Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Major Industry-Funded Alcohol Study Was Compromised

undark.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–116 of 116 posts

Re: A Major Industry-Funded Alcohol Study Was Compromised

#111

Post by vfc1 »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #109
vfc1 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There doesn't seem to be a safe lower limit for alcohol, its a well-known very potent carcinogen. Its not obsessive at all to completely avoid such a cancer inducing substance, especially if there is a family history of problems linked to it.

"Very potent carcinogen" is scaremongering and alarmist. Don't drink if you don't want to, but tone down the retoric a bit. Generations upon generations of Germans have enjoyed beer in moderation, and they don't seem to have higher cancer rates than other western countries.

Its not a retoric, its according to the latest science. There is this social perception that drinking in moderation is ok for human health and even beneficial, when in reality alchool is a toxic substance with no known safe usage limit.

Cancer in western countries are in general the highest compared to other cultures, so having an average rate among the highest in the world is not saying much.

Re: A Major Industry-Funded Alcohol Study Was Compromised

#112

Post by KozmoNau7 »

vfc1 wrote: post #111
KozmoNau7 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Very potent carcinogen" is scaremongering and alarmist. Don't drink if you don't want to, but tone down the retoric a bit. Generations upon generations of Germans have enjoyed beer in moderation, and they don't seem to have higher cancer rates than other western countries.

Its not a retoric, its according to the latest science. There is this social perception that drinking in moderation is ok for human health and even beneficial, when in reality alchool is a toxic substance with no known safe usage limit. Cancer in western countries are in general the highest compared to other cultures, so having an average rate among the highest in the world is not saying much.

No. Alcohol is a "known carcinogen", and there seems to be no minimum dose below which it does not affect cancer risk.

That says nothing about the potency. Just like nitrates and cured meat products in general. We know that they do affect the risk of contracting cancer, but the potency is quite low, compared to something like tobacco smoke or radiation exposure.

A lot of the things people consume everyday are "toxic substances", depending on the dose. Almonds can kill you, so can apple cores.

Is alcohol to blame for higher rates of cancer in western countries? Probably not, as people in other parts of the world also consume a lot of alcohol, it's a human constant and not unique to the western world.

Moderate and responsible consumption of alcohol has extremely minor effects on physical health, but the social and relaxation benefits are immense. If having a cold beer after work helps you to de-stress and relax more for the rest of the day, that's a net positive. I would posit that stress is a lot more dangerous than occasional consumption of alcohol. I am absolutely not defending binge drinking and abuse.

There is a lot of modern-day puritanism and outright shaming going on lately, of everything that is deemed to be "unclean" or "unhealthy". It's not a good state of mind to be so judgmental of other people.

Re: A Major Industry-Funded Alcohol Study Was Compromised

#113

Post by vfc1 »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #112
vfc1 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not a retoric, its according to the latest science. There is this social perception that drinking in moderation is ok for human health and even beneficial, when in reality alchool is a toxic substance with no known safe usage limit. Cancer in western countries are in general the highest compared to other cultures, so having an average rate among the highest in the world is not saying much.

No. Alcohol is a "known carcinogen", and there seems to be no minimum dose below which it does not affect cancer risk. That says nothing about the potency. Just like nitrates and cured meat products in general. We know that they do affect the risk of contracting cancer, but the potency is quite low, compared to something like tobacco smoke or radiation exposure. A lot of the things people consume everyday are "toxic…

In the end people can do wathever they want, its their live after all.

There are other ways to reduce stress, like finding remote work or changing jobs.

The problem is that one beer quickly becomes two, 3 and 4 and there are a lot of people that just cant control it, its almost never just one beer.

I wish alchool would become like cigarretes: at least everyone knows it causes cancer, some people still use it and thats up to them.

But with alchool we are not there yet, a lot of people still dont know it causes cancer and there is no safe usage limit, they even think that it has some beneficial health properties, everything in moderation.

I wish it would be so socially acceptable not to drink, as it is to drink. In a lot of places, you are actually socially expected to consume alcohol, still today, which is insane given what we know about the link between alchool and cancer.

Re: A Major Industry-Funded Alcohol Study Was Compromised

#114

Post by KozmoNau7 »

vfc1 wrote: post #113
KozmoNau7 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Alcohol is a "known carcinogen", and there seems to be no minimum dose below which it does not affect cancer risk. That says nothing about the potency. Just like nitrates and cured meat products in general. We know that they do affect the risk of contracting cancer, but the potency is quite low, compared to something like tobacco smoke or radiation exposure. A lot of the things people consume everyday are "toxic…

In the end people can do wathever they want, its their live after all. There are other ways to reduce stress, like finding remote work or changing jobs. The problem is that one beer quickly becomes two, 3 and 4 and there are a lot of people that just cant control it, its almost never just one beer. I wish alchool would become like cigarretes: at least everyone knows it causes cancer, some people still use it and that…

Don't blame poor self control on the drink/cigarette/junk food, it's a personal choice to indulge. Obviously if you can't control it, stay away. But please don't start any legal changes or persecution that affects the large majority that have absolutely no issues managing their intake.

If you find that the company you keep consider it unacceptable to not drink alcohol, you really should find other people to hang out with. Seriously, they're a bad influence.

I'm glad that everyone I hang out with don't give a shit if you drink alcoholic or non-alcoholic beverages, as long as you're a nice person to hang out with. If there are people whose company you can only stand when one or both of you are drunk, something's seriously wrong.

Re: A Major Industry-Funded Alcohol Study Was Compromised

#115

Post by AtlasBarfed »

Could blockchains help detailed tracking in studies somehow? Maybe tie RFID in the products into a blockchain tracker. The blockchain could anonymize the data, but provide quantitative tracking.

I'd also wish for some way to provide funding to studies but obscure the direct pay. So they pay into a funding that gets anonymously distributed to coinholders.

Eh, these are all pretty far fetched.

Re: A Major Industry-Funded Alcohol Study Was Compromised

#116

Post by Trump2020MAGA »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #108
Trump2020MAGA wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, thanks for sharing. Why was my comment downvoted to hell and flagged?

Probably having a brand new account with that username, honestly.

What's wrong with my username?
Post reply on HN