Most people can handle the notion that smoking cigarettes is like egging on cancer. Every time you buy a pack of Parliaments, you’re essentially calling cancer’s mom fat, which isn’t very nice, because as studies have shown, obesity often leads to cancer. We also pretty readily accept that tanning ourselves into another ethnic group probably isn’t a good idea, and that while Teflon pans, plastic water bottles and microwave popcorn don’t seem all that dangerous, it’s nice to know someone is looking out for us. But a line must be drawn somewhere, and with the American Association of Cancer Research suggesting recently that two sodas per week could double one’s risk of pancreatic cancer, it’s time to declare war on science.

But first, a brief note on semantics: we are discussing soda, not pop. Pop is a spokesperson for Rice Krispies. Pop is what exists in Albert Pujols’ bat. Pop is dead. Soda is carbonated ambrosia. And a bubbler is absolutely nothing.

The study, which appeared recently in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention — the only magazine on earth that makes Highlights look exciting — followed over 65,000 Singaporeans for 14 years, with 140 of those test subjects eventually developing pancreatic cancer. Ultimately, one of the study’s conclusions was that those who drank soda were 87 percent more likely to develop pancreatic cancer than their non-soda drinking (and therefore, Mormon) counterparts.

But there are reasons to question the fear-inducing nature of this study, and even more, reasons to be skeptical of this type of research as necessary and helpful.

First is the issue of sample size. If you take 14 years and 65,000 people, chances are you’re going to stumble across some cancer, no matter what people are or aren’t drinking. While the study suggested the results were applicable to U.S. citizens because of Singapore’s comparable wealth, one would most likely expect to end up with more than 140 cancerous Americans if the correlation between soda and cancer hinges on two Cokes per week. This country is proud of its soda consumption, from Shasta to Jolt to the new Pepsi Throwback. Have you seen that stuff? They actually market it as worse for your body than normal Pepsi. U-S-A, U-S-A.

More importantly, the entire nature of “new study” science comes off as a somewhat-flimsy device. Much like those diet reports that announce new trends in bad fats, good fats and why we should all give up and succumb to pica, cancer studies always seem to contradict one other. It was only 2006 when a National Cancer Institute study involving over 600,000 test subjects concluded that aspartame — a key ingredient in diet soda — doesn’t increase the risk of cancer. Now maybe Singaporeans don’t do diet, but there are definitely some mixed messages being sent between these two reports.

Also, is this really an effective use of research time and money? A 14-year study involving 65,000 people doesn’t sound cheap, especially if the groundbreaking conclusion states that drinking too much soda could lead to negative health effects. We know that. We hear it from our dentist every six months. We feel it every time we try to quench our pick-up basketball game thirst with Sprite instead of water. After all, it sure didn’t help Penny Hardaway’s career — and yes, I know he lost to Shaq, but I don’t know how to work that into the argument.

Most scientists will agree that soda is most likely a role player instead of an all-star carcinogen. As part of a larger lifestyle, soda — combined with inactivity, bad food choices, Camel Lights and a Tan World membership — could push someone closer to the ultimate early graduation. On its own, however, it should be used the same way everything else is: in moderation. Of course, moderation is a little subjective, but it’s probably okay to push the two per week rule.

Unless you’re eating microwave popcorn, because I’ve seen this study…

Sean Kittridge ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in journalism and history.