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.
When doing this analysis though be sure to note that scientists studying this use 10g drinks, which is 12.5mL of ethanol, one tallboy of 6.5% beer is therefore about 2.5 drinks.
I might be wrong here, but I have never heard the claim that 2 beers might be good for your health. I have heard that with wine, but that's not a claim that alcohol is good for your health.
"I might be wrong here, but I have never heard the claim that 2 beers might be good for your health."
What we see - empirically - is that light/moderate drinkers have better overall health outcomes than both heavy drinkers and people who consume zero alcohol.
The outcomes of the heavy drinkers seem self-evident so we don't need to bother with that ... it is the relative better health vs. non-drinkers that is interesting.
One conclusion that many people draw, and which you are alluding to, is that alcohol has properties that are beneficial in small doses.
However, a much simpler and more explanatory conclusion is that in developed, western (or, "global north") countries there is nobody that isn't drinking and the individuals that consume zero alcohol are doing so because it really affects them, or bothers them, etc. They are less robust, generally, and therefore have health outcomes that are worse than light/moderate drinkers.
I draw your attention to the fact that NFL players have lower all-cause mortality and live longer lives than the general public. Is that because violent collisions and football playing, generally, magically helps them ?
> 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.
Which is ironic, because, while most people use the "Linear no-threshold" model for radiation, we know that small amounts of radiation are actually beneficial.
The most charitable reason I can think of for why people still use the LNT model is because it's simple and robust. But that doesn't mean that it's the most accurate understanding that we have.
> Which is ironic, because, while most people use the "Linear no-threshold" model for radiation, we know that small amounts of radiation are actually beneficial.
How could ionizing radiation be beneficial? Unless the argument is exposure to ultraviolet in order to get Vitamin D, I can’t imagine ionizing radiation to be beneficial in any way.
Edit:
> The good includes abundant evidence showing increased 1) physiologic performance, 2) immune competence, 3) health, and 4) mean lifespan.
From the article in the comment below. Apparently in very low doses it stimulates the immune system and healthy cell reconstruction.
From the BMJ *British Medical Journal). "Analyses of the dose of alcohol consumed showed that 2.5–14.9 g alcohol (about ≤1 drink) per day was protective for all five outcomes compared with no alcohol (table 2⇑). For coronary heart disease outcomes, all levels of intake >2.5 g/day had similar degrees of risk reduction. " https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d671
They don't give a safe number of cigarettes, do they? There probably is a number that's minimally harmful, that lowers with age.
Alcohol has numerically similar numbers of cancer cases, and cancer is just one aspect. Now it is less, and we can argue about how widespread the use is ect. However, it cases 1/3 of the cases, heart disease, mental health problems.
Are you a drinker? Especially since quitting, I've noticed a lot of drinkers get incredibly defensive against something that seems very rational and well supported by evidence.
as a continued social drinker, or more general doer of anything, i've noticed that anyone who no longer does that thing is typically quite vocal and negative towards said thing.
Set aside alcohol for a minute; this article is saying that because the absolute risk of an activity is not zero, the activity is inheriently unsafe. That's not true, not an appropriate strategy for decision making, and most importantly not an effective way to influence behaviours. This is the definition of perfect as the enemy of better.
>> i've noticed that anyone who no longer does that thing is typically quite vocal and negative towards said thing.
Well ya? Is that not self-evident?
See, there's this thing I enjoy very much, but I was forced to stop because of evidence of the negative consequences. Now, since I am a kind person, I can share the knowledge of those negative consequences so may be you could avoid them, too.
Said another way, if I were not negative to said activity that I enjoy, I would still be doing it. And if I were indifferent to the well-being of others, I wouldn't be vocal/share.
I drink maybe 4 drinks total a month. I get where you're going with that though. There is actually data out there on smoking, and having a cigar once in a while isn't really more unsafe than sitting by the camp fire. Your body also recovers itself in most regards rather quickly after chronic smoking (months). I'm not a smoker, and it's better not to smoke because it's super addictive, but having a smoke is like having a drink, not unsafe per say. I'm more worried about sugar than alcohol.
There has been some suggestions that 1-2 drinks is the optimal (extends health etc..). So, this clears up any confusion on that topic. There are many things that are risky but make life worth living, the previous guidance made it appear you could enjoy life (1-2 drinks) with actual upsides which unfortunately turns out not to be the case of drinking.
I do not agree with your analogy or theirs. First most people have to drive at some point in their lives. Driving is not a choice we get to make so the associated risks are not something we can deal with. While it is debatable if you can avoid drinking socially many people do for a variety of reasons. The article is fairly clear. Drinking alcohol will increase cancer risks. And like someone eloquently said above you the real critique is not it is stupid to point out drinking is an avoidable carcinogen but it is our free choice as people to make that trade off knowing you might enjoy it. I think the point about radiation is a better comparison but again like driving it is unavoidable to a degree. We will all go outside more in our lives then is recommended. Once again drinking is not unavoidable. I don't think the article makes a worthless argument and I believe your analogies are false comparisons but I still take your point. I agree drinking is not something people want to avoid so it is certainly up to each person to choose their own acceptable risk but honestly that is more a personal choice that science can advise then a magic number we can all follow.
Meanwhile, there isn't clear evidence that there is no safe level of radiation. Biological systems are buffered in all kinds of ways, including against low doses of radiation, mutagens, and even... acids
! (Contrary to modern health biz ideas "oh your body is so acidic, drink this basic water to fix it!")
And they make zero comment about genetic risk. That’s what matters, genetic risk, as well as the total amount of exposure to carcinogenic’s. It’s just a worthless dumb thing to say.
You seem confident that you can categorize any activity. what about: strolling along a pathway, hiking in the footlhills, scrambling a mountain, ice climbing, base jumping? At what level the rock climbing rating system do we inflect from indirect to direct risk?
Assuming arguendo that you're not talking about repetitive stress injuries to the body or brain from overdoing physical or stressful activity, and just the acute harm from accidents, they're pretty much the same as driving. The correlation to accidents does not mean the activity is dangerous: it's the accident that's dangerous.
I object to the conflation of quantitative risk of experiencing an incidental event with the qualitative risk posed by a voluntary event.
and according to the WHO one particulate from that exhaust increases your risk from pollution above absolute zero, hence driving is not safe when it comes to your health.
Tire particulate is a particularly nasty form of pollution that most are unaware of. EVs aren't particularly better at reducing tread wear (some say it's a bit higher due to instant-torque at 0 RPM).
It is also beneficial because various crap gets delivered, people move fast to where they are needed and generally stuff gets done. Some paramedics even get so brazen as to fly helicopters to the rescue.
It's not about drawing the line, it's about quantifying the impact.
I think this is what people don't get about the study. The study is not saying no one should drink. It's not saying that the risks of drinking outweigh the benefit. It's saying that for any amount of alcohol, ingesting it, on aggregate, decreases life expectancy. Nothing more. It's a measurement of the increase of risk, which can then be combined and contrasted with other measurements and help make informed decisions.
You draw the line however you want. You now have more information to make that decision.
I think overall it is likely slight net negative. Just from things like particulate pollution and siting not moving for a period. Also the UV light from sun possibly.
Not that there isn't acceptable tradeoffs with what is attained by driving.
Driving may be a necessity while drinking is rarely an obligation. Also driving may cause instant harm while, drinking may cause a very much delayed harm. So, by knowing that not driving or not drinking are the safest choice I can choose to skip having a single drink and avoid driving if I don’t have to, thus completely minimizing the risk.
Sure but you can basically play this game forever and arrive at a very bad, but safe quality of life.
Funny enough though driving is by far worse for your health than moderate or light drinking, and it’s even more insidious than drinking because not only do that negative effects take a long time to manifest, but they’re couched inside of a “necessity”.
Why would choosing a safer travel method or avoiding unnecessary drives ruin the quality of life? I am not proposing to quit living a life, only adjusting the methods of living. We obviously don’t share the same values regarding the quality of life.
I think it’s more funny you choose a rhetoric that suits your lifestyle and your needs, and dismiss that it might be helpful for people who don’t find alcohol culture appealing.
Consider having to decide between a 20 min trip by car, or 1 hour trip by train, and the car driving has 100x serious accident probability. However, you save 40 minutes if you drive. Likely, driving doesn't take 40 min off your life expectancy. And even if it did, you save the minutes now, and not at the end of your life.
> Consider having to decide between a 20 min trip by car, or 1 hour trip by train
Couple issues with this. First why not a 20 minute trip by car with fees for parking and all that versus a 20 minute trip by train? Depending on where you live this can be your currently daily experience. It could also be anyones daily experience if we just decided we wanted to do that.
The second issue is that simple comparing the surface level time-by-transit misses most of the particulars that matter. And you are also mistakenly applying individual experience with aggregate experience i.e. 40 minutes saved for the individual but in aggregate many people actually do die because of the 100x serious injury probability.
