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

Less than half of Americans know that alcohol is a carcinogen

thecounter.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 188 posts

Re: Less than half of Americans know that alcohol is a carcinogen

#111

Post by mandown »

throwaway09223 wrote: post #76
35fbe7d3d5b9 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was curious, so I googled: https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/general-info/proposition... > By law, a warning must be given for listed chemicals unless exposure is low enough to pose no significant risk of cancer > the "no significant risk level” is defined as the level of exposure that would result in not more than one excess case of cancer in 100,000 individuals exposed to the chemical over a 70-year lifetime Th…

Yes, prop 65 is absurd. Pro 65 among other things requires labels on: * Parking garages * French fries - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mcdonalds-acrylamide-warni... (This sign is real; the McDonald's by my house has one) * Toast * Seaweed * Coffee has been a battleground: https://www.consumerproductslawblog.com/2019/06/what-now-cal... * Sand You would be hard pressed to find something that prop 65 does not requir…

this is wild.

Re: Less than half of Americans know that alcohol is a carcinogen

#112

Post by Clubber »

tehjoker wrote: post #41
csours wrote: post #17

I bought a large mixing bowl, and it had a California Cancer label on the bottom. It's a regular metal bowl. If you put cancer labels on everything, people will quickly ignore them. Maybe it would be better if there was a scale on it, like this is a 1 banana equivalent risk or something, but then how do you determine my exposure to the cancer in the metal bowl.

I think that was the idea. If the warnings were effective, then business processes are affected. If consumers can be trained to ignore them, then the state looks like it's doing something for people without changing anything materially.

I think over time it helps to "dilute the brand" of government institutions, so to speak, meaning people lose faith in the effectiveness and necessity of the policies being foisted on them.

Re: Less than half of Americans know that alcohol is a carcinogen

#113

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

Ovah wrote: post #110
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, it matters what the baseline frequencies of these cancers are. If these represent .1% of all cancers, even a tenfold relative risk only increases your absolute risk by 1%. That would be "significant" under some definition of the word significant. But it might not be decisive for someone considering whether they should drink. On the other hand, if the baseline rate of those cancers is 8%, it would likely be…

The baseline risk of getting cancer['s whos risk is increased by alcohol] is somewhat low as it is. Simply refuted the above statement that alcohol doesn't affect cancer risk. EDIT: Thank you asdfasgasdgasdg for the correction.

Cancer is the cause of ~22% of deaths in the US, not 1%?

https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/facts-and-figures-2019.ht....

Re: Less than half of Americans know that alcohol is a carcinogen

#114

Post by nubbins »

echelon wrote: post #63

Rule of thumb : if your food, beverage, dye, or aromatic scent readily undergoes chemical reactions, it might not be safe. Alcohol is quite chemically reactive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol#Reactions Burnt or charred food has loads of polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) that have lots of potential for chemistry (delocalized electrons = very reactive). They pose extreme cancer risk, and might be one of the most i…

I think people know that a piece of meat on a grill that is totally burnt black is not healthy. And likewise I'd throw away or at least scrape off burnt toast.

Browning on foods is a huge source of flavor though (Maillard reaction I think), is this also a concern? It seems like an occasional steak with thin grill marks could be worth it, but I have no idea where to draw the line on this, compared to something like alcohol, because there is no study for how many grams of burnt food you can eat per week etc.

Re: Less than half of Americans know that alcohol is a carcinogen

#115

Post by Ovah »

eganist wrote: post #87
Ovah wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here are some actual numbers for risk increase. Heavy drinkers have a 5-fold increased risk of getting head and neck cancer, esofageal cancer, and 2-fold increase for liver cancer. The source also reviews colorectal, breast and head+neck cancer. My opinion as a medical professional is that these are significant, and not "very tiny amounts", of increased risk. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk…

You're going to run into walls of denial with people refuting what they're hearing because the lifestyle change is hard or, worse, because they're coping with addiction and don't see a way out.

I agree. Talking about cancer risk is not the way to go to motivate people to stop drinking. There are far more significant and clinically relevant risk from using alcohol than cancer, such as cardiovascular disease.

Re: Less than half of Americans know that alcohol is a carcinogen

#116

Post by [deleted] »

ogre_codes wrote: post #75
SoSoRoCoCo wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take a stab at the research if you link the bowl? I'm curious now. I appreciate California's proactive stance, and I guess I fall into the minority because I do pay attention to those labels.

I think the labels are over the top. If you make people put big cancer labels on everything which causes cancer and ignore the relative risks of one versus the other, it is impossible to make a rational choice about the issue. Even a simple color guide would be a huge help.

[deleted]

Re: Less than half of Americans know that alcohol is a carcinogen

#117

Post by 35fbe7d3d5b9 »

ogre_codes wrote: post #75
SoSoRoCoCo wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take a stab at the research if you link the bowl? I'm curious now. I appreciate California's proactive stance, and I guess I fall into the minority because I do pay attention to those labels.

I think the labels are over the top. If you make people put big cancer labels on everything which causes cancer and ignore the relative risks of one versus the other, it is impossible to make a rational choice about the issue. Even a simple color guide would be a huge help.

It should be possible to quantify the increased risk from exposure, use that to weigh disability adjusted life years, and bake a color code from that.

French fries known to cause cancer, but daily consumption would impact by a far less aggressive label than goes on a bottle of benzene.

Re: Less than half of Americans know that alcohol is a carcinogen

#118

Post by SoSoRoCoCo »

Miraste wrote: post #86
SoSoRoCoCo wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take a stab at the research if you link the bowl? I'm curious now. I appreciate California's proactive stance, and I guess I fall into the minority because I do pay attention to those labels.

Do you take action based on the labels? I've thought about it, but half the things I own have them, and in some cases it's illegal to make non-california-cancerous alternatives (fire-retardant furniture).

To the best of my ability. I like being informed as much as possible. But sometimes, yes, it _IS_ exhausting. But that is part of the price we pay to live in a world/country that basically wants to poison us for profit.

Re: Less than half of Americans know that alcohol is a carcinogen

#119

Post by bluGill »

Miraste wrote: post #86
SoSoRoCoCo wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take a stab at the research if you link the bowl? I'm curious now. I appreciate California's proactive stance, and I guess I fall into the minority because I do pay attention to those labels.

Do you take action based on the labels? I've thought about it, but half the things I own have them, and in some cases it's illegal to make non-california-cancerous alternatives (fire-retardant furniture).

Those who decide what gets a label have no downside to adding the wrong thing, and no upside to incorrectly leaving the label off something. As such if there is even the slightest possibility they mandate the label. Few bother to fight them, so everything has the label.

Roundup is the only case I know of that was successful: it has been well studied and found not cancerous in the vast majority of studies. So the few exceptions are not enough that they can be forced to but a label on - but it is still listed by California, it just doesn't have a label. Based on this success a few others are trying to get their label removed, but I'm not aware of other success.

Re: Less than half of Americans know that alcohol is a carcinogen

#120

Post by SoSoRoCoCo »

ogre_codes wrote: post #75
SoSoRoCoCo wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take a stab at the research if you link the bowl? I'm curious now. I appreciate California's proactive stance, and I guess I fall into the minority because I do pay attention to those labels.

I think the labels are over the top. If you make people put big cancer labels on everything which causes cancer and ignore the relative risks of one versus the other, it is impossible to make a rational choice about the issue. Even a simple color guide would be a huge help.

> it is impossible to make a rational choice about the issue.

I think this is over-reaching. I agree there should be a better system, but I am perfectly willing to do the work and research the warning. Thus, I am able to make a rational decision based on the best information I can find. As with all science, what is rational today may change as new information becomes available. THat is the price we pay to stay informed, versus ignorance.

Post reply on HN