General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAbout that alcohol study.
A few days ago all the MSM had stories about a great big study, looking at many other studies, that concluded that no amount of alcohol was "safe." What they didn't tell us was what "safe" meant. As one reporter observed, we would all have 0 risk of dying in a car crash if we never rode in a car. (Not, 0 risk of being hit by one, of course.) I would like to know what kind of a risk I'm taking by having 2 instead of one or no drinks a day.
When the Roundup trial went against Monsanto, a couple of weeks ago, I wondered why the lawsuit was against Monsanto's not telling the public about the risks instead of just about their selling it at all. Then answer was buried in a news story. Roundup's risk of cancer is in the same category as red meat.
Are there any down sides to news outlets adopting the practice of always giving a comparison with a more well understood risk?
TIA
LAS
empedocles
(15,751 posts)5 of 8 first listed studies found some alcohol beneficial.
LAS14
(13,783 posts)... they said that the benefits didn't outweigh the risks.
unblock
(52,317 posts)Reiyuki
(96 posts)But I know of several whose lives were destroyed by it.
unblock
(52,317 posts)So there's that
world wide wally
(21,754 posts)LAS14
(13,783 posts)... comparable risks in better known situations?
A policeman came to a meeting in our town when my kids were little to give a talk about child safety. It was heavy on not letting kids do stuff alone. I asked him how many kids in our town had been abducted by a stranger. The answer was none.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)the balance of a child development specialist to discuss the problems caused by raising children on a schedule in back yards and basements under the constant direction of adults.
I survived running outside in the morning and showing up for dinner, as did all the friends and acquaintances I ever had. Parents have lost, or never developed, needed perspective. I worry that there's a grim cost to society in raising children constantly under the thumb of some authority without any practice in thinking spontaneously for themselves.
When I drive our grandchildren, not often enough, I tell them to tell me how to get to some routine destination and to pay attention to where we're going because they're going to direct us home. It's always been a very popular game, stretching underexercised areas of their brains and teaching kids, who in the past would have been extremely familiar with many destinations miles around, the simple reality of where their homes are in their communities.
unblock
(52,317 posts)Humans have terrible intuition about risks, especially when it comes to low probability disasters. Terrorism and plane crashes come to mind.
If every article about terrorism compared it to the risk of dying from falling out of bed, we might have some slightly more sane policies...
tenderfoot
(8,438 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(49,036 posts)Much depends on the rest of diet and on the person.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2818%2931310-2/fulltext
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/safest-level-of-alcohol-consumption-is-none-worldwide-study-shows/2018/08/23/823a6bec-a62d-11e8-8fac-12e98c13528d_story.html
There seems to be evidence that moderate alcohol guards against heart disease but worsens cancer risk.
Some people are more prone to one risk than the other and should consider that.
Further, inflammation is a risk factor for both illnesses and the rest of the diet is very important.
Drinking alcohol on top of a redneck high animal fat / high red meat / high fructose / high processed food diet is probably a very bad idea because that diet is high in inflammation.
Drinking alcohol in moderation as part of a Mediterranean diet may be a net win to the extent that it include anti-inflammatories and anti-oxidants. It is better the more highly colored the fruit & veg and the less the food has been processed with additives and nutrition removed.
It is probably better to drink beer than wine and wine than liquor, since that is a progression of higher and higher processing.
I am not a nutritionist, nor do I pretend to be one. Do your own reading. I have done so.
But the new study, while noting the lower risks of heart disease from moderate drinking, as well as a dip in the diabetes rate in women, found that many other health risks offset and overwhelm the health benefits. That includes the risk of breast cancer, larynx cancer, stroke, cirrhosis, tuberculosis, interpersonal violence, self-harm and transportation accidents.
Current and emerging scientific evidence does not suggest that there are overall health benefits from moderate drinking, said Robert Brewer, who directs the alcohol program at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was not involved in the new research. He pointed out that alcohol studies have long been dogged by confounders factors that create a misleading impression of cause and effect.
People who report drinking in moderation tend to be very different from people who dont drink at all. They tend to be a healthier population, they tend to exercise more, they tend to be more affluent, they tend to have more access to health care, Brewer said.
dhill926
(16,355 posts)will die. Proven fact...
mainer
(12,029 posts)And just look at the biological risks of 1-2 drinks.
For a responsible drinker who never drives after drinking, the risks are quite different.