Re:Cancer risks increase with alcohol use, leading to over 7...
by jbigelow76 on Saturday July 17, 2021 @03:24AM
(#27864094)
(don't be so hard on the boomers, their fuckups are the fuckups of a generation that went through ww2)
Pretty sure the boomers are the ones that came after WW2, the aforementioned "boom" of their namesake being progeny of those that didn't die during the blitz, Normandy, Stalingrad, and everywhere in between.
Re:Cancer risks increase with alcohol use, leading to over 7...
by WalterBright on Saturday July 17, 2021 @04:30AM
(#27864392)
The boom comes from "baby boom" which means a sudden increase in the birth rate. This happens normally after wars end that have high casualty rates.
I recall reading that the day WW1 was declared over, people were copulating in the streets of London.
People have an urge to rebuild the population.
Re:Cancer risks increase with alcohol use, leading to over 7...
by mhh__ on Saturday July 17, 2021 @04:44AM
(#27864449)
They were probably thinking less strategically at the time
Re:Cancer risks increase with alcohol use, leading to over 7...
by WalterBright on Saturday July 17, 2021 @09:42PM
(#27870186)
It's a biological imperative, not a rational thought process.
Re:Cancer risks increase with alcohol use, leading to over 7...
by hrh on Saturday July 17, 2021 @03:29AM
(#27864119)
I was being obtuse: what I was trying to say is there are a lot of GIs and people at home that were damaged. Their kids got the worst of it.
Re:Cancer risks increase with alcohol use, leading to over 7...
by midasuni on Saturday July 17, 2021 @06:07AM
(#27864756)
Typically Boomers parents fought in ww2. Boomers fought in Vietnam.
Boomers had parents suffering from post ww2 problems, problems likely dealt with by alcohol.
Re:Cancer risks increase with alcohol use, leading to over 7...
by zoover2020 on Saturday July 17, 2021 @07:27AM
(#27865068)
Best troll of 2021 yet
I don't recall if this was precovid or postcovid, but there was a 60 minutes where they were talking about the impact that understanding the genome has had on health research, but specifically curing some cancers and longevity. They had a harvard prof on there that firmly believed that within 7 years that we'll be seeing real advances (that the public will have access to) on that.
7 years is nothing. You know it's not going to take 7 years, it's going to take 25, but stop pickling yourselves so you can make it that far. I have 45 year old friends that act like they are going to die tomorrow.
edit:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/harvard-geneticist-george-churc...
This is the 60 minutes in question. Keep in mind academic timelines. It's longer than seven years, money quote, among other interesting stuff:
> Scott Pelley: What's the time horizon on age reversal in humans?
George Church: That's in clinical trials right now in dogs. And so, that veterinary product might be a couple years away and then that takes another ten years to get through the human clinical trials.