No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health

No frequency of driving to the store is safe, or jumping in the pool.

Don't drink much. Beyond that, so what?

The world is full of people like you who thinks that making this comment ensures you're intellectually superior to others.

I, of course, know what statistics is and how to interpret it , I'm aware drinking isn't especially good for ones health and other aspect of ones life, which is why I'm currently...not drinking.

I'm also aware how silly it is to worry about it and make absolutely claims like "No level..blah".

No level of C02 from fossil fuels is good for us anymore; However, I'm certain you'll get in your car and drive or on a plane and fly soon enough.

The point I'm trying to make is that what matters one minute often seems inconsequential the next, regardless of statistics.

For example, the WHO provides quite shocking statistics on the dangerous of food fires and other heating / cooking methods which are used in my neighborhood: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/household-a..., it freaks me out but I can't do much about it or my neighbors use of a wood stove. Should I move?

So while I think it's been obvious for sometime, alcohol is bad for ones health, smoke is also bad for ones health, is there anything really new or wise in this bulletin from the WHO, I don't think so really.

Have a read of this on the WHO's website:

FACT: Alcohol-based sanitizers are safe for everyone to use

Alcohols in the sanitizers have not been shown to create any relevant health issues. Little alcohol is absorbed into the skin, and most products contain an emollient to reduce skin dryness. Allergic contact dermatitis and bleaching of hand hair due to alcohol are very rare adverse effects. Accidental swallowing and intoxication have been described in rare cases.

So in this case, my body will adsorb alcohol, but in this case it's ok because it's on another page separate from the one we're discussing?

> If this is true, the medical community is actively causing harm.

That’s kind of a bizarre way of phrasing it. Yes, the medical community actively causes lesser harms, with the goals of preventing greater harms. Radiation therapy and chemotherapy, for example, are extremely harmful! Yet we use them as cancer treatments because the cancer we are treating with them is probably more harmful than the treatment.

Radiation therapy and chemotherapy are extreme examples, but this analysis is done across medicine with lesser treatments as well—and yes, we change the way we treat people as our understanding of the risks and benefits of various treatments changes.

You really don’t want to consume any quantity of radium.

> It'll be the same discussion, addicts trying to rationalize away the science and statistics.

Pretty shocking to see this much denialism going on in a forum that's often much more rational and objective.