Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 190 posts

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

#101

Post by FartyMcFarter »

scotteric wrote: post #88
FartyMcFarter wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gee, how did two bottles of wine / 7 pints of beer a week get categorised as light? For me light would be one or two beers a week max.

Conventional wisdom used to be that a glass of wine or a beer everyday was healthy.

Even if you're drinking a beer every day, it probably doesn't need to be a whole pint. Most beer bottles / cans are 330ml or close to that.

A small glass of wine is also definitely less than the 200ml you'd need to get anywhere near 1.5 liters a week.

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

#102

Post by TOMDM »

refurb wrote: post #85

This needs a true cost-benefit analysis. Thats what we do for any type of medical intervention. Some surgeries are super risky and some drugs have severe side effects that can kill you. Still, the overall benefit is positive. Benefits: reduced stress, increased social interactions, improved mood Costs: reduced lifespan, liver issues, addiction I’ll bet the benefits outway the costs over an entire population. Maybe no…

Don't forget drink driving.

~30% of car crashes involve a driver with alcohol in their system. In the US alone that's approximately 11,000 deaths a year.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving#:~:text=Ab...).

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

#103

Post by nemo44x »

refurb wrote: post #85

This needs a true cost-benefit analysis. Thats what we do for any type of medical intervention. Some surgeries are super risky and some drugs have severe side effects that can kill you. Still, the overall benefit is positive. Benefits: reduced stress, increased social interactions, improved mood Costs: reduced lifespan, liver issues, addiction I’ll bet the benefits outway the costs over an entire population. Maybe no…

Considering humans have been using it thousands of years I’d tend to agree. We have a habit today of quickly throwing away things people have done forever believing, arrogantly, that we are the first people to finally be right. We tend to privilege certain types of information (scientific study in this case) without considering the broader context and practical realities. And that trying to live forever is futile.

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

#104

Post by mytailorisrich »

Loic wrote: post #54
stephen_g wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this is the Lancet article summarising the research: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2... The proportion of cancers attributable to alcohol is 4.1% of all cases, from [1]. Of that, the ‘Light to Moderate’ alcohol category ( 1. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2...

2 bottles of wine per week is already quite a bit. If you are a couple, you pop a bottle more than every second day.

What matters is obviously per person... So "if you are a couple" is completely irrelevant.

Terms like 'light', 'moderate' or 'heavy' drinking are relative and must be taken in context.

For instance, historically it has been customary in many countries to drink wine with every meal. So 2 bottles per week is indeed moderate as it's about 1-2 glasses per meal. Likewise, 3.5l a beer per week is one beer at dinner, which is considered quite moderate, indeed.

Basically, if your drinking is moderate during meals only and no hard liquor this is considerate 'moderate' to normal in traditional terms.

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

#105

Post by shanebellone »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #82
shanebellone wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Let’s hope the same happens with alcohol." Why? You have all the required information to make an educated decision for yourself. Others do too. Allow them to decide without harassment. I quit smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol years ago now. As the calculus changed, my habits followed suit. Everyone should be allowed to choose how they live.

I didn’t say outlaw it. Cigarettes are not outlawed. Let’s change the peer pressure around drinking like we did with cigarettes

"Let’s change the peer pressure around drinking like we did with cigarettes."

This is precisely what I was referring to. If peer pressure to use [insert substance here] is wrong; the antithesis is wrong too.

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

#106

Post by rightbyte »

zabzonk wrote: post #77
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #57

Reading through the comments here there seems to be much negative sentiment against this study. But what they are right? What if alcohol is actually just bad for you full stop. Would this really be that shocking or controversial that a known poison is poisonous?

it's neither shocking or controversial to say that excess alcohol (for example, falling-down drunk) is bad for the majority of people. what is irritating to people of a logical/scientific bent is saying that ANY alcohol at all is going to lead to a a bad result, with minimal or no evidence. for example, the bottle of gin that i have beside me has a label on it that says i should not exceed 2 small glasses a day. wher…

Two small glasses of gin every day is probably way to much? Just from the high frequency.

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

#107

Post by billfruit »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #68
ascotan wrote: post #25

Well according to the American Cancer Society, alcoholic beverages are a Group 1 Carcinogen. Right up there with Asbestos, UV radiation, Tobacco smoke, and Diesel exhaust. https://www.cancer.org/healthy/cancer-causes/general-info/kn... There probably a story somewhere as to why cigarettes get big labels and beer cans don't.

I was surprised to learn that list does not contain nicotine (only tobacco).

Perhaps the carcinogens in cigarette are the various products of combustion, whereas nicotine is the addictive component?

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

#109

Post by zabzonk »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #68
ascotan wrote: post #25

Well according to the American Cancer Society, alcoholic beverages are a Group 1 Carcinogen. Right up there with Asbestos, UV radiation, Tobacco smoke, and Diesel exhaust. https://www.cancer.org/healthy/cancer-causes/general-info/kn... There probably a story somewhere as to why cigarettes get big labels and beer cans don't.

I was surprised to learn that list does not contain nicotine (only tobacco).

nicotine is not a carcinogen

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

#110

Post by ascotan »

JBiserkov wrote: post #47
ascotan wrote: post #25

Well according to the American Cancer Society, alcoholic beverages are a Group 1 Carcinogen. Right up there with Asbestos, UV radiation, Tobacco smoke, and Diesel exhaust. https://www.cancer.org/healthy/cancer-causes/general-info/kn... There probably a story somewhere as to why cigarettes get big labels and beer cans don't.

There's a video of a journalist asking a Russian official "Why do cigarettes say 'Smoking kills' on the pack, but vodka has no such label on the bottle?" to which the official replies "Why would vodka say 'Smoking kills' on the bottle?!?".

lmao
Post reply on HN