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

121–130 of 188 posts

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

#121

Post by Ovah »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #113
Ovah wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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... .

Thank you, looks like I stand corrected. A very large part of that is prostate cancer which isn't really significantly affected by alcohol. But you're right, the total increased % mortality of cancer is higher than what I stated..

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

#122

Post by kevinskii »

eganist wrote: post #92
dekhn wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

those are relative risks, you need to state them in absolute risk if you want people to be able to understand and make decisions. If the absolute baseline risk of getting head and neck cancer is very low, then having a 5x risk over that isn't really important- it's still absolutely small enough to say "don't care, compared to other risks". And in alcohol, there's a long list of risks that will cause the majority of d…

> you need to state them in absolute risk if you want people to be able to understand and make decisions. I refute this on the grounds that an alarming number of people seem not to care about their own health given a 1/1000 risk of death (or worse for older or at-risk populations) from SARS-CoV-2. If half the country doesn't care about those odds, what makes us think any measurable amount of people will care about...…

The goal shouldn't be to get people to do what you want. It should be to give them sufficient information so they can make an informed decision on their own, even if you might disagree with it.

I'm not suggesting that personal liberty should trump SARS-Cov-2 precautions, but it's not really relevant to a discussion about whether risk should be framed in absolute terms or not. (Edited for clarity.)

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

#123

Post by adrr »

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…

Prop 65 is a good example why citizens shouldn’t make laws. Lack of debate or understanding the consequences.

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

#124

Post by CadellFastro »

Miraste wrote: post #97
CadellFastro wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is exactly my point. Additionally, if you do want to look at things statistically, alcoholism is far more prevalent, at least in the United States, than heroin. In terms of raw number, alcoholism affects are larger range of people and arguably therefore destroys more lives.

That's hardly a correct comparison. Alcohol is far more readily available and accepted than heroin.

Hence, if you consider the effect on the entire using population, alcohol has a greater potential for damage considering its greater availability. Heroin is a bomb. Alcohol is fireworks. One is legal, and arguably less dangerous, but there are far more fireworks injuries in the ER than bomb injuries.

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

#125

Post by dekhn »

Ovah wrote: post #101
dekhn wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

those are relative risks, you need to state them in absolute risk if you want people to be able to understand and make decisions. If the absolute baseline risk of getting head and neck cancer is very low, then having a 5x risk over that isn't really important- it's still absolutely small enough to say "don't care, compared to other risks". And in alcohol, there's a long list of risks that will cause the majority of d…

I mean cancer which risk is affected by alcohol is somewhat low as it is. I simply refuted the above statement that alcohol barely affects cancer incidence. Cardiovascular disease however is the #1 cause of death in the Western world. And here alcohol alcohol plays a much much more significant role in contributing to mortality.

Cancer causes <1% of deaths? Not sure where you got that belief, cancer is #2 in the US and it's more like 25-30% of all deaths. Different in the developing world since many more people die of communicable diseases.

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

#126

Post by dekhn »

kevinskii wrote: post #122
eganist wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you need to state them in absolute risk if you want people to be able to understand and make decisions. I refute this on the grounds that an alarming number of people seem not to care about their own health given a 1/1000 risk of death (or worse for older or at-risk populations) from SARS-CoV-2. If half the country doesn't care about those odds, what makes us think any measurable amount of people will care about...…

The goal shouldn't be to get people to do what you want. It should be to give them sufficient information so they can make an informed decision on their own, even if you might disagree with it. I'm not suggesting that personal liberty should trump SARS-Cov-2 precautions, but it's not really relevant to a discussion about whether risk should be framed in absolute terms or not. (Edited for clarity.)

I disagree for a simple reason: while liberty is a great goal, if the liberty comes at a cost to the commons, it needs to be restricted. For example, as much as I'd love to let people chose to smoke and die of cancer, smoking affects a lot more than just the smoker. Alcohol DUIs leads to many driving deaths.

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

#127

Post by adrr »

nubbins wrote: post #114
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 al…

People eat smoked foods all the time.

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

#128

Post by dreamcompiler »

dotancohen wrote: post #100
throwaway09223 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Yes, prop 65 is absurd. ...known to the state of Cancer to cause California...

Oh hi there AvE.

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

#129

Post by SoSoRoCoCo »

bluGill wrote: post #119
Miraste wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> found not cancerous in the vast majority of studies

I just spent 30 minutes googling and found the opposite, with CDC, WHO, EPA and EU all in disagreement with one another! Forbes, NYT, and several other sites indicate increases in leukemia, other new evidence, and even a $10B settlement by Bayer (Monsanto's owner) that will keep evidence sealed.

IMO, this is clearly not settled.

So I choose to make a rational decision to NOT to spray RoundUp on my lawn, and to try, to the best of my ability, to avoid purchasing products exposed to it. Hence, I would like a warning label. But if cannot avoid it due to opaque laws, then bummer.

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

#130

Post by jkingsbery »

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.

The ink on the label might cause cancer. Shouldn't the cancer label have a label on it?

Post reply on HN