Earlier quoted context omitted.
A bottle is 0.33 (or 330ml)
Where is that? 330ml bottles definitely exist, but 0.5l is the default in Austria.
uk, at least, but it also comes in 500ml
No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health
251–260 of 385 posts
Re: No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health
#252We've been drinking fermented drinks for millenia and yet here we are: 8 billion strong. Shut up WHO ;)
Nobody claimed alcohol stops procreation, hell if anything it does the opposite.
Re: No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health
#253The generational zeitgeist is ostentatious abnegation. This fits.
I don’t think you’re right, every generation since modernity seems equal in this regard, the latest generations don’t seem special. But, I like this phrase “the generational zeitgeist is ostentatious abnegation”, so much that I’m going to use it in the future and pretend I do believe it. Thank you
The 80s was famously about conspicuous consumption. Not everyone then, and there plenty of it now, but the zeitgeist isn’t a statistical metric.
Re: No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I had to google the meaning of "socialized medicine" (no I don't live in the US). My first thought was that maybe it meant "getting better thanks to emotional support from other people", but Wikipedia had this to say about "socialized medicine": >> More recently, American conservative critics of health care reform have attempted to broaden the term by applying it to any publicly funded system. Fascinating how differe…
It’s a pretty ubiquitous term here used by all sides. They even poll using the term https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20080214/poll-us-sp...
Though I think some of the political proponents have shifted their SEO terms to “universal healthcare” in recent years after they found the term confusing.
> I now assume you mean that all people should pay 100 % for their own health care needs since people only have themselves to blame if they need health care?
I’m not saying one way or the other what I think. I’m saying the logical conclusion of paying for everyone’s medical bills is that you create regulation to try to lower said bills. By definition, this restricts freedoms, which I’m opposed to.
Re: No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health
#255> Alcohol ... has been classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer decades ago – this is the highest risk group, which also includes asbestos, radiation and tobacco. But as I understand it we do have a notion of "safe" dosages of radiation. Isn't this statement then like saying "no level of exposure to radiation is safe for our health?" Maybe I'm wrong but I would think that…
The linear no threshold model of harm for radiation is debated but is the foundation of all nuclear protection policies. To policy, zero radiation is considered best and all increments above that, regardless of size or relative comparison to natural background radiation are bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model It's extremely hard to scientifically back this or challenge it due to the noise. So…
So when you walk outside and into the sun, you're exposed to radiation, we need sunlight exposure to live, so again bringing up the parents comments regarding the need for "practical" advice.
Re: No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health
#256And that doesn't include the externalized costs, such as increased domestic violence: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50887893 , impacts on children: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/18/even-moderat... , etc. Now that Americans are more docile it might be a good time to take another shot at alcohol prohibition: https://time.com/5501680/prohibition-history-feminism-suffra... .
yeah, prohibition totally worked. Why not call McCarthy back too? Alcohol problems are not the same thing of alcohol consumption. Also: Scotland's alcohol consumption is among the highest in the world, according to World Health Organization data; on average, Scots consume the equivalent of more than 13 liters (3.4 gallons) of pure alcohol a year, about 40 percent more than Americans (2.4 gallons) We in Italy consume…
> yeah, prohibition totally worked.
Americans are much more compliant now, not to mention health and socially conscious. For example, the culture of alcohol use has disparate impacts on black and brown communities: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2771773/ ("African Americans and Hispanics bear a disproportionately greater burden of alcohol-related health problems compared to whites, as evidenced by higher rates of liver cirrhosis, death rates due to cirrhosis, and rates of overall alcohol-related mortality.") That is true even though, for example, black Americans begin drinking later and drink less than white Americans: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3758406/.
Re: No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
The world is full of people who strongly and honestly believe anecdotes are more important than statistics and statistics are meaninglessly astrological in nature. Its a very popular set of beliefs, majority in some areas.
The problem is that how well anyone's particular life circumstances fit into a statistical model (or not) can be a very difficult thing to discern. There is a combinatorial explosion of factors that everyone is subject to, and most epidemiological statistics can address and account for a handful of them at a time. So what ends up happening is folks look at the statistics, shrug, and continue their own n=1. The best t…
"hows that working out for you" has been completely replaced in society due to social media with "how many updoots will I get?"
Re: No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s happening to a lot of younger adults in their 30s now too.
You don't actually know if alcohol is the cause, it might be all the other shit that we've put into the environment to, such as PFOAs, PFOS, Microplastics, air polltion and more and more...
For the people I knew, there is no doubt in my mind. Only mentioning because until people I knew died, I thought liver disease only struck as you approached your 50s/60s.
Re: No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The average Italian, for example, should, and definitely, would just laught this off. we don't even drink that much, compared to other countries. we simply enjoy it, even if it doesn't make our life longer, like many other activities that are not even enjoyable. https://ourworldindata.org/alcohol-consumption
Plus, drinking together with food instead of on an empty stomach (as more common in more northern cultures) slows down absorption allowing more time for the liver to process the alcohol before it reaches the brain and other organs, if we are talking about a standard dosage (a glass of wine etc). Even if this is not enough for the liver (even with a glass of wine and full stomach it will not be able to process alcohol…
At a recent physical I was talking about this with my doctor. This can reduce the toxicity effects but actually increases the contact time and the carcinogenic impact, so might be better for your liver but have a higher cancer risk. I was like, "damn..."
Re: No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health
#260Societies that have banned alcohol, how do their longevity and other quality of life metrics and outcomes rank against ones where alcohol is available?
In my late adolescence, an old friend and I had a joke about "champagne socialists," where we decided instead we would be "single malt anarchists," and we would meet at a hotels rooftop bar to drink whiskey we could barely afford, in a place we were barely welcome, and argue about how to solve the worlds problems. Who knew that decades later enjoying a few drams and a cigar would become a revolutionary act?
If I could coin a term for all these bureaucratic false-concerns based on what they have in common (alcohol, meat, tobacco, cars, gas stoves, humor, firearms, nuclear families, heteronoramtivity, truth, etc.) it would be that they are all "anti-fraternal," and motivated by undermining the formation and relationships that historically present sources of resistance to political dominion. This advisory isn't about "health" or alcohol, it's a policy dogwhistle. Every single one of the people behind these pronouncements and organizations openly hates the idea of "bro's," or any group of men with a shared identity, and restricting access to alcohol is one of the key stages in consolidating a regime.
I keep a bottle of blantons in a box somewhere for just in case the world ends, or descends into apocalyptic bedlam as a result of yet another one of historys antagonists finding their way. It would be a shame to open that box.