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

No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health

who.int

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 385 posts

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

#81

Post by tmountain »

B8MGHCBekDuRi wrote: post #48
pard68 wrote: post #9

I enjoy a cigar or pipe once in a while. I enjoy a few fingers of bourbon now and then. I've been known to put back a few bottles of Coors on the weekend. Not once have I thought, "yup this'll make me healthier [physically]."

You nailed it. Nobody does everything they do because they think "this is good for my health". We usually avoid stuff that is very bad for our health, but life is not just about going on for years avoiding any risk at all cost. Unless you are American, you pretend to like the monk life and then eat garbage directly from the garbage can https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/opinion/food-nutrition-he... https://www.nytime…

“life is not just about going on for years avoiding any risk at all cost.”

Very well said. Every choice we make has pros and cons. If someone wants to optimize for maximum longevity and avoid all risk factors, that’s a personal decision.

If you don’t want to follow that path, that’s fine too.

The equation is different for everyone. I have completely avoided alcohol for extended periods, and frankly, I just missed having a beer with a friend, so I decided to adjust my behavior.

Does that make me a bad person that’s going to die early?

If everything is a risk equation, we should be talking about our career choices (sitting at a desk), the risk of driving to the grocery store, living in cities is dangerous (pollution), etc.

I think it’s great for people to be informed, but the morality police squad is nauseating.

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

#82

Post by joseph_grobbles »

B8MGHCBekDuRi wrote: post #48
pard68 wrote: post #9

I enjoy a cigar or pipe once in a while. I enjoy a few fingers of bourbon now and then. I've been known to put back a few bottles of Coors on the weekend. Not once have I thought, "yup this'll make me healthier [physically]."

You nailed it. Nobody does everything they do because they think "this is good for my health". We usually avoid stuff that is very bad for our health, but life is not just about going on for years avoiding any risk at all cost. Unless you are American, you pretend to like the monk life and then eat garbage directly from the garbage can https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/opinion/food-nutrition-he... https://www.nytime…

[dead]

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

#83

Post by deafpolygon »

sh4rks wrote: post #21

> However, latest available data indicate that half of all alcohol-attributable cancers in the WHO European Region are caused by “light” and “moderate” alcohol consumption – less than 1.5 litres of wine or less than 3.5 litres of beer or less than 450 millilitres of spirits per week Half a litre of beer a day is considered "light"?

A bottle is 0.33 (or 330ml)

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

#84

Post by nordsieck »

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #78
nordsieck wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They state there is no scientific safe drinking level. They even compare it to radiation. The goal is to establish an unsafe level. it's like saying there is no safe speed to drive a car - sure that's technically true, but worthless to say. Which is ironic, because, while most people use the "Linear no-threshold" model for radiation, we know that small amounts of radiation are actually beneficial. The most charitab…

> Which is ironic, because, while most people use the "Linear no-threshold" model for radiation, we know that small amounts of radiation are actually beneficial. How could ionizing radiation be beneficial? Unless the argument is exposure to ultraviolet in order to get Vitamin D, I can’t imagine ionizing radiation to be beneficial in any way. Edit: > The good includes abundant evidence showing increased 1) physiologic…

> How could ionizing radiation be beneficial?

I'm not going to pretend that I understand the reasons. But there have been a lot of studies.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477686/

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

#85

Post by keymon-o »

paiute wrote: post #15

The thinking is backwards on this. They state there is no scientific safe drinking level. They even compare it to radiation. The goal is to establish an unsafe level. it's like saying there is no safe speed to drive a car - sure that's technically true, but worthless to say.

Driving may be a necessity while drinking is rarely an obligation. Also driving may cause instant harm while, drinking may cause a very much delayed harm. So, by knowing that not driving or not drinking are the safest choice I can choose to skip having a single drink and avoid driving if I don’t have to, thus completely minimizing the risk.

It’s not worthless at all.

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

#86

Post by sophacles »

SilasX wrote: post #62
joemazerino wrote: post #11

I despise the WHO generally but this article is solid. There is too much confusion about alcohol in the medical industry. If you ask European doctors having a glass or two of wine "extends health". If you research typical government guidelines, they say a drink or two a day isn't bad or may even say it's "healthy" [1] The facts are facts. Alcohol is a poison that wrecks havoc on your mind and body. If having one drin…

>If having one drink can decompress you after a hard days work, fine, you're not gonna get cancer. That would seem to contradict the headline, and content, that there's a safe level of alcohol consumption. In fact, the WHO really takes that claim seriously -- the headline is not a simplification: >>when it comes to alcohol consumption, there is no safe amount that does not affect health ... Alcohol causes at least se…

"not gonna get cancer" is in no way contradicting the headline. There's plenty of non-cancerous dangers in the world.

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

#87

Post by marcosdumay »

rco8786 wrote: post #51
sh4rks wrote: post #21

> However, latest available data indicate that half of all alcohol-attributable cancers in the WHO European Region are caused by “light” and “moderate” alcohol consumption – less than 1.5 litres of wine or less than 3.5 litres of beer or less than 450 millilitres of spirits per week Half a litre of beer a day is considered "light"?

That’s basically 1 pint a day, or 16 oz as the ceiling for “light”. That seems reasonable? Not the amount necessarily just the classification.

If you drink the average every day, you will spend a large part of your days inebriated. And if you don't drink the average every day, you will be deeply drunk every few days.

It's completely unreasonable to call that level of consumption "light".

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

#88

Post by phonescreen_man »

fredley wrote: post #6

This is not news, it has been known for some time. For anyone wanting to get an in-depth, balanced, and rigorous take on alcohol I can heartily recommend Drink? by David Nutt. Reading it has made me more mindful of when and why I choose to drink, and increasingly I find myself drinking less and less.

Was David Nutt the UK scientific advisor who came out and said weed, lsd, ecstasy are all far less harmful than tobacco and alcohol and was then publicly shamed and abused by the uk Media for daring to suggest such a thing?

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

#89

Post by B8MGHCBekDuRi »

diydsp wrote: post #53
B8MGHCBekDuRi wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no need to debunk the truth. It's like drugs. Take too many pills, you die. Take them when you need them and their benefit will surpass the risks. Alcohol works the same way. We know for a fact that moderate drinkers live longer than non-drinkers and heavy drinkers. We still don't know why. edit: most people don't want to hear the truth. Moderate drinker live longer than non-drinkers. It's a well known fact For examp…

"because moderate drinkers tend to be very socially advantaged," Naimi says. Moderate drinkers tend to be healthier on average because they're well-educated and more affluent, not because they're drinking a bottle of wine a week on average. "[Their] alcohol consumption ends up looking good from a health perspective because they're already healthy to begin with." https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/22/47…

> Moderate drinkers tend to be healthier on average because they're well-educated and more affluent, not because they're drinking a bottle of wine a week on average

the point is that non-drinkers live less.

Which totally contraddict the point that non drinking is good for you.

a recent Lancet study confirms that at 2 standard units per day there is non-drinking equivalence for health risks

2 units per day it's about a pint of beer per day.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

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

#90

Post by MauranKilom »

lettergram wrote: post #71
joemazerino wrote: post #11

I despise the WHO generally but this article is solid. There is too much confusion about alcohol in the medical industry. If you ask European doctors having a glass or two of wine "extends health". If you research typical government guidelines, they say a drink or two a day isn't bad or may even say it's "healthy" [1] The facts are facts. Alcohol is a poison that wrecks havoc on your mind and body. If having one drin…

I think the challenge is really that even spices like pepper cause inflammation. You can always find a downside to anything you ingest. I think you’re correct, the best approach is to explain “safe limits”. Personally, I think it’s fine if people smoke, drink, etc until their heart is content. That said; it’s also why I’m opposed to socialized medicine. Almost everyone I know on social medicine didn’t take care of th…

> The challenge with socialized medicine is that we should now push to ban alcohol, logically.

That has not worked in the past. Do you think it would work any better nowadays?

Post reply on HN