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

[55Jay]

4 minutes ago, pegman said:

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.

Your teeth and tongue will turn red. 

 

His will fall out. 

[attrayant]

36 minutes ago, pegman said:

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.

 

Challenge accepted, provided the concentrations are at the level I quoted earlier, which is the normal dietary amount most people would be exposed to.

 

If you want me to drink a glass of it full strength, then I'll have to insist that you drink 500 years worth of ethanol in one sitting to make it a fair comparison.  That is, assuming you have two drinks per week, 1,700 liters of ethanol in one sitting.  Ready?

 

By the way, somebody has actually done this.  Fast-forward to the 8-minute mark which is where he actually drinks it.  If you want to see the math and learn about median lethal dose, go ahead and watch the whole thing.

 

 

Edited August 25, 2018 by attrayant

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, attrayant said:

 

Challenge accepted, provided the concentrations are at the level I quoted earlier, which is the normal dietary amount most people would be exposed to.

 

If you want me to drink a glass of it full strength, then I'll have to insist that you drink 500 years worth of ethanol in one sitting to make it a fair comparison.  That is, assuming you have two drinks per week, 1,700 liters of ethanol in one sitting.  Ready?

 

By the way, somebody has actually done this.  Fast-forward to the 8-minute mark which is where he actually drinks it.  If you want to see the math and learn about median lethal dose, go ahead and watch the whole thing.

 

 

Noted you are yet to provide any evidence for your claim alcohol is a Class 1 carcinogen.

[ttrd]

7 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Noted you are yet to provide any evidence for your claim alcohol is a Class 1 carcinogen.

Alcohol facts and evidence

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/alcohol-and-cancer/alcohol-facts-and-evidence

[Lacessit]

6 minutes ago, ttrd said:

Alcohol facts and evidence

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/alcohol-and-cancer/alcohol-facts-and-evidence

It says alcohol causes a number of cancers. That comes back to Paracelsus - many things will cause cancer if consumed to excess. Even water.

I'm more inclined to the view excessive alcohol consumption causes obesity, which is almost universally identified as a common factor in just about every cancer there is.

Now excuse me while I enjoy my evening whisky, which I have been drinking for the last 60 years.

[manarak]

7 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

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.

well, I refer you to my previous post:

 

the journal itself endorses its own political biais.

[ExpatOilWorker]

10 hours 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.

 

Living at high altitude probably increased cancer risk due to increased exposure of cosmic radiation.

[attrayant]

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Noted you are yet to provide any evidence for your claim alcohol is a Class 1 carcinogen.

 

I really didn't think that was in dispute.  From the IARC monograph on ethanol (p 472):

 

Ethanol in alcoholic beverages is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1).

 

 

[Mac98]

11 hours ago, bristolboy said:

The report said that on balance it lowers life expectancy. So that means whatever benefit there might be from stress reduction are outweighed by other harms.

On balance. Different outcomes for different people. Let the individual decide, and accept the benefits or  consequences. Yes, I know, drunk drivers. I suspect in a few years cars will be self driving, or your car won't start if you are over the limit. Or maybe it will start, lock the doors, and drive you to the police station!

[Lacessit]

9 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

I really didn't think that was in dispute.  From the IARC monograph on ethanol (p 472):

 

Ethanol in alcoholic beverages is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1).

 

 

There are two schools of thought on carcinogens. The first, which has given rise to some very profitable remediation industries, is that exposure to even one molecule of a carcinogen increases risk. The second, which goes back to Paracelsus, says the dose makes the poison.

It's a big step from saying alcohol increases the risk of various cancers, to stating alcohol is a carcinogen. That's usually reserved for cigarette smoking, asbestos exposure and bladder cancer caused by exposure to beta-naphthylamine. However, it is in the interest of bodies such as IARC to cast their net as wide as possible, because of the effect on their funding.

[partington]

25 minutes ago, Mac98 said:

On balance. Different outcomes for different people. Let the individual decide, and accept the benefits or  consequences. Yes, I know, drunk drivers. I suspect in a few years cars will be self driving, or your car won't start if you are over the limit. Or maybe it will start, lock the doors, and drive you to the police station!

Of course there are different outcomes for different people, that's why these outcomes are called risks and not certainties: they are probabilities. Playing Russian roulette has different outcomes for different people, but on balance, it is a serious danger!

 

This is not a valid reason to assume the results of this study don't apply to you, or even worse just decide to ignore them because you've decided that you don't agree, on no basis at all other than wishful thinking.

 

In post #57 I gave a reasoned account, why I will still continue to drink what I drink, while fully accepting the conclusions and validity of the research (based, unlike probably 100% of the replies here, on actually downloading and reading the paper!)

 

I should add that the risks are very real at higher levels, and in fact at a consumption of 9 standard drinks a day, (around 7 330ml bottles of Thai beer, ) your likelihood of serious health consequences doubles.

 

For someone in their sixties whose absolute risk of serious disease is in all likelihood around 1 in 10 /1in 20, so could be increased to  1 in 5 by 9 standard drinks a day, this is a risk I would be unwilling to take with my own health.

Edited August 25, 2018 by partington

[partington]

36 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

There are two schools of thought on carcinogens. The first, which has given rise to some very profitable remediation industries, is that exposure to even one molecule of a carcinogen increases risk. The second, which goes back to Paracelsus, says the dose makes the poison.

It's a big step from saying alcohol increases the risk of various cancers, to stating alcohol is a carcinogen. That's usually reserved for cigarette smoking, asbestos exposure and bladder cancer caused by exposure to beta-naphthylamine. However, it is in the interest of bodies such as IARC to cast their net as wide as possible, because of the effect on their funding.

This is an illogical straw man, irrelevant to the question, which in any case doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

 

Firstly there is no contradiction between believing exposure to one molecule of a carcinogen is a risk, and believing that increased dosage increases risk. One molecule is dangerous, two molecules are more dangerous, three molecules are more dangerous still...This is in fact the generally accepted view on the effects of radiation on cancer risk, that there is no "threshold" level below which risk disappears.

 

Secondly, there are plausible and convincing scientific grounds for concluding that ethanol is a direct causative carcinogen. These include dose dependent effects on risk of  mouth and pharyngeal cancers, and the fact that the type of alcohol has differential effects on the increased risk of these cancers (spirits more risky than beer).

 

Cancers  are caused by mutations in genes, which are chemical changes in the DNA. There is now compelling evidence published in Nature this year that acetaldehyde, the metabolic product of alcohol metabolism in the human body, directly chemically damages DNA, and therefore directly causes mutations.

 

I don't think there is much room for reasonable doubt here.

Edited August 25, 2018 by partington

[Mac98]

25 minutes ago, partington said:

Of course there are different outcomes for different people, that's why these outcomes are called risks and not certainties: they are probabilities. Playing Russian roulette has different outcomes for different people, but on balance, it is a serious danger!

 

This is not a valid reason to assume the results of this study don't apply to you, or even worse just decide to ignore them because you've decided that you don't agree, on no basis at all other than wishful thinking.

 

In post #57 I gave a reasoned account, why I will still continue to drink what I drink, while fully accepting the conclusions and validity of the research (based, unlike probably 100% of the replies here, on actually downloading and reading the paper!)

 

I should add that the risks are very real at higher levels, and in fact at a consumption of 9 standard drinks a day, (around 7 330ml bottles of Thai beer, ) your likelihood of serious health consequences doubles.

 

For someone in their sixties whose absolute risk of serious disease is in all likelihood around 1 in 10 /1in 20, so could be increased to  1 in 5 by 9 standard drinks a day, this is a risk I would be unwilling to take with my own health.

you miss the idea that individual doctors can give individual findings to different individuals. He can tell an obese man to stop drinking. He can tell an office burn out that a nightcap could ease the strain on his heart. No mandates! I need a cigarette.

[Lacessit]

9 hours ago, partington said:

This is an illogical straw man, irrelevant to the question, which in any case doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

 

Firstly there is no contradiction between believing exposure to one molecule of a carcinogen is a risk, and believing that increased dosage increases risk. One molecule is dangerous, two molecules are more dangerous, three molecules are more dangerous still...This is in fact the generally accepted view on the effects of radiation on cancer risk, that there is no "threshold" level below which risk disappears.

 

Secondly, there are plausible and convincing scientific grounds for concluding that ethanol is a direct causative carcinogen. These include dose dependent effects on risk of  mouth and pharyngeal cancers, and the fact that the type of alcohol has differential effects on the increased risk of these cancers (spirits more risky than beer).

 

Cancers  are caused by mutations in genes, which are chemical changes in the DNA. There is now compelling evidence published in Nature this year that acetaldehyde, the metabolic product of alcohol metabolism in the human body, directly chemically damages DNA, and therefore directly causes mutations.

 

I don't think there is much room for reasonable doubt here.

That being the case, you had better declare mouthwashes as Class 1 carcinogens, because most contain ethanol.

Also stop breathing if you are in a pine forest, because of the terpenes in the air.

There is also evidence it is statistically inevitable a person will get cancer if they live long enough. I'm too old to concern myself about risk anymore.

[partington]

18 hours ago, Lacessit said:

That being the case, you had better declare mouthwashes as Class 1 carcinogens, because most contain ethanol.

Also stop breathing if you are in a pine forest, because of the terpenes in the air.

There is also evidence it is statistically inevitable a person will get cancer if they live long enough. I'm too old to concern myself about risk anymore.

Then don't make stupid arguments about risk: nobody asked you to.

Edited August 26, 2018 by partington

[Lacessit]

7 hours ago, partington said:

Then don't make stupid arguments about risk: nobody asked you to.

You make friends everywhere you go?