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

141–150 of 188 posts

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

#141

Post by pwinnski »

shrimp_emoji wrote: post #39
recursive wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I very well might. I honestly had no idea there was anything unhealthy about moderate drinking. Every so often we even see dubious headlines about "daily red wine has health benefits". I'm not aware of specific, nor do I particularly believe it's good for you, but I really had no idea that it's unhealthy.

You had no idea there was anything unhealthy about consuming a neurotoxin until you heard "cancer"? : p

Many societies and sub-societies practice daily light consumption of alcohol, although less so with better water quality.

Frequent "popular health" headlines claim that "a daily glass of wine" or "2-3 drinks per week" has some benefits for heart health of whatever[0]. It is perfectly reasonable for people to believe that light consumption of alcohol, like a glass of wine every other day, could actually be good for them.

It is false, but it is not a ridiculous belief. I'd guess that more than half of all Americans believe it.

0. https://healthyeating.sfgate.com/list-hearthealthy-wines-100... "While excessive alcohol consumption can have adverse effects on your health, moderate consumption of wine is linked to a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease."

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/benefits-of-wine "Emerging research continues to suggest that drinking wine in moderation — about a glass per day — offers several benefits."

http://www.namhpac.org/5-healthiest-red-wine-choices-good-fo... "We’ve all heard that red wine has a health benefit or two to offer..."

https://www.health.com/nutrition/healthiest-wine "If you like wine, you've probably raised a glass (or two) to the reports that drinking it is good for you."

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

#142

Post by csours »

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 bought it in person at a Korean grocery. It doesn't have any manufacturer label.

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

#143

Post by 93po »

nubbins wrote: post #114
echelon wrote: post #63

Rule of thumb : if your food, beverage, dye, or aromatic scent readily undergoes chemical reactions, it might not be safe. Alcohol is quite chemically reactive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol#Reactions Burnt or charred food has loads of polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) that have lots of potential for chemistry (delocalized electrons = very reactive). They pose extreme cancer risk, and might be one of the most i…

I think people know that a piece of meat on a grill that is totally burnt black is not healthy. And likewise I'd throw away or at least scrape off burnt toast. Browning on foods is a huge source of flavor though (Maillard reaction I think), is this also a concern? It seems like an occasional steak with thin grill marks could be worth it, but I have no idea where to draw the line on this, compared to something like al…

I consider myself well informed and I had no idea burnt food was unhealthy. I would just figured it was carbon, and I don't have any reason to believe carbon would hurt me.

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

#144

Post by powersnail »

echelon wrote: post #63

Rule of thumb : if your food, beverage, dye, or aromatic scent readily undergoes chemical reactions, it might not be safe. Alcohol is quite chemically reactive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol#Reactions Burnt or charred food has loads of polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) that have lots of potential for chemistry (delocalized electrons = very reactive). They pose extreme cancer risk, and might be one of the most i…

> if your food, beverage, dye, or aromatic scent readily undergoes chemical reactions

That would also include anything acidic and basic, so essentially, any vinegar, baking soda, fruits, ...... Among proteins, there are enzymes that catalyze chemical reactions.

On alcohol and char, I agree. But, the general statement is too broad to be true or useful.

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

#145

Post by dylan604 »

CadellFastro wrote: post #2

What percentage of Americans even know that alcohol is a drug? As a Wisconsin native, I've seen first hand the toxic culture surrounding drinking in America, including having a relative die of alcoholism. Still, we don't seem to look at it like other drugs, even though it ruins lives just as effectively as something like heroin.

Curious abut the Wisconsin specificness you added. Does WI have a larger percentage of alcoholics than other places?

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

#146

Post by mixmastamyk »

npsimons wrote: post #58
mehrzad wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It always seemed to me that the claimed benefits of wine also exist in grape juice.

Better still, grapes. Juicing removes fiber.

From the opposite angle, too much sugar.

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

#147

Post by aimor »

My experience is that I have to proactively educate myself as best I can about the physical risks of daily living. This includes a staggering amount of items: food, clothes, containers, cookware, makeup, cleaning supplies, paint, home goods, medicine, electronics. It's an impossible task, but I see a lot of people doing the same: building a personalized set of things to watch out for. (Buy organic, wash produce/grains/beans, avoid anything scented, avoid homeopathic, avoid styrofoam, avoid hydrogenated oil, avoid Teflon/PTFEs, avoid perc, avoid food dyes, avoid plastic fabrics, on and on)

Government has a role in making this information accessible at the time of purchase or use. I can read the food ingredients, the fabric material, the cancer warning, the VOC rating. And I can make a simple decision about what to buy if I so desire.

But there are untold cases where the information is not easily accessible, where it's difficult to identify a trustworthy source, and where we are advertised products that actively hide their harm.

I would like to have more confidence that I'm buying safe products. I don't know what the solution is, so I just keep adding to my list.

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

#148

Post by SoSoRoCoCo »

csours wrote: post #142
SoSoRoCoCo wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bought it in person at a Korean grocery. It doesn't have any manufacturer label.

Oh, that explains it. I'd steer clear of that. I have two very large Asian grocery stores in my city and there ain't no way I'm going to eat premade frozen bao, gyoza, or noodles manufactured at some sketchball factory in Shenzhen!

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

#149

Post by BitwiseFool »

aphextron wrote: post #65
tehjoker wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that was the idea. If the warnings were effective, then business processes are affected. If consumers can be trained to ignore them, then the state looks like it's doing something for people without changing anything materially.

> then the state looks like it's doing something for people without changing anything materially. You've just described California politics perfectly.

This is anecdotal, but one thing I have noticed about Californians is that there is a sense that government inaction is worse than government action. In other words, if there is some problem (real or perceived), the state can't simply do nothing about it. And, the politicians of California are enthusiastic about creating new bureaucracy to enforce the newly minted laws. Which they usually pay for by creating some specific tax/fee on some specific transaction or type of product, which then creates more complexity and bureaucracy.

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

#150

Post by nickysielicki »

dylan604 wrote: post #145
CadellFastro wrote: post #2

What percentage of Americans even know that alcohol is a drug? As a Wisconsin native, I've seen first hand the toxic culture surrounding drinking in America, including having a relative die of alcoholism. Still, we don't seem to look at it like other drugs, even though it ruins lives just as effectively as something like heroin.

Curious abut the Wisconsin specificness you added. Does WI have a larger percentage of alcoholics than other places?

Yes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/29/wisco...

Post reply on HN