Live data from Hacker News

No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health

who.int

301–310 of 385 posts

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

#301

> 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…

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.

What about safe amount of chlorine to drink? Piss?

Chlorine is toxic, and you should not drink it, but tap water has a small amount to ensure to kill al bacterias. We had a cholera epidemic like 30 years ago, and the official recommendation was to add two drops of chlorine to water if you were unsure if it was clean enough. Also swimming pools have chlorine, more than tap water, but you are not suppose to drink too much of it.

A few years ago a moron pissed in a water reservoir and uploaded the video to youtube, so it was an unnecessary public outrage and the water authorities decided to release all the water and fill the reservoir again, as if birds and squirrels use the toilette. Don't ask about swimming pools.

Gasoline? Sometime food has contamination form industrial oil, gasoline and other stuff. It was common to use benzene to remove the natural oil from flour, but I think they changed to another safer solvent. Anyway, there are safety limits for all of that. Zero is very difficult because chromatography is too sensitive.

Cigarette smoking? Probably zero cigarettes is the best, but I remember a silly trend a few years ago about third hand smoke, i.e. how dangerous was to go to a home a few years after someone smoked there and you can still get a small amount of toxic compounds released by the walls contaminated with the smoke.

Asbesto? A single fiber can kill you, but two fibers have like the double of probability to kill you, and a million fibers are even more dangerous. In which case should a building be declared inhabitable?

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

#302

All things in moderation, including moderation. neopuritans be damned.

Except meth. Not even once.

But seriously, I’m fully on board with this sentiment. I’m so tired of everything quickly going to extremes. I’m glad to know alcohol has risks at any level. I’ll take that information and use it how I see fit. Same with cannabis, same with sugar, same with adult content, same with lead-containing enamel on my plates.

Give me the information I need and let me be responsible for myself. Awareness of risks is what we should be doing. Forcing people into padded rooms so they don’t hurt themselves is not.

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

#304
post #99
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Alcohol is so culturally embedded in West the replies here are so sad. Alcohol is poison and it fucks up kidney, liver and brain. Sets cortisol base levels higher and perpetuates a habit in such a way that, you HAVE to drink to feel normal and relaxed. This cycle perpetuates and you associate alcohol with relaxation all the while alcohol is imposing higher and higher tax on you. It is like a robber - robbing $100 whe…

then don't drink and live a better life than anybody else.

animals enjoy alcohol too[1], it's not simply cultural and it's not a "west only" thing.

> all the while alcohol is imposing higher and higher tax on you.

assuming it's true, I very much prefer the alcohol tax than the 80 hours work week and only 7 days/year of holidays tax

[1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-alcoholics...

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

#305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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..."

Living in cities with the stress, smog, air pollution, noise, etc. is a much bigger cancer risk than some wine in one's liver though

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

#307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you need sugar, red meat, fat to have a joyful life? You do, don't you. Having a glass of wine or two should be treated the same. If you have religious reservations, please use your energy to fight off islamists who deal drugs, take bribes and marry with young children. Those sin more than people who indulge in a glass of wine or two.

How did we get here from a thread about alcohol prohibition? Are they an existential threat in your country?

In fact it is, Į live in Turkey. I have seen to many religious hypocrites.

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

#308
post #112
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I half agree, the keyword being “need”. There’s no reason you can’t have a joyful life without alcohol. The biggest joys in life don’t directly correlate with it. But, a good glass of wine with a nice meal adds something beautiful. The dinner parties where everyone is 3 glasses in produce some of the most memorable, happy, joyful conversations of my life. There’s a reason that throughout history people always mention…

> In moderation, it adds a unique pleasure to being alive

as the old adage says: In medio stat virtus

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in_medio_stat_virtus

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

#309
post #15

The thinking is backwards on this. They state there is no scientific safe drinking level. They even compare it to radiation. The goal is to establish an unsafe level. it's like saying there is no safe speed to drive a car - sure that's technically true, but worthless to say.

> They state there is no scientific safe drinking level. They even compare it to radiation. The goal is to establish an unsafe level. it's like saying there is no safe speed to drive a car - sure that's technically true, but worthless to say. Which is ironic, because, while most people use the "Linear no-threshold" model for radiation, we know that small amounts of radiation are actually beneficial. The most charitab…

From the BMJ *British Medical Journal). "Analyses of the dose of alcohol consumed showed that 2.5–14.9 g alcohol (about ≤1 drink) per day was protective for all five outcomes compared with no alcohol (table 2⇑). For coronary heart disease outcomes, all levels of intake >2.5 g/day had similar degrees of risk reduction. " https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d671

Heart Disease is a bigger killer than cancer.

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

#310
post #38

I wonder how the data is treated statistically. If 99% of millionaires have consumed alcohol, does consuming alcohol increase the chance of becoming a millionaire!?

Do you think researchers are idiots?

Being a researcher is not an immediate admission to being honest, integral and intelligent.
Post reply on HN