the-risk/#comment-222314 Well if it ever ends up being true, Im screwed. 17 hours a week for housework? I doubt it put in 17 hours a month. My house isnt filthy, but I dont feel the need to scrub down everything that often. Then again, I dont have a husband so not much actually needs to be done. When I *did*, I gave up rather early on. I got sick of cleaning only to have him come in RIGHT BEHIND ME and mess shit up again. I finally took everything he left in the living room (clothes, shoes, dirty dishes) and put them on his side of the bed. And told him the next time, he'd have to go dumpster diving, because anything left in the living room that didnt belong there would be thrown away. We had separate bathrooms, and I didnt bother with his. I didnt mess it up. Well if it ever ends up being true, Im screwed.

17 hours a week for housework? I doubt it put in 17 hours a month. My house isnt filthy, but I dont feel the need to scrub down everything that often. Then again, I dont have a husband so not much actually needs to be done.

When I *did*, I gave up rather early on. I got sick of cleaning only to have him come in RIGHT BEHIND ME and mess shit up again. I finally took everything he left in the living room (clothes, shoes, dirty dishes) and put them on his side of the bed. And told him the next time, he’d have to go dumpster diving, because anything left in the living room that didnt belong there would be thrown away. We had separate bathrooms, and I didnt bother with his. I didnt mess it up.

]]>