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

WHO: No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 190 posts

Re: WHO: No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health

#71

Post by endisneigh »

shanebellone wrote: post #62
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> refuse a beer in Germany is an affront that I would like to weigh against the risk of cancer Refusing a cigarette used to have a similar insult; and also you weren’t cool if you refused That’s changed after decades of press and cancer warning labels on tobacco. Let’s hope the same happens with alcohol.

"Let’s hope the same happens with alcohol." Why? You have all the required information to make an educated decision for yourself. Others do too. Allow them to decide without harassment. I quit smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol years ago now. As the calculus changed, my habits followed suit. Everyone should be allowed to choose how they live.

If you believe in socialized health care you would hope the trend on unhealthy habits is going down, right?

Re: WHO: No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health

#72

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

fsloth wrote: post #53
zabzonk wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the story is that cigarettes are well researched and documented to cause agressive lung cancers, heart disease and many other problems. the story on alcohol is much less clear and even if true, much lower risk

"the story on alcohol is much less clear and if it even true, much lower risk" What? Afaik alcohol is pretty well known to increase risks of several cancers in population. Individual response to alcohol is of course a much more complex topic with genetics affecting a large palette of physiological and neurological responses to alcohol. For populations - alcohol is a health risk. For individual - the narrative is far…

The article mentions that it is not widely known that alcohol causes cancer. Used to be the same with cigarettes. We need to change that!

Re: WHO: No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health

#75

Post by tyjen »

Alcohol's ill effects have been known for awhile, but alcohol companies continuously undermined studies that would conclusively demonstrate it. Basically, unless you're older and have a certain type of heart disease that alcohol may help, the costs of alcohol are always greater than the benefits. Then again, this is up for the individual to decide, whether they believe their perceived benefits outweigh the potential health costs. At least now, they can make a more informed choice knowing the risks involved.

Re: WHO: No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health

#76

Post by [deleted] »

LatteLazy wrote: post #28

It would be very useful to rate all sorts of things in terms of the effect on life expectancy so people could make educated decisions. Is one serving of beer/wine better or worse than being say 5kg over weight? Or 2 portions of red meat? Or living next to a main road? Without the ability to actually measure these numbers and compare them we don't actually know anything. This is data but not information...

[deleted]

Re: WHO: No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health

#77

Post by zabzonk »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #57

Reading through the comments here there seems to be much negative sentiment against this study. But what they are right? What if alcohol is actually just bad for you full stop. Would this really be that shocking or controversial that a known poison is poisonous?

it's neither shocking or controversial to say that excess alcohol (for example, falling-down drunk) is bad for the majority of people. what is irritating to people of a logical/scientific bent is saying that ANY alcohol at all is going to lead to a a bad result, with minimal or no evidence.

for example, the bottle of gin that i have beside me has a label on it that says i should not exceed 2 small glasses a day. where did this figure come from? somebody made it up!

Re: WHO: No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health

#78

Post by endisneigh »

jwie wrote: post #58

All cause mortality is lower among light drinkers than non-drinkers. Small doses of harms are typically beneficial. Not all harm is bad, and safety is not always desirable.

I know you’re trying to be clever but harm is definitionally bad.

Re: WHO: No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health

#79

Post by TOMDM »

nickjj wrote: post #59
aflag wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the fact that smoking forces others around you to smoke, whereas drinking doesn't is a big part of it. Along with the fact that drinking occasionally is far more common than smoking occasionally. Nicotine is far more adictive.

> I think the fact that smoking forces others around you to smoke, whereas drinking doesn't is a big part of it. I'd be curious if cooking with wine falls into this category of affecting others. For example, at a restaurant if a meal has a little bit of wine in its sauce will that be listed on the menu or would it be added behind the scenes sort of like you wouldn't expect to see "garlic powder" or "pepper" listed on…

For most recipes involving wine, the alcohol in the dish will have evaporated long before it arrives at your table.
Post reply on HN