Wait, which pill is that again?

I think a lot of it is way more racist than that.

“Old stock white Canadians, and that’s us, and we don’t have to apologize for this room being filled with white people. This used to be what Alberta was. We’re not apologizing for being ourselves… If we have control over immigration, we can control who comes here.”

• Alberta Prosperity Project CEO Mitch Sylvestre

He also said, “the replacement theory is real.” (i.e. the federal government intends to replace “white Canadians” with other races through immigration.) And he claimed Justin Trudeau said this explicitly. (I’m pretty sure he did not…)

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/anti-racism-watchdog-field-complaint-arising-from-immigration-comments-made-at-separatist-town-hall

Shoppers is the worst. They are terrible to their pharmacists, customers and other employees. If you’re wondering why there are so many small pharmacies that have started up its because shoppers was so terrible to their pharmacists łand wouldn’t allow them to provide good, personal care) that pharmacists left and started their own businesses (at great risk) so they could provide proper care to their customers. And in a lot of cases the customers followed.

Instead of taking this as a sign they should do better, shoppers just put more pressure on their low paid pharmacists to gouge customers and extract every dollar they can out of the insurance system and customers.

Great business model.p

How does it survive the microwaved molten lava?

Oh right, that’s only the bit that squirts onto the roof of your mouth. The rest is still frozen. My bad.

(also, pro tip: ignore the instructions, heat for longer at lower power to avoid the scenario above)

I use Forkyz for crossword puzzles. It downloads from lots of sources and has a pretty clean interface. No ads.

There’s far too little done to warn people about the dangers of radon.

We build basements, including living spaces, in areas that have high radon concentration, and nobody is informed of the dangers. (Southern Ontario, I’m looking at you.)

Okay. As long as this doesn’t result in prices going higher…

This is the important bit though: “There will be other affordability measures announced on Monday, including steps to fix structural problems with Canada’s food supply chain, and improve competition.”

[email protected]

I’m holding out hope for that solid state one announced at CES. It could be a game changer if real.

Big if, but still…

Wow, I had never heard of that before and thought it was a typo.

https://codidact.com/ also links to https://topanswers.xyz/ to check for communities they might not have.

Hard to tell how active they are but interesting to check out for sure.

Well to be fair, there’s probably a lot of people who have no fucking clue what sudo is, but are getting instructions from stack overflow err, AI. Not that this warning would necessarily stop them, but there was an attempt.

It’s a MS issue, not isolated

Part of the potential Saab deal for Gripens was to ramp up manufacturing in Canada. So at least there’s that.

I really liked your neighbourhood in Athens.

Non alcoholic Thunderbird and Cheez Whiz

There it is. This whole thing was too suspicious

I tried not to conflate absolute and relative risk. The numbers I was going with came from the link I posted, which was not from a science journalist, but from the US National Cancer Institute. Also, note that the comment you replied to was more about an off the cuff comparison of the risk between CT scans and drinking alcohol. It wasn’t meant to present scientific rigour.

Below is directly from the linked article, emphasis mine:

Using data from Australia, recalculated using US standard drinks, the recent Surgeon General’s Advisory reports that

• among 100 women who have less than one drink per week, about 17 will develop an alcohol-related cancer
• among 100 women who have one drink a day, 19 will develop an alcohol-related cancer
• among 100 women who have two drinks a day, about 22 will develop an alcohol-related cancer

This means that women who have one drink a day have an absolute increase in the risk of an alcohol-related cancer of 2 per 100, and those who have two drinks a day an absolute increase of 5 per 100, compared with those who have less than one drink a week. For men, the number of alcohol-related cancers per 100 is 10 for those who have less than one drink a week, 11 for those who have one drink a day (an increase of 1 per 100), and 13 for those who have two drinks a day (an increase of 3 per 100).

From the WHO article:

Ethanol (alcohol) causes cancer through biological mechanisms as the compound breaks down in the body, which means that any beverage containing alcohol, regardless of its price and quality, poses a risk of developing cancer.

Risks start from the first drop

To identify a “safe” level of alcohol consumption, valid scientific evidence would need to demonstrate that at and below a certain level, there is no risk of illness or injury associated with alcohol consumption. The new WHO statement clarifies: currently available evidence cannot indicate the existence of a threshold at which the carcinogenic effects of alcohol “switch on” and start to manifest in the human body.

So no, you’re wrong, it specifically says your example is not “safe”. They said “beverage”, but consuming alcohol laden fruit would fall in the same category. The same would go for many “non-alcoholic” beers which are <0.5% alcohol, and many other things like kombucha, baked goods, chocolate, etc. You can debate whether they’re correct or not, but they were very clear that tiny amounts are not safe.

Now, it’s all about risk. And the more alcohol consumed, the higher the risk of developing cancer. The question is at what point the benefits outweigh the risk. Benefits could range from vitamins, minerals, fiber and healthy compounds, to reduced social anxiety and other psychological factors.

I’m not a statistics expert, so very possibly bad wording or outright errors ahead.

Versus non-drinkers, 1 drink a day increases the absolute risk of getting cancer by 2% 2 drinks a day increases the absolute risk of getting cancer by 5%

(https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/alcohol/alcohol-fact-sheet)

Unfortunately, I’m having trouble finding the absolute risk increase for a single CT scan… But I think it is around 0.1%. This is based on the recent JAMA study that said that the scans from a given year (about 93 million of them) would it in 103000 future cancers developing.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2832778

A couple of takeaways: on an individual basis the risk of developing cancer from a CT scan is pretty low. On a population scale, its pretty damn high. Also though the increased chance is low (especially compared to the numbers above for alcohol) it’s actually pretty significant if you consider it takes just one scan.

Ballpark, you might be talking the equivalent of 3 drinks a month?

It’s an interesting question. I actually turned down a CT scan recently because it wasn’t clear what the benefits of knowing the results would be, versus this extra risk.