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

Less than half of Americans know that alcohol is a carcinogen

thecounter.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 188 posts

Re: Less than half of Americans know that alcohol is a carcinogen

#81

Post by dekhn »

Ovah wrote: post #62
idoh wrote: post #12

This is a frustrating article, because it does not say how dangerous alcohol is. Maybe alcohol raises the risk of certain types of cancers, but only by a very tiny amount. Relative to other risks, even other risks from alcohol, do we really need to care about that?

Here are some actual numbers for risk increase. Heavy drinkers have a 5-fold increased risk of getting head and neck cancer, esofageal cancer, and 2-fold increase for liver cancer. The source also reviews colorectal, breast and head+neck cancer. My opinion as a medical professional is that these are significant, and not "very tiny amounts", of increased risk. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk…

those are relative risks, you need to state them in absolute risk if you want people to be able to understand and make decisions. If the absolute baseline risk of getting head and neck cancer is very low, then having a 5x risk over that isn't really important- it's still absolutely small enough to say "don't care, compared to other risks".

And in alcohol, there's a long list of risks that will cause the majority of deaths compared to cancer.

Re: Less than half of Americans know that alcohol is a carcinogen

#82

Post by acjohnson55 »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #34

It's worth noting, but effect size is also an important bit. The Wikipedia page links to a study suggesting that around 4% of cancers are attributable to alcohol consumption [1]. In some sense, that's a lot, but in another sense, it isn't really? It's also not clear to me how much of that burden is borne by heavy drinkers vs. moderate drinkers. The studies I saw seemed to suggest a very clear causal association betwe…

It what sense is 4% of all cancer cases not a lot?

Re: Less than half of Americans know that alcohol is a carcinogen

#83

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

Ovah wrote: post #62
idoh wrote: post #12

This is a frustrating article, because it does not say how dangerous alcohol is. Maybe alcohol raises the risk of certain types of cancers, but only by a very tiny amount. Relative to other risks, even other risks from alcohol, do we really need to care about that?

Here are some actual numbers for risk increase. Heavy drinkers have a 5-fold increased risk of getting head and neck cancer, esofageal cancer, and 2-fold increase for liver cancer. The source also reviews colorectal, breast and head+neck cancer. My opinion as a medical professional is that these are significant, and not "very tiny amounts", of increased risk. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk…

Of course, it matters what the baseline frequencies of these cancers are. If these represent .1% of all cancers, even a tenfold relative risk only increases your absolute risk by 1%. That would be "significant" under some definition of the word significant. But it might not be decisive for someone considering whether they should drink.

On the other hand, if the baseline rate of those cancers is 8%, it would likely be enough to convince everyone to stop drinking.

Re: Less than half of Americans know that alcohol is a carcinogen

#84

Post by themodelplumber »

SoSoRoCoCo wrote: post #49
csours wrote: post #17

I bought a large mixing bowl, and it had a California Cancer label on the bottom. It's a regular metal bowl. If you put cancer labels on everything, people will quickly ignore them. Maybe it would be better if there was a scale on it, like this is a 1 banana equivalent risk or something, but then how do you determine my exposure to the cancer in the metal bowl.

I'll take a stab at the research if you link the bowl? I'm curious now. I appreciate California's proactive stance, and I guess I fall into the minority because I do pay attention to those labels.

I agree, and I'd rather know than not know. Especially with things like off-gassing formaldehyde in furniture. It's easy to look around and find something without formaldehyde in it.

So I'm curious what was in the bowl. Is it possible that it had a coating of some sort? The CA website doesn't list kitchen products as a category...

https://www.p65warnings.ca.gov/

Re: Less than half of Americans know that alcohol is a carcinogen

#85

Post by snazz »

nikolay wrote: post #78
rriepe wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true for its well-known other health risks. Cancer risk doesn't care if you spread your seven drinks out over a week or over a night. Moderation might even be a riskier strategy from a cancer risk standpoint, if the imbibed amounts are otherwise the same.

Actually it does care about spreading over time. That's why plant toxins are good in small amounts and bad in large at once. It's always about weighing benefits and negative effects, not looking at things one-sidedly! I would never have vodka, cocktails, and other pure poison products, but I will have a glass of good red wine or a bottle of real beer! Pure ethanol is bad! Ethanol is metabolised as fructose! Sugary al…

We're talking about cancer risk here, not toxicity or effects on blood sugar. As far as I understand (as someone with no medical background), exposure is exposure. I'd love to be proven wrong if someone has some information to the contrary.

Re: Less than half of Americans know that alcohol is a carcinogen

#86

Post by Miraste »

SoSoRoCoCo wrote: post #49
csours wrote: post #17

I bought a large mixing bowl, and it had a California Cancer label on the bottom. It's a regular metal bowl. If you put cancer labels on everything, people will quickly ignore them. Maybe it would be better if there was a scale on it, like this is a 1 banana equivalent risk or something, but then how do you determine my exposure to the cancer in the metal bowl.

I'll take a stab at the research if you link the bowl? I'm curious now. I appreciate California's proactive stance, and I guess I fall into the minority because I do pay attention to those labels.

Do you take action based on the labels? I've thought about it, but half the things I own have them, and in some cases it's illegal to make non-california-cancerous alternatives (fire-retardant furniture).

Re: Less than half of Americans know that alcohol is a carcinogen

#87

Post by eganist »

Ovah wrote: post #62
idoh wrote: post #12

This is a frustrating article, because it does not say how dangerous alcohol is. Maybe alcohol raises the risk of certain types of cancers, but only by a very tiny amount. Relative to other risks, even other risks from alcohol, do we really need to care about that?

Here are some actual numbers for risk increase. Heavy drinkers have a 5-fold increased risk of getting head and neck cancer, esofageal cancer, and 2-fold increase for liver cancer. The source also reviews colorectal, breast and head+neck cancer. My opinion as a medical professional is that these are significant, and not "very tiny amounts", of increased risk. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk…

You're going to run into walls of denial with people refuting what they're hearing because the lifestyle change is hard or, worse, because they're coping with addiction and don't see a way out.

Re: Less than half of Americans know that alcohol is a carcinogen

#88

Post by easton »

throwaway09223 wrote: post #76
35fbe7d3d5b9 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was curious, so I googled: https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/general-info/proposition... > By law, a warning must be given for listed chemicals unless exposure is low enough to pose no significant risk of cancer > the "no significant risk level” is defined as the level of exposure that would result in not more than one excess case of cancer in 100,000 individuals exposed to the chemical over a 70-year lifetime Th…

Yes, prop 65 is absurd. Pro 65 among other things requires labels on: * Parking garages * French fries - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mcdonalds-acrylamide-warni... (This sign is real; the McDonald's by my house has one) * Toast * Seaweed * Coffee has been a battleground: https://www.consumerproductslawblog.com/2019/06/what-now-cal... * Sand You would be hard pressed to find something that prop 65 does not requir…

The most comical one of these I know of is Disneyland’s, which I can only assume to be warning about cancerous IP law ;)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Disneyla...

Re: Less than half of Americans know that alcohol is a carcinogen

#89

Post by mssundaram »

nikolay wrote: post #78
rriepe wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true for its well-known other health risks. Cancer risk doesn't care if you spread your seven drinks out over a week or over a night. Moderation might even be a riskier strategy from a cancer risk standpoint, if the imbibed amounts are otherwise the same.

Actually it does care about spreading over time. That's why plant toxins are good in small amounts and bad in large at once. It's always about weighing benefits and negative effects, not looking at things one-sidedly! I would never have vodka, cocktails, and other pure poison products, but I will have a glass of good red wine or a bottle of real beer! Pure ethanol is bad! Ethanol is metabolised as fructose! Sugary al…

I have this perspective too in large part due to the book "The Art of Fermentation" by Sandor Katz and the other resources/books that that book cites.
Post reply on HN