No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health(who.int)
who.int
No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health
https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-alcohol-consumption-is-safe-for-our-health
384 comments
The linear no threshold model of harm for radiation is debated but is the foundation of all nuclear protection policies. To policy, zero radiation is considered best and all increments above that, regardless of size or relative comparison to natural background radiation are bad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model
It's extremely hard to scientifically back this or challenge it due to the noise. Some people try to show that low dose radiation is measurably harmful while others try to show that it is beneficial (hormesis).
The best science suggests that measurable, statistically significant harm (in the form of increased risk of lifetime cancer) begins around 100 mSv acute or 300 mSv over a period of time. If you get that, your lifetime risk of cancer goes from 42% baseline up to 43%.
Natural background is about 3 mSv per year on average.
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/resource/11340/beir_vii_fi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model
It's extremely hard to scientifically back this or challenge it due to the noise. Some people try to show that low dose radiation is measurably harmful while others try to show that it is beneficial (hormesis).
The best science suggests that measurable, statistically significant harm (in the form of increased risk of lifetime cancer) begins around 100 mSv acute or 300 mSv over a period of time. If you get that, your lifetime risk of cancer goes from 42% baseline up to 43%.
Natural background is about 3 mSv per year on average.
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/resource/11340/beir_vii_fi...
So when you walk outside and into the sun, you're exposed to radiation, we need sunlight exposure to live, so again bringing up the parents comments regarding the need for "practical" advice.
By radiation here it is meant ionizing radiation, which comes in 3 major forms (exceptions do exist):
1- Alpha radiation: Basically helium atoms. Pretty harmless on the outside of your body, really really bad if inside your body. Do not eat/inhale.
2- Beta radiation: Electrons. Harmfulness varies, kinda. Stay away from it.
3- Gamma radiation: Likely what you're thinking of. These are photons. Harmfulness increases with frequency/energy of photon, mostly. Think X-rays, not UVa radiation.
Aside: UVa/b isn't ionizing, it just so happens to be the same wavelength as the short channel of your DNA strand and has a small, but noticeable, chance of breaking up your DNA. The biology of a sunburn is somewhat complicated, so please research on your own. Wear sunscreen and you're fine. With ionizing radiation you need to wear a lot of lead to be fine.
Other forms of harm exist for every known particle, but you'd need to stand right inside of the LHC to experience it or be cosmically unlucky (for say, neutrino based ionizing radiation).
1- Alpha radiation: Basically helium atoms. Pretty harmless on the outside of your body, really really bad if inside your body. Do not eat/inhale.
2- Beta radiation: Electrons. Harmfulness varies, kinda. Stay away from it.
3- Gamma radiation: Likely what you're thinking of. These are photons. Harmfulness increases with frequency/energy of photon, mostly. Think X-rays, not UVa radiation.
Aside: UVa/b isn't ionizing, it just so happens to be the same wavelength as the short channel of your DNA strand and has a small, but noticeable, chance of breaking up your DNA. The biology of a sunburn is somewhat complicated, so please research on your own. Wear sunscreen and you're fine. With ionizing radiation you need to wear a lot of lead to be fine.
Other forms of harm exist for every known particle, but you'd need to stand right inside of the LHC to experience it or be cosmically unlucky (for say, neutrino based ionizing radiation).
My understanding is you actually need to wear sunscreen that blocks UVb and a lot doesn't. Which is why Zinc is preferred in places like Australia, because it actually "blocks" UVa/UVb, does'nt just stop you from getting red skin, it protects your DNA from radiation.
[deleted]
Keep in mind that WHO recommendations go well beyond alcohol's role as a carcinogen. Alcohol has widespread and significant negative impacts across many of internal systems [1]. Even compared to "hard drugs", alcohol is a dangerous mind-altering substance with objectively high risk factors.
Drawing a threshold on a distribution is inherently arbitrary, but it's also a) necessary for clear public communication and b) able to be refined by quantitative risk assessment models. As we have been refining that threshold and learning more about alcohol's impacts, that threshold for an equivalent level of risk has been dropping - i.e. our understanding of the "safe" level of alcohol has been approaching zero as we add more data to the model.
The WHO is simply making the logical conclusion of this convergence to zero. Picking a non-zero threshold is simply not possible without significant risks. Given all the well-documented harms of alcohol, it's irresponsible to claim that there is any such thing as a "safe amount". So the public health message shifts from moderation to abstinence.
You can choose to ignore the recommendations; go ahead and drink if it makes you feel better. But you can't ignore the many significant negative impacts or hide behind the dubious concept of "safe drinking". You're poisoning your body for recreation - own it.
[1] https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/health-professionals-communities/c...
Drawing a threshold on a distribution is inherently arbitrary, but it's also a) necessary for clear public communication and b) able to be refined by quantitative risk assessment models. As we have been refining that threshold and learning more about alcohol's impacts, that threshold for an equivalent level of risk has been dropping - i.e. our understanding of the "safe" level of alcohol has been approaching zero as we add more data to the model.
The WHO is simply making the logical conclusion of this convergence to zero. Picking a non-zero threshold is simply not possible without significant risks. Given all the well-documented harms of alcohol, it's irresponsible to claim that there is any such thing as a "safe amount". So the public health message shifts from moderation to abstinence.
You can choose to ignore the recommendations; go ahead and drink if it makes you feel better. But you can't ignore the many significant negative impacts or hide behind the dubious concept of "safe drinking". You're poisoning your body for recreation - own it.
[1] https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/health-professionals-communities/c...
On flying on a plane vs alcohol:
It is need vs want debate.
It is need vs want debate.
David Spiegelhalter of BUGS fame:
"So a total of 50,000 bottles of gin among these 1,600 people is associated with one extra health problem. Which still indicates a very low level of harm in drinkers drinking just more than the UK guidelines."
https://medium.com/wintoncentre/the-risks-of-alcohol-again-2...
The WHO is fear mongering.
Maybe it is good health politics, people are scared of alcohol and people will have a better live.
Maybe it would be better to communicate the risks more quantitavily. Not everyone is stupid.
"So a total of 50,000 bottles of gin among these 1,600 people is associated with one extra health problem. Which still indicates a very low level of harm in drinkers drinking just more than the UK guidelines."
https://medium.com/wintoncentre/the-risks-of-alcohol-again-2...
The WHO is fear mongering.
Maybe it is good health politics, people are scared of alcohol and people will have a better live.
Maybe it would be better to communicate the risks more quantitavily. Not everyone is stupid.
The way these risks are reported often makes this mistake. A statistically significant difference is reported as a "significant" difference, which means something different to lay people.
For example, if a change in diet increases the chances of getting a specific cancer from 1 in 1000 to 1.5 in 1000, that very well may be statistically significant. But, your odds of not getting that cancer go from 99.9% to 99.85%, which most people would not consider to be a meaningful difference.
For example, if a change in diet increases the chances of getting a specific cancer from 1 in 1000 to 1.5 in 1000, that very well may be statistically significant. But, your odds of not getting that cancer go from 99.9% to 99.85%, which most people would not consider to be a meaningful difference.
The thinking is backwards on this. They state there is no scientific safe drinking level. They even compare it to radiation. The goal is to establish an unsafe level. it's like saying there is no safe speed to drive a car - sure that's technically true, but worthless to say.
The goal here is to dispel the "extends health" and similar claims often made about light or moderate drinking.
If you take a look at the studies you can determine how much of an increased risk you're comfortable with. For example, figure 5 in https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
When doing this analysis though be sure to note that scientists studying this use 10g drinks, which is 12.5mL of ethanol, one tallboy of 6.5% beer is therefore about 2.5 drinks.
If you take a look at the studies you can determine how much of an increased risk you're comfortable with. For example, figure 5 in https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
When doing this analysis though be sure to note that scientists studying this use 10g drinks, which is 12.5mL of ethanol, one tallboy of 6.5% beer is therefore about 2.5 drinks.
I might be wrong here, but I have never heard the claim that 2 beers might be good for your health. I have heard that with wine, but that's not a claim that alcohol is good for your health.
"I might be wrong here, but I have never heard the claim that 2 beers might be good for your health."
What we see - empirically - is that light/moderate drinkers have better overall health outcomes than both heavy drinkers and people who consume zero alcohol.
The outcomes of the heavy drinkers seem self-evident so we don't need to bother with that ... it is the relative better health vs. non-drinkers that is interesting.
One conclusion that many people draw, and which you are alluding to, is that alcohol has properties that are beneficial in small doses.
However, a much simpler and more explanatory conclusion is that in developed, western (or, "global north") countries there is nobody that isn't drinking and the individuals that consume zero alcohol are doing so because it really affects them, or bothers them, etc. They are less robust, generally, and therefore have health outcomes that are worse than light/moderate drinkers.
I draw your attention to the fact that NFL players have lower all-cause mortality and live longer lives than the general public. Is that because violent collisions and football playing, generally, magically helps them ?
Of course not. They're just stronger than we are.
What we see - empirically - is that light/moderate drinkers have better overall health outcomes than both heavy drinkers and people who consume zero alcohol.
The outcomes of the heavy drinkers seem self-evident so we don't need to bother with that ... it is the relative better health vs. non-drinkers that is interesting.
One conclusion that many people draw, and which you are alluding to, is that alcohol has properties that are beneficial in small doses.
However, a much simpler and more explanatory conclusion is that in developed, western (or, "global north") countries there is nobody that isn't drinking and the individuals that consume zero alcohol are doing so because it really affects them, or bothers them, etc. They are less robust, generally, and therefore have health outcomes that are worse than light/moderate drinkers.
I draw your attention to the fact that NFL players have lower all-cause mortality and live longer lives than the general public. Is that because violent collisions and football playing, generally, magically helps them ?
Of course not. They're just stronger than we are.
Here is WebMD with an article about how beer may have potential health benefits:
https://www.webmd.com/diet/beer-good-for-you
https://www.webmd.com/diet/beer-good-for-you
Scientific claims, of course not. “Scientific” claims, however, should not be that surprising.
It's the polyphenols associated with grapes in red wine that might be "healthy", not the alcohol... But then again...
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/is-red-wine-good-actuall...
> They state there is no scientific safe drinking level. They even compare it to radiation. The goal is to establish an unsafe level. it's like saying there is no safe speed to drive a car - sure that's technically true, but worthless to say.
Which is ironic, because, while most people use the "Linear no-threshold" model for radiation, we know that small amounts of radiation are actually beneficial.
The most charitable reason I can think of for why people still use the LNT model is because it's simple and robust. But that doesn't mean that it's the most accurate understanding that we have.
Which is ironic, because, while most people use the "Linear no-threshold" model for radiation, we know that small amounts of radiation are actually beneficial.
The most charitable reason I can think of for why people still use the LNT model is because it's simple and robust. But that doesn't mean that it's the most accurate understanding that we have.
> Which is ironic, because, while most people use the "Linear no-threshold" model for radiation, we know that small amounts of radiation are actually beneficial.
How could ionizing radiation be beneficial? Unless the argument is exposure to ultraviolet in order to get Vitamin D, I can’t imagine ionizing radiation to be beneficial in any way.
Edit:
> The good includes abundant evidence showing increased 1) physiologic performance, 2) immune competence, 3) health, and 4) mean lifespan.
From the article in the comment below. Apparently in very low doses it stimulates the immune system and healthy cell reconstruction.
How could ionizing radiation be beneficial? Unless the argument is exposure to ultraviolet in order to get Vitamin D, I can’t imagine ionizing radiation to be beneficial in any way.
Edit:
> The good includes abundant evidence showing increased 1) physiologic performance, 2) immune competence, 3) health, and 4) mean lifespan.
From the article in the comment below. Apparently in very low doses it stimulates the immune system and healthy cell reconstruction.
> How could ionizing radiation be beneficial?
I'm not going to pretend that I understand the reasons. But there have been a lot of studies.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477686/
I'm not going to pretend that I understand the reasons. But there have been a lot of studies.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477686/
I think before the atomic bomb radioactivity was widely considered as healthy.
(maybe it was not as crazy as I thought)
This is wild stuff:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180306-a-spa-where-pati...
(maybe it was not as crazy as I thought)
This is wild stuff:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180306-a-spa-where-pati...
Just because something does not work in theory does not mean that it does not work in practice.
From the BMJ *British Medical Journal). "Analyses of the dose of alcohol consumed showed that 2.5–14.9 g alcohol (about ≤1 drink) per day was protective for all five outcomes compared with no alcohol (table 2⇑). For coronary heart disease outcomes, all levels of intake >2.5 g/day had similar degrees of risk reduction. " https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d671
Heart Disease is a bigger killer than cancer.
Heart Disease is a bigger killer than cancer.
They don't give a safe number of cigarettes, do they? There probably is a number that's minimally harmful, that lowers with age.
Alcohol has numerically similar numbers of cancer cases, and cancer is just one aspect. Now it is less, and we can argue about how widespread the use is ect. However, it cases 1/3 of the cases, heart disease, mental health problems.
Are you a drinker? Especially since quitting, I've noticed a lot of drinkers get incredibly defensive against something that seems very rational and well supported by evidence.
Alcohol has numerically similar numbers of cancer cases, and cancer is just one aspect. Now it is less, and we can argue about how widespread the use is ect. However, it cases 1/3 of the cases, heart disease, mental health problems.
Are you a drinker? Especially since quitting, I've noticed a lot of drinkers get incredibly defensive against something that seems very rational and well supported by evidence.
as a continued social drinker, or more general doer of anything, i've noticed that anyone who no longer does that thing is typically quite vocal and negative towards said thing.
Set aside alcohol for a minute; this article is saying that because the absolute risk of an activity is not zero, the activity is inheriently unsafe. That's not true, not an appropriate strategy for decision making, and most importantly not an effective way to influence behaviours. This is the definition of perfect as the enemy of better.
Set aside alcohol for a minute; this article is saying that because the absolute risk of an activity is not zero, the activity is inheriently unsafe. That's not true, not an appropriate strategy for decision making, and most importantly not an effective way to influence behaviours. This is the definition of perfect as the enemy of better.
>> i've noticed that anyone who no longer does that thing is typically quite vocal and negative towards said thing.
Well ya? Is that not self-evident?
See, there's this thing I enjoy very much, but I was forced to stop because of evidence of the negative consequences. Now, since I am a kind person, I can share the knowledge of those negative consequences so may be you could avoid them, too.
Said another way, if I were not negative to said activity that I enjoy, I would still be doing it. And if I were indifferent to the well-being of others, I wouldn't be vocal/share.
Well ya? Is that not self-evident?
See, there's this thing I enjoy very much, but I was forced to stop because of evidence of the negative consequences. Now, since I am a kind person, I can share the knowledge of those negative consequences so may be you could avoid them, too.
Said another way, if I were not negative to said activity that I enjoy, I would still be doing it. And if I were indifferent to the well-being of others, I wouldn't be vocal/share.
Maybe you should just go back to doing it. You're not going to live forever, even if you don't have a couple beers on a Friday night.
[deleted]
I drink maybe 4 drinks total a month. I get where you're going with that though. There is actually data out there on smoking, and having a cigar once in a while isn't really more unsafe than sitting by the camp fire. Your body also recovers itself in most regards rather quickly after chronic smoking (months). I'm not a smoker, and it's better not to smoke because it's super addictive, but having a smoke is like having a drink, not unsafe per say. I'm more worried about sugar than alcohol.
There has been some suggestions that 1-2 drinks is the optimal (extends health etc..). So, this clears up any confusion on that topic. There are many things that are risky but make life worth living, the previous guidance made it appear you could enjoy life (1-2 drinks) with actual upsides which unfortunately turns out not to be the case of drinking.
[deleted]
I do not agree with your analogy or theirs. First most people have to drive at some point in their lives. Driving is not a choice we get to make so the associated risks are not something we can deal with. While it is debatable if you can avoid drinking socially many people do for a variety of reasons. The article is fairly clear. Drinking alcohol will increase cancer risks. And like someone eloquently said above you the real critique is not it is stupid to point out drinking is an avoidable carcinogen but it is our free choice as people to make that trade off knowing you might enjoy it. I think the point about radiation is a better comparison but again like driving it is unavoidable to a degree. We will all go outside more in our lives then is recommended. Once again drinking is not unavoidable. I don't think the article makes a worthless argument and I believe your analogies are false comparisons but I still take your point. I agree drinking is not something people want to avoid so it is certainly up to each person to choose their own acceptable risk but honestly that is more a personal choice that science can advise then a magic number we can all follow.
Edit, I can't read
Edit, I can't read
You have to avoid way more than just alcoholic beverages etc. to avoid alcohol completely. Definitely fruits and fruit juice will be problematic.
Meanwhile, there isn't clear evidence that there is no safe level of radiation. Biological systems are buffered in all kinds of ways, including against low doses of radiation, mutagens, and even... acids
! (Contrary to modern health biz ideas "oh your body is so acidic, drink this basic water to fix it!")
And they make zero comment about genetic risk. That’s what matters, genetic risk, as well as the total amount of exposure to carcinogenic’s. It’s just a worthless dumb thing to say.
Driving isn't hazardous to your health. Crashing is. That's like saying eating is unhealthy to your health because you might choke.
That’s like saying smoking is not hazardous to your health, getting cancer is.
Jumping off a building is not hazardous to your health, hitting the ground is.
Jumping off a building is not hazardous to your health, hitting the ground is.
Smoking is the intake of carcinogens, a direct health risk. Jumping off a building is the result of unhealthy depression, i.e. a symptomatic behavior.
A vehicular accident as a driver is not a direct cause of driving any more than a pedestrian accident by a vehicle is the direct cause of walking.
A vehicular accident as a driver is not a direct cause of driving any more than a pedestrian accident by a vehicle is the direct cause of walking.
You seem confident that you can categorize any activity. what about: strolling along a pathway, hiking in the footlhills, scrambling a mountain, ice climbing, base jumping? At what level the rock climbing rating system do we inflect from indirect to direct risk?
Assuming arguendo that you're not talking about repetitive stress injuries to the body or brain from overdoing physical or stressful activity, and just the acute harm from accidents, they're pretty much the same as driving. The correlation to accidents does not mean the activity is dangerous: it's the accident that's dangerous.
I object to the conflation of quantitative risk of experiencing an incidental event with the qualitative risk posed by a voluntary event.
I object to the conflation of quantitative risk of experiencing an incidental event with the qualitative risk posed by a voluntary event.
Driving is hazardous to other people's health in the form of crashes AND pollution in the form of noise, dust, and exhaust.
ah snap! I was wrong. Driving is not safe at idle as well! So I should rephrase: A running car is never safe.
and according to the WHO one particulate from that exhaust increases your risk from pollution above absolute zero, hence driving is not safe when it comes to your health.
What if you drive a Tesla?
It is also beneficial because various crap gets delivered, people move fast to where they are needed and generally stuff gets done. Some paramedics even get so brazen as to fly helicopters to the rescue.
How do you draw the line?
How do you draw the line?
It's not about drawing the line, it's about quantifying the impact.
I think this is what people don't get about the study. The study is not saying no one should drink. It's not saying that the risks of drinking outweigh the benefit. It's saying that for any amount of alcohol, ingesting it, on aggregate, decreases life expectancy. Nothing more. It's a measurement of the increase of risk, which can then be combined and contrasted with other measurements and help make informed decisions.
You draw the line however you want. You now have more information to make that decision.
I think this is what people don't get about the study. The study is not saying no one should drink. It's not saying that the risks of drinking outweigh the benefit. It's saying that for any amount of alcohol, ingesting it, on aggregate, decreases life expectancy. Nothing more. It's a measurement of the increase of risk, which can then be combined and contrasted with other measurements and help make informed decisions.
You draw the line however you want. You now have more information to make that decision.
I think overall it is likely slight net negative. Just from things like particulate pollution and siting not moving for a period. Also the UV light from sun possibly.
Not that there isn't acceptable tradeoffs with what is attained by driving.
Not that there isn't acceptable tradeoffs with what is attained by driving.
[deleted]
Driving may be a necessity while drinking is rarely an obligation. Also driving may cause instant harm while, drinking may cause a very much delayed harm. So, by knowing that not driving or not drinking are the safest choice I can choose to skip having a single drink and avoid driving if I don’t have to, thus completely minimizing the risk.
It’s not worthless at all.
It’s not worthless at all.
Sure but you can basically play this game forever and arrive at a very bad, but safe quality of life.
Funny enough though driving is by far worse for your health than moderate or light drinking, and it’s even more insidious than drinking because not only do that negative effects take a long time to manifest, but they’re couched inside of a “necessity”.
Funny enough though driving is by far worse for your health than moderate or light drinking, and it’s even more insidious than drinking because not only do that negative effects take a long time to manifest, but they’re couched inside of a “necessity”.
Why would choosing a safer travel method or avoiding unnecessary drives ruin the quality of life? I am not proposing to quit living a life, only adjusting the methods of living. We obviously don’t share the same values regarding the quality of life.
I think it’s more funny you choose a rhetoric that suits your lifestyle and your needs, and dismiss that it might be helpful for people who don’t find alcohol culture appealing.
I think it’s more funny you choose a rhetoric that suits your lifestyle and your needs, and dismiss that it might be helpful for people who don’t find alcohol culture appealing.
Consider having to decide between a 20 min trip by car, or 1 hour trip by train, and the car driving has 100x serious accident probability. However, you save 40 minutes if you drive. Likely, driving doesn't take 40 min off your life expectancy. And even if it did, you save the minutes now, and not at the end of your life.
> Consider having to decide between a 20 min trip by car, or 1 hour trip by train
Couple issues with this. First why not a 20 minute trip by car with fees for parking and all that versus a 20 minute trip by train? Depending on where you live this can be your currently daily experience. It could also be anyones daily experience if we just decided we wanted to do that.
The second issue is that simple comparing the surface level time-by-transit misses most of the particulars that matter. And you are also mistakenly applying individual experience with aggregate experience i.e. 40 minutes saved for the individual but in aggregate many people actually do die because of the 100x serious injury probability.
Couple issues with this. First why not a 20 minute trip by car with fees for parking and all that versus a 20 minute trip by train? Depending on where you live this can be your currently daily experience. It could also be anyones daily experience if we just decided we wanted to do that.
The second issue is that simple comparing the surface level time-by-transit misses most of the particulars that matter. And you are also mistakenly applying individual experience with aggregate experience i.e. 40 minutes saved for the individual but in aggregate many people actually do die because of the 100x serious injury probability.
You consider sitting in peace for 40 minutes to be shortening of your life expectancy?
I can emphatize, though, if the feeling corresponds to what I feel participating in this thread.
I can emphatize, though, if the feeling corresponds to what I feel participating in this thread.
> 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 premise of this “no level of consumption is safe” is this requirement to prove 0 risk.
If for instance drinking one glass everyday increases your cancer chances by 0.0000000001%, bringing it to 0. 0000300001%, it would still be considered unsafe, as your chances of cancer increased.
I see the logic, but that isn’t layman‘s categorization of safe or unsafe. And what are the actual base risk of cancer for a healthy individual ?
Taking a base of 60 million death per year, who’s numbers on cancer are of 10 million [0], where death by liver cancer are 830 000, roughly 1%. Given that those don’t all come from alcohol, and to reach that stage requires way more than standard consumption, the base risk feels already pretty low.
All in all, while this article is factual, it turns this facts in such a biased way it feels dogmatic at times. If we’re going to have serious discussions around alcohol, we shouldn’t start them like this.
[0] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer
The premise of this “no level of consumption is safe” is this requirement to prove 0 risk.
If for instance drinking one glass everyday increases your cancer chances by 0.0000000001%, bringing it to 0. 0000300001%, it would still be considered unsafe, as your chances of cancer increased.
I see the logic, but that isn’t layman‘s categorization of safe or unsafe. And what are the actual base risk of cancer for a healthy individual ?
Taking a base of 60 million death per year, who’s numbers on cancer are of 10 million [0], where death by liver cancer are 830 000, roughly 1%. Given that those don’t all come from alcohol, and to reach that stage requires way more than standard consumption, the base risk feels already pretty low.
All in all, while this article is factual, it turns this facts in such a biased way it feels dogmatic at times. If we’re going to have serious discussions around alcohol, we shouldn’t start them like this.
[0] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer
I think the only time my grandma drank that I know of is a thimble full of wine at church communion a few times a year. Would these scientists have advised her to skip that ceremony?
Which brings up a related question: is the religion part, the transportation to the place of worship, the risk of communicable disease, or the alcohol part the most dangerous in that day?
Should we be establishing safe amounts of cigarette smoking? Safe amounts of gasoline to drink?
Alcohol users really don't like people pointing out that their habit isn't safe.
Alcohol users really don't like people pointing out that their habit isn't safe.
Yeah. We should. You can smoke a cigar a month and not be considered a smoker by life insurance companies. You can smoke 4 a week and not be considered a smoker by health insurance companies. I’d love to see actual stats because I really enjoy a pipe and am willing to take a slight risk for it.
No level of automobile usage is safe, either, but I know the risks. My chances of dying due to driving (sober) are much higher than my chances of dying due to having a few beers a week.
I’m fine taking both of those risks.
No level of automobile usage is safe, either, but I know the risks. My chances of dying due to driving (sober) are much higher than my chances of dying due to having a few beers a week.
I’m fine taking both of those risks.
Are you sure? Because I mentioned that I had smoked one cigar at my high school graduation (which about 3 years before the health insurance interview), and I got demoted from 'preferred plus' to 'preferred' for my life insurance. This was about 20 years ago.'
I’m sure. At least with OneAmerica and Northwestern.
Any use in 30 days gets you flagged by my insurance company.
> Alcohol users really don't like people pointing out that their habit isn't safe.
In my experience that is because people who point that out usually eat all kinds of crap full of sugar and transfats, drink bubbly-sugary drinks (is Coke even better than a good beer?), live in noisy polluted cities and often work themselves to death for status or 3rd car for their family or whatever. But somehow my couple of bottles of beer on weekend is a health emergency and we need to tax it 1000% and only allow to sell if from 9 to 10 am on Mondays or something...
In my experience that is because people who point that out usually eat all kinds of crap full of sugar and transfats, drink bubbly-sugary drinks (is Coke even better than a good beer?), live in noisy polluted cities and often work themselves to death for status or 3rd car for their family or whatever. But somehow my couple of bottles of beer on weekend is a health emergency and we need to tax it 1000% and only allow to sell if from 9 to 10 am on Mondays or something...
Yes, we should.
A source of public health information should never say something vague like "cigarettes are bad for your health." They need to specify precisely how bad they are and how much damage is done with each individual cigarette.
Same with gasoline- if someone was to accidentally consume a small quantity of gasoline and wanted to know how much trouble they are in, they should be able to easily discover exactly how many ml of gasoline you need to drink to experience any associated problems. If there is a "safe" level, where there are no major side effects, that's something they need to know.
A source of public health information should never say something vague like "cigarettes are bad for your health." They need to specify precisely how bad they are and how much damage is done with each individual cigarette.
Same with gasoline- if someone was to accidentally consume a small quantity of gasoline and wanted to know how much trouble they are in, they should be able to easily discover exactly how many ml of gasoline you need to drink to experience any associated problems. If there is a "safe" level, where there are no major side effects, that's something they need to know.
Actually, yes.
Because there is such thing as occasional smokers, and having a curve of how much it affects them depending on how much they smoke would be helpful, instead of the generic “just don’t smoke” advice that they are already not following.
If you drank a spoonful of gasoline thinking it was something else, you wouldn’t want your generalist to tell you “that was bad for you” and keep it at that. How bad was it ? what effect should you expect at that dose ?
The real point I think is, a binary safe/unsafe is of no help in this discussion where people have wildly different drinking habits. I mean, even kids will ingest traces of alcohol in cakes, should we ban it from pound cakes ?
Because there is such thing as occasional smokers, and having a curve of how much it affects them depending on how much they smoke would be helpful, instead of the generic “just don’t smoke” advice that they are already not following.
If you drank a spoonful of gasoline thinking it was something else, you wouldn’t want your generalist to tell you “that was bad for you” and keep it at that. How bad was it ? what effect should you expect at that dose ?
The real point I think is, a binary safe/unsafe is of no help in this discussion where people have wildly different drinking habits. I mean, even kids will ingest traces of alcohol in cakes, should we ban it from pound cakes ?
What about safe amount of chlorine to drink? Piss?
Chlorine is toxic, and you should not drink it, but tap water has a small amount to ensure to kill al bacterias. We had a cholera epidemic like 30 years ago, and the official recommendation was to add two drops of chlorine to water if you were unsure if it was clean enough. Also swimming pools have chlorine, more than tap water, but you are not suppose to drink too much of it.
A few years ago a moron pissed in a water reservoir and uploaded the video to youtube, so it was an unnecessary public outrage and the water authorities decided to release all the water and fill the reservoir again, as if birds and squirrels use the toilette. Don't ask about swimming pools.
Gasoline? Sometime food has contamination form industrial oil, gasoline and other stuff. It was common to use benzene to remove the natural oil from flour, but I think they changed to another safer solvent. Anyway, there are safety limits for all of that. Zero is very difficult because chromatography is too sensitive.
Cigarette smoking? Probably zero cigarettes is the best, but I remember a silly trend a few years ago about third hand smoke, i.e. how dangerous was to go to a home a few years after someone smoked there and you can still get a small amount of toxic compounds released by the walls contaminated with the smoke.
Asbesto? A single fiber can kill you, but two fibers have like the double of probability to kill you, and a million fibers are even more dangerous. In which case should a building be declared inhabitable?
Chlorine is toxic, and you should not drink it, but tap water has a small amount to ensure to kill al bacterias. We had a cholera epidemic like 30 years ago, and the official recommendation was to add two drops of chlorine to water if you were unsure if it was clean enough. Also swimming pools have chlorine, more than tap water, but you are not suppose to drink too much of it.
A few years ago a moron pissed in a water reservoir and uploaded the video to youtube, so it was an unnecessary public outrage and the water authorities decided to release all the water and fill the reservoir again, as if birds and squirrels use the toilette. Don't ask about swimming pools.
Gasoline? Sometime food has contamination form industrial oil, gasoline and other stuff. It was common to use benzene to remove the natural oil from flour, but I think they changed to another safer solvent. Anyway, there are safety limits for all of that. Zero is very difficult because chromatography is too sensitive.
Cigarette smoking? Probably zero cigarettes is the best, but I remember a silly trend a few years ago about third hand smoke, i.e. how dangerous was to go to a home a few years after someone smoked there and you can still get a small amount of toxic compounds released by the walls contaminated with the smoke.
Asbesto? A single fiber can kill you, but two fibers have like the double of probability to kill you, and a million fibers are even more dangerous. In which case should a building be declared inhabitable?
and yet we do this all the time. Your city probably produces an air quality alert that has some form of ranges; I doubt it says "one particulate of pollution found in the air; stop breathing!".
There's also a limit between a healthy lifestyle and enjoyment of life, beyond which towards "maximum health" you'll either go to an early grave because of how bland your life is, or live a joyless life avoiding things you'd enjoy.
In any case, those kind of "research" is for modern americans (and people taking their cues from anglosaxon culture) , who are already conditioned in such hysteria - which is funny in the country eating some of the worst quality food in the Western world, cooked the worst ways, in the worst portions, and with the worst mass production integredients. Or perhaps an overcorrection.
The average Italian, for example, should, and definitely, would just laught this off.
In any case, those kind of "research" is for modern americans (and people taking their cues from anglosaxon culture) , who are already conditioned in such hysteria - which is funny in the country eating some of the worst quality food in the Western world, cooked the worst ways, in the worst portions, and with the worst mass production integredients. Or perhaps an overcorrection.
The average Italian, for example, should, and definitely, would just laught this off.
> The average Italian, for example, should, and definitely, would just laught this off.
we don't even drink that much, compared to other countries.
we simply enjoy it, even if it doesn't make our life longer, like many other activities that are not even enjoyable.
https://ourworldindata.org/alcohol-consumption
we don't even drink that much, compared to other countries.
we simply enjoy it, even if it doesn't make our life longer, like many other activities that are not even enjoyable.
https://ourworldindata.org/alcohol-consumption
Plus, drinking together with food instead of on an empty stomach (as more common in more northern cultures) slows down absorption allowing more time for the liver to process the alcohol before it reaches the brain and other organs, if we are talking about a standard dosage (a glass of wine etc). Even if this is not enough for the liver (even with a glass of wine and full stomach it will not be able to process alcohol without getting overloaded), it is definitely better than binging beers on empty stomach, as less alcohol will be in circulation and reaching organs for less amount of time. But then, how often one does that matters too.
At a recent physical I was talking about this with my doctor. This can reduce the toxicity effects but actually increases the contact time and the carcinogenic impact, so might be better for your liver but have a higher cancer risk. I was like, "damn..."
Living in cities with the stress, smog, air pollution, noise, etc. is a much bigger cancer risk than some wine in one's liver though
6d6b73(12)
So much denialism going on here, it's like talking to my alcoholic relative. This shouldn't trigger such a strong reaction, if it does, one should look into why that is.
The reaction you're seeing is not because we've all got drinking problems. It's due to the reactionary way this and other similar studies are headlined: "No level of alcohol consumption is safe...". It's click-bait, and so you're seeing the resulting clicks.
I'm sure you wouldn't have seen anywhere near this kind of reaction if the headline was instead "Any level of alcohol consumption increases liver cancer risk by X in 10,000" or "Adjustments to confounding factors show that non-drinkers have a 0.0000X% longer life expectancy".
Beyond the headline designed to invoke a reaction, I think there's a good basis for general fear of this kind of judgment - it invokes the language around many other prohibitions of all that is good and fun in the name of our physical or moral health.
We are only just working through lifting prohibitions on Cannabis here in the west, albeit with many strings attached. Many countries (and a good number of North American counties) still have prohibitions on alcohol. We as a society prohibit many kinds of mushroom, plant roots, leaves and oils.
Here in Canada the health authority has a "no safe levels" attitude towards absinthe, house-made mayo, rare burgers and many of the world's greatest cheeses. We've put "for external use only" warning labels on cooking ingredients like mustard oil and tamarind extracts. We've banned cooking wines entirely!
So yes. When I see "no safe levels of alcohol" I do tend to over-react. Keep your grubby little hands off my bottle.
I'm sure you wouldn't have seen anywhere near this kind of reaction if the headline was instead "Any level of alcohol consumption increases liver cancer risk by X in 10,000" or "Adjustments to confounding factors show that non-drinkers have a 0.0000X% longer life expectancy".
Beyond the headline designed to invoke a reaction, I think there's a good basis for general fear of this kind of judgment - it invokes the language around many other prohibitions of all that is good and fun in the name of our physical or moral health.
We are only just working through lifting prohibitions on Cannabis here in the west, albeit with many strings attached. Many countries (and a good number of North American counties) still have prohibitions on alcohol. We as a society prohibit many kinds of mushroom, plant roots, leaves and oils.
Here in Canada the health authority has a "no safe levels" attitude towards absinthe, house-made mayo, rare burgers and many of the world's greatest cheeses. We've put "for external use only" warning labels on cooking ingredients like mustard oil and tamarind extracts. We've banned cooking wines entirely!
So yes. When I see "no safe levels of alcohol" I do tend to over-react. Keep your grubby little hands off my bottle.
> Here in Canada the health authority has a "no safe levels" attitude towards absinthe, house-made mayo, rare burgers and many of the world's greatest cheeses. We've put "for external use only" warning labels on cooking ingredients like mustard oil and tamarind extracts. We've banned cooking wines entirely!
jeez, i use all of those here in the uk, except for absinthe, which you can't get [actually, you can, but not in your average offie or supermarket].
i remember when a bbc comedy program had a sketch "the worst thing you can hear when you turn on the tv" - it was a shit-eating voice, introducing a documentary, saying "welcome to canada; friendly giant of the north!"
sorry, it just popped into my brain and i had to share it - i don't really hate canadians.
jeez, i use all of those here in the uk, except for absinthe, which you can't get [actually, you can, but not in your average offie or supermarket].
i remember when a bbc comedy program had a sketch "the worst thing you can hear when you turn on the tv" - it was a shit-eating voice, introducing a documentary, saying "welcome to canada; friendly giant of the north!"
sorry, it just popped into my brain and i had to share it - i don't really hate canadians.
[deleted]
Maybe read the well documented history of self-righteous teetotalers? It's not too hard to understand what the goal of this type of rhetoric is.
I'm genuinely curious - do you have some good references of this history I could read?
Here’s a publicly available overview of the temperance movement and just how insane it was: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK216414/
[deleted]
I'd be perfectly fine never touching a drop of alcohol again, and think this sort of dire warning is crap. It's actively harming the dissemination of good health advice.
How would you frame it differently? If even small amounts over a long period of time gives you cancer, how else to state it?
"X amount of alcohol increases odds of disease by Y%".
Without values, we can pretty much say that anything increases odds of disease: walking, driving, eating, shitting, sleeping.
And what's to gain? Hysteria because there's a million ways to die? Or increased distrust in health recommendations, as they're barely actionable?
I think the current recommendations are: do exercise, eat well and get good sleep. They should get you a good baseline. But you don't need to be a fundamentalist: you don't need to obey them 100% of the time!
Without values, we can pretty much say that anything increases odds of disease: walking, driving, eating, shitting, sleeping.
And what's to gain? Hysteria because there's a million ways to die? Or increased distrust in health recommendations, as they're barely actionable?
I think the current recommendations are: do exercise, eat well and get good sleep. They should get you a good baseline. But you don't need to be a fundamentalist: you don't need to obey them 100% of the time!
I scrolled almost through the entire conversation. This is the first sane comment. Thank you.
I've never had more than a literal sip, usually when parents let me see what a drink tasted like, and I don't plan on drinking and my reaction was much the same as other reasonable people in this thread. The framing of the title and contents is absurd.
[deleted]
How is it denialism? What I’m reading here is mostly people acknowledging there is some risk to alcohol consumption, but judging the risk to be worth it. Life is fundamentally risky.
> So much denialism going on here, it's like talking to my alcoholic relative. This shouldn't trigger such a strong reaction, if it does, one should look into why that is.
Ever read any HN thread where the article states that to combat obesity one just have to eat less? ... yeah.
Ever read any HN thread where the article states that to combat obesity one just have to eat less? ... yeah.
First sane comment I see here.
This is not news, it has been known for some time. For anyone wanting to get an in-depth, balanced, and rigorous take on alcohol I can heartily recommend Drink? by David Nutt. Reading it has made me more mindful of when and why I choose to drink, and increasingly I find myself drinking less and less.
Was David Nutt the UK scientific advisor who came out and said weed, lsd, ecstasy are all far less harmful than tobacco and alcohol and was then publicly shamed and abused by the uk Media for daring to suggest such a thing?
Yes, he is known for this graph (The Lancet, 2010): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt#/media/File:HarmCau...
I would think Crack Cocaine, Heroin, and Methamphetamine are similar to in harm to others (and there’s no way methamphetamine is that much less harmful to others, unless he’s not aware that smoke and production of it are toxic). I’m guessing most of that comes from it being illegal and people needing to steal to get it, so even more surprising is how harmful alcohol is to others even though it is legal. Full paper: https://www.ias.org.uk/uploads/pdf/News%20stories/dnutt-lanc...
Some of the criteria are that might fall under harm to others are:
Crime
Environmental damage
Family adversities
Economic cost
Community
Some of the criteria are that might fall under harm to others are:
Crime
Environmental damage
Family adversities
Economic cost
Community
For judging harm it's interesting how the culture and economics around a drug may chiefly determine the harm, not the substance itself. The measurable harm of different drugs varies across regions.
As far as I know.... unlike the US, the UK doesn't have a large community of dependent meth users. The level of distribution is low and if some did become available, it would probably be used by poly-drug users as an alternative/combination to other party drugs and not give much of an on-ramp to habitual use. The measurable harm would be acute health events like heart issues etc. and not the consequences of long-term use.
As far as I know.... unlike the US, the UK doesn't have a large community of dependent meth users. The level of distribution is low and if some did become available, it would probably be used by poly-drug users as an alternative/combination to other party drugs and not give much of an on-ramp to habitual use. The measurable harm would be acute health events like heart issues etc. and not the consequences of long-term use.
Yikes! Alcohol looks like almost 75... harm units? I assume 100 is punching a kitten?
I assume he was sacked for producing such a poor data visualization, or just the political "data" behind it?
I assume he was sacked for producing such a poor data visualization, or just the political "data" behind it?
No. He was sacked by an anti-science government pandering to a voter block scared and hostile to liberalisation of drug laws.
He compared taking ecstasy to riding a horse in terms of danger. It's one of many things that led to him being sacked.
> David Nutt
To get a taste of the person before reading the book:
https://youtu.be/bASaIJMxMqI
To get a taste of the person before reading the book:
https://youtu.be/bASaIJMxMqI
But that book does not suggest alcohol at any level is bad either. So if they are saying is news. And stupid ill-informed news.
>> 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.
This is ridiculous and boarders on intentionally false & misleading. We look for meaningful or demonstrated risk all the time in our assessments, not the absolute absense of it.
This is typical WHO nonsense similar to their ongoing clanging of the Covid alarm.
This is ridiculous and boarders on intentionally false & misleading. We look for meaningful or demonstrated risk all the time in our assessments, not the absolute absense of it.
This is typical WHO nonsense similar to their ongoing clanging of the Covid alarm.
> However, latest available data indicate that half of all alcohol-attributable cancers in the WHO European Region are caused by “light” and “moderate” alcohol consumption – less than 1.5 litres of wine or less than 3.5 litres of beer or less than 450 millilitres of spirits per week
Half a litre of beer a day is considered "light"?
Half a litre of beer a day is considered "light"?
That’s basically 1 pint a day, or 16 oz as the ceiling for “light”. That seems reasonable? Not the amount necessarily just the classification.
If you drink the average every day, you will spend a large part of your days inebriated. And if you don't drink the average every day, you will be deeply drunk every few days.
It's completely unreasonable to call that level of consumption "light".
It's completely unreasonable to call that level of consumption "light".
1 beer is not going to make anybody inebriated for a large part of their day. 3-4 beers will put someone into a good buzz but most will not be “deeply drunk” from that.
And again, this is the UPPER BOUND. not the average as you say
And again, this is the UPPER BOUND. not the average as you say
If you drink the average every day, you will spend a large part of your days inebriated.
You think that a pint of beer will leave you inebriated most of the day?
You think that a pint of beer will leave you inebriated most of the day?
Two pints doesn't even put you over the drink driving limit in the UK.
https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/how-long-should-...
https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/how-long-should-...
what on earth do you mean by inebriated?
i'd really like to know where all of these people that can't seem to handle a glass of beer, quite probably with something to eat, without freaking out are coming from?
i'd really like to know where all of these people that can't seem to handle a glass of beer, quite probably with something to eat, without freaking out are coming from?
1 pint of beer will get you drunk - more like your tolerance is abnormally low and your projecting it on everyone else.
maybe "not get you drunk"?
[deleted]
Maybe if you weigh 70 pounds or something.
>Half a litre of beer a day is considered "light"?
It's very light - in many (most not zero-tolerance) country is legal to drive. One beer is around 0.04-0.05% for a grown up man, around 2h after consumption it should be below 0.02%.
It's very light - in many (most not zero-tolerance) country is legal to drive. One beer is around 0.04-0.05% for a grown up man, around 2h after consumption it should be below 0.02%.
Beer in the EU is often ~4% alcohol. Half a liter is barely more than a can of Coors light in terms of alcohol volume.
>Beer in the EU is often ~4% alcohol.
Where would that be? German beer is usually 5-5.5%, same for Austria. In Norway it's 4.5-4.7%
Where would that be? German beer is usually 5-5.5%, same for Austria. In Norway it's 4.5-4.7%
"Desitka" ("10" meaning 10 plato degrees of sugar content before fermentation) is very popular in Czech Republic. It usually has 3.5% - 4% ABV. Beer consumption in Czech Republic is about 130l per person per year. That's 0.35l per person per day. It used to be closer to 0.5l but the average ABV % probably went up so alcohol consumption stayed about the same.
Fair enough, ~5% would be more accurate I guess. 16 oz at 5% is still a relatively small amount of alcohol in most cultures that historically consume it.
From that quote, I'd say it's the upper limit of what's considered "moderate".
it is where i come from - uk.
also they don't say how many of those cancers can actually be attributed directly to alcohol consumption. my guess would be few.
also they don't say how many of those cancers can actually be attributed directly to alcohol consumption. my guess would be few.
https://www.thelancet.com/article/S1470-2045(21)00279-5/full...
> Globally, an estimated 741 300 (95% UI 558 500–951 200), or 4·1% (3·1–5·3), of all new cases of cancer in 2020 were attributable to alcohol consumption
> Globally, an estimated 741 300 (95% UI 558 500–951 200), or 4·1% (3·1–5·3), of all new cases of cancer in 2020 were attributable to alcohol consumption
that is "estimated"
I don’t now how else you would do it. There isn’t any way to tell what caused any individual cancer, as far as I know.
That’s one bottle of beer. I’d call that light.
[deleted]
A bottle is 0.33 (or 330ml)
Where is that? 330ml bottles definitely exist, but 0.5l is the default in Austria.
uk, at least, but it also comes in 500ml
Netherlands
> The only thing that we can say for sure is that the more you drink, the more harmful it is – or, in other words, the less you drink, the safer it is.
I wish the article would tell us more about this curve. How much does my risk increase for each drink I have?
I wish the article would tell us more about this curve. How much does my risk increase for each drink I have?
Cool, maybe it'll help debunking those "small amounts of alcohol are healthly (from body standpoint)"
no need to debunk the truth.
It's like drugs.
Take too many pills, you die.
Take them when you need them and their benefit will surpass the risks.
Alcohol works the same way.
We know for a fact that moderate drinkers live longer than non-drinkers and heavy drinkers.
We still don't know why.
edit: most people don't want to hear the truth.
Moderate drinker live longer than non-drinkers.
It's a well known fact
For example, one study following more than 333,000 adults for about eight years found light-to-moderate drinkers were more than 20 percent less likely to die prematurely from all causes and from cardiovascular disease in particular than people who never drank at all.
When they tried to "debunk" it the only explanation they could find is that non-drinkers die prematurely because of the risks they took earlier in life.
Confirming that moderation is key, abstinence due to guilt for past behaviour and a sudden fear of death, won't solve anything.
I'm sorry if the alcoholics that took the 12 steps here are triggered by the truth, but your problems are not everyone's problems.
We have been drinking alcohol for longer than we were able to write, we still do it, because it's a social rite, it keeps people together, like a good meal, you can't simply delete it because you used to drink scotch straight from the bottle since the moment you woke up and the only solution you've found is getting a different addiction: staying clean at all costs.
It's like drugs.
Take too many pills, you die.
Take them when you need them and their benefit will surpass the risks.
Alcohol works the same way.
We know for a fact that moderate drinkers live longer than non-drinkers and heavy drinkers.
We still don't know why.
edit: most people don't want to hear the truth.
Moderate drinker live longer than non-drinkers.
It's a well known fact
For example, one study following more than 333,000 adults for about eight years found light-to-moderate drinkers were more than 20 percent less likely to die prematurely from all causes and from cardiovascular disease in particular than people who never drank at all.
When they tried to "debunk" it the only explanation they could find is that non-drinkers die prematurely because of the risks they took earlier in life.
Confirming that moderation is key, abstinence due to guilt for past behaviour and a sudden fear of death, won't solve anything.
I'm sorry if the alcoholics that took the 12 steps here are triggered by the truth, but your problems are not everyone's problems.
We have been drinking alcohol for longer than we were able to write, we still do it, because it's a social rite, it keeps people together, like a good meal, you can't simply delete it because you used to drink scotch straight from the bottle since the moment you woke up and the only solution you've found is getting a different addiction: staying clean at all costs.
"because moderate drinkers tend to be very socially advantaged," Naimi says. Moderate drinkers tend to be healthier on average because they're well-educated and more affluent, not because they're drinking a bottle of wine a week on average. "[Their] alcohol consumption ends up looking good from a health perspective because they're already healthy to begin with."
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/22/4714163...
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/22/4714163...
> Moderate drinkers tend to be healthier on average because they're well-educated and more affluent, not because they're drinking a bottle of wine a week on average
the point is that non-drinkers live less.
Which totally contraddict the point that non drinking is good for you.
a recent Lancet study confirms that at 2 standard units per day there is non-drinking equivalence for health risks
2 units per day it's about a pint of beer per day.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
the point is that non-drinkers live less.
Which totally contraddict the point that non drinking is good for you.
a recent Lancet study confirms that at 2 standard units per day there is non-drinking equivalence for health risks
2 units per day it's about a pint of beer per day.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
Both can be true at once, for exactly the reason described: the causal effect goes in the other direction.
> Both can be true at once, for exactly the reason described: the causal effect goes in the other direction.
still non drinkers do not live longer on average.
which totally defeat one of the few benefits associated to not drinking, unless you don't like drinking.
even if minuscule doses of alcohol increased the risk of getting some form of cancer, I live in a big city, I already increased my risk of getting cancer 10x by simply breathing ...
And I surely don't enjoy smog and pollution as much as I enjoy beer.
If I had to eliminate one of them, I would go living in the country, where air is cleaner.
still non drinkers do not live longer on average.
which totally defeat one of the few benefits associated to not drinking, unless you don't like drinking.
even if minuscule doses of alcohol increased the risk of getting some form of cancer, I live in a big city, I already increased my risk of getting cancer 10x by simply breathing ...
And I surely don't enjoy smog and pollution as much as I enjoy beer.
If I had to eliminate one of them, I would go living in the country, where air is cleaner.
"We still don't know why."
That's the point though. Even if this fact is true it doesn't mean that drinking is healthy for these moderate drinkers. There could be other reasons that they're living longer and that drinking is actually working against them, not for them.
That's the point though. Even if this fact is true it doesn't mean that drinking is healthy for these moderate drinkers. There could be other reasons that they're living longer and that drinking is actually working against them, not for them.
> Even if this fact is true it doesn't mean that drinking is healthy for these moderate drinkers
That's not the kind of inference we can derive from the data though.
The conclusion is that, even if we know that alcohol is not good for our health, moderate drinking has not been correlated to higher mortality or shorter life span, so we can conclude that, at the time of this writing, there are no evidence that show that moderate drinking is worse than not drinking for our health.
Regardless of the causes, the data simply doesn't show any correlation whatsoever with worsening health conditions, it shows, however, a correlation with a mildly longer average life span, which has not been explained, yet.
That's not the kind of inference we can derive from the data though.
The conclusion is that, even if we know that alcohol is not good for our health, moderate drinking has not been correlated to higher mortality or shorter life span, so we can conclude that, at the time of this writing, there are no evidence that show that moderate drinking is worse than not drinking for our health.
Regardless of the causes, the data simply doesn't show any correlation whatsoever with worsening health conditions, it shows, however, a correlation with a mildly longer average life span, which has not been explained, yet.
Id be interested in a source as it is my understanding that most of this research was disinformation from the alcohol industry. The small uptick in death rates at 0 alcohol consumption is due to the prevalence of people with severe illness not drinking. The illness causes both the non drinking and the increased risk of death. When this is corrected for, people who drink 0 alcohol live longest.
> Id be interested in a source as it is my understanding that most of this research was disinformation from the alcohol industry
it's independent scientific studies
alcohol industry doesn't need to convince people, they sell alcohol, people enjoy alcohol, it's not like cigarettes that stink and taste horribly and are bad for those around you,e specially kids.
The ability (which is common) to moderate oneself when drinking is associated with general better health (Modest drinkers were more educated, less obese, more active, less smoked, and had lower rates of hypertension, diabetes, and high triglycerides, proteinuria, high uric acid and high level of C-reactive protein when compared with regular drinkers)
So in general we should not look at the substance, but at the person.
non drinkers are usually people who are scared of losing self control.
heavy drinkers are usually people who cannot control themselves and did not chose abstinence.
But the solution is to learn moderation, since young age.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-11427-x
it's independent scientific studies
alcohol industry doesn't need to convince people, they sell alcohol, people enjoy alcohol, it's not like cigarettes that stink and taste horribly and are bad for those around you,e specially kids.
The ability (which is common) to moderate oneself when drinking is associated with general better health (Modest drinkers were more educated, less obese, more active, less smoked, and had lower rates of hypertension, diabetes, and high triglycerides, proteinuria, high uric acid and high level of C-reactive protein when compared with regular drinkers)
So in general we should not look at the substance, but at the person.
non drinkers are usually people who are scared of losing self control.
heavy drinkers are usually people who cannot control themselves and did not chose abstinence.
But the solution is to learn moderation, since young age.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-11427-x
[deleted]
This is such a silly attitude.
Let's say if I drink 3 drinks per day I shorten my life expectancy by 5 years. And if I drink 3 drinks a year, I shorten my life expectancy by 5 seconds. Ok, no level is safe, but noone gives a damn about losing 5 seconds from their life expectancy.
Let's say if I drink 3 drinks per day I shorten my life expectancy by 5 years. And if I drink 3 drinks a year, I shorten my life expectancy by 5 seconds. Ok, no level is safe, but noone gives a damn about losing 5 seconds from their life expectancy.
I fear for a world where alcohol is banned. I feel modern society is built on it.
A human is the only animal that is aware they will die. Also unique to humans is that we think about what others think. This makes us very anxious.
Alcohol is a known way to relax. It helps calm our minds down. No it's not good for our bodies. But it's very healthy to relax.
A human is the only animal that is aware they will die. Also unique to humans is that we think about what others think. This makes us very anxious.
Alcohol is a known way to relax. It helps calm our minds down. No it's not good for our bodies. But it's very healthy to relax.
I fear for a world with illegal drugs. Plenty of people use stimulants and psychedelics as part of their religion, yet the courts have (IMO wrongly) allowed countless lives to be ruined because of it.
As someone who likes to vape, welcome to the party pal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OpIbiFmY60
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OpIbiFmY60
Out of curiosity I looked up cancer rates in Islamic countries (which typically) have far lower rates of alcohol consumption. Seems there is a significantly lower rate of cancer there by as much as 2-3x compared to countries in which alcohol is more widely consumed: https://jenci.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s43046-022-0...
There are doubtless other factors at play but the data at least seems to correlate with the WHO's recommendation.
There are doubtless other factors at play but the data at least seems to correlate with the WHO's recommendation.
The generational zeitgeist is ostentatious abnegation. This fits.
I don’t think you’re right, every generation since modernity seems equal in this regard, the latest generations don’t seem special.
But, I like this phrase “the generational zeitgeist is ostentatious abnegation”, so much that I’m going to use it in the future and pretend I do believe it. Thank you
But, I like this phrase “the generational zeitgeist is ostentatious abnegation”, so much that I’m going to use it in the future and pretend I do believe it. Thank you
The 80s was famously about conspicuous consumption. Not everyone then, and there plenty of it now, but the zeitgeist isn’t a statistical metric.
Definitely an interesting turn of phrase. Ironically, I think you've helped me understand why I might be wrong about some of the metaverse hype: while I steadfastly believe that people prefer the real world, moving consumption to a fake world (e.g., buying an NFT handbag for your digital avatar) would fall into this category of behavior. In effect, paying as much to own a fake good as the real thing is loudly saying, "Look at what I could have purchased if I were less virtuous."
What was the first miracle performed by Jesus (as documented in the Christian bible)? Turning water into wine at the wedding in Cana (after they had run out of wine). Would Jesus have done this if alcohol consumption was against God's will? Food for thought. I'm not saying that God wants us to drink, but I think it provides some evidence that God doesn't view alcohol as inherently evil or bad (from Christian perspective). Abuse of alcohol is a different thing.
and of course they have the sacrament of communion. does this mean they are all doomed?
If life wasn’t so miserable alcohol wouldn’t be so popular.
Haha yeah nailed it. Plenty of good reasons to drink.
As I’m getting older I’ve basically had to swear off alchohol and marijuana completely. Even if I don’t get intoxicated (or stoned), I nearly always just feel like absolute garbage the next day (not hangover, just feel gross and groggy). Sometimes it’s lasted for days, even when I only have one drink or smoke barely enough weed to get a little buzzed. Fortunately I’ve also reached a point where I just don’t really feel good from being intoxicated either so I don’t really have a recreational incentive to do it anymore either.
I don’t know how these things affect other people’s “sober lives” but if it’s anything like that I don’t see how people can function when getting intoxicated semi-regularly. The cost-benefit just seems completely lobsided.
I don’t know how these things affect other people’s “sober lives” but if it’s anything like that I don’t see how people can function when getting intoxicated semi-regularly. The cost-benefit just seems completely lobsided.
it's pretty simple, drink a lots of water while consuming and avoid high S02 +
ABV based beverages.
“Alcohol blocks REM sleep, and as a result, says University of California, Berkeley, professor Matthew Walker[1], drinking can make you forget new information.”
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Walker_(scientist)
source: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/12/even-smal...
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Walker_(scientist)
source: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/12/even-smal...
There's a huge industry and lobby at odds. I drink less and less but I can't ignore its always in my face.
YouTubers big and small with a massive child demographic were promoting alcohol or their own brands not long ago.
[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pN6ksB3-QJ8
[2] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gfjgISRI5E4
[3] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qF0zM5MlmCw
YouTubers big and small with a massive child demographic were promoting alcohol or their own brands not long ago.
[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pN6ksB3-QJ8
[2] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gfjgISRI5E4
[3] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qF0zM5MlmCw
Fruit juice also contains small amounts of ethanol, so if the WHO is correct then do not replace your wine with fruit juice.
Or as is more likely, this is completely overblown just as the anti tobacco campaign has been overblown. Yes alcohol and tobacco aren’t good for you, no they are not imbued with magic properties where even 1 drop means cancer.
This type of thinking is common in pre scientific communities, where an object or substance is imbued with “bad energy” and having even the smallest contact with it contaminated the individual.
Or as is more likely, this is completely overblown just as the anti tobacco campaign has been overblown. Yes alcohol and tobacco aren’t good for you, no they are not imbued with magic properties where even 1 drop means cancer.
This type of thinking is common in pre scientific communities, where an object or substance is imbued with “bad energy” and having even the smallest contact with it contaminated the individual.
I mean, the WHO has such an amazing track record at this point, did everyone forget about their COVID failures:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-57085505
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-57085505
I am sure this is absolutely the last scientific paper that comes out completely reversing the conclusion of the papers that came out before. This time they did it!
I wonder how the data is treated statistically. If 99% of millionaires have consumed alcohol, does consuming alcohol increase the chance of becoming a millionaire!?
The question is, how much alcohol did they consume before becoming a millionaire, compared to the rest of the population. It might actually be less.
Do you think researchers are idiots?
A significant proportion of them are, unless you assume that proportion is just blatantly dishonest.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
Most idiotic Hacker News take yet.
Alright well you can call me names or you can talk about it. Do you have the intelligence and understanding to have a discussion or do you just want to screech insults at people on the internet?
Nope, I'm not interested in discussing anything with people who think "a significant proportion" of all researchers are idiots.
Being a researcher is not an immediate admission to being honest, integral and intelligent.
Human liver has enzymes to metabolize alcohol for energy, which implicitly makes this claim questionable. If we have it, why not be putting it to work?
The human body also has ways to heal broken bones - are you arguing that it’s a waste to not use those as well?
We’ve developed means to more effectively handle certain common poisons. That doesn’t mean they aren’t dangerous.
We’ve developed means to more effectively handle certain common poisons. That doesn’t mean they aren’t dangerous.
Bones need load to grow properly, and they will use the same mechanisms to grow strong.
Poisons are neutralized but are not energy source (nutrient). Turns out, alcohol is.
Poisons are neutralized but are not energy source (nutrient). Turns out, alcohol is.
Body also can naturally remove the commonly occurring heavy metals. But that doesn't mean we should consume them just because such mechanisms exist.
1) The word 'health' should not be used because that's just a buzzword. The right word in this context could tentatively be 'lifespan', meaning that they are tentatively projecting that in the big sample of humans they surveyed those who drink 0mL of alcohol will stick around for longer compared to those who drink even 1mL. Meaning that in their model there is a correlation between the 2 data of sticking around for longer and alcohol intake.
2) Not even lifespan could be the right word because there are all sorts of stuff that alcohol facilitates which prolong lifespan by decreasing stress and anxiety, which in turn lower cortisol which is just as bad for lifespan when considered vis-a-vis alcohol.
As always the so called authorities spend too much time in the lab and are essentially monodimensional individuals who (no pun intended) fail to see the bigger picture.
2) Not even lifespan could be the right word because there are all sorts of stuff that alcohol facilitates which prolong lifespan by decreasing stress and anxiety, which in turn lower cortisol which is just as bad for lifespan when considered vis-a-vis alcohol.
As always the so called authorities spend too much time in the lab and are essentially monodimensional individuals who (no pun intended) fail to see the bigger picture.
And that doesn't include the externalized costs, such as increased domestic violence: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50887893, impacts on children: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/18/even-moderat..., etc. Now that Americans are more docile it might be a good time to take another shot at alcohol prohibition: https://time.com/5501680/prohibition-history-feminism-suffra....
> And that doesn't include the externalized costs, such as increased domestic violence, impacts on children
I have never seen someone who did those things drunk who didn't also do those things sober.
I have never seen someone who did those things drunk who didn't also do those things sober.
From the BBC article: "Men who are dependent on alcohol or drugs are six or seven times more likely to be involved in domestic abuse against women than others, according to an extensive new study."
That makes sense--alcohol decreases inhibition. It makes you do things that maybe you were inclined to do, but wouldn't do sober. (That is part of why people drink alcohol in the first place.)
That makes sense--alcohol decreases inhibition. It makes you do things that maybe you were inclined to do, but wouldn't do sober. (That is part of why people drink alcohol in the first place.)
I mean, from the same article you have, they bring up the same point I did:
> While undoubtedly there is some link between alcohol and drugs and domestic abuse, this research should be treated with some caution, said Dame Vera Baird, victims' commissioner for England and Wales. She said: "Many perpetrators who commit domestic violence while drunk will also be violent and controlling while sober. "And many perpetrators of domestic violence and coercive control do not have a drink or drug problem, and therefore it would be a mistake to divert resources from domestic violence perpetrator programmes to tackling drink and drugs misuse."
> While undoubtedly there is some link between alcohol and drugs and domestic abuse, this research should be treated with some caution, said Dame Vera Baird, victims' commissioner for England and Wales. She said: "Many perpetrators who commit domestic violence while drunk will also be violent and controlling while sober. "And many perpetrators of domestic violence and coercive control do not have a drink or drug problem, and therefore it would be a mistake to divert resources from domestic violence perpetrator programmes to tackling drink and drugs misuse."
> dependent on alcohol or drugs are six or seven times more likely
NB: this does not mean actively using. Dependency creates significant stress when sober, which almost certainly amplifies violent dispositions. Hence my GP's comment.
NB: this does not mean actively using. Dependency creates significant stress when sober, which almost certainly amplifies violent dispositions. Hence my GP's comment.
> Dependency creates significant stress when sober, which almost certainly amplifies violent dispositions.
How does that not support my point?
How does that not support my point?
It's the opposite of what you wrote:
> That makes sense--alcohol decreases inhibition. It makes you do things that maybe you were inclined to do, but wouldn't do sober. (That is part of why people drink alcohol in the first place.)
> That makes sense--alcohol decreases inhibition. It makes you do things that maybe you were inclined to do, but wouldn't do sober. (That is part of why people drink alcohol in the first place.)
You’ve also got to be pretty miserable to get in that state in the first place. Maybe they are victims of abuse themselves or have untreated trauma/other mental health conditions.
Why would that be a good idea? If you don’t want to drink, then don’t. Kindly leave me alone.
That would be fine if drinking didn't affect people's ability to satisfy their social obligations (as coworkers, parents, friends, etc.) but that's not the case.
Drinking sometimes for some people impairs their ability to meet their social obligations. Prohibition was an unmitigated disaster and you have to be a special kind of idiot to think trying it again would produce a different result. People like to drink alcohol.
Prohibition was not an “unmitigated disaster.” By some measures crime and domestic violence fell dramatically.
See: https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibit...
See: https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibit...
Prohibition is the go-to example of banning alcohol not working but I think this is blurry thinking. In no other area of policy would you just point to one big example of something not working and thereby declare the whole approach off limits.
The whole argument seems like a discussion-ending cover for people's emotional attachment to alcohol. It completely doesn't engage with the cost-benefit analysis of how alcohol affects the functioning of society at large or navigate any of those tradeoffs.
The whole argument seems like a discussion-ending cover for people's emotional attachment to alcohol. It completely doesn't engage with the cost-benefit analysis of how alcohol affects the functioning of society at large or navigate any of those tradeoffs.
Fascinating that you keep getting downvoted for stating completely obvious observations. I would have thought your reasonable explanations could convince this supposed 'rational' crowd but apparently not.
yeah, prohibition totally worked.
Why not call McCarthy back too?
Alcohol problems are not the same thing of alcohol consumption.
Also:
Scotland's alcohol consumption is among the highest in the world, according to World Health Organization data; on average, Scots consume the equivalent of more than 13 liters (3.4 gallons) of pure alcohol a year, about 40 percent more than Americans (2.4 gallons)
We in Italy consume less than 7 liters per year (less than 1.8 gallons).
Talking about moderate drinking.
Why not call McCarthy back too?
Alcohol problems are not the same thing of alcohol consumption.
Also:
Scotland's alcohol consumption is among the highest in the world, according to World Health Organization data; on average, Scots consume the equivalent of more than 13 liters (3.4 gallons) of pure alcohol a year, about 40 percent more than Americans (2.4 gallons)
We in Italy consume less than 7 liters per year (less than 1.8 gallons).
Talking about moderate drinking.
> yeah, prohibition totally worked.
Americans are much more compliant now, not to mention health and socially conscious. For example, the culture of alcohol use has disparate impacts on black and brown communities: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2771773/ ("African Americans and Hispanics bear a disproportionately greater burden of alcohol-related health problems compared to whites, as evidenced by higher rates of liver cirrhosis, death rates due to cirrhosis, and rates of overall alcohol-related mortality.") That is true even though, for example, black Americans begin drinking later and drink less than white Americans: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3758406/.
Americans are much more compliant now, not to mention health and socially conscious. For example, the culture of alcohol use has disparate impacts on black and brown communities: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2771773/ ("African Americans and Hispanics bear a disproportionately greater burden of alcohol-related health problems compared to whites, as evidenced by higher rates of liver cirrhosis, death rates due to cirrhosis, and rates of overall alcohol-related mortality.") That is true even though, for example, black Americans begin drinking later and drink less than white Americans: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3758406/.
> yeah, prohibition totally worked.
>> Americans are much more compliant now
Are you saying prohibition is worth another attempt? Because we're currently in our 52nd year of the official start of the War on Drugs [1], which is just Prohibition by another name. Unofficially, the War on Drugs goes back much further, and it's a war that the government has been losing badly since the start [2]. Even per-capita, we're the biggest consumers of illegal drugs in the world [3]. So I'd be curious to hear what evidence of compliance you could give, which would outweigh the evidence of non-compliance going back to at least the Nixon administration.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs
2. https://www.ahdbonline.com/articles/2053-are-we-winning-the-...
3. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/drug-use-...
>> Americans are much more compliant now
Are you saying prohibition is worth another attempt? Because we're currently in our 52nd year of the official start of the War on Drugs [1], which is just Prohibition by another name. Unofficially, the War on Drugs goes back much further, and it's a war that the government has been losing badly since the start [2]. Even per-capita, we're the biggest consumers of illegal drugs in the world [3]. So I'd be curious to hear what evidence of compliance you could give, which would outweigh the evidence of non-compliance going back to at least the Nixon administration.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs
2. https://www.ahdbonline.com/articles/2053-are-we-winning-the-...
3. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/drug-use-...
It sounds like you're trolling, and that you're not seriously proposing a return to prohibition, but rather using it as a snarky frame with which to criticize unrelated beliefs.
I'm not trolling. I think America would be better if people didn't drink. I drink sometimes, but I also eat fried foods and skip the gym and do other things I'd acknowledge people shouldn't do.
Nor am I criticizing unrelated beliefs. I don't disagree with SJWs that we live in a society dominated by the attitudes and culture of white European Americans--including their drinking culture. I typically disagree with them on whether that's a bad thing, or how we should frame that for kids, or how that should affect legal relations between people. But I don't disagree with the notion that aspects of American culture adapted from Europeans--in this case drinking culture, but I'd also throw parenting culture in there, and individualism--can have negative impacts on minority groups.
Nor am I criticizing unrelated beliefs. I don't disagree with SJWs that we live in a society dominated by the attitudes and culture of white European Americans--including their drinking culture. I typically disagree with them on whether that's a bad thing, or how we should frame that for kids, or how that should affect legal relations between people. But I don't disagree with the notion that aspects of American culture adapted from Europeans--in this case drinking culture, but I'd also throw parenting culture in there, and individualism--can have negative impacts on minority groups.
> m not trolling. I think America would be better if people didn't drink
America simply drinks too much
We Italians are usually described as people who love to sit and drink all day.
On average Italians drink half the alcohol of Americans yearly.
Consider that in Italy non drinkers are ~25% while in America 36% of adults described themselves as “total abstainers”.
America simply drinks too much
We Italians are usually described as people who love to sit and drink all day.
On average Italians drink half the alcohol of Americans yearly.
Consider that in Italy non drinkers are ~25% while in America 36% of adults described themselves as “total abstainers”.
Fair enough! I stand corrected.
> Americans are much more compliant now
American health issue are mostly class based.
Black and brown people are poorer on average, hence they face more issues regarding health issues in general.
Alcohol abuse is a well known addiction among people of lower classes, while higher classes prefer other more expensive substances.
Also with more money available come higher quality alcoholic beverages.
American health issue are mostly class based.
Black and brown people are poorer on average, hence they face more issues regarding health issues in general.
Alcohol abuse is a well known addiction among people of lower classes, while higher classes prefer other more expensive substances.
Also with more money available come higher quality alcoholic beverages.
If you look at the articles I linked, it's actually the opposite. Black people are almost twice as likely to report not drinking as white people. Alcohol use also increases with socioeconomic status: https://www.alcoholrehabguide.org/blog/socioeconomic-status-....
that's probably because drinking in the US is very expensive.
which is a form of prohibitionism in itself, but didn't stop people from binge drinking.
Here in Italy, where wine is very cheap, you don't see people drinking like the Americans do, especially not adult people.
Kids, maybe, sometimes, we have a problem with young people binge drinking, mostly because they gathered those habits from American culture which massively influence their daily content consumption.
Back in the day the American culture my generation has been exposed to was very different about who drank on screen and why.
which is a form of prohibitionism in itself, but didn't stop people from binge drinking.
Here in Italy, where wine is very cheap, you don't see people drinking like the Americans do, especially not adult people.
Kids, maybe, sometimes, we have a problem with young people binge drinking, mostly because they gathered those habits from American culture which massively influence their daily content consumption.
Back in the day the American culture my generation has been exposed to was very different about who drank on screen and why.
We've been drinking fermented drinks for millenia and yet here we are: 8 billion strong. Shut up WHO ;)
Actually, only some populations developed the gene mutation to increase the alcohol people can tolerate, but I can't find the number now. Try navigating from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_tolerance to see if you are more lucky.
I think people are pretty tired of headlines like these tbh, it seems what it really say is "Alcohol risks are dose dependent" but it seems they wanted to go for a more ominous sounding headline, so the message is less effective.
Is alcohol essential for a good social life? Growing up in Europe it definitely was a big part of it. Now I look at my younger colleagues in the US and many never drink, rarely go out and are lonely and single. But maybe healthier?
being lonely is not so healthy. neither is sitting glued to your phone or console. might be better nursing a beer in a bar, watching football.
The problem is: No alcohol wozld be much more harmful for society these days... if i couldn't relax and unwind with a drink i would surely do something involving a chainsaw in a short matter of time...
[deleted]
I despise the WHO generally but this article is solid. There is too much confusion about alcohol in the medical industry. If you ask European doctors having a glass or two of wine "extends health". If you research typical government guidelines, they say a drink or two a day isn't bad or may even say it's "healthy" [1]
The facts are facts. Alcohol is a poison that wrecks havoc on your mind and body. If having one drink can decompress you after a hard days work, fine, you're not gonna get cancer. Let's just stop pretending alcohol is a solid healthy choice.
1 - https://www.boston.com/news/health/2020/07/15/men-should-lim...
The facts are facts. Alcohol is a poison that wrecks havoc on your mind and body. If having one drink can decompress you after a hard days work, fine, you're not gonna get cancer. Let's just stop pretending alcohol is a solid healthy choice.
1 - https://www.boston.com/news/health/2020/07/15/men-should-lim...
I dunno, is it a solid article? They say "Risks start from the first drop" and I am having a a hard time imagining how they could prove that, regardless of how likely it is. Looks like fearmongering.
I'm sympathetic to the idea that everyone should stop drinking. I'm not a fan of mind-altering drugs and it makes for boring conversation. But we need to get used to the idea that literally nothing is safe. Living kills us all eventually. The argument against alcohol needs to be that an alcohol-free life is of higher quality.
If we're going to discourage people from doing unsafe things, are we planning to disband the army? There is no safe amount of time to spend in a moving vehicle either, those things are dangerous. Working a day job is no good for people's health. Safe doesn't mean no harm; that is impossible. And the question is always whether the benefit outweighs the cost.
I'm sympathetic to the idea that everyone should stop drinking. I'm not a fan of mind-altering drugs and it makes for boring conversation. But we need to get used to the idea that literally nothing is safe. Living kills us all eventually. The argument against alcohol needs to be that an alcohol-free life is of higher quality.
If we're going to discourage people from doing unsafe things, are we planning to disband the army? There is no safe amount of time to spend in a moving vehicle either, those things are dangerous. Working a day job is no good for people's health. Safe doesn't mean no harm; that is impossible. And the question is always whether the benefit outweighs the cost.
"Risks start from the first drop"
If this is true, the medical community is actively causing harm. Many compounded or suspended children's medicines contain alcohol. Many do not have alcohol free alternatives.
If this is true, the medical community is actively causing harm. Many compounded or suspended children's medicines contain alcohol. Many do not have alcohol free alternatives.
All medicine have risks, the added alcohol is a tiny extra risk that the medical community thinks it is worth taking because it has benefits that are greater than the risks. For example, other chemicals that could be used as a substitute may be worse or poorly tested.
Medicine containing alcohol often comes with a few more counter-indications because of it, plus it limits the sales to people who wish to maintain strict abstinence, like Muslims. If they keep the alcohol, it is probably for a good reason.
It is completely different from recommending alcohol itself.
Medicine containing alcohol often comes with a few more counter-indications because of it, plus it limits the sales to people who wish to maintain strict abstinence, like Muslims. If they keep the alcohol, it is probably for a good reason.
It is completely different from recommending alcohol itself.
"If they keep the alcohol, it is probably for a good reason."
Can you name medications that require alcohol vs an alternative? Most of the alternatives are innocent like glycerin, or similar to food preservatives.
My main point is that there is hypocrisy. Saying that one drop is dangerous yet having it be heavily prevalent children's meds... one of these isn't right.
Can you name medications that require alcohol vs an alternative? Most of the alternatives are innocent like glycerin, or similar to food preservatives.
My main point is that there is hypocrisy. Saying that one drop is dangerous yet having it be heavily prevalent children's meds... one of these isn't right.
Acetaminophen is cytotoxic and causes liver damage. No amount of it is safe. Yet we have children's tylenol.
Why? Because the body heals whatever miniscule damage occurs with small amounts. The trade off is one which we decide to leave to people to make with their judgment.
Why? Because the body heals whatever miniscule damage occurs with small amounts. The trade off is one which we decide to leave to people to make with their judgment.
Then why do they fear monger with alcohol and not Tylenol? That's my question.
> If this is true, the medical community is actively causing harm.
That’s kind of a bizarre way of phrasing it. Yes, the medical community actively causes lesser harms, with the goals of preventing greater harms. Radiation therapy and chemotherapy, for example, are extremely harmful! Yet we use them as cancer treatments because the cancer we are treating with them is probably more harmful than the treatment.
Radiation therapy and chemotherapy are extreme examples, but this analysis is done across medicine with lesser treatments as well—and yes, we change the way we treat people as our understanding of the risks and benefits of various treatments changes.
That’s kind of a bizarre way of phrasing it. Yes, the medical community actively causes lesser harms, with the goals of preventing greater harms. Radiation therapy and chemotherapy, for example, are extremely harmful! Yet we use them as cancer treatments because the cancer we are treating with them is probably more harmful than the treatment.
Radiation therapy and chemotherapy are extreme examples, but this analysis is done across medicine with lesser treatments as well—and yes, we change the way we treat people as our understanding of the risks and benefits of various treatments changes.
With alcohol, its often times added to medicines as an inactive ingredient with little to no therapeutic value. It also has alternatives.
My main point is that's it's hypocritical to say one drop is dangerous and then have a myriad of children's meds containing it when alternative ingredients exist.
My main point is that's it's hypocritical to say one drop is dangerous and then have a myriad of children's meds containing it when alternative ingredients exist.
> My main point is that's it's hypocritical to say one drop is dangerous and then have a myriad of children's meds containing it when alternative ingredients exist.
You're miles away from making that point in a way that I can understand.
You're miles away from making that point in a way that I can understand.
Even if there are risks you have to compare the risks. Would I have a child drink a small amount of alcohol for some life saving drug? Just like how you drive to work despite there being a risk in driving.
So what is the risk of damaging your life from 4 drinks a week compared to risks of getting killed by someone else walking to work every day (in the US with its drivers and SUVs)? Less alcohol is better, perhaps, but we live past our savings while drinking all the same.
What your example misses, is that alternatives exist to alcohol for most medicines. There's no reason for most of these medications to include alcohol.
It gets worse where people get issues and they start looking for some diet supplements or pills for "better liver" ,"concentration problems" or whatever else.
When first thing they should do is stop drinking alcohol.
In the reddit thread about article there was someone who could not connect the dots that after drinking alcohol they would have hangover the next day.
When first thing they should do is stop drinking alcohol.
In the reddit thread about article there was someone who could not connect the dots that after drinking alcohol they would have hangover the next day.
> In the reddit thread about article there was someone who could not connect the dots that after drinking alcohol they would have hangover the next day.
To me it sounds like you have been trolled.
To me it sounds like you have been trolled.
>If having one drink can decompress you after a hard days work, fine, you're not gonna get cancer.
That would seem to contradict the headline, and content, that there's a safe level of alcohol consumption.
In fact, the WHO really takes that claim seriously -- the headline is not a simplification:
>>when it comes to alcohol consumption, there is no safe amount that does not affect health ... Alcohol causes at least seven types of cancer ... "We cannot talk about a so-called safe level of alcohol use. It doesn’t matter how much you drink – the risk to the drinker’s health starts from the first drop of any alcoholic beverage."
But yeah, I agree, in that I'm sure you can find a low enough level of alcohol consumption that can't be discerned in health outcomes. Like, 1 microliter, one time.
It sounds like your comment is more about rejecting claims that there can be a health benefit to alcohol, but the WHO is going much further than that.
That would seem to contradict the headline, and content, that there's a safe level of alcohol consumption.
In fact, the WHO really takes that claim seriously -- the headline is not a simplification:
>>when it comes to alcohol consumption, there is no safe amount that does not affect health ... Alcohol causes at least seven types of cancer ... "We cannot talk about a so-called safe level of alcohol use. It doesn’t matter how much you drink – the risk to the drinker’s health starts from the first drop of any alcoholic beverage."
But yeah, I agree, in that I'm sure you can find a low enough level of alcohol consumption that can't be discerned in health outcomes. Like, 1 microliter, one time.
It sounds like your comment is more about rejecting claims that there can be a health benefit to alcohol, but the WHO is going much further than that.
"not gonna get cancer" is in no way contradicting the headline. There's plenty of non-cancerous dangers in the world.
Except that a) the WHO says that amount knowably increases cancer risk (and so the author would disagree with the parent's comment), and b) if you just say "it won't have harm X" while not endorsing harms you think it has, you're implying there are no harms. As long as the parent wasn't endorsing the WHO's claim of harm from that level, he's disagreeing with the thesis.
On the subject of decompressing from daily stress.. I would humbly submit that a small (just above psychoactive threshold) puff of vaporized (not combusted) THC extract or other legal cannabinoid, is a good harm reduction measure, compared to alcohol. Especially if it eliminates the urge to drink or seek other more risky hedonic outlets.
> If you ask European doctors having a glass or two of wine "extends health".
but it's not because of the alcohol, why wine is "good", it because we mostly relax with it, which reduces stress levels. everything else is bad, at least that it the perception of the last 2-4 years in germany.
but it's not because of the alcohol, why wine is "good", it because we mostly relax with it, which reduces stress levels. everything else is bad, at least that it the perception of the last 2-4 years in germany.
The dose makes the poison
- Paracelsus
- Paracelsus
> “We cannot talk about a so-called safe level of alcohol use. It doesn’t matter how much you drink – the risk to the drinker’s health starts from the first drop of any alcoholic beverage. The only thing that we can say for sure is that the more you drink, the more harmful it is – or, in other words, the less you drink, the safer it is,” explains Dr Carina Ferreira-Borges, acting Unit Lead for Noncommunicable Disease Management and Regional Advisor for Alcohol and Illicit Drugs in the WHO Regional Office for Europe.
I think that it is explicitly pushing back on that very concept.
I think that it is explicitly pushing back on that very concept.
Why is alcohol only dangerous in alcoholic beverages? Fruit juice (they real stuff) also contains small amounts of alcohol, for example.
That is an excellent question, perhaps the benefits of those fruit juices outweigh the small amounts of harm a small amount of alcohol may create.
If was to get my random opinion without expertise, I would guess that sugar is the dominating factor as to whether fruit juice is healthy combined with your typical non-juice sugar consumption or not; given you are not deficient in some key nutrient.
But to clarify, I was just quoting the article in response to the idea that the dose is the issue. I am a software developer without any expertise in the issue.
If was to get my random opinion without expertise, I would guess that sugar is the dominating factor as to whether fruit juice is healthy combined with your typical non-juice sugar consumption or not; given you are not deficient in some key nutrient.
But to clarify, I was just quoting the article in response to the idea that the dose is the issue. I am a software developer without any expertise in the issue.
Sorry, yes, this was meant to address your quote - should have made that clear.
of course, this "expert" has no self-interest for pushing this kind of stuff?
You’d get more traction for this kind of comment if you’d taken the time to check rather than cast vague aspersions. And if you have checked, detail it here.
What would that self interest be?
publish another paper in two years fully financed.
or find another job.
what would you chose?
or find another job.
what would you chose?
Jesus, it's impossible to do research without being accused of being biased, is it.
It is entirely possible.
But "research" as this paper here are mostly useless.
They are good for nothing.
It's like researching the fact that "there is no amount of soap that can be considered harmless for the environment".
Yes, we know, and now that everyone knows that we all know, what about "we don't care and we'll keep using soap responsibly"?
p.s.: replace "soap" with "human activity" and the paradox will probably be more evident.
But "research" as this paper here are mostly useless.
They are good for nothing.
It's like researching the fact that "there is no amount of soap that can be considered harmless for the environment".
Yes, we know, and now that everyone knows that we all know, what about "we don't care and we'll keep using soap responsibly"?
p.s.: replace "soap" with "human activity" and the paradox will probably be more evident.
Hold on, there is a lot of popular wisdom that thinks that small amounts of alcohol is either harmless or beneficial. Solid research on that topic absolutely is valuable.
Everyone absolutely does not know that small amounts are harmful.
Everyone absolutely does not know that small amounts are harmful.
Exactly, I love that this is publicized and hopefully minds will change over the next years and decades like they did with cigarettes.
> like they did with cigarettes.
THEY ABSOLUTELY ARE NOT THE SAME THING!
Animals enjoy alcohol too, it's a beverage, it's a natural substance, there's no way that alcohol it's gonna be like cigarettes!
Hotdogs are bad for your health, do you think hotdogs and cigarettes are the same thing?
Do you really believe that alcohol is a modern addiction, like tobacco industry?
Have you ever heard that Christians drink wine because it's the blood of Jesus Christ? (who turned the water into wine BTW!)
Do you know that radical Islam prohibits alcohol because it can induce a loss of self-control?
Do you believe that radical Islam is the way to go for the future?
I really don't.
Alcohol is rooted in our ancestry, it's part of who we are, stop blaming substances, this is truly a modern take: it's the never ending bullshit of the war on drugs that started with prohibionism, it's the USA that promote the puritan way of life, while destroying the planet more than everybody else combined and indulging in the worst possible lifestyle (eating garbage, drinking like there's no tomorrow, working to death, healthcare considered a luxury etc.), it's the same old story of Americans not understanding that their problems are absolutely not everyone's problems
The oldest verifiable brewery has been found in a prehistoric burial site in a cave near Haifa in modern-day Israel. Researchers have found residue of 13,000-year-old beer that they think might have been used for ritual feasts to honor the dead
Those who believe alcohol is a fad are simply delusional.
THEY ABSOLUTELY ARE NOT THE SAME THING!
Animals enjoy alcohol too, it's a beverage, it's a natural substance, there's no way that alcohol it's gonna be like cigarettes!
Hotdogs are bad for your health, do you think hotdogs and cigarettes are the same thing?
Do you really believe that alcohol is a modern addiction, like tobacco industry?
Have you ever heard that Christians drink wine because it's the blood of Jesus Christ? (who turned the water into wine BTW!)
Do you know that radical Islam prohibits alcohol because it can induce a loss of self-control?
Do you believe that radical Islam is the way to go for the future?
I really don't.
Alcohol is rooted in our ancestry, it's part of who we are, stop blaming substances, this is truly a modern take: it's the never ending bullshit of the war on drugs that started with prohibionism, it's the USA that promote the puritan way of life, while destroying the planet more than everybody else combined and indulging in the worst possible lifestyle (eating garbage, drinking like there's no tomorrow, working to death, healthcare considered a luxury etc.), it's the same old story of Americans not understanding that their problems are absolutely not everyone's problems
The oldest verifiable brewery has been found in a prehistoric burial site in a cave near Haifa in modern-day Israel. Researchers have found residue of 13,000-year-old beer that they think might have been used for ritual feasts to honor the dead
Those who believe alcohol is a fad are simply delusional.
yes, i believe it is - simply don't use your very dubious research to tell others what they should be doing. we don't have these problems in astronomy, for example
That’s not really universally true. There are plenty of things where any amount does harm.
Which ones are like that?
You really don’t want to consume any quantity of radium.
Allergens, pathogens, radioactive material, lead — any more than trace amounts of these is dangerous.
Plutonium is a good one to start with. Poison and radioactive.
and that quote stems from his philosophy:
Paracelsus believed that true anatomy could only be understood once the nourishment for each part of the body was discovered. He believed that one must therefore know the influence of the stars on these particular body parts.[59] Diseases were caused by poisons brought from the stars. However, 'poisons' were not necessarily something negative, in part because related substances interacted, but also because only the dose determined if a substance was poisonous or not.
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus
Paracelsus believed that true anatomy could only be understood once the nourishment for each part of the body was discovered. He believed that one must therefore know the influence of the stars on these particular body parts.[59] Diseases were caused by poisons brought from the stars. However, 'poisons' were not necessarily something negative, in part because related substances interacted, but also because only the dose determined if a substance was poisonous or not.
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus
Sometimes the correct dose is zero
[deleted]
I think the challenge is really that even spices like pepper cause inflammation.
You can always find a downside to anything you ingest.
I think you’re correct, the best approach is to explain “safe limits”.
Personally, I think it’s fine if people smoke, drink, etc until their heart is content. That said; it’s also why I’m opposed to socialized medicine. Almost everyone I know on social medicine didn’t take care of themselves (only a maybe one couldnt take care of themselves).
The challenge with socialized medicine is that we should now push to ban alcohol, logically.
You can always find a downside to anything you ingest.
I think you’re correct, the best approach is to explain “safe limits”.
Personally, I think it’s fine if people smoke, drink, etc until their heart is content. That said; it’s also why I’m opposed to socialized medicine. Almost everyone I know on social medicine didn’t take care of themselves (only a maybe one couldnt take care of themselves).
The challenge with socialized medicine is that we should now push to ban alcohol, logically.
I had to google the meaning of "socialized medicine" (no I don't live in the US). My first thought was that maybe it meant "getting better thanks to emotional support from other people", but Wikipedia had this to say about "socialized medicine":
>> More recently, American conservative critics of health care reform have attempted to broaden the term by applying it to any publicly funded system.
Fascinating how different political groups literally do not speak the same language. I now assume you mean that all people should pay 100 % for their own health care needs since people only have themselves to blame if they need health care?
>> More recently, American conservative critics of health care reform have attempted to broaden the term by applying it to any publicly funded system.
Fascinating how different political groups literally do not speak the same language. I now assume you mean that all people should pay 100 % for their own health care needs since people only have themselves to blame if they need health care?
It’s a pretty ubiquitous term here used by all sides. They even poll using the term https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20080214/poll-us-sp...
Though I think some of the political proponents have shifted their SEO terms to “universal healthcare” in recent years after they found the term confusing.
> I now assume you mean that all people should pay 100 % for their own health care needs since people only have themselves to blame if they need health care?
I’m not saying one way or the other what I think. I’m saying the logical conclusion of paying for everyone’s medical bills is that you create regulation to try to lower said bills. By definition, this restricts freedoms, which I’m opposed to.
Though I think some of the political proponents have shifted their SEO terms to “universal healthcare” in recent years after they found the term confusing.
> I now assume you mean that all people should pay 100 % for their own health care needs since people only have themselves to blame if they need health care?
I’m not saying one way or the other what I think. I’m saying the logical conclusion of paying for everyone’s medical bills is that you create regulation to try to lower said bills. By definition, this restricts freedoms, which I’m opposed to.
> The challenge with socialized medicine is that we should now push to ban alcohol, logically.
That has not worked in the past. Do you think it would work any better nowadays?
That has not worked in the past. Do you think it would work any better nowadays?
It actually has worked in the past. But a more pragmatic approach is to tax alcohol heavily so that it costs you more to willingly destroy your body.
Could present-day China pull something like that off?
The reason its effectively impossible to ban alcohol is because the precursors are sugar, water, and yeast. It's trivial to make alcohol even in small apartments.
Yes prohibition in any form, anywhere has always worked successfully
There is no logical banning of alcohol, we've learned that lesson.
Guess we better give up alcohol swabs, can't be rubbing known carcinogens on our bodies. Cause isopropyl is poisonous too.
this article is doing an even worse job though: there are a lot of people i the comments that are convinced that if they do not drink at all, they will live longer.
They won't.
> The facts are facts. Alcohol is a poison that wrecks havoc on your mind and body
So are almonds
If you eat 20 apples including the seeds, you die instantly.
But so are also soda beverages
but US citizens drink an estimated 154 liters per capita every year
They won't.
> The facts are facts. Alcohol is a poison that wrecks havoc on your mind and body
So are almonds
If you eat 20 apples including the seeds, you die instantly.
But so are also soda beverages
but US citizens drink an estimated 154 liters per capita every year
[deleted]
Anecdotally I know a lot of really old people who still drink. Maybe I'd know more if they didn't drink.
I know one guy who is ~90, survived cancer 3 times and attributes his survival to daily doses of Japanese Shochu.
You might be able to argue that alcohol was the cause of the cancer but I guess we'll never know.
Disclaimer: Currently not drinking even a drop.
Edit: Maybe I'd know more if they didn't drink....is a reference to the fact I read the article and I understand that statistically, there might be more old people alive because it seems like it's "statistically safer" not to drink so please, try to stay calm and stop telling me I can't understand anything about statistics...I know it's exciting to do this lately though.
I know one guy who is ~90, survived cancer 3 times and attributes his survival to daily doses of Japanese Shochu.
You might be able to argue that alcohol was the cause of the cancer but I guess we'll never know.
Disclaimer: Currently not drinking even a drop.
Edit: Maybe I'd know more if they didn't drink....is a reference to the fact I read the article and I understand that statistically, there might be more old people alive because it seems like it's "statistically safer" not to drink so please, try to stay calm and stop telling me I can't understand anything about statistics...I know it's exciting to do this lately though.
> Anecdotally I know a lot of really old people who still drink.
I know someone who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day who is almost 100 years old. Smoking is good or you!
I know someone who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day who is almost 100 years old. Smoking is good or you!
Not what I said...however, I personally do know a lot more people who have actually died from health issues directly related to smoking: heat attacks, emphysema, lung cancer.
The thing they have in common is that they still have social connections, including with you. People who are alone for stretches of time have a lot more risk from falls, etc
Sometimes I drink with that person, and they might socially drink with others, so it might even be fair to say in this case, it's a positive then?
I just have a real problem with talking in absolutes.
I just have a real problem with talking in absolutes.
It's possible to accept the risk of alcohol as being worth it. I do when I choose to drink. But it's always going to be worse than not drinking, ceteris paribus. If you're able to replace the drinking sessions with tea, or a game, that's probably better for health. Maybe that's not possible, maybe there's something unique about the effect of alcohol, even in small quantities.
For every of those is several people who died at 60 from liver disease
It’s happening to a lot of younger adults in their 30s now too.
You don't actually know if alcohol is the cause, it might be all the other shit that we've put into the environment to, such as PFOAs, PFOS, Microplastics, air polltion and more and more...
> You don't actually know if alcohol is the cause
On an individual basis, no. But on a macro, yes. We can pretty directly attribute a large % of liver-related deaths directly to alcohol.
On an individual basis, no. But on a macro, yes. We can pretty directly attribute a large % of liver-related deaths directly to alcohol.
For the people I knew, there is no doubt in my mind. Only mentioning because until people I knew died, I thought liver disease only struck as you approached your 50s/60s.
[deleted]
This comment adds nothing to the discussion.
The world is full of people who strongly and honestly believe anecdotes are more important than statistics and statistics are meaninglessly astrological in nature. Its a very popular set of beliefs, majority in some areas.
The world is full of people like you who thinks that making this comment ensures you're intellectually superior to others.
I, of course, know what statistics is and how to interpret it , I'm aware drinking isn't especially good for ones health and other aspect of ones life, which is why I'm currently...not drinking.
I'm also aware how silly it is to worry about it and make absolutely claims like "No level..blah".
No level of C02 from fossil fuels is good for us anymore; However, I'm certain you'll get in your car and drive or on a plane and fly soon enough.
The point I'm trying to make is that what matters one minute often seems inconsequential the next, regardless of statistics.
For example, the WHO provides quite shocking statistics on the dangerous of food fires and other heating / cooking methods which are used in my neighborhood: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/household-a..., it freaks me out but I can't do much about it or my neighbors use of a wood stove. Should I move?
So while I think it's been obvious for sometime, alcohol is bad for ones health, smoke is also bad for ones health, is there anything really new or wise in this bulletin from the WHO, I don't think so really.
Have a read of this on the WHO's website:
FACT: Alcohol-based sanitizers are safe for everyone to use
Alcohols in the sanitizers have not been shown to create any relevant health issues. Little alcohol is absorbed into the skin, and most products contain an emollient to reduce skin dryness. Allergic contact dermatitis and bleaching of hand hair due to alcohol are very rare adverse effects. Accidental swallowing and intoxication have been described in rare cases.
So in this case, my body will adsorb alcohol, but in this case it's ok because it's on another page separate from the one we're discussing?
I, of course, know what statistics is and how to interpret it , I'm aware drinking isn't especially good for ones health and other aspect of ones life, which is why I'm currently...not drinking.
I'm also aware how silly it is to worry about it and make absolutely claims like "No level..blah".
No level of C02 from fossil fuels is good for us anymore; However, I'm certain you'll get in your car and drive or on a plane and fly soon enough.
The point I'm trying to make is that what matters one minute often seems inconsequential the next, regardless of statistics.
For example, the WHO provides quite shocking statistics on the dangerous of food fires and other heating / cooking methods which are used in my neighborhood: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/household-a..., it freaks me out but I can't do much about it or my neighbors use of a wood stove. Should I move?
So while I think it's been obvious for sometime, alcohol is bad for ones health, smoke is also bad for ones health, is there anything really new or wise in this bulletin from the WHO, I don't think so really.
Have a read of this on the WHO's website:
FACT: Alcohol-based sanitizers are safe for everyone to use
Alcohols in the sanitizers have not been shown to create any relevant health issues. Little alcohol is absorbed into the skin, and most products contain an emollient to reduce skin dryness. Allergic contact dermatitis and bleaching of hand hair due to alcohol are very rare adverse effects. Accidental swallowing and intoxication have been described in rare cases.
So in this case, my body will adsorb alcohol, but in this case it's ok because it's on another page separate from the one we're discussing?
The next level up are people that have no actual understanding of statistics, empirical reasoning, and the weaknesses therein but have learned that if you throw certain science-y words together your arguments will tend land better.
The problem is that how well anyone's particular life circumstances fit into a statistical model (or not) can be a very difficult thing to discern. There is a combinatorial explosion of factors that everyone is subject to, and most epidemiological statistics can address and account for a handful of them at a time. So what ends up happening is folks look at the statistics, shrug, and continue their own n=1. The best they can do is be honest with themselves about "how is that working out for you?"
"hows that working out for you" has been completely replaced in society due to social media with "how many updoots will I get?"
> believe anecdotes are more important than statistics and statistics
Yes look at the current world, media, and western societies
Yes look at the current world, media, and western societies
Disagree, today I learned what Shōchū is
Neither does yours, neither does mine.
Nothing matters we will all die eventually.
To say this is true for every human being is an assault on the field of genetics.
There are several voltage gated ion channels that are inhibited by ethanol. So ethanol can clearly be seen as a medicine in those with genetic changes in these genes that cause channel channelopathies.
And anecdotally, my grandfather drank a lot. Not an alcoholic, but he was no teetotaler, and I would often see him sneaking shots of vodka before noon. He lived was 99 with his full mental capacity.
There are several voltage gated ion channels that are inhibited by ethanol. So ethanol can clearly be seen as a medicine in those with genetic changes in these genes that cause channel channelopathies.
And anecdotally, my grandfather drank a lot. Not an alcoholic, but he was no teetotaler, and I would often see him sneaking shots of vodka before noon. He lived was 99 with his full mental capacity.
Your grandfather was an alcoholic who lived to age 99
Sneaking shots is alcoholic behavior.
Give me a break. Do you know my grandfather? When I said sneaking shot, it wasn’t that he was hiding it from anyone. Don’t misinterpret what I say.
How do you feel if he wasn’t alcoholic so what? That’s not relevant here the relevance is how it affected his health. He was healthy till he was 99. As well as his marriage and family life. He was a barber till was 82.
Tired of you people turning everything into a pathology.
How do you feel if he wasn’t alcoholic so what? That’s not relevant here the relevance is how it affected his health. He was healthy till he was 99. As well as his marriage and family life. He was a barber till was 82.
Tired of you people turning everything into a pathology.
>When I said sneaking shot, it wasn’t that he was hiding it from anyone.
Sneak generally means do something stealthily. Pretty easy to misinterpret, hell I'm still not sure what you meant by "sneak" besides hiding it.
Sneak generally means do something stealthily. Pretty easy to misinterpret, hell I'm still not sure what you meant by "sneak" besides hiding it.
Or it's "keep the peace" behavior. A real alcoholic would have it in a water bottle.
(inb4 no true scotsman)
(inb4 no true scotsman)
what’s preferred a happy alcoholic or a sober know it all
Do you think he would have lived longer without Alcohol?
Doing dry jan this year helped to change my perspective on alcohol. My current outlook is that its fine outside the house as an enjoyable social thing, but drinking at home isn’t worth it. I’m sure that view will change over the years.
There are so many things in life which no level is safe, exhaust fumes, microplastic exposure, radiation, the passage of time, the key to all of course is moderation and time between exposures. except that last one
There are so many things in life which no level is safe, exhaust fumes, microplastic exposure, radiation, the passage of time, the key to all of course is moderation and time between exposures. except that last one
Now do cannabis, WHO.
https://www.who.int/teams/mental-health-and-substance-use/al...
https://www.who.int/teams/health-product-and-policy-standard...
https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/can...
https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/ecdd-41-cannabis-rec...
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/251056/9789...
https://www.who.int/teams/health-product-and-policy-standard...
https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/can...
https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/ecdd-41-cannabis-rec...
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/251056/9789...
Cool now do this with refined sugars or high carb diets in general.
It'll be the same discussion, addicts trying to rationalize away the science and statistics.
It'll be the same discussion, addicts trying to rationalize away the science and statistics.
> It'll be the same discussion, addicts trying to rationalize away the science and statistics.
Pretty shocking to see this much denialism going on in a forum that's often much more rational and objective.
Pretty shocking to see this much denialism going on in a forum that's often much more rational and objective.
Compartmentalization. Plenty of stimulant and H and other drug abusers in tech.
Sugar and alcohol are addictive and addictions are irrational and you can't use rational objective thought to get out of a situation that is inherently irrational and subjective, like addiction.
Essentially zero H users, for example, have never heard the news that H is bad for them. Can't just concentrate hard enough to get out of an addiction, they don't work that way. So it is with alcohol, sugar, carb binging in general, etc.
Sugar and alcohol are addictive and addictions are irrational and you can't use rational objective thought to get out of a situation that is inherently irrational and subjective, like addiction.
Essentially zero H users, for example, have never heard the news that H is bad for them. Can't just concentrate hard enough to get out of an addiction, they don't work that way. So it is with alcohol, sugar, carb binging in general, etc.
Carbs are great for you if you get the right carbs.
Cite needed LOL. They're great for weight gain, which is not much of a medical necessity in the current year although there are special situations (cancer patients, etc)
If you don't eat an essential nutrient (vitamins, minerals, etc) you'll eventually get sick and die. If you don't eat a very high carb diet you'll ... be healthier and have better blood test results? Nobody never died from having a single digit A1c blood test result or a blood glucose no longer going up to 250 anymore LOL.
If you don't eat an essential nutrient (vitamins, minerals, etc) you'll eventually get sick and die. If you don't eat a very high carb diet you'll ... be healthier and have better blood test results? Nobody never died from having a single digit A1c blood test result or a blood glucose no longer going up to 250 anymore LOL.
Looking at so-called blue zones, they eat a diet of legumes, whole grains, and plants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_zone
Do we have any evidence that low carb diets have a positive effect on longevity compared to these diets?
Compared to the Standard American Diet, low carb may be far better as it can eliminates refined carbs with no nutritional value, but the optimal diet may include a moderate amount of carbs from healthy whole food sources.
I’m actually following a low carb diet myself for almost 1 year and agree it has benefits, but think ultimately it’s place is as a stepping stone. I will probably begin to incorporate healthy whole foods as I am exercising more than I was when I started and it’s hard to get enough calories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_zone
Do we have any evidence that low carb diets have a positive effect on longevity compared to these diets?
Compared to the Standard American Diet, low carb may be far better as it can eliminates refined carbs with no nutritional value, but the optimal diet may include a moderate amount of carbs from healthy whole food sources.
I’m actually following a low carb diet myself for almost 1 year and agree it has benefits, but think ultimately it’s place is as a stepping stone. I will probably begin to incorporate healthy whole foods as I am exercising more than I was when I started and it’s hard to get enough calories.
Lol, this is just basic nutrition. You should read something that's not written by the bros.
And people wonder why young people get lost in hard drugs when all science has to bring to the table is this kind of puritanical view.
No frequency of driving to the store is safe, or jumping in the pool.
Don't drink much. Beyond that, so what?
Don't drink much. Beyond that, so what?
Alcohol is a hard drug.
I realized when I stopped drinking that I thought I needed it to take the edge off, to relax or to be more social. It was all lies. I turned to meditation for when I’m stressed, and the rest I can do it sober.
I’d say not drinking anymore is top 5 in my best life decisions, up there with my choice of career and partner.
I enjoy a cigar or pipe once in a while. I enjoy a few fingers of bourbon now and then. I've been known to put back a few bottles of Coors on the weekend.
Not once have I thought, "yup this'll make me healthier [physically]."
Not once have I thought, "yup this'll make me healthier [physically]."
You nailed it.
Nobody does everything they do because they think "this is good for my health".
We usually avoid stuff that is very bad for our health, but life is not just about going on for years avoiding any risk at all cost.
Unless you are American, you pretend to like the monk life and then eat garbage directly from the garbage can
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/opinion/food-nutrition-he...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/09/opinion/sway-kara-swisher...
Nobody does everything they do because they think "this is good for my health".
We usually avoid stuff that is very bad for our health, but life is not just about going on for years avoiding any risk at all cost.
Unless you are American, you pretend to like the monk life and then eat garbage directly from the garbage can
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/opinion/food-nutrition-he...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/09/opinion/sway-kara-swisher...
“life is not just about going on for years avoiding any risk at all cost.”
Very well said. Every choice we make has pros and cons. If someone wants to optimize for maximum longevity and avoid all risk factors, that’s a personal decision.
If you don’t want to follow that path, that’s fine too.
The equation is different for everyone. I have completely avoided alcohol for extended periods, and frankly, I just missed having a beer with a friend, so I decided to adjust my behavior.
Does that make me a bad person that’s going to die early?
If everything is a risk equation, we should be talking about our career choices (sitting at a desk), the risk of driving to the grocery store, living in cities is dangerous (pollution), etc.
I think it’s great for people to be informed, but the morality police squad is nauseating.
Very well said. Every choice we make has pros and cons. If someone wants to optimize for maximum longevity and avoid all risk factors, that’s a personal decision.
If you don’t want to follow that path, that’s fine too.
The equation is different for everyone. I have completely avoided alcohol for extended periods, and frankly, I just missed having a beer with a friend, so I decided to adjust my behavior.
Does that make me a bad person that’s going to die early?
If everything is a risk equation, we should be talking about our career choices (sitting at a desk), the risk of driving to the grocery store, living in cities is dangerous (pollution), etc.
I think it’s great for people to be informed, but the morality police squad is nauseating.
Societies that have banned alcohol, how do their longevity and other quality of life metrics and outcomes rank against ones where alcohol is available?
In my late adolescence, an old friend and I had a joke about "champagne socialists," where we decided instead we would be "single malt anarchists," and we would meet at a hotels rooftop bar to drink whiskey we could barely afford, in a place we were barely welcome, and argue about how to solve the worlds problems. Who knew that decades later enjoying a few drams and a cigar would become a revolutionary act?
If I could coin a term for all these bureaucratic false-concerns based on what they have in common (alcohol, meat, tobacco, cars, gas stoves, humor, firearms, nuclear families, heteronoramtivity, truth, etc.) it would be that they are all "anti-fraternal," and motivated by undermining the formation and relationships that historically present sources of resistance to political dominion. This advisory isn't about "health" or alcohol, it's a policy dogwhistle. Every single one of the people behind these pronouncements and organizations openly hates the idea of "bro's," or any group of men with a shared identity, and restricting access to alcohol is one of the key stages in consolidating a regime.
I keep a bottle of blantons in a box somewhere for just in case the world ends, or descends into apocalyptic bedlam as a result of yet another one of historys antagonists finding their way. It would be a shame to open that box.
In my late adolescence, an old friend and I had a joke about "champagne socialists," where we decided instead we would be "single malt anarchists," and we would meet at a hotels rooftop bar to drink whiskey we could barely afford, in a place we were barely welcome, and argue about how to solve the worlds problems. Who knew that decades later enjoying a few drams and a cigar would become a revolutionary act?
If I could coin a term for all these bureaucratic false-concerns based on what they have in common (alcohol, meat, tobacco, cars, gas stoves, humor, firearms, nuclear families, heteronoramtivity, truth, etc.) it would be that they are all "anti-fraternal," and motivated by undermining the formation and relationships that historically present sources of resistance to political dominion. This advisory isn't about "health" or alcohol, it's a policy dogwhistle. Every single one of the people behind these pronouncements and organizations openly hates the idea of "bro's," or any group of men with a shared identity, and restricting access to alcohol is one of the key stages in consolidating a regime.
I keep a bottle of blantons in a box somewhere for just in case the world ends, or descends into apocalyptic bedlam as a result of yet another one of historys antagonists finding their way. It would be a shame to open that box.
many here seem to get hung up about how even a tiny risk would technically justify the headline which therefore must be exaggerated when in fact it means first and foremost that alcohol consumption even in moderation is not good for you.
This reads like a press release without any substantial discussion or references. COVID has died down...is WHO looking for the next thing to keep itself on the radar?
All things in moderation, including moderation.
neopuritans be damned.
neopuritans be damned.
Except meth. Not even once.
But seriously, I’m fully on board with this sentiment. I’m so tired of everything quickly going to extremes. I’m glad to know alcohol has risks at any level. I’ll take that information and use it how I see fit. Same with cannabis, same with sugar, same with adult content, same with lead-containing enamel on my plates.
Give me the information I need and let me be responsible for myself. Awareness of risks is what we should be doing. Forcing people into padded rooms so they don’t hurt themselves is not.
But seriously, I’m fully on board with this sentiment. I’m so tired of everything quickly going to extremes. I’m glad to know alcohol has risks at any level. I’ll take that information and use it how I see fit. Same with cannabis, same with sugar, same with adult content, same with lead-containing enamel on my plates.
Give me the information I need and let me be responsible for myself. Awareness of risks is what we should be doing. Forcing people into padded rooms so they don’t hurt themselves is not.
> Except meth. Not even once.
Unless you happen to be a hungarian mathematician, in which case: have at!
Unless you happen to be a hungarian mathematician, in which case: have at!
Beverages which taste exactly the same but has no harmful alcohol or toxic side effects, would people still want the toxic version?
i've drunk a fair amount of zero-alcohol beer, and the answer to your question is "yes", for reasons of flavour (alcohol changes this) and effect
("beer. it makes you drunk" - advertising slogan thought up by kingsley amis, i believe)
Non-alcoholic beer exists, is sold at bars, and is niche-popular. Obviously, most people go for the alcohol version.
It doesn't taste exactly the same though - but similar.
It doesn't taste exactly the same though - but similar.
at least for me, depends. i don't like the way alcohol-free beer tastes -- it's just not the same.
sometimes i drink a nice whiskey because i love the taste (specially when paired with a nice cigar), but sometimes i drink to get tipsy because... well, it's fun for me.
it's like the difference between normal cake and cake infused with thc: i will eat cake for dessert, but sometimes, ingesting infused cake is more fun.
sometimes i drink a nice whiskey because i love the taste (specially when paired with a nice cigar), but sometimes i drink to get tipsy because... well, it's fun for me.
it's like the difference between normal cake and cake infused with thc: i will eat cake for dessert, but sometimes, ingesting infused cake is more fun.
There are plenty of such 0% and drinks and they aren’t nearly as popular. People are after the effects, the taste is secondary.
[deleted]
Alcohol obviously causes more harm to society than guns and compared to guns has fewer beneficial uses.
After reading through comments, I'm just glad that Gen Z drinks less than Gen Y (that drinks less than Gen X (that drinks less than a subsequent gen, boomers probably)), because
* I should not have to explain why I don't drink, simple 'no' suffices
* I should not have to listen, that alcohol is not too bad/is completely harmless/is fine in moderation/is actually required in social life
And the best thing - they do it completely voluntary (or maybe because it's crazy expensive, but the outcome is still good, so...)
As for the local denialists: we live in poluted cities walking around polution generating machines just meters apart from them. Yes, it is unhealthy, but it is our choice to live like that, because EVs aren't that prevalent yet and living in the woods in a hut would not be enough for most
Go, smoke cigarettes, drink wine and hit a pot once in a while if you need it. It's your life. 0 alcohol intake is a recomendation, not a requirement. It is harmful, people should consider for themselves if they need it as copium or for the taste or for whatever else reason
It shouldn't be argued "but how much is bad-bad compared to just sligtly bad, where's my curve?". Make the curve for yourself, consider your situation and your needs
* I should not have to explain why I don't drink, simple 'no' suffices
* I should not have to listen, that alcohol is not too bad/is completely harmless/is fine in moderation/is actually required in social life
And the best thing - they do it completely voluntary (or maybe because it's crazy expensive, but the outcome is still good, so...)
As for the local denialists: we live in poluted cities walking around polution generating machines just meters apart from them. Yes, it is unhealthy, but it is our choice to live like that, because EVs aren't that prevalent yet and living in the woods in a hut would not be enough for most
Go, smoke cigarettes, drink wine and hit a pot once in a while if you need it. It's your life. 0 alcohol intake is a recomendation, not a requirement. It is harmful, people should consider for themselves if they need it as copium or for the taste or for whatever else reason
It shouldn't be argued "but how much is bad-bad compared to just sligtly bad, where's my curve?". Make the curve for yourself, consider your situation and your needs
Why does it always have to be a generation clash?
Besides, nobody outside the Us thinks this way. You are being pushed one against each other.
Besides, nobody outside the Us thinks this way. You are being pushed one against each other.
The first thought I have reading this headline is:
"No level of driving is safe for our health"
"No level of driving is safe for our health"
It’s good we’re clear on this, let’s not attempt prohibition again please.
already had this, a couple of hours ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34751649
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34751649
Yup. All those sick quitters severely fucked up the studies.
Where could I find a good nutrition plan for good health?
Life is 100% fatal.
Sipping my glass of Barolo, living dangerously!
Scientists: Living is harmful.
No level of precaution can make crossing a street safe.
i drink a bottle of wine every night with dinner. i dont think it's healthy, i do it because it tastes delicious and enhances the experience.
[deleted]
Not even a homeopathic quantity?
danrl(1)
[deleted]
But as I understand it we do have a notion of "safe" dosages of radiation.
Isn't this statement then like saying "no level of exposure to radiation is safe for our health?" Maybe I'm wrong but I would think that the risk of cancer from radiation increases smoothly as the dosage increases such that "there is no threshold at which the carcinogenic effects 'switch on'". Thus, by extension, nobody should ever fly on an airplane because the increased radiation exposure is inherently unsafe.
The thing is, we draw these threshold lines on smooth continua all the time. Nothing special happens to you at midnight on your eighteenth or twenty-first birthday. You are not meaningfully more intoxicated at 0.07 BAC than at 0.08.
To the extent that we expect agencies like the WHO to help us make informed, practical decisions regarding this sort of absolutist statement seems like an abdication of that responsibility. It equates all drinking of any amount into a single class with no gradations, which is clearly false. Drinking a lot has a lot more risk than drinking a little. And drinking a little may add only a little risk to a life that's full of other risk.