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

281–290 of 385 posts

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

#281

Post by earth_walker »

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.

The reaction you're seeing is not because we've all got drinking problems. It's due to the reactionary way this and other similar studies are headlined: "No level of alcohol consumption is safe...". It's click-bait, and so you're seeing the resulting clicks.

I'm sure you wouldn't have seen anywhere near this kind of reaction if the headline was instead "Any level of alcohol consumption increases liver cancer risk by X in 10,000" or "Adjustments to confounding factors show that non-drinkers have a 0.0000X% longer life expectancy".

Beyond the headline designed to invoke a reaction, I think there's a good basis for general fear of this kind of judgment - it invokes the language around many other prohibitions of all that is good and fun in the name of our physical or moral health.

We are only just working through lifting prohibitions on Cannabis here in the west, albeit with many strings attached. Many countries (and a good number of North American counties) still have prohibitions on alcohol. We as a society prohibit many kinds of mushroom, plant roots, leaves and oils.

Here in Canada the health authority has a "no safe levels" attitude towards absinthe, house-made mayo, rare burgers and many of the world's greatest cheeses. We've put "for external use only" warning labels on cooking ingredients like mustard oil and tamarind extracts. We've banned cooking wines entirely!

So yes. When I see "no safe levels of alcohol" I do tend to over-react. Keep your grubby little hands off my bottle.

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

#282

Post by thebigspacefuck »

VLM wrote: post #250
P_I_Staker wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carbs are great for you if you get the right carbs.

Cite needed LOL. They're great for weight gain, which is not much of a medical necessity in the current year although there are special situations (cancer patients, etc) If you don't eat an essential nutrient (vitamins, minerals, etc) you'll eventually get sick and die. If you don't eat a very high carb diet you'll ... be healthier and have better blood test results? Nobody never died from having a single digit A1c b…

Looking at so-called blue zones, they eat a diet of legumes, whole grains, and plants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_zone

Do we have any evidence that low carb diets have a positive effect on longevity compared to these diets?

Compared to the Standard American Diet, low carb may be far better as it can eliminates refined carbs with no nutritional value, but the optimal diet may include a moderate amount of carbs from healthy whole food sources.

I’m actually following a low carb diet myself for almost 1 year and agree it has benefits, but think ultimately it’s place is as a stepping stone. I will probably begin to incorporate healthy whole foods as I am exercising more than I was when I started and it’s hard to get enough calories.

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

#283

Post by zabzonk »

barbazoo wrote: post #277
B8MGHCBekDuRi wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

yes, i believe it is - simply don't use your very dubious research to tell others what they should be doing. we don't have these problems in astronomy, for example

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

#284

Post by __derek__ »

bradleyjg wrote: post #12

The generational zeitgeist is ostentatious abnegation. This fits.

Definitely an interesting turn of phrase. Ironically, I think you've helped me understand why I might be wrong about some of the metaverse hype: while I steadfastly believe that people prefer the real world, moving consumption to a fake world (e.g., buying an NFT handbag for your digital avatar) would fall into this category of behavior. In effect, paying as much to own a fake good as the real thing is loudly saying, "Look at what I could have purchased if I were less virtuous."

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

#285

Post by ericmay »

dento wrote: post #267
keymon-o wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Consider having to decide between a 20 min trip by car, or 1 hour trip by train, and the car driving has 100x serious accident probability. However, you save 40 minutes if you drive. Likely, driving doesn't take 40 min off your life expectancy. And even if it did, you save the minutes now, and not at the end of your life.

> Consider having to decide between a 20 min trip by car, or 1 hour trip by train

Couple issues with this. First why not a 20 minute trip by car with fees for parking and all that versus a 20 minute trip by train? Depending on where you live this can be your currently daily experience. It could also be anyones daily experience if we just decided we wanted to do that.

The second issue is that simple comparing the surface level time-by-transit misses most of the particulars that matter. And you are also mistakenly applying individual experience with aggregate experience i.e. 40 minutes saved for the individual but in aggregate many people actually do die because of the 100x serious injury probability.

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

#286

Post by Lienetic »

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.

I'm genuinely curious - do you have some good references of this history I could read?

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

#287

Post by marcus0x62 »

rayiner wrote: post #19

And 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... .

Why would that be a good idea? If you don’t want to drink, then don’t. Kindly leave me alone.

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

#288

Post by marcus0x62 »

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.

How is it denialism? What I’m reading here is mostly people acknowledging there is some risk to alcohol consumption, but judging the risk to be worth it. Life is fundamentally risky.

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

#289

Post by zabzonk »

earth_walker wrote: post #281
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.

The reaction you're seeing is not because we've all got drinking problems. It's due to the reactionary way this and other similar studies are headlined: "No level of alcohol consumption is safe...". It's click-bait, and so you're seeing the resulting clicks. I'm sure you wouldn't have seen anywhere near this kind of reaction if the headline was instead "Any level of alcohol consumption increases liver cancer risk by…

> Here in Canada the health authority has a "no safe levels" attitude towards absinthe, house-made mayo, rare burgers and many of the world's greatest cheeses. We've put "for external use only" warning labels on cooking ingredients like mustard oil and tamarind extracts. We've banned cooking wines entirely!

jeez, i use all of those here in the uk, except for absinthe, which you can't get [actually, you can, but not in your average offie or supermarket].

i remember when a bbc comedy program had a sketch "the worst thing you can hear when you turn on the tv" - it was a shit-eating voice, introducing a documentary, saying "welcome to canada; friendly giant of the north!"

sorry, it just popped into my brain and i had to share it - i don't really hate canadians.

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

#290

Post by rayiner »

marcus0x62 wrote: post #287
rayiner wrote: post #19

And 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... .

Why would that be a good idea? If you don’t want to drink, then don’t . Kindly leave me alone.

That would be fine if drinking didn't affect people's ability to satisfy their social obligations (as coworkers, parents, friends, etc.) but that's not the case.
Post reply on HN