181–190 of 385 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
Could present-day China pull something like that off?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The dose makes the poison - Paracelsus
> “We cannot talk about a so-called safe level of alcohol use. It doesn’t matter how much you drink – the risk to the drinker’s health starts from the first drop of any alcoholic beverage. The only thing that we can say for sure is that the more you drink, the more harmful it is – or, in other words, the less you drink, the safer it is,” explains Dr Carina Ferreira-Borges, acting Unit Lead for Noncommunicable Disease…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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".
1 pint of beer will get you drunk - more like your tolerance is abnormally low and your projecting it on everyone else.
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.
Edit, I can't read
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you need sugar, red meat, fat to have a joyful life? You do, don't you. Having a glass of wine or two should be treated the same. If you have religious reservations, please use your energy to fight off islamists who deal drugs, take bribes and marry with young children. Those sin more than people who indulge in a glass of wine or two.
How did we get here from a thread about alcohol prohibition? Are they an existential threat in your country?
I wonder how the data is treated statistically. If 99% of millionaires have consumed alcohol, does consuming alcohol increase the chance of becoming a millionaire!?