"...among 100 women who have less than one drink per week, about 17 will develop an alcohol-related cancer."
How does this insane number get unnoticed for so long. I really find it hard to believe. < One drink per day more dangerous than smoking a pack per day?
Edit: Ok, looked into the reference and it's a bit more subtle, though I can't find numbers for people not consuming anything, allthough one would think they'd get 0% alcohol related cancers.
"For example, a study of 226,162 individuals reported
that the absolute risk of developing any alcohol-related cancer over the lifespan of
a woman increases from approximately 16.5% (about 17 out of every 100 individuals)
for those who consume less than one drink per week, to 19.0% (19 out of every 100
individuals) for those who consume one drink daily on average to approximately
21.8% (about 22 out of every 100 individuals) for those who consume two drinks
daily on average (Figure 5). That is about five more women out of 100 who would
have developed cancer due to a higher level of alcohol consumption."
Pretty significant, although "less than one drink per day" is a bit vague.
There is no amount of alcohol that is good for you. It is a toxin that only harms your body. The rising popularity and creativity of mocktails shows that people can still have a fun drink that doesn’t involve poisoning their body.
And if you use alcohol for social lubrication, you only screw yourself over by never learning how to truly socialize and let go of inhibition naturally.
I wish the popular and completely absurd phrase "drugs and alcohol" would become outdated.
Somehow alcohol always gets separate consideration and categorisation, while most people would laugh if asked "is moderate tobacco/meth/ecstasy/whatever use healthy?"
If I recall correctly (and I might not), the idea that moderate drinking is healthy came from a faulty study where people who didn't drink at all were less healthy.
But the people who didn't drink at all often didn't drink because they self-excluded because of alcoholism or disease.
They weren't less healthy because they didn't drink, they didn't drink because they were less healthy.
It's poison. If it never existed and someone tried to bring it to market today it would never fly. Should have skull and crossbones on it. Makes about as much sense as huffing gasoline.
More state sponsored propoganda to make us miserable. They don't like you having a few drinks with friends and speaking truths. It makes you hard to control and govern.
No worries, all the kids ditched alcohol a while ago and are on n2o these days. On my morning walks I see a few 3L+ tanks discarded around my block of flats, there are new ones almost every day
This newer work seems basically to be arguing that the effect on the lefthand size of the curve is because drinking alcohol is so common that people who drink nothing are likely to be in poor health already.
I remember the exploration of alcohol consumption stats from one of Michael Hobbes' podcasts and how hard it is to untangle both self-reporting and confounding factors. Like, the population of reported non-drinkers is dominated by both religious abstainers who may otherwise differ culturally from the broader population, and alcoholics who've needed to cut out drinking entirely
Alcohol is a toxin that your liver must work to break down, provides empty calories with no nutritional value, disrupts sleep quality, impairs judgment and coordination, and even moderate consumption increases risks of cancer, heart disease, and other health problems. Any perceived benefits are vastly outweighed by these inherent harms.
18 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 40.8 ms ] threadHow does this insane number get unnoticed for so long. I really find it hard to believe. < One drink per day more dangerous than smoking a pack per day?
Edit: Ok, looked into the reference and it's a bit more subtle, though I can't find numbers for people not consuming anything, allthough one would think they'd get 0% alcohol related cancers.
"For example, a study of 226,162 individuals reported that the absolute risk of developing any alcohol-related cancer over the lifespan of a woman increases from approximately 16.5% (about 17 out of every 100 individuals) for those who consume less than one drink per week, to 19.0% (19 out of every 100 individuals) for those who consume one drink daily on average to approximately 21.8% (about 22 out of every 100 individuals) for those who consume two drinks daily on average (Figure 5). That is about five more women out of 100 who would have developed cancer due to a higher level of alcohol consumption."
Pretty significant, although "less than one drink per day" is a bit vague.
And if you use alcohol for social lubrication, you only screw yourself over by never learning how to truly socialize and let go of inhibition naturally.
Somehow alcohol always gets separate consideration and categorisation, while most people would laugh if asked "is moderate tobacco/meth/ecstasy/whatever use healthy?"
But the people who didn't drink at all often didn't drink because they self-excluded because of alcoholism or disease.
They weren't less healthy because they didn't drink, they didn't drink because they were less healthy.
Caring about the health effects of casual drinking is like counting the calories in a cupcake. If it matters to you, it’s probably not for you.
More state sponsored propoganda to make us miserable. They don't like you having a few drinks with friends and speaking truths. It makes you hard to control and govern.
https://www.quickwhip.de/collections/miami-magic/products/mi...
This newer work seems basically to be arguing that the effect on the lefthand size of the curve is because drinking alcohol is so common that people who drink nothing are likely to be in poor health already.
There's a paragraph about alcohol.