No amount of alcohol is good for your overall health, global study says

[jak2002003]

53 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I would say less alchohol would be to the better for the society, and not at least the children! The cost of alchohole abuse again the society have to pay as well, so the less people who drink to the better for the society. 

 

But it will only fuel the criminals, and we have seen it before, and I do not think it will go down that way again. 

 

So what is the solution? Up to you or the government how much you should drink? Humans is good taking care of themselves? 

I am sure the cost of fat people, the obesity crisis, junk food, processed food, and sedentary lifestyles is placing a far bigger burden financially and socially on society then alcoholics.  

 

Look at countries where alcohol is banned... dictatorships with the worst human rights.  

[faraday]

9 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You can consider it any way you like, but casting aspersions on scientific studies the results of which are unpleasing to you is not the way science is done.

Do you really think that Science & the Medical profession is unbiased & never influenced by certain institutions whose primary goal is profit?

 

I can assure you that it is.

 

[Hummin]

2 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

I am sure the cost of fat people, the obesity crisis, junk food, processed food, and sedentary lifestyles is placing a far bigger burden financially and socially on society then alcoholics.  

 

Look at countries where alcohol is banned... dictatorships with the worst human rights.  

Well, most of the time the ones who have bad health, and those who struggle with mental issues and so on, often aslo abuse other stimuli and it is connected. If you take away one habit, you create a new one. So it is an endless circle in misery.  

[jak2002003]

26 minutes ago, faraday said:

Next study being published soon.

 

"Breathing damages your lungs, the O2 should be mixed with cigarette smoke, to reduce stress on the Alveoli."

 

?

 

 

 

 

 

That study already exists.  

 

They found Oxygen damages the lungs and give you lung cancer.  People living at higher elevations had less lung cancer... and it recommended people up mountains close far from sea level to get less oxygen and lessen the risk of lung cancer!!!!    Nothing about smoking though, or pollution from the city smog lol.

 

 

 

 

[Lacessit]

20 hours ago, attrayant said:

I'd better not see anyone in this thread ever complaining about 20 parts per billion of a 'maybe-could by-possibly carcinogenic' pesticide in their food, if you're willing to drink a glass of wine that has 130 million ppb of a known, class 1 carcinogen (ethanol) in it.

 

That is all.

Perhaps you could cite an authoritative source for your claim.

[bristolboy]

20 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

That study already exists.  

 

They found Oxygen damages the lungs and give you lung cancer.  People living at higher elevations had less lung cancer... and it recommended people up mountains close far from sea level to get less oxygen and lessen the risk of lung cancer!!!!    Nothing about smoking though, or pollution from the city smog lol.

 

 

 

 

I recognize that to some people alcohol is as necessary to life as is oxygen. But most of us can live without the former. Not nearly as many can do without the latter.

[Stargeezr]

I guess Mr Hummin cannot recognise a sarcastic comment, and that is what my comment is. I am near 70 years old. My Grandmas lived to 90 and 92 years old.

My mother made it to 92, her sisters made it to 94. My Father lived to 87 and drank most of his Adult life, maybe all the Navy rum kept him going.  Too much fake news these days.   I think I will take my chances on beer and wine until my family doctor tells me to quit.

Geezer

[faraday]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I recognize that to some people alcohol is as necessary to life as is oxygen. But most of us can live without the former. Not nearly as many can do without the latter.

Very profound.

 

?

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, faraday said:

Very profound.

 

?

It might seem profound to someone who "liked" a post about higher levels of oxygen causing lung cancer in a thread about the ill-effects of alcohol. But trust me, it was quite elementary.

[manarak]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

You can consider it any way you like, but casting aspersions on scientific studies the results of which are unpleasing to you is not the way science is done.

I don't cast it away, I put it in the catalog of different science studies that were made on the subject.

 

And that "The Lancet" is politically biaised is a known fact, one that even the journal itself endorses:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lancet#Controversies

 

They take a stance on different topics and we can respect that.

But we still have to remember they publish papers that fit their agenda.

That's all.

 

Edited August 25, 2018 by manarak

[Lacessit]

The study in the OP casts a wide net on the dangers of alcohol to human health, such as traffic accidents and alcohol-related violence. For someone who does not consume alcohol prior to driving, or drinks a glass of wine with their meal at home, those risks don't exist.

As the study relates to people in a certain age cohort which I have passed by a considerable margin, I think I'll continue as normal.

Australians would be classed as one of the leading nationalities for alcohol consumption. Strange then that our average life expectancy is only just behind that of Norway and Japan at 81 years.

 

[faraday]

18 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

It might seem profound to someone who "liked" a post about higher levels of oxygen causing lung cancer in a thread about the ill-effects of alcohol. But trust me, it was quite elementary.

How on earth could I 'trust' someone who is yet to develop a sense of humour or indeed irony, & appears to not address some of important topics on here, with Socratic reasoning?

 

Lighten up, Knowle West boy....

 

?

 

NB. Address my post #92 then.

Edited August 25, 2018 by faraday

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, faraday said:

How on earth could I 'trust' someone who is yet to develop a sense of humour or indeed irony, & appears to not address some of important topics on here, with Socratic reasoning?

 

Lighten up, Knowle West boy....

 

?

So you're saying the posting about oxygen was not intended to disparage the study about alcohol?

[faraday]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

So you're saying the posting about oxygen was not intended to disparage the study about alcohol?

Are you related to Cathy Newman of Channel 4 in the UK?

 

"So you're saying..."

 

 

[Hummin]

49 minutes ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

I guess Mr Hummin cannot recognise a sarcastic comment, and that is what my comment

is. I am near 70 years old. My Grandmas lived to 90 and 92 years old.

My mother made it to 92, her sisters made it to 94. My Father lived to 87 and drank most

of his Adult life, maybe all the Navy rum kept him going.  Too much fake news these days.

  I think I will take my chances on beer and wine until my family doctor tells me to quit.

Geezer

I guess you have a good gen bank as your family, and can be sarcastic on others behalf. 

 

Karma strikes ? 

[Stargeezr]

Good Karma to you to Hummin.

[Hummin]

2 minutes ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

Good Karma to you to Hummin.

The ecco of fake news, will follow us to the end ?

[rott]

17 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Not sure that graph means anything,

In these modern days we kill more in the womb than ever died in childhood.

Most of my pals have already died aged 50-70, I only know 1 guy that's made it past 70.

Wouldn't put it past the government and pensions people to fake statistics showing longer lives, in order to justify reduced or delayed pensions.

Your pals are possibly a bit unlucky. Of the ten lads I grew up with one died mid-fifties, two we have lost touch with, the rest of us have made seventy and have been lifelong "social" drinkers. Mostly gave up smoking in their twenties and thirties, the one who passed didn't he was also overweight with a stressful job and some family history of heart problems

[Hummin]

13 minutes ago, rott said:

Your pals are possibly a bit unlucky. Of the ten lads I grew up with one died mid-fifties, two we have lost touch with, the rest of us have made seventy and have been lifelong "social" drinkers. Mostly gave up smoking in their twenties and thirties, the one who passed didn't he was also overweight with a stressful job and some family history of heart problems

More education make people live longer, healthier and happier. Of course genes have a huge part of how your life will turn out, and with good genes, you can smoke, drink and eat like a pig, and even get very old. My best guess there is very few of those. 

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/08/31/gaining-degree-could-help-live-longer/

[rott]

22 hours ago, attrayant said:

I'd better not see anyone in this thread ever complaining about 20 parts per billion of a 'maybe-could by-possibly carcinogenic' pesticide in their food, if you're willing to drink a glass of wine that has 130 million ppb of a known, class 1 carcinogen (ethanol) in it.

 

That is all.

Your figures are interesting but are you quoting median figures or extreme examples? Names of the products would help

[attrayant]

2 hours ago, manarak said:

On a more serious note, "The Lancet" is a medical journal with a political agenda and the articles they choose to publish must fit in.

 

This suggestion is ridiculous on its face, because you can search many scientific journals and find published articles that are politically opposed to each other.  For example, studies supporting hydraulic fracking and studies supporting climate change.

 

Libraries and think tanks would never pay the pricey subscription fees if they saw that published research aligned with only one political agenda.

[attrayant]

1 minute ago, rott said:

Your figures are interesting but are you quoting median figures or extreme examples? Names of the products would help

 

Wine typically has about 13% ethanol by volume.  That's 130,000,000 parts per billion.  You can probably find wine as low as 10% and as high as 25% (dessert wine).  The point is, people willingly guzzle liters of whatever poison they're addicted to without concern, while screaming (and calling for bans) about pesticide concentrations that are one five-thousandth of that.

 

[luk AJ]

1

[puck2]

2 nice jokes:

 

A man would liked to be 100 years old. He said, I don't eat meat, don't drink alcohol and don't have sex.

Then someone asked him: And why do you want to be 100 years old?

 

 

A 100 years old man was interviewed why he has grown so old.

I neither drank alcohol nor have had sex.

Then some asked him; why is there so much noise upstairs?

Oh, my elder brother has a party again.

Edited August 25, 2018 by puck2

[puck2]

Reading the CNN post was disappointing for me. Only statistical bs. Now some details I read in a German magazine.

 

The research was financed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

 

But the results are questionable:

• in 1 year of 100,000 people between 15 and 95 years old not drinking any alcohol, 914 people have fallen ill or received injuries

• in 1 year of 100,000 people between 15 and 95 years old only having 1 daily alcoholic drink 918 people have fallen ill or received injuries in connection with alcohol. [only 4 more!]

• Do 100.000 people daily consume 2 alcoholic drinks then there have been 977 cases of alcohol related illnesses each year. When drinking 5 glasses daily the number went up to 1252.

 

Among the 23 illnesses related to alcohol or injuries have been:

liver cirrhosis and -cancer, diabetes, epilepsy, heart attack, high blood pressure, bowel cancer, tuberculosis, self-injury, and also traffic accidents.

 

The British medical statistician David Spiegelhalter criticized the conclusion. There should be 25,000 people drinking together 400.000 bottles of gin for making a problem to one of them.

He said, because many of these health problems (in the statistic) concerned the 914 non-drinkers, too, it's not depending on alcohol. Otherwise the number of non-drinkers had to be zero. And the moderate alcohol drinking delivers some fun.

[luk AJ]

Reading the CNN post was disappointing for me. Only statistical bs. Now some details I read in a German magazine.

 

The research was financed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

 

But the results are questionable:

• in 1 year of 100,000 people between 15 and 95 years old not drinking any alcohol, 914 people have fallen ill or received injuries

• in 1 year of 100,000 people between 15 and 95 years old only having 1 daily alcoholic drink 918 people have fallen ill or received injuries in connection with alcohol. [only 4 more!]

• Do 100.000 people daily consume 2 alcoholic drinks then there have been 977 cases of alcohol related illnesses each year. When drinking 5 glasses daily the number went up to 1252.

 

Among the 23 illnesses related to alcohol or injuries have been:

liver cirrhosis and -cancer, diabetes, epilepsy, heart attack, high blood pressure, bowel cancer, tuberculosis, self-injury, and also traffic accidents.

 

The British medical statistician David Spiegelhalter criticized the conclusion. There should be 25,000 people drinking together 400.000 bottles of gin for making a problem to one of them.

He said, because many of these health problems (in the statistic) concerned the 914 non-drinkers, too, it's not depending on alcohol. Otherwise the number of non-drinkers had to be zero. And the moderate alcohol drinking delivers some fun.

Statistics are interesting but what counts is own experience. I was drinking much to much but could quit entirely exactly 6 years ago. Gradually I could feel my body recovering but I think it took at least 5 years. Whatever statistics show, I knew for myself even one drink per day was harmful, but I am also convinced some people can drink what they want without any negative effect. This is the problem with statistics, it averages everything out but this doesn’t help the individual much.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[tropo]

2 hours ago, attrayant said:

Wine typically has about 13% ethanol by volume.  That's 130,000,000 parts per billion.  You can probably find wine as low as 10% and as high as 25% (dessert wine).  The point is, people willingly guzzle liters of whatever poison they're addicted to without concern, while screaming (and calling for bans) about pesticide concentrations that are one five-thousandth of that.

 

1

If you use the word "drug" people get upset. Putting alcohol in a non-drug (separate) classification is a mistake IMO. It gives the wrong impression that it is less harmful than it actually is.

[jak2002003]

5 hours ago, bristolboy said:

I recognize that to some people alcohol is as necessary to life as is oxygen. But most of us can live without the former. Not nearly as many can do without the latter.

Lots of things are not necessary to life.... but they enrich our lives or make us have some fun....

 

sex

cakes

chocolate

sports 

watching moves

reading books

having fun with friends

eating delicious foods (and ice cream)

 

We can all live without stuff... live in a sterile box and never venture outside or do anything with any risk element.  What a waste of life that would be!  

4 hours ago, faraday said:

How on earth could I 'trust' someone who is yet to develop a sense of humour or indeed irony, & appears to not address some of important topics on here, with Socratic reasoning?

 

Lighten up, Knowle West boy....

 

?

Perhaps a relaxing drink and a comfy chair will help him lighten up.  

[55Jay]

Instead of drinking, head to the gym and do some "Kush-ups" instead.

Quote

Long Story Short

A new gym is opening up in San Francisco and it's creating quite the "buzz" – that's the idea anyway.

https://in.askmen.com/fitness-workouts/1115890/article/the-worlds-first-gym-for-stoners-only-is-about-to-open

 

 

[pegman]

3 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

Wine typically has about 13% ethanol by volume.  That's 130,000,000 parts per billion.  You can probably find wine as low as 10% and as high as 25% (dessert wine).  The point is, people willingly guzzle liters of whatever poison they're addicted to without concern, while screaming (and calling for bans) about pesticide concentrations that are one five-thousandth of that.

 

Ok, say we get together and I'll drink a glass of Merlot and you drink a glass of Roundup? Then we wait to see the outcome.

Edited August 25, 2018 by pegman