Live data from Hacker News

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

livescience.com

71–80 of 101 posts

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

#71
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…

Barring some philosophy - life isn't optional, what you consume is.

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

#72
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No. Because it doesn't change the fact you're hurtling along faster than nature could ever have prepared you for. Even worse, you're putting your faith in getting to where you want safely into some bored programmer's hands.

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

#73
The 'findings' of this study are so convoluted it's obvious they have an agenda. Yes, alcohol can cause dangerous behaviour and social problems. This doesn't mean there isn't a safe level of consumption, safe meaning such that the alcoholic drink itself doesn't harm your body. Also funny that they mention alcohol can decrease the occurrence of certain heart diseases (one of the largest killers) but that doesn't mean it's safe because it increases the rate of certain cancers (which kill less people than heart disease) so the conclusion is that it's not safe.

Personally, I'll go with the fact that alcohol has been consumed for all of human history, the fact that many alcohol consuming cultures have longer life expectancy than some abstinent cultures (not proof in itself, but a 'good enough' observation for my own personal peace of mind), and the fact that I'd rather eat and drink well than gain what, an extra year or two of life? I'm healthy, not overweight, active, most of my ancestors in recent history lived to 90+ years old with sub-par diets and drinking habits, I'm not convinced ultra-healthy eating and abstinence is going to be worth the boredom.

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

#74
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…

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.

> I read (here) that 10% of liquor stores' customers are half the volume.

Restaurants buy from liquor stores...

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

#75
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…

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.

>So the lesson probably applies mostly to those 10% who think "one drink a day" is a reasonable thing

That 10% are drinking hugely more than one drink a day.

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

#76
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…

Driving to the doctor or hospital, when you need treatment, might on balance be "safe". (You're better off doing so, than not, epidemiologically.)

Perhaps all alcohol consumption is a burden on the body. But having a social life is a positive -- we keep seeing more reporting on the benefits of the latter.

So, where's the balance?

At the same time, I've seen a lot of pretty obviously unbalanced engagement with alcohol. And, it's remained largely segregated from many other drugs -- yes, calling it a drug -- in public perception and policy.

Maybe that will change, for the better.

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

#77

> The three leading causes of attributable deaths in this age group were tuberculosis (1·4% [95% UI 1·0–1·7] of total deaths), road injuries (1·2% [0·7–1·9]), and self-harm (1·1% [0·6–1·5]). TBC is still an infectious disease and road injuries are preventable by simply not driving after having had a drink and self-harm is rather unlikely after a bottle of beer. > and the level of consumption that minimises health los…

> Seems to me that it is okay to have a drink a day

What's one drink?

One 125 ml glass of wine at 8% ABV would be 1 UK unit.

One 175 ml glass of wine at 12% ABV would be 2 UK units, nearly double the alcohol. One of those a day and you're drinking at the UK safe limit levels of 14 units a week.

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

#78
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's at one 'alcohol unit', defined as 10g of pure ethanol. For comparison a standard 355ml can of 4.2% ABV beer (e.g. Bud Light) contains just under 12g of pure ethanol. A 5% ABV can would be closer to 15g. So the unit of measure they're using is bit smaller than what most people think of as 'one drink'.

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

#79
post #19
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GP clearly notes they are an alcoholic, so I wouldn't say the responder is conflating anything.

So what's an alcoholic? Seems to me that almost all drinkers are, seeing as how most of them find it nicer to keep drinking.

Harmful drinking covers a wide range of behaviors and levels of drinking.

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg115

Someone can be doing harm to themself well before they reach dependent-drinking levels.

> Harmful drinking is defined as a pattern of alcohol consumption causing health problems directly related to alcohol. This could include psychological problems such as depression, alcohol-related accidents or physical illness such as acute pancreatitis. In the longer term, harmful drinkers may go on to develop high blood pressure, cirrhosis, heart disease and some types of cancer, such as mouth, liver, bowel or breast cancer.

Alcohol-dependency is marked by

> craving, tolerance, a preoccupation with alcohol and continued drinking in spite of harmful consequences (for example, liver disease or depression caused by drinking). Alcohol dependence is also associated with increased criminal activity and domestic violence, and an increased rate of significant mental and physical disorders. Although alcohol dependence is defined in ICD-10 and DSM-IV in categorical terms for diagnostic and statistical purposes as being either present or absent, in reality dependence exists on a continuum of severity. However, it is helpful from a clinical perspective to subdivide dependence into categories of mild, moderate and severe. People with mild dependence (those scoring 15 or less on the Severity of Alcohol Dependence Questionnaire; SADQ) usually do not need assisted alcohol withdrawal. People with moderate dependence (with a SADQ score of between 15 and 30) usually need assisted alcohol withdrawal, which can typically be managed in a community setting unless there are other risks. People who are severely alcohol dependent (with a SADQ score of more than 30) will need assisted alcohol withdrawal, typically in an inpatient or residential setting. In this guideline these definitions of severity are used to guide selection of appropriate interventions.

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

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There's a big difference between having a beer after a hard day at work and actual alcohol dependency. One is harmless (and possible harm-reducing), the other destroys lives and relationships. We need to be able to differentiate between the two without conflating them.

A beer a day is definitely not harm-reducing. One beer a day could be one 330 ml bottle of beer at 5%. That's 11 uk units a week, which is at the upper end of the maximum recommended level.
Post reply on HN