Alcohol causes cancer

[mr friendly guy]

Good thing I don't drink, except rarely in social occasions. Like once a year or less frequent, and even then, no more than a standard drink.

[His Divine Shadow]

I like to drink a light beer once in a while, once a week maybe, on occasion I will go with a stronger darker type of ale. And sometimes when I really feel like it, even scotch (a bottle will last well over a year). It's my vice I suppose and given the comparative risks as illustraded by Spin Echo I don't feel I would gain anything significant by not drinking at all compared to the enjoyment I get from my current consumption.

[Broomstick]

Yes, one can live a long, fulfilling life without alcohol.

On the other hand, light consumption will probably not adversely affect most people - which, remember, is 1 serving or less per day for women, 2 or less for men. And certainly don't drink and drive or operate heavy machinery and all those other cautions.

If you come from a family prone to heart disease with little history of cancer it might have some beneficial effects because it does lower your cholesterol, reduce blood clotting, etc. but that's not an excuse to drink (or to eat a crappy diet saying the alcohol will compensate - it won't, the effect isn't that strong). If you come from a family prone to cancer, however, you might want to avoid alcohol entirely.

Alcohol can also reduce stress, increase appetite, and be part of social bonding which, in specific situations, can be of benefit but there are alternatives for all of the above.

The fact is that some very normal foods contain small amounts of alcohol by nature - such as fruit juices. Our bodies have evolved to deal with a low level of this in the diet. In that, it's like consuming red meat - in moderate amounts (which is typically less than most westerners consume) you can benefit from the protein, iron, and even fat (since some fat is essential to life) but you don't have to get any of that from red meat and its certainly no excuse to eat red meat at every meal.

Virtually all parts of the diet contain low levels of toxins that are naturally present, which is a good reason to eat a varied diet. Your body can handle these naturally occurring toxins at low level (that's a major function of liver and kidneys), it's when you consume to excess that there are problems.

[Battlehymn Republic]

It's funny how alcohol can be the cause of 75000 deaths in 2001 alone (according to the CDC), yet anyone who has a problem with this is being a tight-ass. Meanwhile, other problems that cause a small fraction of those deaths incite rage and no one has a problem with that, because it's, like, totally different, dude!

What other problems incite more rage?

School shootings for instance.

Nah, auto fatalities. School shootings are much rarer.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Huh, gotta show this to a few friends at work.


I'm going to point out that while there's a truly impressive number of things that appear to cause cancer, alcohol is one of those things where the benefits don't really outweigh the risks. I never drink (due in large part to medication) and yet I can still have fun with people, regardless of whether or not they have imbibed. It's not an aide for socializing. It's a damn crutch.

Protection against blood clots? Take a damn baby aspirin if you're so concerned. Heart disease? Same, in addition to exercise and a good diet to begin with. If that isn't enough, talk to a doctor and they can give you more advice, including medication that has viewer adverse effects, on getting the old ticker in a good place.


Thought the whole "Toxic substance can cause cancer!" is a no-brainer if you stop and think about some of the ways cancer seems to be caused. The thing to keep in mind is that a very large percent of people are unaware that alcohol is toxic and that intoxication is a symptom of being poisoned. When people think poison they think of such nasty substances as cyanide, strychnine, nerve agents, etc. that are potent enough to kill you or make you feel very unpleasantly ill in small doses. Alcohol, on the other hand, makes you feel "great!".

[Broomstick]

Protection against blood clots? Take a damn baby aspirin if you're so concerned.

Not everyone can take asprin.

Heart disease? Same, in addition to exercise and a good diet to begin with. If that isn't enough, talk to a doctor and they can give you more advice, including medication that has viewer adverse effects, on getting the old ticker in a good place.

Actually, my mother has had severe heart disease since her 30's (actually, probably even earlier, that's just when she started having angina) and despite exercise, diet, lots of statins, and actually being underweight most of her life her cholesterol is still around 380 to 400. Her doctor is entirely approving of her consuming a martini on a daily basis because it is yet another way to shave a few points off that cholesterol, it stimulates her appetite (important because she is about 20-30 pounds underweight right now... um... about 8-12 kilograms, roughly) and she's pretty damn nervous by nature so it helps her relax and get to sleep - if not that, she'd probably be on some sort of sleep aid. Her liver is in good shape and there's little cancer in the family so she may well be an example of a case where the benefits outweigh the risks of moderate consumption. Still not an excuse to binge. And most people do not have her biochemical defect in processing cholesterol.

When people think poison they think of such nasty substances as cyanide, strychnine, nerve agents, etc. that are potent enough to kill you or make you feel very unpleasantly ill in small doses. Alcohol, on the other hand, makes you feel "great!".

Only up to a point - when you start puking it's not such fun. In fact, from college days I remember over-indulgers crying out "I've been poisoned!" more than once.

When I do drink I drink very little - one serving is plenty for me, because beyond that it's not such "fun".

[Darth Wong]

I still haven't seen any evidence from anyone that drinking is bad for you period.

In other words, you're too fucking lazy and stupid to read.

I've seen lots of evidence that excessive drinking is bad for you, and I agree with it.

This thread again, like all the other alcohol threads, boils down to "Excessive drinking is bad for you".

The article at the beginning does nothing to say otherwise.

In other words, you're too fucking lazy and stupid to read. It says that the risk increases even with moderate drinking.

Find me some evidence that drinking 4 pints in a week is going to kill me and I might change my mind.

No you won't. You've decided that you won't change your lifestyle regardless, so you will interpret everything in such a manner as to please you.

[Darth Wong]

Actually, my mother has had severe heart disease since her 30's (actually, probably even earlier, that's just when she started having angina) and despite exercise, diet, lots of statins, and actually being underweight most of her life her cholesterol is still around 380 to 400. Her doctor is entirely approving of her consuming a martini on a daily basis because it is yet another way to shave a few points off that cholesterol, it stimulates her appetite (important because she is about 20-30 pounds underweight right now... um... about 8-12 kilograms, roughly) and she's pretty damn nervous by nature so it helps her relax and get to sleep - if not that, she'd probably be on some sort of sleep aid. Her liver is in good shape and there's little cancer in the family so she may well be an example of a case where the benefits outweigh the risks of moderate consumption. Still not an excuse to binge. And most people do not have her biochemical defect in processing cholesterol.

This reminds me of pro-marijuana arguments. I'm all for legalizing it because marijuana prohibition is a costly and wasteful exercise, but people go too far when they hunt for weird case studies where some anomalous individual might be better off taking it, in order to draw the false conclusion that it is beneficial for people in general. Also, the fact that an MD recommends it doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea; there was once a time that MDs recommended tobacco to help people relax.

[Ted C]

As for the people citing those popular "health benefits of wine" studies, here's an idea: if you want flavonoids, drink grape juice. The idea that you can only get them from wine is fucking idiocy and everyone with a brain knows it.

The only practical way to get them in really beneficial quantities is to concentrate them into a supplement.

Doesn't keep me from my glass of wine, though.

[Darth Wong]

I'm actually surprised that one of these head-in-sand numb-nuts like Zac Naloen hasn't accused me of being a Prohibitionist yet. That's usually how these threads go.

[Zac Naloen]

I still haven't seen any evidence from anyone that drinking is bad for you period.

In other words, you're too fucking lazy and stupid to read.

Err no, everything you've posted relates to Excessive drinking.

I've seen lots of evidence that excessive drinking is bad for you, and I agree with it.

This thread again, like all the other alcohol threads, boils down to "Excessive drinking is bad for you".

The article at the beginning does nothing to say otherwise.

In other words, you're too fucking lazy and stupid to read. It says that the risk increases even with moderate drinking.
[/quote]

Err no... it doesn't. It says the risk is 1.4. That's so low as to be completely useless as a statistic.

Are you going address Spin Echo's numbers or ignore them completely?

[Zac Naloen]

*edit*


Sorry got confused between Spin Echo's post and the article.


However I still can't see anything that says I need to stop drinking completely, my alcohol in take is way below even what they consider to be moderate in take. The article itself doesn't say anything about "prohibition" or stopping drinking.

I'm actually surprised that one of these head-in-sand numb-nuts like Zac Naloen hasn't accused me of being a Prohibitionist yet. That's usually how these threads go.

Where the fuck is my head in the sand?

I have said that I am well aware of the dangers of excessive drinking, but I still haven't seen any evidence that level of drinking I partake in is going to kill me.

[Broomstick]

Actually, my mother has had severe heart disease since her 30's (actually, probably even earlier, that's just when she started having angina) and despite exercise, diet, lots of statins, and actually being underweight most of her life her cholesterol is still around 380 to 400. Her doctor is entirely approving of her consuming a martini on a daily basis because it is yet another way to shave a few points off that cholesterol, it stimulates her appetite (important because she is about 20-30 pounds underweight right now... um... about 8-12 kilograms, roughly) and she's pretty damn nervous by nature so it helps her relax and get to sleep - if not that, she'd probably be on some sort of sleep aid. Her liver is in good shape and there's little cancer in the family so she may well be an example of a case where the benefits outweigh the risks of moderate consumption. Still not an excuse to binge. And most people do not have her biochemical defect in processing cholesterol.

This reminds me of pro-marijuana arguments. I'm all for legalizing it because marijuana prohibition is a costly and wasteful exercise, but people go too far when they hunt for weird case studies where some anomalous individual might be better off taking it, in order to draw the false conclusion that it is beneficial for people in general. Also, the fact that an MD recommends it doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea; there was once a time that MDs recommended tobacco to help people relax.

Which is precisely why I pointed out that most people don't have her biochemical defect, which is genetic in basis. It's not a fair trade in any case, because without modern medicine it's fatal in the mid-40's. Nor did I say the doctor recommended it - I said he approved it, which is to say it's not necessary and will not interact adversely with her other medication. If alcohol were unavailable other medications could be substituted if necessary (mostly for anxiety I'd guess in her case), it's just that alcohol is convenient, over-the-counter, and is not yet another pill (she takes about 30 of them a day).

Personally, I don't have an issue with people drinking alcohol as long as they do it responsibly - that is, no driving/other hazardous activities, no drinking to excess/illness, and it doesn't interfere with the rest of your life. For some of us, that means very little drinking at all.

Mike, you're coming off just a little puritanical in this thread, was that your intention? The only time you'd have an issue like second-hand smoke would be with a pregnant or nursing woman (second-hand drinking?). A truly moderate/social drinker would be able to give up alcohol for her child's sake without trouble.

As I said - alcohol is like red meat. It's not necessary for good health, but truly moderate amounts cause no significant harm to most people, but excess has negative health effects. The trouble is that most people don't realize what quantities are "truly moderate".

[Darth Wong]

Err no, everything you've posted relates to Excessive drinking.

No, it shows that there is a relationship between alcohol and cancer. Obviously, it increases with dose; this does not mean that the harmful effects do not exist below a certain threshold.

Are you going address Spin Echo's numbers or ignore them completely?

You mean the ones where she compared them to the contraceptive pill in order to prove that they're just as harmless as that pill? An argument which assumes that the pill is, in fact, harmless?

[Zac Naloen]

You mean the ones where she compared them to the contraceptive pill in order to prove that they're just as harmless as that pill? An argument which assumes that the pill is, in fact, harmless?

It does?

Could have fooled me.

She said that the risk is negligible not non existant.

[Darth Wong]

Personally, I don't have an issue with people drinking alcohol as long as they do it responsibly - that is, no driving/other hazardous activities, no drinking to excess/illness, and it doesn't interfere with the rest of your life. For some of us, that means very little drinking at all.

Mike, you're coming off just a little puritanical in this thread, was that your intention?

I personally don't care whether I come off as "puritanical"; I'm simply tired of the bullshit being spewed by alcohol apologists. 75000 US deaths attributable to alcohol in any given use year is a very large figure: not one that any sane person should just shrug off.

[Setzer]

I've had maybe two beers in the last two months. I think I'll be okay.

[Darth Wong]

You mean the ones where she compared them to the contraceptive pill in order to prove that they're just as harmless as that pill? An argument which assumes that the pill is, in fact, harmless?

It does?

Could have fooled me.

She said that the risk is negligible not non existant.

I suppose that depends on your idea of "moderate" drinking, doesn't it? Three drinks a day gives you a 26% increased chance of developing colon cancer (from the EPIC study, which is the largest such study ever conducted by far), which is a pretty big number; is that "moderate" drinking? It's certainly not what people would call "binge drinking". And if you reduce that to two, do you think it suddenly drops to less than 1%?

PS. And yes, I'm aware that the same study recommends a severe cutback in the use of red meat, especially processed meat. I'm trying to cut down my consumption of red meat and processed meat accordingly.

[Broomstick]

Personally, I don't have an issue with people drinking alcohol as long as they do it responsibly - that is, no driving/other hazardous activities, no drinking to excess/illness, and it doesn't interfere with the rest of your life. For some of us, that means very little drinking at all.

Mike, you're coming off just a little puritanical in this thread, was that your intention?

I personally don't care whether I come off as "puritanical"; I'm simply tired of the bullshit being spewed by alcohol apologists. 75000 US deaths attributable to alcohol in any given use year is a very large figure: not one that any sane person should just shrug off.

Well, we tried absolute prohibition and that didn't work too good.

It's not the infrequent (if you prefer that to moderate) non-driving drinkers who are the problem. It's the drunk drivers, the binge drinkers, the alcoholics, and others who are contributing the most to deaths.

Yes, there is a link between cancer and alcohol, and while your point that there is no proof of minimum harmless dose, there is no evidence that it is dangerous in even small amounts. I would be surprised if small amounts were dangerous, given that some of our natural diet - fruit - can ferment spontaneously. Admittedly, the amount of naturally occurring alcohol in human food is much smaller than the standard serving of alcohol in our society, but the notion that alcohol is dangerous in ANY amount seems an exaggeration to me.

There are a lot of other things that contribute to cancer such as sunlight, background radiation, grilled meats, and naturally occurring toxins in plant foods. Are proposing we restrict or outlaw those as well? Are you suggesting there exist "grilled meat apologists"?

[Isolder74]

Personally, I don't have an issue with people drinking alcohol as long as they do it responsibly - that is, no driving/other hazardous activities, no drinking to excess/illness, and it doesn't interfere with the rest of your life. For some of us, that means very little drinking at all.

Mike, you're coming off just a little puritanical in this thread, was that your intention?

I personally don't care whether I come off as "puritanical"; I'm simply tired of the bullshit being spewed by alcohol apologists. 75000 US deaths attributable to alcohol in any given use year is a very large figure: not one that any sane person should just shrug off.

Indeed drunk driving is a major probl em of which the only xcuse if nothing more then simple laziness. People drive drunk because they don't want to take the offort to designate a driver and its even considered a bummer to end up being the designated driver. There really is no excuse for it.

[Darth Wong]

Well, we tried absolute prohibition and that didn't work too good.

So? We can't practically ban tobacco either, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't tell people that they should stop taking it. The fact is that if someone smokes for ten years and then quits, his lifetime risk of cancer will rapidly drop down to very near what it would have been if he never took up the habit. Should we therefore tell people that it's OK to smoke tobacco in moderation? When you're dealing with an addictive substance, that's a very dangerous recommendation to make.

It's not the infrequent (if you prefer that to moderate) non-driving drinkers who are the problem. It's the drunk drivers, the binge drinkers, the alcoholics, and others who are contributing the most to deaths.

True. But when you're dealing with an addictive substance, it's not a good idea to recommend it on the assumption that people won't get addicted to it.

Yes, there is a link between cancer and alcohol, and while your point that there is no proof of minimum harmless dose, there is no evidence that it is dangerous in even small amounts. I would be surprised if small amounts were dangerous, given that some of our natural diet - fruit - can ferment spontaneously. Admittedly, the amount of naturally occurring alcohol in human food is much smaller than the standard serving of alcohol in our society, but the notion that alcohol is dangerous in ANY amount seems an exaggeration to me.

Depends on what you mean by "small amounts". A lot of Europeans feel that two or three drinks per day is "moderation", yet we know that this is definitely harmful.

There are a lot of other things that contribute to cancer such as sunlight, background radiation, grilled meats, and naturally occurring toxins in plant foods. Are proposing we restrict or outlaw those as well?

I never said anything about outlawing anything, moron. Learn to read.

Are you suggesting there exist "grilled meat apologists"?

No, but there are millions of grilled-meat ostriches. The medical evidence is overwhelmingly in that smoked meat, processed meat, and red meat in general will sharply elevate your cancer risk, and the majority of the population simply ignores it.

[TithonusSyndrome]

I'd be interested to see what, if anything, the study has revealed about binge drinkers who are less likely to have one beer every day of the week and more likely to have all seven in one night, just as a f'rinstance. I imagine it couldn't be an improvement.

[Broomstick]

It's not the infrequent (if you prefer that to moderate) non-driving drinkers who are the problem. It's the drunk drivers, the binge drinkers, the alcoholics, and others who are contributing the most to deaths.

True. But when you're dealing with an addictive substance, it's not a good idea to recommend it on the assumption that people won't get addicted to it.

The trouble I have with your analogy is that, first of all, you're a lot more likely to get addicted to smoking than to alcohol, and second, we just can't tell in advance who will and who won't have a problem with alcohol. So do we set the rules under the assumption the problem children are the majority, or the minority? Do we deny the responsible their little vices, or try to clean up after those who can't handle the substance?

And your point about a potentially addictive substance is well known in the medical community. It makes such announcements quite controversial.

Depends on what you mean by "small amounts". A lot of Europeans feel that two or three drinks per day is "moderation", yet we know that this is definitely harmful.

Hmm, yes - Europe has quite a different outlook in regards to alcohol than the US. I'm also told smoking is far more common there as well.

There are a lot of other things that contribute to cancer such as sunlight, background radiation, grilled meats, and naturally occurring toxins in plant foods. Are proposing we restrict or outlaw those as well?

I never said anything about outlawing anything, moron. Learn to read.

Oh, please - save your venom for those truly being assholes. I was asking a question - is your solution to the problem either regulating or restricting any potentially harmful substance? Or what? You're coming across as anti-alcohol, but I'm not sure what, if anything, you propose to solve the problems of addiction, harm to health, and drunken driver deaths.

Are you suggesting there exist "grilled meat apologists"?

No, but there are millions of grilled-meat ostriches. The medical evidence is overwhelmingly in that smoked meat, processed meat, and red meat in general will sharply elevate your cancer risk, and the majority of the population simply ignores it.

That's because the majority of people are fucking idiots, Mike - I thought you know that

[Galvatron]

That's because the majority of people are fucking idiots, Mike - I thought you know that

If there were no idiots in this world, I think Mike would be quite bored.

[Cairber]

A friend sent me this article today which seems to really support Darth Wong's posts in this thread. He said back on page 2:

These people intend to continue drinking no matter what the medical science says, so they data-mine for conclusions that suit their intentions.

Yet this article also seems to say that medical science data-mines, too...as they consider learning disabilities and speech problems to be "generally quite small." Though it is unclear to me if they are saying "small" as in low rates or "small" as in "not a big deal."

Women who have one-off episodes of binge drinking before discovering they are pregnant need not panic, according to a new review.

Researchers led by Dr Ron Gray, of Oxford University, UK, found "no convincing evidence of adverse effects of prenatal binge drinking, except possibly on neurodevelopmental outcomes".

In this study, binge drinking was defined as five or more alcoholic drinks in one go - equivalent to 60g of alcohol or 7.5 units.

The data came from 14 studies carried out between 1970 and 2005 on pregnant women and women who were trying to conceive. Findings appear in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

The authors write: "There were no consistently significant effects of alcohol on any of the outcomes considered." These included miscarriage, stillbirth, premature birth, low birth weight and birth defects including foetal alcohol syndrome.

They found a possible effect on brain development. Such effects were "generally quite small", but included an increase in "disinhibited behaviour", a reduction in verbal IQ, an increase in delinquency, learning problems, and poorer academic performance.

The researchers point out that consistently heavy drinking throughout pregnancy, as opposed to one-off binge drinking, is linked to neurological problems and birth defects such as foetal alcohol syndrome. They call for further research, but recommend that pregnant women avoid binge drinking.

"When pregnant women report isolated episodes of binge drinking in the absence of a consistently high daily alcohol intake, as is often the case, it is important to avoid inducing unnecessary anxiety, as, at present, the evidence of risk seems minimal," they conclude.

Henderson, J., Kesmodel, U. and Gray, R. Systematic review of the fetal effects of prenatal binge drinking. The Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, published online November 14, 2007.

This story is disturbing to me.

story[/quote]