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

No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

871–880 of 1001 posts

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#871

Post by kirso »

solox3 wrote: post #202

I am fine with abstinence as a general recommendation, but critical thinking pointed out two issues with the WHF Policy Brief, which I suppose I have read in sufficient depth: 1. There is no citation on the sentence, "Recent evidence has found that no level of alcohol consumption is safe for health." This is really the only line we are interested in. 2. There is no comparison on the effects of alcohol on the body by…

This is a great comment. I am just usually employing a rule of:

"If there is a conflict between healthy / unhealthy, then can just minimise or avoid it."

Nobody really argues about vegetables... Meat and dairy products however, thats an interesting discussion.

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#872

Post by lixtra »

ausername42027 wrote: post #856
dionidium wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to feel some dissonance about this, you might note that this is the exact language the CDC uses for things like secondhand smoke -- "There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke" -- which everybody nods along to and accepts without much scrutiny. Source: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco... Meanwhile, when it's something like, say, cosmic radiation exposure from c…

There is robust data that the risk of first-hand smoke is not a linear relationship between cancer (and other bad stuff) and dose--no amount of smoking is safe. To be frank you are uninformed on basic statistics as well as medicine. You are doing the standard thing that many educated people do when they think they are smarter and more informed than they are. You dress up a bad take as if you found some secret (CDC's…

> bad stuff carries linear risk

This is a straw man. I believe that a lot of stuff carries continuous risk going up from zero and increasing with dosage. If a substance does not start with zero risk at zero dose, it is most likely not a toxin but an essential (i.e. vitamin A).

Very few substances are so rare that the discreteness might matter for practical purposes.

To portray the risk as binary, centered at zero is certainly wrong. You also would have a very hard time to find study subjects who have never been exposed to a few particles of smoke.

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#873

Post by tagoregrtst »

dahart wrote: post #827
dionidium wrote: post #813

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, this is a good and fair pushback. But I’d respond that I chose secondhand smoke for a reason. I similarly doubt there’s any measurable impact of being around a smoker every once in a while, but the language around secondhand smoke got more and more hysterical leading up to the widespread implementation of smoking bans, to the point that it’s not uncommon today to hear people complain that walking near a…

With over a billion smokers on the planet, or ~20% of the population, it’s not that absurd to worry about urban smoke outdoors contributing to urban pollution. Nor wood burning house & backyard fires either, nor cars, but that’s a different debate… We aren’t around smokers once in a while, we’re around them constantly . Even urban outdoor second hand smoke really is a higher risk than air travel radiation. Yes I want…

“ it’s not that absurd to worry about urban smoke outdoors contributing to urban pollution”

Where do you live that second hand smoke is a significant urban level pollutant?

Take a pack of cigarettes, 25g, divide it by 3 (your 30% of people are smokers) = 8.3 g per capita and burn it.

Now consider all the diesel per capita that is burned in this dystopian city of smokers.

No, we don't get to pretend these trucks have diesel particulate filters. Not if the city has 30% smokers. [1]

Anyway, at 8g/person, pollution controls wont save the argument - smoking is a negligible urban level pollutant.

[1] or propose a city with lots of smokers that has strict and enforced diesel rules. Tel Aviv? Israelis used to love to smoke.

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#875

Post by wolverine876 »

labster wrote: post #797
wolverine876 wrote: post #754

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Climate impact is significant. That's going to interfere with generations enjoying their lives.

If you care about climate, get cryptocurrency banned. Air travel has all sorts of bad consequences, but also has economic and social benefits. Crypto on the other hand is an endless black hole of energy that even when used for its intended purpose creates economic and social harm. Talking about taking away things that people like, like airplanes and red meat and gas stoves just get people up in arms. Start with the l…

> Talking about taking away things that people like, like airplanes and red meat and gas stoves just get people up in arms.

Certain people will get up in arms regardless, partly due to certain people making up threats like 'someone is going to take away your ...!' But nobody here said that.

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#876

Post by Brian_K_White »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #863
dahart wrote: post #827

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With over a billion smokers on the planet, or ~20% of the population, it’s not that absurd to worry about urban smoke outdoors contributing to urban pollution. Nor wood burning house & backyard fires either, nor cars, but that’s a different debate… We aren’t around smokers once in a while, we’re around them constantly . Even urban outdoor second hand smoke really is a higher risk than air travel radiation. Yes I want…

It's not absurd to worry about it, it is absurd to say there is no safe exposure level and leave it at that. Especially because so many people smoke it is important to be informed about the actual risks of second hand smoke. If I'm walking down the street do I need to cross the street if I see someone approach with a cigarette? If I'm at a bar and smell smoke coming in should I leave?

No safe level means one person a mile away is a problem.

I bet they would say that's absurd, with a straight face.

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#877

Post by cleansingfire »

crocodiletears wrote: post #830
TameAntelope wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't politics, it's safety. I accept the argument that the CDC has become overly innumerate in how to live a healthy life, but it's not a liberal or conservative idea to be cautious.

Choosing the level of safety we enforce in society is inherently political.

Nobody is enforcing anything, either in the parent or the OP, so don't panic. Your comment seems inflammatory and irrelevant in this context, but I'm sure that's not your intent. You'll be ok, don't worry.

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#878

Post by cleansingfire »

solox3 wrote: post #202

I am fine with abstinence as a general recommendation, but critical thinking pointed out two issues with the WHF Policy Brief, which I suppose I have read in sufficient depth: 1. There is no citation on the sentence, "Recent evidence has found that no level of alcohol consumption is safe for health." This is really the only line we are interested in. 2. There is no comparison on the effects of alcohol on the body by…

What's disappointing is how quickly your observation was diverted to panic and inciting outrage. I'm interested to know why the CDC now says "no amount" when the evidence for decades has been that small amounts are cardioprotective. Is there truly none?

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#879

Post by cleansingfire »

dahart wrote: post #827
dionidium wrote: post #813

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, this is a good and fair pushback. But I’d respond that I chose secondhand smoke for a reason. I similarly doubt there’s any measurable impact of being around a smoker every once in a while, but the language around secondhand smoke got more and more hysterical leading up to the widespread implementation of smoking bans, to the point that it’s not uncommon today to hear people complain that walking near a…

With over a billion smokers on the planet, or ~20% of the population, it’s not that absurd to worry about urban smoke outdoors contributing to urban pollution. Nor wood burning house & backyard fires either, nor cars, but that’s a different debate… We aren’t around smokers once in a while, we’re around them constantly . Even urban outdoor second hand smoke really is a higher risk than air travel radiation. Yes I want…

Note the change from secondhand smoke to outdoor secondhand smoke, once you responded rationally. This poster may be a bot.

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#880

Post by Brian_K_White »

timpattinson wrote: post #868
ifyoubuildit wrote: post #861

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with conservative forums like HN Not terribly on topic, but I've been lurking here for more than a decade, and today I learned that it's a conservative forum. And on top of that, it has the same problems inherent to conservative forums (fora?). Weird.

While i wouldn't agree that HN is a conservative forum, there is certainly a lot more conservative-leaning material posted here than similar tech-focused forums. See any thread about California, Texas, diversity & affirmative action, COVID, etc.

The pattern only overlaps with conservative on the topics of regulation, maybe taxes, definitely affirmative action.

Everything you said but it's not about conservatism in general or most of the rest of the current conservative platform.

It's just anything that annoys a tech bro who never had a problem in life except that it's a crime that his copycat app was taken down and some girl got a job he thought the world owed him, or he succeeded and believes he did it all himself and doesn't owe anyone else anything.

I mean, it is a large overlap. You could describe both this and the coservative platform as "whatever rationalization works to justify being selfish"

But for instance, I bet almost none of these "conservatives" have a moral or religious objection to sex outside of marriage, sex outside of their race/ethnicity/religion, definitely aren't down at the soup kitchen every wednesday to feed the hungry, never turned the other cheek in their lives, will happily ridicule "preppers" even while researching about data islands...

I think I'm not really articulating my point all that well but hopefully you do still get what I mean despite my weak examples.

Post reply on HN