No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health

Post by bamboozled » Sat, Feb 11, 2023, 3:35 PM UTC

SeanLuke wrote: post #35

bamboozled wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally I know a lot of really old people who still drink. Maybe I'd know more if they didn't drink. I know one guy who is ~90, survived cancer 3 times and attributes his survival to daily doses of Japanese Shochu. You might be able to argue that alcohol was the cause of the cancer but I guess we'll never know. Disclaimer: Currently not drinking even a drop. Edit: Maybe I'd know more if they didn't drink. ...is a…

> Anecdotally I know a lot of really old people who still drink. I know someone who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day who is almost 100 years old. Smoking is good or you!

Post by B8MGHCBekDuRi » Sat, Feb 11, 2023, 3:37 PM UTC

rcxdude wrote: post #211

B8MGHCBekDuRi wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Both can be true at once, for exactly the reason described: the causal effect goes in the other direction.

Post by skeeter2020 » Sat, Feb 11, 2023, 3:37 PM UTC

CretinDesAlpes wrote: post #214

phonescreen_man wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, he is known for this graph (The Lancet, 2010): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt#/media/File:HarmCau...

Post by dento » Sat, Feb 11, 2023, 3:41 PM UTC

keymon-o wrote: post #229

ericmay wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but you can basically play this game forever and arrive at a very bad, but safe quality of life. Funny enough though driving is by far worse for your health than moderate or light drinking, and it’s even more insidious than drinking because not only do that negative effects take a long time to manifest, but they’re couched inside of a “necessity”.

Why would choosing a safer travel method or avoiding unnecessary drives ruin the quality of life? I am not proposing to quit living a life, only adjusting the methods of living. We obviously don’t share the same values regarding the quality of life. I think it’s more funny you choose a rhetoric that suits your lifestyle and your needs, and dismiss that it might be helpful for people who don’t find alcohol culture app…

Post by sokoloff » Sat, Feb 11, 2023, 3:49 PM UTC

criddell wrote: post #225

makeitdouble wrote: post #178

> To identify a “safe” level of alcohol consumption, valid scientific evidence would need to demonstrate that at and below a certain level, there is no risk of illness or injury associated with alcohol consumption. The premise of this “no level of consumption is safe” is this requirement to prove 0 risk. If for instance drinking one glass everyday increases your cancer chances by 0.0000000001%, bringing it to 0. 0000…

I think the only time my grandma drank that I know of is a thimble full of wine at church communion a few times a year. Would these scientists have advised her to skip that ceremony?