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

271–280 of 385 posts

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

#271

Post by jmdeschamps »

paiute wrote: post #131
arsome wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal here is to dispel the "extends health" and similar claims often made about light or moderate drinking. If you take a look at the studies you can determine how much of an increased risk you're comfortable with. For example, figure 5 in https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... When doing this analysis though be sure to note that scientists studying this use 10g drinks, which is 12.5mL of…

I might be wrong here, but I have never heard the claim that 2 beers might be good for your health. I have heard that with wine, but that's not a claim that alcohol is good for your health.

It's the polyphenols associated with grapes in red wine that might be "healthy", not the alcohol... But then again... https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/is-red-wine-good-actuall...

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

#272

Post by zabzonk »

rr808 wrote: post #163

Is alcohol essential for a good social life? Growing up in Europe it definitely was a big part of it. Now I look at my younger colleagues in the US and many never drink, rarely go out and are lonely and single. But maybe healthier?

being lonely is not so healthy. neither is sitting glued to your phone or console. might be better nursing a beer in a bar, watching football.

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

#273

Post by thebigspacefuck »

rayiner wrote: post #248
auveair wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And that doesn't include the externalized costs, such as increased domestic violence, impacts on children I have never seen someone who did those things drunk who didn't also do those things sober.

From the BBC article: "Men who are dependent on alcohol or drugs are six or seven times more likely to be involved in domestic abuse against women than others, according to an extensive new study." That makes sense--alcohol decreases inhibition. It makes you do things that maybe you were inclined to do, but wouldn't do sober. (That is part of why people drink alcohol in the first place.)

You’ve also got to be pretty miserable to get in that state in the first place. Maybe they are victims of abuse themselves or have untreated trauma/other mental health conditions.

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

#274

Post by perrygeo »

jp57 wrote: post #224

> 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…

Keep in mind that WHO recommendations go well beyond alcohol's role as a carcinogen. Alcohol has widespread and significant negative impacts across many of internal systems [1]. Even compared to "hard drugs", alcohol is a dangerous mind-altering substance with objectively high risk factors.

Drawing a threshold on a distribution is inherently arbitrary, but it's also a) necessary for clear public communication and b) able to be refined by quantitative risk assessment models. As we have been refining that threshold and learning more about alcohol's impacts, that threshold for an equivalent level of risk has been dropping - i.e. our understanding of the "safe" level of alcohol has been approaching zero as we add more data to the model.

The WHO is simply making the logical conclusion of this convergence to zero. Picking a non-zero threshold is simply not possible without significant risks. Given all the well-documented harms of alcohol, it's irresponsible to claim that there is any such thing as a "safe amount". So the public health message shifts from moderation to abstinence.

You can choose to ignore the recommendations; go ahead and drink if it makes you feel better. But you can't ignore the many significant negative impacts or hide behind the dubious concept of "safe drinking". You're poisoning your body for recreation - own it.

[1] https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/health-professionals-communities/c...

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

#275

Post by zabzonk »

hobo_mark wrote: post #252
bikamonki wrote: post #56

We'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.

"depends how much alcohol", he said, somewhat floppily.

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

#277

Post by barbazoo »

B8MGHCBekDuRi wrote: post #184
barbazoo wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would that self interest be?

publish another paper in two years fully financed. or find another job. what would you chose?

Jesus, it's impossible to do research without being accused of being biased, is it.

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

#278

Post by barbazoo »

VLM wrote: post #239
barbazoo wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Compartmentalization. Plenty of stimulant and H and other drug abusers in tech. Sugar and alcohol are addictive and addictions are irrational and you can't use rational objective thought to get out of a situation that is inherently irrational and subjective, like addiction. Essentially zero H users, for example, have never heard the news that H is bad for them. Can't just concentrate hard enough to get out of an addi…

Sorry, what is H?

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

#279

Post by [deleted] »

RhysabOweyn wrote: post #205
barbazoo wrote: post #125

So much denialism going on here, it's like talking to my alcoholic relative. This shouldn't trigger such a strong reaction, if it does, one should look into why that is.

Maybe read the well documented history of self-righteous teetotalers? It's not too hard to understand what the goal of this type of rhetoric is.

[deleted]

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

#280

Post by ipqk »

christophilus wrote: post #242
P_I_Staker wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should we be establishing safe amounts of cigarette smoking? Safe amounts of gasoline to drink? Alcohol users really don't like people pointing out that their habit isn't safe.

Yeah. We should. You can smoke a cigar a month and not be considered a smoker by life insurance companies. You can smoke 4 a week and not be considered a smoker by health insurance companies. I’d love to see actual stats because I really enjoy a pipe and am willing to take a slight risk for it. No level of automobile usage is safe, either, but I know the risks. My chances of dying due to driving (sober) are much high…

Are you sure? Because I mentioned that I had smoked one cigar at my high school graduation (which about 3 years before the health insurance interview), and I got demoted from 'preferred plus' to 'preferred' for my life insurance. This was about 20 years ago.'
Post reply on HN