5 ms·

When you drink your coffee without caffeine in your 30 for escaping a harm from caffeine, but end up with Parkinson in your 60+.

maxerickson 3y ago
Fortunately it's a big increase in relative risk and not absolute risk: By 2021, 279 of the Camp Lejeune veterans, or 0.33%, had developed Parkinson’s versus 151 of those at Camp Pendleton, or 0.21%. After adjusting for differences in age, sex, race, and ethnicity, the scientists found veterans from Camp Lejeune had a 70% higher rate of Parkinson’s disease than the Camp Pendleton group. I guess it can be encouraging news for some people. My mom died with Parkinson's and I've almost certainly had less exposure to TCE than she did. I'm aware that there isn't really a known genetic link, it's just nice to occasionally see evidence that it can be exposure related. The increase in prevalence mentioned in the article isn't good, but that can be due to better techniques for diagnosing it.
- hgsgm 3y ago
  1 in 1000 increase in lifetime risk of something horrible, from one source, is pretty bad, if there are many similarly dangerous sources.
coldtea 3y ago
Never exchange the "devil you know", especially if it's natural and has been used for centuries by billions, for some novel lab-made crap, proprietary owned, and marketed to death. Not to mention when getting it has been the whole point of drinking coffee in the first place.
- criley2 3y ago
  This is a rather explicit use of the Naturalistic Fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
  - bronson 3y ago
    "The naturalistic fallacy should not be confused with the appeal to nature..." (3rd paragraph in your link)
    - criley2 3y ago
      Further down the article it explains that the terms have been used interchangeable for a long time. Language is a funny thing.
    - JoeyPriceless 3y ago
      The more relevant article for those who are curious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
      - coldtea 3y ago
        Note how there is no actual substance to the classification as "fallacy". In general, it only makes sense if it condemned some absolute claim that "anything natural is better than anything man made". But people appealing to nature rarely if ever claim that - even when they appear to be making that argument, it's because they use loose language. What they actually mean is that something natural will tend to be better - and there's nuance about why that might be so (having benefitted from evolutionary pressure and adaptation, a thing empirically tested and shown working, more effortessly fitting to our biology, and so on). Of course we're talking of man-made stuff thus-far, not some futuristic utopia where we know how to make everything better. So unless the claim is "all natural things are always better", it's doubtful how the "fallacy" accusation actually applies in real life arguments. Does it address the claim that "X is better _because_ it is natural"? Well, doesn't that being the case or not, depend on the quality of the specific non-natural alternatives to X? If those aren't any good, then X is indeed better not by chance, but precisely because it's natural. That is, because it had millions of years to evolve, millenia to be used and tested by humans, and so on, and it had all sort of evolutionary pressures to improve it.
  - Hnrobert42 3y ago
dist-epoch 3y ago
Why would you drink coffee if not for the caffeine. It's not exactly the most delicious drink.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- quickthrower2 3y ago
  Have you not had coffee with fresh ground beans less than 4 weeks after roast? If not get to your nearest real coffee shop pronto!
  - asah 3y ago
    can confirm. Decent fresh beans are the key.
  - prepend 3y ago
    I have and it’s nice. Would not drink it if not for the caffeine. The history of coffee is interesting to me. Although I don’t have a link, coffee was introduced to addict populations to facilitate trade. It’s funny that trading companies were key to the adoption of tea and coffee consumptions so they had a commodity that they could trade across the world. It’s kind of like oil in that the world needs lots of it and there’s money to be made in production and transport. Or it could be that people just really like tea and coffee and the trading companies just met the unrealized need.
    - dist-epoch 3y ago
      > addict populations to facilitate trade That's a bit of a stretch. You could say that about any popular products - smartphones, soap, ... Some say the industrial revolution was facilitated by the switch of Western people from alcohol based drinks to caffeine based ones. > Those who drank coffee instead of alcohol began the day alert and stimulated, rather than relaxed and mildly inebriated, and the quality and quantity of their work improved … Western Europe began to emerge from an alcoholic haze that had lasted for centuries.”
criddell 3y ago
It's worth noting that almost all decaffeinated coffee is made using water as the solvent. Even 30 years ago this was true.
- kranke155 3y ago
  So what decaf isn’t ?
- dontwearitout 3y ago
  Citation needed, swiss water decaf isn't the only type of decaf on the shelves at my local grocery store.
- nicksergeant 3y ago
  This isn't really true, there are a few different methods to decaffeinating coffee beans: "Like regular coffee, decaf coffee begins as green, unroasted beans. The hard beans are warmed and soaked in liquid to dissolve and remove the caffeine in one of four ways: using water alone, using a mixture of water and solvents (most commonly methylene chloride or ethyl acetate) applied either directly or indirectly, or using water and “supercritical carbon dioxide.”" -> https://www.ncausa.org/Decaffeinated-Coffee https://www.ncausa.org/Decaffeinated-Coffee
  - nicksergeant 3y ago
    We drink a lot of decaf and I email roasters before ordering to see what method they use (even though it's stated that methylene chloride is "totally safe"). It seems most commercially available beans are processed via this company: https://en.descamex.com.mx/ https://en.descamex.com.mx/ (which does both: https://en.descamex.com.mx/mountainwaterprocess https://en.descamex.com.mx/mountainwaterprocess) Even our local coffee roaster replied and said they only use Swiss water process on their more expensive organic beans - the rest of their lineup uses MC.
MetaWhirledPeas 3y ago
According to Bing Chat they stopped using TCE for decaf back in the 70s, at least in the US.
Alex3917 3y ago
Given that drinking coffee lowers your risk of getting Parkinson's by up to 80%, the lack of caffeine is probably doing more for your Parkinson's risk than whatever chemicals were used to decaffeinate it.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

maxerickson 3y ago

Fortunately it's a big increase in relative risk and not absolute risk: By 2021, 279 of the Camp Lejeune veterans, or 0.33%, had developed Parkinson’s versus 151 of those at Camp Pendleton, or 0.21%. After adjusting for differences in age, sex, race, and ethnicity, the scientists found veterans from Camp Lejeune had a 70% higher rate of Parkinson’s disease than the Camp Pendleton group. I guess it can be encouraging news for some people. My mom died with Parkinson's and I've almost certainly had less exposure to TCE than she did. I'm aware that there isn't really a known genetic link, it's just nice to occasionally see evidence that it can be exposure related. The increase in prevalence mentioned in the article isn't good, but that can be due to better techniques for diagnosing it.

hgsgm 3y ago
1 in 1000 increase in lifetime risk of something horrible, from one source, is pretty bad, if there are many similarly dangerous sources.

coldtea 3y ago

Never exchange the "devil you know", especially if it's natural and has been used for centuries by billions, for some novel lab-made crap, proprietary owned, and marketed to death. Not to mention when getting it has been the whole point of drinking coffee in the first place.

criley2 3y ago
This is a rather explicit use of the Naturalistic Fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
- bronson 3y ago
  "The naturalistic fallacy should not be confused with the appeal to nature..." (3rd paragraph in your link)
  - criley2 3y ago
    Further down the article it explains that the terms have been used interchangeable for a long time. Language is a funny thing.
  - JoeyPriceless 3y ago
    The more relevant article for those who are curious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
    - coldtea 3y ago
      Note how there is no actual substance to the classification as "fallacy". In general, it only makes sense if it condemned some absolute claim that "anything natural is better than anything man made". But people appealing to nature rarely if ever claim that - even when they appear to be making that argument, it's because they use loose language. What they actually mean is that something natural will tend to be better - and there's nuance about why that might be so (having benefitted from evolutionary pressure and adaptation, a thing empirically tested and shown working, more effortessly fitting to our biology, and so on). Of course we're talking of man-made stuff thus-far, not some futuristic utopia where we know how to make everything better. So unless the claim is "all natural things are always better", it's doubtful how the "fallacy" accusation actually applies in real life arguments. Does it address the claim that "X is better _because_ it is natural"? Well, doesn't that being the case or not, depend on the quality of the specific non-natural alternatives to X? If those aren't any good, then X is indeed better not by chance, but precisely because it's natural. That is, because it had millions of years to evolve, millenia to be used and tested by humans, and so on, and it had all sort of evolutionary pressures to improve it.
- Hnrobert42 3y ago

dist-epoch 3y ago

Why would you drink coffee if not for the caffeine. It's not exactly the most delicious drink.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
quickthrower2 3y ago
Have you not had coffee with fresh ground beans less than 4 weeks after roast? If not get to your nearest real coffee shop pronto!
- asah 3y ago
  can confirm. Decent fresh beans are the key.
- prepend 3y ago
  I have and it’s nice. Would not drink it if not for the caffeine. The history of coffee is interesting to me. Although I don’t have a link, coffee was introduced to addict populations to facilitate trade. It’s funny that trading companies were key to the adoption of tea and coffee consumptions so they had a commodity that they could trade across the world. It’s kind of like oil in that the world needs lots of it and there’s money to be made in production and transport. Or it could be that people just really like tea and coffee and the trading companies just met the unrealized need.
  - dist-epoch 3y ago
    > addict populations to facilitate trade That's a bit of a stretch. You could say that about any popular products - smartphones, soap, ... Some say the industrial revolution was facilitated by the switch of Western people from alcohol based drinks to caffeine based ones. > Those who drank coffee instead of alcohol began the day alert and stimulated, rather than relaxed and mildly inebriated, and the quality and quantity of their work improved … Western Europe began to emerge from an alcoholic haze that had lasted for centuries.”

criddell 3y ago

It's worth noting that almost all decaffeinated coffee is made using water as the solvent. Even 30 years ago this was true.

kranke155 3y ago
So what decaf isn’t ?
dontwearitout 3y ago
Citation needed, swiss water decaf isn't the only type of decaf on the shelves at my local grocery store.
nicksergeant 3y ago
This isn't really true, there are a few different methods to decaffeinating coffee beans: "Like regular coffee, decaf coffee begins as green, unroasted beans. The hard beans are warmed and soaked in liquid to dissolve and remove the caffeine in one of four ways: using water alone, using a mixture of water and solvents (most commonly methylene chloride or ethyl acetate) applied either directly or indirectly, or using water and “supercritical carbon dioxide.”" -> https://www.ncausa.org/Decaffeinated-Coffee https://www.ncausa.org/Decaffeinated-Coffee
- nicksergeant 3y ago
  We drink a lot of decaf and I email roasters before ordering to see what method they use (even though it's stated that methylene chloride is "totally safe"). It seems most commercially available beans are processed via this company: https://en.descamex.com.mx/ https://en.descamex.com.mx/ (which does both: https://en.descamex.com.mx/mountainwaterprocess https://en.descamex.com.mx/mountainwaterprocess) Even our local coffee roaster replied and said they only use Swiss water process on their more expensive organic beans - the rest of their lineup uses MC.

MetaWhirledPeas 3y ago

According to Bing Chat they stopped using TCE for decaf back in the 70s, at least in the US.

Alex3917 3y ago

Given that drinking coffee lowers your risk of getting Parkinson's by up to 80%, the lack of caffeine is probably doing more for your Parkinson's risk than whatever chemicals were used to decaffeinate it.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]