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

There's No 'Safe' Level of Alcohol Consumption, Global Study Finds

livescience.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 101 posts

Re: There's No 'Safe' Level of Alcohol Consumption, Global Study Finds

#61

Post by Omnius »

dspillett wrote: post #53
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fatuous remark by that professor. Drinking doesn't get you to work etc. Its entirely dispensable. I read (here) that 10% of liquor stores' customers are half the volume. So the lesson probably applies mostly to those 10% who think "one drink a day" is a reasonable thing. The other 90% are risking very little, especially if they do their drinking at home.

As he said "given the pleasure presumably associated with moderate drinking" he isn't talking about practical needs such as getting to work. Some people drive for pleasure rather than (or, far more commonly, as well as) to serve practical needs. The same could be said for any leisure activity: I run, study & practise medieval swordsmanship and other history martial arts (and more modern sports wrestling). Other peopl…

LOL hand-egg did you make that up on the spot or is this honestly what american football is called outside the US?

Re: There's No 'Safe' Level of Alcohol Consumption, Global Study Finds

#62

Post by tonyarkles »

Omnius wrote: post #61
dspillett wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As he said "given the pleasure presumably associated with moderate drinking" he isn't talking about practical needs such as getting to work. Some people drive for pleasure rather than (or, far more commonly, as well as) to serve practical needs. The same could be said for any leisure activity: I run, study & practise medieval swordsmanship and other history martial arts (and more modern sports wrestling). Other peopl…

LOL hand-egg did you make that up on the spot or is this honestly what american football is called outside the US?

Heh, I'd never heard the phrase but apparently it goes back a long time: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/handegg

Re: There's No 'Safe' Level of Alcohol Consumption, Global Study Finds

#63

Post by lainga »

robbick wrote: post #3

A brilliant excerpt from the end of the bbc article[0]: Yet Prof David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor for the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, sounded a note of caution about the findings. "Given the pleasure presumably associated with moderate drinking, claiming there is no 'safe' level does not seem an argument for abstention," he said. "There is no safe level of driving, but the govern…

"[It] doesn't mean, if you drink on birthdays and Christmas, you're going to die."

Although that statement is true, until we find the Philosopher's Stone. If you do anything, you're going to die... eventually.

Re: There's No 'Safe' Level of Alcohol Consumption, Global Study Finds

#64

Post by charlesdm »

throwaway917100 wrote: post #43
nightski wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many drive because it's required to get to their job and survive economically. I'm not sure the same case could be made for alcohol.

Many drink because just surviving is not enough to live a fulfilling life.

You're probably not wrong on that

Re: There's No 'Safe' Level of Alcohol Consumption, Global Study Finds

#65

Post by gnulinux »

mattnewport wrote: post #40
marak830 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Come to think of it, there is no safe level of living, but nobody would recommend abstention." I think I have found my new motto :-)

It's a vaguely amusing line but it doesn't actually make any sense in context.

It's a spiritual generalization of the statement "There is no safe level of driving, but the government does not recommend that people avoid driving." and thus it seems relevant to the context (and does make sense), not as a rational argument, but as a figure of speech to emphasize author's opinion about the subject.

Re: There's No 'Safe' Level of Alcohol Consumption, Global Study Finds

#66

Post by charlesdm »

eastern wrote: post #49
johnmoberg wrote: post #2

I think it's clear that alcohol consumption is a burden on society, but I think the headline exaggerates matters a bit. The relative risk is only 0.5% greater at one standard drink per day, relative to no alcohol consumption (see figure 5 in the paper.)

The press release says this: comparing no drinks with one drink a day the risk of developing one of the 23 alcohol-related health problems was 0.5% higher — meaning 914 in 100,000 15–95 year olds would develop a condition in one year if they did not drink, but 918 people in 100,000 who drank one alcoholic drink a day would develop an alcohol-related health problem in a year. There's a good analysis at https://medium.…

One drink -- is that one glass of wine? Or is that one alcohol unit?

One glass of wine a day might seem fine to some, and outrageous to others.

With the amount of literature being written about how many units a week is still considered "ok", I wouldn't mind getting a clearer understand of how much is too much.

Re: There's No 'Safe' Level of Alcohol Consumption, Global Study Finds

#67

Post by gnulinux »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #47
toomuchtodo wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spend time with your friends drinking a soda while they use your vouchers. Everyone wins.

Have you ever actually done that? Its pretty grim. They get more silly and stupid and you don't, and you're looking at the clock and wishing you were someplace else.

No I never felt that, I LOVE talking to tipsy people, it's usually very fun. It's hard dealing with people drunk-to-the-point-of-black-out because they're unpredictable, rude and too silly to follow a nice conversation. Tipsy people are nowhere near intoxicated enough not to be able to follow a nice conversation, but are intoxicated enough that it adds a bit of spice to the conversation, imho.

Re: There's No 'Safe' Level of Alcohol Consumption, Global Study Finds

#68

Post by mattnewport »

gnulinux wrote: post #65
mattnewport wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a vaguely amusing line but it doesn't actually make any sense in context.

It's a spiritual generalization of the statement "There is no safe level of driving, but the government does not recommend that people avoid driving." and thus it seems relevant to the context (and does make sense), not as a rational argument, but as a figure of speech to emphasize author's opinion about the subject.

I disagree. It's equivalent to suggesting in a discussion about optimal poker strategies that you shouldn't play poker. In the context of the conversation it's already given that you've decided to play and you want to figure out how to win. Whether discussing driving or drinking it's assumed that you want to live and do so in the way that most optimally achieves your goals. Not playing the game isn't part of the discussion.

Re: There's No 'Safe' Level of Alcohol Consumption, Global Study Finds

#69

Post by sorokod »

gnulinux wrote: post #65
mattnewport wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a vaguely amusing line but it doesn't actually make any sense in context.

It's a spiritual generalization of the statement "There is no safe level of driving, but the government does not recommend that people avoid driving." and thus it seems relevant to the context (and does make sense), not as a rational argument, but as a figure of speech to emphasize author's opinion about the subject.

Isnt There is no safe level of driving one of the main motivations for self driving cars?

Re: There's No 'Safe' Level of Alcohol Consumption, Global Study Finds

#70

Post by frank_s »

thatsamonad wrote: post #13
frank_s wrote: post #7

One of the good points about alcohol (there aren't many): It is a strong anxiolytic and is readily available 'over the counter' which means people can self-medicate themselves in times of crisis. How many lives has that saved? Most medical studies tell you significantly more about the prejudices of the authors and/or who paid for the study. This one seems no different in that regard. I have an interest in the matter…

> people can self-medicate themselves in times of crisis. I cringe reading that as a child of parents who spent their lives self-medicating through drugs and alcohol rather than seeking outside help... > How many lives has that saved? I don’t know how many it’s saved, but I can tell you that it’s severely damaged and nearly ruined the lives of at least a handful of innocent bystanders.

>I cringe reading that as a child of parents who spent their lives self-medicating through drugs and alcohol rather than seeking outside help...

I declared myself as an alcoholic in an effort to get outside help. It was a big mistake. I went from being the equivalent of a Jew in a ghetto to a Jew in a ghetto who had ever so helpfully just pinned a gold star on their chest in order to identify themselves more clearly to their persecutors.

One of the problems your parents had, is that in you they had a child who clearly chose to 'admonish' and just feel self-pity.

I don't blame you. My sister hated our alcoholic father and she still hates alcoholics. She's a Nurse Practitioner BTW.

If you cared about your parents, you would have looked into the why's and wherefore's of drug addiction and if you cared about anybody else you would have moved heaven and earth to make sure nobody else should have to go through what you did as a child.

To just say: Drugs are bad, mmmkay?

That's a stuck record and about as bad as it gets and just ensures drug abuse persists and the broken lives with it.

Which is basically what you and this study are promulgating.

If you recognise you are an alcoholic you ultimately have 3 choices:

1) Carry on as you are with the inevitable consequences of a slow unpleasant & painful death but also significant damage to those who love you: family & friends.

2) Own up to your addiction. See comments above. BTW, the medical profession will like you no more than the rest of society ie. Not at all. If you recover, it's going to be largely due to your own efforts & if you're lucky enough, supportive loved one(s).

3) Suicide. ASAP.

I think that's known as a classic Hobson's choice.

Post reply on HN