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

291–300 of 385 posts

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

#291

Post by B8MGHCBekDuRi »

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.

It is entirely possible.

But "research" as this paper here are mostly useless.

They are good for nothing.

It's like researching the fact that "there is no amount of soap that can be considered harmless for the environment".

Yes, we know, and now that everyone knows that we all know, what about "we don't care and we'll keep using soap responsibly"?

p.s.: replace "soap" with "human activity" and the paradox will probably be more evident.

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

#292

Post by kevinmchugh »

bamboozled wrote: post #233
kevinmchugh wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing they have in common is that they still have social connections, including with you. People who are alone for stretches of time have a lot more risk from falls, etc

Sometimes I drink with that person, and they might socially drink with others, so it might even be fair to say in this case, it's a positive then? I just have a real problem with talking in absolutes.

It's possible to accept the risk of alcohol as being worth it. I do when I choose to drink. But it's always going to be worse than not drinking, ceteris paribus. If you're able to replace the drinking sessions with tea, or a game, that's probably better for health. Maybe that's not possible, maybe there's something unique about the effect of alcohol, even in small quantities.

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

#293

Post by __derek__ »

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.)

> dependent on alcohol or drugs are six or seven times more likely

NB: this does not mean actively using. Dependency creates significant stress when sober, which almost certainly amplifies violent dispositions. Hence my GP's comment.

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

#294

Post by tavorep »

B8MGHCBekDuRi wrote: post #23
tester756 wrote: post #8

Cool, maybe it'll help debunking those "small amounts of alcohol are healthly (from body standpoint)"

no need to debunk the truth. It's like drugs. Take too many pills, you die. Take them when you need them and their benefit will surpass the risks. Alcohol works the same way. We know for a fact that moderate drinkers live longer than non-drinkers and heavy drinkers. We still don't know why. edit: most people don't want to hear the truth. Moderate drinker live longer than non-drinkers. It's a well known fact For examp…

"We still don't know why."

That's the point though. Even if this fact is true it doesn't mean that drinking is healthy for these moderate drinkers. There could be other reasons that they're living longer and that drinking is actually working against them, not for them.

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

#295

Post by deepsquirrelnet »

tpmx wrote: post #123

Now do cannabis, WHO.

https://www.who.int/teams/mental-health-and-substance-use/al...

https://www.who.int/teams/health-product-and-policy-standard...

https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/can...

https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/ecdd-41-cannabis-rec...

https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/251056/9789...

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

#296

Post by Balgair »

bamboozled wrote: post #255
acidburnNSA wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

By radiation here it is meant ionizing radiation, which comes in 3 major forms (exceptions do exist):

1- Alpha radiation: Basically helium atoms. Pretty harmless on the outside of your body, really really bad if inside your body. Do not eat/inhale.

2- Beta radiation: Electrons. Harmfulness varies, kinda. Stay away from it.

3- Gamma radiation: Likely what you're thinking of. These are photons. Harmfulness increases with frequency/energy of photon, mostly. Think X-rays, not UVa radiation.

Aside: UVa/b isn't ionizing, it just so happens to be the same wavelength as the short channel of your DNA strand and has a small, but noticeable, chance of breaking up your DNA. The biology of a sunburn is somewhat complicated, so please research on your own. Wear sunscreen and you're fine. With ionizing radiation you need to wear a lot of lead to be fine.

Other forms of harm exist for every known particle, but you'd need to stand right inside of the LHC to experience it or be cosmically unlucky (for say, neutrino based ionizing radiation).

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

#297

Post by B8MGHCBekDuRi »

rayiner wrote: post #256
B8MGHCBekDuRi wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 highe…

> Americans are much more compliant now

American health issue are mostly class based.

Black and brown people are poorer on average, hence they face more issues regarding health issues in general.

Alcohol abuse is a well known addiction among people of lower classes, while higher classes prefer other more expensive substances.

Also with more money available come higher quality alcoholic beverages.

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

#298

Post by thriftwy »

Armisael16 wrote: post #75
thriftwy wrote: post #24

Human liver has enzymes to metabolize alcohol for energy, which implicitly makes this claim questionable. If we have it, why not be putting it to work?

The human body also has ways to heal broken bones - are you arguing that it’s a waste to not use those as well? We’ve developed means to more effectively handle certain common poisons. That doesn’t mean they aren’t dangerous.

Bones need load to grow properly, and they will use the same mechanisms to grow strong.

Poisons are neutralized but are not energy source (nutrient). Turns out, alcohol is.

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

#299

Post by auveair »

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.)

I mean, from the same article you have, they bring up the same point I did:

> While undoubtedly there is some link between alcohol and drugs and domestic abuse, this research should be treated with some caution, said Dame Vera Baird, victims' commissioner for England and Wales. She said: "Many perpetrators who commit domestic violence while drunk will also be violent and controlling while sober. "And many perpetrators of domestic violence and coercive control do not have a drink or drug problem, and therefore it would be a mistake to divert resources from domestic violence perpetrator programmes to tackling drink and drugs misuse."

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

#300

Post by B8MGHCBekDuRi »

tavorep wrote: post #294
B8MGHCBekDuRi wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no need to debunk the truth. It's like drugs. Take too many pills, you die. Take them when you need them and their benefit will surpass the risks. Alcohol works the same way. We know for a fact that moderate drinkers live longer than non-drinkers and heavy drinkers. We still don't know why. edit: most people don't want to hear the truth. Moderate drinker live longer than non-drinkers. It's a well known fact For examp…

"We still don't know why." That's the point though. Even if this fact is true it doesn't mean that drinking is healthy for these moderate drinkers. There could be other reasons that they're living longer and that drinking is actually working against them, not for them.

> Even if this fact is true it doesn't mean that drinking is healthy for these moderate drinkers

That's not the kind of inference we can derive from the data though.

The conclusion is that, even if we know that alcohol is not good for our health, moderate drinking has not been correlated to higher mortality or shorter life span, so we can conclude that, at the time of this writing, there are no evidence that show that moderate drinking is worse than not drinking for our health.

Regardless of the causes, the data simply doesn't show any correlation whatsoever with worsening health conditions, it shows, however, a correlation with a mildly longer average life span, which has not been explained, yet.

Post reply on HN