> Alcohol ... has been classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer decades ago – this is the highest risk group, which also includes asbestos, radiation and tobacco.<p>But as I understand it we do have a notion of "safe" dosages of radiation.<p>Isn't this statement then like saying "no level of exposure to radiation is safe for our health?" Maybe I'm wrong but I would think that the risk of cancer from radiation increases smoothly as the dosage increases such that "there is no threshold at which the carcinogenic effects 'switch on'". Thus, by extension, nobody should ever fly on an airplane because the increased radiation exposure is inherently unsafe.<p>The thing is, we draw these threshold lines on smooth continua all the time. Nothing special happens to you at midnight on your eighteenth or twenty-first birthday. You are not meaningfully more intoxicated at 0.07 BAC than at 0.08.<p>To the extent that we expect agencies like the WHO to help us make informed, practical decisions regarding this sort of absolutist statement seems like an abdication of that responsibility. It equates all drinking of any amount into a single class with no gradations, which is clearly false. Drinking a lot has a lot more risk than drinking a little. And drinking a little may add only a little risk to a life that's full of other risk.
David Spiegelhalter of BUGS fame:<p>"So a total of 50,000 bottles of gin among these 1,600 people is associated with one extra health problem. Which still indicates a very low level of harm in drinkers drinking just more than the UK guidelines."<p><a href="https://medium.com/wintoncentre/the-risks-of-alcohol-again-2ae8cb006a4a" rel="nofollow">https://medium.com/wintoncentre/the-risks-of-alcohol-again-2...</a><p>The WHO is fear mongering.<p>Maybe it is good health politics, people are scared of alcohol and people will have a better live.<p>Maybe it would be better to communicate the risks more quantitavily. Not everyone is stupid.
The thinking is backwards on this. They state there is no scientific safe drinking level. They even compare it to radiation. The goal is to establish an unsafe level. it's like saying there is no safe speed to drive a car - sure that's technically true, but worthless to say.
> To identify a “safe” level of alcohol consumption, valid scientific evidence would need to demonstrate that at and below a certain level, there is no risk of illness or injury associated with alcohol consumption.<p>The premise of this “no level of consumption is safe” is this requirement to prove 0 risk.<p>If for instance drinking one glass everyday increases your cancer chances by 0.0000000001%, bringing it to 0. 0000300001%, it would still be considered unsafe, as your chances of cancer increased.<p>I see the logic, but that isn’t layman‘s categorization of safe or unsafe. And what are the actual base risk of cancer for a healthy individual ?<p>Taking a base of 60 million death per year, who’s numbers on cancer are of 10 million [0], where death by liver cancer are 830 000, roughly 1%. Given that those don’t all come from alcohol, and to reach that stage requires way more than standard consumption, the base risk feels already pretty low.<p>All in all, while this article is factual, it turns this facts in such a biased way it feels dogmatic at times. If we’re going to have serious discussions around alcohol, we shouldn’t start them like this.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer" rel="nofollow">https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer</a>
There's also a limit between a healthy lifestyle and enjoyment of life, beyond which towards "maximum health" you'll either go to an early grave because of how bland your life is, or live a joyless life avoiding things you'd enjoy.<p>In any case, those kind of "research" is for modern americans (and people taking their cues from anglosaxon culture) , who are already conditioned in such hysteria - which is funny in the country eating some of the worst quality food in the Western world, cooked the worst ways, in the worst portions, and with the worst mass production integredients. Or perhaps an overcorrection.<p>The average Italian, for example, should, and definitely, would just laught this off.
So much denialism going on here, it's like talking to my alcoholic relative. This shouldn't trigger such a strong reaction, if it does, one should look into why that is.
This is not news, it has been known for some time. For anyone wanting to get an in-depth, balanced, and rigorous take on alcohol I can heartily recommend Drink? by David Nutt. Reading it has made me more mindful of when and why I choose to drink, and increasingly I find myself drinking less and less.
>> To identify a “safe” level of alcohol consumption, valid scientific evidence would need to demonstrate that at and below a certain level, there is no risk of illness or injury associated with alcohol consumption.<p>This is ridiculous and boarders on intentionally false & misleading. We look for meaningful or demonstrated risk all the time in our assessments, not the absolute absense of it.<p>This is typical WHO nonsense similar to their ongoing clanging of the Covid alarm.
> However, latest available data indicate that half of all alcohol-attributable cancers in the WHO European Region are caused by “light” and “moderate” alcohol consumption – less than 1.5 litres of wine or less than 3.5 litres of beer or less than 450 millilitres of spirits per week<p>Half a litre of beer a day is considered "light"?
> The only thing that we can say for sure is that the more you drink, the more harmful it is – or, in other words, the less you drink, the safer it is.<p>I wish the article would tell us more about this curve. How much does my risk increase for each drink I have?
This is such a silly attitude.<p>Let's say if I drink 3 drinks per day I shorten my life expectancy by 5 years. And if I drink 3 drinks a year, I shorten my life expectancy by 5 seconds. Ok, no level is safe, but noone gives a damn about losing 5 seconds from their life expectancy.
I fear for a world where alcohol is banned. I feel modern society is built on it.<p>A human is the only animal that is aware they will die. Also unique to humans is that we think about what others think. This makes us very anxious.<p>Alcohol is a known way to relax. It helps calm our minds down. No it's not good for our bodies. But it's very healthy to relax.
Out of curiosity I looked up cancer rates in Islamic countries (which typically) have <i>far</i> lower rates of alcohol consumption. Seems there is a significantly lower rate of cancer there by as much as 2-3x compared to countries in which alcohol is more widely consumed: <a href="https://jenci.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s43046-022-00142-3" rel="nofollow">https://jenci.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s43046-022-0...</a><p>There are doubtless other factors at play but the data at least seems to correlate with the WHO's recommendation.
What was the first miracle performed by Jesus (as documented in the Christian bible)? Turning water into wine at the wedding in Cana (after they had run out of wine). Would Jesus have done this if alcohol consumption was against God's will? Food for thought. I'm not saying that God wants us to drink, but I think it provides some evidence that God doesn't view alcohol as inherently evil or bad (from Christian perspective). Abuse of alcohol is a different thing.
As I’m getting older I’ve basically had to swear off alchohol and marijuana completely. Even if I don’t get intoxicated (or stoned), I nearly always just feel like absolute garbage the next day (not hangover, just feel gross and groggy). Sometimes it’s lasted for days, even when I only have one drink or smoke barely enough weed to get a little buzzed. Fortunately I’ve also reached a point where I just don’t really feel good from being intoxicated either so I don’t really have a recreational incentive to do it anymore either.<p>I don’t know how these things affect other people’s “sober lives” but if it’s anything like that I don’t see how people can function when getting intoxicated semi-regularly. The cost-benefit just seems completely lobsided.
“Alcohol blocks REM sleep, and as a result, says University of California, Berkeley, professor Matthew Walker[1], drinking can make you forget new information.”<p>[1]<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Walker_(scientist)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Walker_(scientist)</a><p>source: <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/12/even-small-amounts-of-alcohol-impair-memory/548474/" rel="nofollow">https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/12/even-smal...</a>
There's a huge industry and lobby at odds. I drink less and less but I can't ignore its always in my face.<p>YouTubers big and small with a massive child demographic were promoting alcohol or their own brands not long ago.<p>[1] <a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pN6ksB3-QJ8">https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pN6ksB3-QJ8</a><p>[2] <a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gfjgISRI5E4">https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gfjgISRI5E4</a><p>[3] <a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qF0zM5MlmCw">https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qF0zM5MlmCw</a>
Fruit juice also contains small amounts of ethanol, so if the WHO is correct then do not replace your wine with fruit juice.<p>Or as is more likely, this is completely overblown just as the anti tobacco campaign has been overblown. Yes alcohol and tobacco aren’t good for you, no they are not imbued with magic properties where even 1 drop means cancer.<p>This type of thinking is common in pre scientific communities, where an object or substance is imbued with “bad energy” and having even the smallest contact with it contaminated the individual.
I am sure this is absolutely the last scientific paper that comes out completely reversing the conclusion of the papers that came out before. This time they did it!
I wonder how the data is treated statistically. If 99% of millionaires have consumed alcohol, does consuming alcohol increase the chance of becoming a millionaire!?
Human liver has enzymes to metabolize alcohol for energy, which implicitly makes this claim questionable. If we have it, why not be putting it to work?
1) The word 'health' should not be used because that's just a buzzword. The right word in this context could tentatively be 'lifespan', meaning that they are tentatively projecting that in the big sample of humans they surveyed those who drink 0mL of alcohol will stick around for longer compared to those who drink even 1mL. Meaning that in their model there is a correlation between the 2 data of sticking around for longer and alcohol intake.<p>2) Not even lifespan could be the right word because there are all sorts of stuff that alcohol facilitates which prolong lifespan by decreasing stress and anxiety, which in turn lower cortisol which is just as bad for lifespan when considered vis-a-vis alcohol.<p>As always the so called authorities spend too much time in the lab and are essentially monodimensional individuals who (no pun intended) fail to see the bigger picture.
And that doesn't include the externalized costs, such as increased domestic violence: <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50887893" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50887893</a>, impacts on children: <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/18/even-moderate-drinking-by-parents-can-upset-children-study" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/18/even-moderat...</a>, etc. Now that Americans are more docile it might be a good time to take another shot at alcohol prohibition: <a href="https://time.com/5501680/prohibition-history-feminism-suffrage-metoo" rel="nofollow">https://time.com/5501680/prohibition-history-feminism-suffra...</a>.
I think people are pretty tired of headlines like these tbh, it seems what it really say is "Alcohol risks are dose dependent" but it seems they wanted to go for a more ominous sounding headline, so the message is less effective.
Is alcohol essential for a good social life? Growing up in Europe it definitely was a big part of it. Now I look at my younger colleagues in the US and many never drink, rarely go out and are lonely and single. But maybe healthier?
The problem is: No alcohol wozld be much more harmful for society these days... if i couldn't relax and unwind with a drink i would surely do something involving a chainsaw in a short matter of time...
I despise the WHO generally but this article is solid. There is too much confusion about alcohol in the medical industry. If you ask European doctors having a glass or two of wine "extends health". If you research typical government guidelines, they say a drink or two a day isn't bad or may even say it's "healthy" [1]<p>The facts are facts. Alcohol is a poison that wrecks havoc on your mind and body. If having one drink can decompress you after a hard days work, fine, you're not gonna get cancer. Let's just stop pretending alcohol is a solid healthy choice.<p>1 - <a href="https://www.boston.com/news/health/2020/07/15/men-should-limit-alcohol-to-1-drink-a-day-not-2-say-new-guidelines/" rel="nofollow">https://www.boston.com/news/health/2020/07/15/men-should-lim...</a>
To say this is true for every human being is an assault on the field of genetics.<p>There are several voltage gated ion channels that are inhibited by ethanol. So ethanol can clearly be seen as a medicine in those with genetic changes in these genes that cause channel channelopathies.<p>And anecdotally, my grandfather drank a lot. Not an alcoholic, but he was no teetotaler, and I would often see him sneaking shots of vodka before noon. He lived was 99 with his full mental capacity.
Doing dry jan this year helped to change my perspective on alcohol. My current outlook is that its fine outside the house as an enjoyable social thing, but drinking at home isn’t worth it. I’m sure that view will change over the years.<p>There are so many things in life which no level is safe, exhaust fumes, microplastic exposure, radiation, the passage of time, the key to all of course is moderation and time between exposures. except that last one
Cool now do this with refined sugars or high carb diets in general.<p>It'll be the same discussion, addicts trying to rationalize away the science and statistics.
I realized when I stopped drinking that I thought I needed it to take the edge off, to relax or to be more social. It was all lies. I turned to meditation for when I’m stressed, and the rest I can do it sober.
I’d say not drinking anymore is top 5 in my best life decisions, up there with my choice of career and partner.
I enjoy a cigar or pipe once in a while. I enjoy a few fingers of bourbon now and then. I've been known to put back a few bottles of Coors on the weekend.<p>Not once have I thought, "yup this'll make me healthier [physically]."
Societies that have banned alcohol, how do their longevity and other quality of life metrics and outcomes rank against ones where alcohol is available?<p>In my late adolescence, an old friend and I had a joke about "champagne socialists," where we decided instead we would be "single malt anarchists," and we would meet at a hotels rooftop bar to drink whiskey we could barely afford, in a place we were barely welcome, and argue about how to solve the worlds problems. Who knew that decades later enjoying a few drams and a cigar would become a revolutionary act?<p>If I could coin a term for all these bureaucratic false-concerns based on what they have in common (alcohol, meat, tobacco, cars, gas stoves, humor, firearms, nuclear families, heteronoramtivity, truth, etc.) it would be that they are all "anti-fraternal," and motivated by undermining the formation and relationships that historically present sources of resistance to political dominion. This advisory isn't about "health" or alcohol, it's a policy dogwhistle. Every single one of the people behind these pronouncements and organizations openly hates the idea of "bro's," or any group of men with a shared identity, and restricting access to alcohol is one of the key stages in consolidating a regime.<p>I keep a bottle of blantons in a box somewhere for just in case the world ends, or descends into apocalyptic bedlam as a result of yet another one of historys antagonists finding their way. It would be a shame to open that box.
many here seem to get hung up about how even a tiny risk would technically justify the headline which therefore must be exaggerated when in fact it means first and foremost that alcohol consumption even in moderation is not good for you.
This reads like a press release without any substantial discussion or references. COVID has died down...is WHO looking for the next thing to keep itself on the radar?
After reading through comments, I'm just glad that Gen Z drinks less than Gen Y (that drinks less than Gen X (that drinks less than a subsequent gen, boomers probably)), because<p>* I should not have to explain why I don't drink, simple 'no' suffices<p>* I should not have to listen, that alcohol is not too bad/is completely harmless/is fine in moderation/is actually required in social life<p>And the best thing - they do it completely voluntary (or maybe because it's crazy expensive, but the outcome is still good, so...)<p>As for the local denialists: we live in poluted cities walking around polution generating machines just meters apart from them. Yes, it is unhealthy, but it is our choice to live like that, because EVs aren't that prevalent yet and living in the woods in a hut would not be enough for most<p>Go, smoke cigarettes, drink wine and hit a pot once in a while if you need it. It's your life. 0 alcohol intake is a recomendation, not a requirement. It is harmful, people should consider for themselves if they need it as copium or for the taste or for whatever else reason<p>It shouldn't be argued "but how much is bad-bad compared to just sligtly bad, where's my curve?". Make the curve for yourself, consider your situation and your needs
already had this, a couple of hours ago<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34751649" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34751649</a>