Less than half of Americans know that alcohol is a carcinogen • Hacker News Board

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

#181

Post by ascar » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 8:25 AM UTC

93po wrote: post #143

nubbins wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I consider myself well informed and I had no idea burnt food was unhealthy. I would just figured it was carbon, and I don't have any reason to believe carbon would hurt me.

You're one of the 10000 today https://xkcd.com/1053/

I think this is a very well known thing that I learned as a small kid, but I (and my family) still rather eat a bit of black on the outside of the meat than eating still raw parts in the middle (for pork and chicken that is). It's all about juggling risks.

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

#182

Post by 0-_-0 » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 9:46 AM UTC

msk-lywenn wrote: post #6

CadellFastro wrote: post #2

What percentage of Americans even know that alcohol is a drug? As a Wisconsin native, I've seen first hand the toxic culture surrounding drinking in America, including having a relative die of alcoholism. Still, we don't seem to look at it like other drugs, even though it ruins lives just as effectively as something like heroin.

I'd like to see a study on alcohol addiction that shows that all or some specific alcoholic drinks are as addictive as heroin.

Depends on the definition. E.g. alcohol withdrawal can kill you, heroin withdrawal can't.

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

#183

Post by 0-_-0 » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 9:58 AM UTC

trav4225 wrote: post #169

Recently, I opened the packaging of a new product I had purchased (I actually don't even remember what it was), and a small paper tag fell out that said, simply "WARNING: CANCER". Oh, okay... thanks. :)

> I actually don't even remember what it was

It was cancer, obviously.

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

#184

Post by sunstone » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 5:17 PM UTC

Not to mention sugar.

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

#185

Post by srg0 » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 5:43 PM UTC

advisedwang wrote: post #51

Source for all the folks asking specifically about risks: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/a... > an estimated 3.5% of cancer deaths in the United States (about 19,500 deaths) were alcohol related > Moderate drinkers have 1.8-fold higher risks of oral cavity (excluding the lips) and pharynx (throat) cancers and 1.4-fold higher risks of larynx (voice box) cancers than non-drinkers, and heavy…

Also:

> One bottle of wine per week is associated with an increased absolute lifetime cancer risk for non-smokers of 1.0% (men) and 1.4% (women). The overall absolute increase in cancer risk for one bottle of wine per week equals that of five (men) or ten cigarettes per week (women). Gender differences result from levels of moderate drinking leading to a 0.8% absolute risk of breast cancer in female non-smokers.

Source: https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s...

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

#186

Post by srg0 » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 5:51 PM UTC

frereubu wrote: post #104

advisedwang wrote: post #51

Source for all the folks asking specifically about risks: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/a... > an estimated 3.5% of cancer deaths in the United States (about 19,500 deaths) were alcohol related > Moderate drinkers have 1.8-fold higher risks of oral cavity (excluding the lips) and pharynx (throat) cancers and 1.4-fold higher risks of larynx (voice box) cancers than non-drinkers, and heavy…

The crucial data that's missing from those figures (although they're probably buried in the references somewhere) is what the initial risk of cancer is. If the risk of cancer of the larynx in non-drinkers is 0.0001%, then a 1.4-fold increase means that a moderate drinker has a risk of 0.00014%, an absolute increase of 0.00004%. Instead if it's 20%, then a 1.4-fold increase is 28%, an absolute increase of 8%. You coul…

This study provides absolute estimate:

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s...

10 out of 1000 men, and 14 out of 1000 women; those are excess cancer deaths which can be attributed to moderate alcohol consumption (one bottle of wine per week)

> The UK’s Million Women Study reported an excess incidence of 15 per 1000 cancer cases for each additional alcoholic drink consumed per day, 11 due to breast cancer [14, 16].

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

#187

Post by jobigoud » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 7:28 AM UTC

jkingsbery wrote: post #130

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?

This would mean that the companies that put the label on their otherwise inocuous products "just in case" are in fact correct. A self fulfilling prophecy.

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

#188

Post by temp43t453 » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 6:09 PM UTC

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…

fries - completely ok: a lot of people get in contact with them, but putting sign on them while not putting warning over any other harmfully (over)fried products seem at least illogical(yea, creating regulations doesnt work in us, or at least there's no efficient mechanism, but still)

sand - widespread construction material, i wonder why they only put label regarding cancer instead of placing usage restriction over maximum allowed radiation flux produced from square meter area of material(some decorative stones would not fit into safe range but are ok for a lifetime risk of any person)