Alcohol causes cancer

[Cairber]

And look at this version of it; the opening line is:

There's a new study out that says pregnancy and alcohol may mix.

story

[FSTargetDrone]

And look at this version of it; the opening line is:

There's a new study out that says pregnancy and alcohol may mix.

story

I just wanted to quote this from the link that you just posted:

British researchers say it might be okay for pregnant women to occasionally indulge in a night of drinking. The researchers reviewed 14 studies and could not find much evidence that a once-in-a-while binge harms a fetus. But the researchers also said more study is needed.

Some women believe a little wine or beer can't hurt.

Jessica Shannon is 6 months pregnant and drinks occasionally.

"I don't know…maybe once every couple of weeks," Shannon said. "I grew up in Europe, and so they're a little more lax about it over there. It doesn't seem like it's too big of a problem to me"

See, uh, no. Look at that last part. I cannot understand this mindset. What does being "more lax" about alcohol use have to do with anything? Are pregnant Europeans somehow less susceptible to potential harm done to a fetus? Researches may have no problem saying some alcohol is not a problem for pregnant women, but what competent doctor would say anything other than "don't drink" to a pregnant woman?

[Cairber]

I just cannot wrap my mind around the "once-in-a-while binge drinking is ok in pregnancy" thing. In another version of the article, australian doctors are quoted as saying that studies like this help lower abortion rates because some woman want to abort because they think their binge drinking may affect their baby.

story

NEW alcohol guidelines urging pregnant women not to drink at all could cause unnecessary panic and lead to healthy babies being terminated, the College of Obstetricians has warned.

Expectant mothers who are told there is no safe level of alcohol consumption may fear they have caused serious birth defects, even if they have only drunk in moderation or on a single occasion.

The "zero tolerance" position proposed in draft Federal Government guidelines created alarm when adopted in other countries, the president of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Christine Tippett, said.

Canadian specialists "have had requests from women to terminate their pregnancy because they're concerned they may have harmed their foetuses through alcohol exposure early in their pregnancy … that's a real concern because there is no evidence to support women doing that," Dr Tippett said.

I don't mean to veer off topic, but these articles really made me think about this thread and how things like this are twisted around and used as evidence for dangerous behavior.

[Spin Echo]

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%?.

The problem is, you have these statistic but you don't understand what they actually mean. The 26% increased chance of developing colon cancer is only significant from an entire population stand point. For an individual person, 26% increase in their chance of developing colon cancer does little to change their actual likelihood of developing colon cancer.

Or in other terms, don't try to apply ensemble behaviour to a single atom.

[FSTargetDrone]

I just cannot wrap my mind around the "once-in-a-while binge drinking is ok in pregnancy" thing.

It really does seem insane. If they admit further study is needed, how can they possibly say even occasional "binge drinking" is at all acceptable? It seems like a terribly irresponsible thing to say, especially when they admit they need more study in this matter.

Unless someone comes up with solid evidence that drinking is a positive with respect to a pregnant woman and her unborn child, I can't understand why anyone would think drinking while pregnant is ever a good thing, something to be risked at all, no matter how little a woman drinks.

[Spin Echo]

The "zero tolerance" position proposed in draft Federal Government guidelines created alarm when adopted in other countries, the president of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Christine Tippett, said.

Canadian specialists "have had requests from women to terminate their pregnancy because they're concerned they may have harmed their foetuses through alcohol exposure early in their pregnancy … that's a real concern because there is no evidence to support women doing that," Dr Tippett said.

Funny. I can dig up a fair bit of literature that supports that even one binge drinking episode can adversely effect the development of a fetus. Most of that is on rats, but still.

[SCRawl]

I just cannot wrap my mind around the "once-in-a-while binge drinking is ok in pregnancy" thing.

It really does seem insane. If they admit further study is needed, how can they possibly say even occasional "binge drinking" is at all acceptable? It seems like a terribly irresponsible thing to say, especially when they admit they need more study in this matter.

Unless someone comes up with solid evidence that drinking is a positive with respect to a pregnant woman and her unborn child, I can't understand why anyone would think drinking while pregnant is ever a good thing, something to be risked at all, no matter how little a woman drinks.

The kind of evidence you'd want would come from a clinical trial, or a set of them. Can you imagine someone suggesting such an experiment? Expose pregnant women to binge-level alcohol, and compare their children with the control group. It's something that would have gotten Josef Mengele's interest, I suppose, but it'd be hard to justify it from a legitimate medical point of view. A simple precautionary "don't drink booze if you're pregnant" will work just fine.

[Darth Wong]

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%?.

The problem is, you have these statistic but you don't understand what they actually mean. The 26% increased chance of developing colon cancer is only significant from an entire population stand point. For an individual person, 26% increase in their chance of developing colon cancer does little to change their actual likelihood of developing colon cancer.

Sure it does; it does enough so that all of the increased risks add up to 26% when you look at the entire population. You can nitpick the careless way I worded my post, but the point remains: even a "moderate" few drinks a day can cause significantly elevated risk.

Or in other terms, don't try to apply ensemble behaviour to a single atom.

The fact that there is individual variation in risk factors does not affect the point I was making, which is that "moderate drinking" carries significant risk. Technically you're right; you can't directly apply a 26% increase in risk from the entire population to an individual. However, your own conclusion (that the risk is invariably insignificant at the individual level) is fucking ridiculous, because 26% of people are getting cancer when they otherwise would not.

[CmdrWilkens]

Or in other terms, don't try to apply ensemble behaviour to a single atom.

The fact that there is individual variation in risk factors does not affect the point I was making, which is that "moderate drinking" carries significant risk. Technically you're right; you can't directly apply a 26% increase in risk from the entire population to an individual. However, your own conclusion (that the risk is invariably insignificant at the individual level) is fucking ridiculous, because 26% of people are getting cancer when they otherwise would not.

The question that I would ask (and I don't know the answer) would be what are they not dying of? Yes we all die sooner or later and personally I have no desire to wind up with doctors ripping pieces of my colon off but at the same time the 26% increase doesn't give me a correlation to longevity. If 26% of folks are getting cancer who otherwise wouldn't but are still living, on average, past the median life expectancy of their paticular race/gender combination then it worries me a hell of a lot less. That means those engaged in this drinking are dying later than they should (which means they are doing something right) but are more likely to keel over from cancer. If the occurance of cancer is shortening the life expectancy of those who are seeing the increase occurance THEN its a matter for immediate concern.

So going way back yes the idea that "we all gotta die sometime" is used as an excuse but it doesn't mean the quesiton behind it is invalid. Again I don't have the answer but if the increased risk of developing a paticular illness does not co-incide with a decreased life expectancy then obvioulsy the behavior is carrying out some sort of positive effect unrelated to the illness studied. COnversely if the onset of this illness is shortening life expectancies then it is a matter for immediate concern and attention. The study, however, doesn't address that so I don't know the answer.

[Spin Echo]

The fact that there is individual variation in risk factors does not affect the point I was making, which is that "moderate drinking" carries significant risk. Technically you're right; you can't directly apply a 26% increase in risk from the entire population to an individual. However, your own conclusion (that the risk is invariably insignificant at the individual level) is fucking ridiculous, because 26% of people are getting cancer when they otherwise would not.

You seem to be confusing overall risk and relative risk. 26% of people are not getting cancer when they wouldn't have. You just can't treat a 26% relative risk increase as significant without knowing what it is relative to. I don't know what the risk of colon cancer is off the top of my head, but it's considered small enough that a 26% increase isn't a significant increase in likelihood. Basically a small number times 1.25, is still a small number. That's why, despite studies showing the relative risk of breast cancer from the pill versus non pill users is 50-60%, breast cancer isn't considered a concern when prescribing oral contraceptives.

[Spin Echo]

Aha, found some actual numbers. For women over 50, there is an incidence of colon cancer about 13 cases per 10000 women per year. Now lets assume that all those women are what gets classed as "moderate" drinkers (I disgree with what they consider moderate, but I'm not the one doing the defining), even though that's not likely the case. Assuming all the women had abstained instead, 10-11 of them per 10000 would have still gotten colon cancer.

This difference is important it comes to funding for healthcare and having enough hospitals to treat cancer patients, but to an individual person, not so much.

[Broomstick]

Also, an individual may be privy to knowledge that wouldn't apply to the general public. If, for instance, you know your are at higher risk for cancer due to family history, particularly cancer early in life, you might choose to forgo drinking entirely. If you have little or no cancer in your family tree you might consider alcohol an acceptable risk.

Even so, the general message should be "alcohol in very, very moderate doses, if at all" because of the potential for abuse and for misunderstanding among the ignorant and stupid.

[Flagg]

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.

Hey dipshit, did it ever occur to you that taking a negligable risk to prevent a much more serious risk might be a a smart thing? You know, since pregnancy is a much bigger health risk than a contraceptive pill?

[Darth Wong]

Aha, found some actual numbers. For women over 50, there is an incidence of colon cancer about 13 cases per 10000 women per year. Now lets assume that all those women are what gets classed as "moderate" drinkers (I disgree with what they consider moderate, but I'm not the one doing the defining), even though that's not likely the case. Assuming all the women had abstained instead, 10-11 of them per 10000 would have still gotten colon cancer.

Sorry, I should have said "of people getting cancer", not just "people". In any case, if we take the present population of 300 million people in the US, assume roughly half are female, this would indicate that roughly two hundred thousand will get colon cancer, of which perhaps forty thousand would be attributable to "moderate" alcohol consumption. Make of that what you will, but one can hardly say (as Zac Naloen insists on doing) that "moderate" consumption is entirely benign and perhaps even beneficial, especially when this is just one of the many cancers in which alcohol has been implicated.

This difference is important it comes to funding for healthcare and having enough hospitals to treat cancer patients, but to an individual person, not so much.

You could say the same thing about all sorts of things that might kill you, from crime to pollution to anything else. What is your threshold for considering something important?

[Spin Echo]

Aha, found some actual numbers. For women over 50, there is an incidence of colon cancer about 13 cases per 10000 women per year. Now lets assume that all those women are what gets classed as "moderate" drinkers (I disgree with what they consider moderate, but I'm not the one doing the defining), even though that's not likely the case. Assuming all the women had abstained instead, 10-11 of them per 10000 would have still gotten colon cancer.

Sorry, I should have said "of people getting cancer", not just "people".

Fair enough.

In any case, if we take the present population of 300 million people in the US, assume roughly half are female, this would indicate that roughly two hundred thousand will get colon cancer, of which perhaps forty thousand would be attributable to "moderate" alcohol consumption. Make of that what you will, but one can hardly say (as Zac Naloen insists on doing) that "moderate" consumption is entirely benign and perhaps even beneficial, especially when this is just one of the many cancers in which alcohol has been implicated.

The problem is, life is a game where no one gets out alive. In the cancers listed where extensive alcohol use is indicated in a risk factor, the biggest risk factor for those cancers appears to be getting old. So if by eliminating the lesser additional risk confered by drinking 50g of alcohol a day, the person might live a few more years such that they contract cancer by the bigger risk of getting older. So on a personal level, it's good, as those 2 people per 10000 get a few more years of life, but it may not actually have much effect in terms of the number of people that get cancer and the burden society has to bear.

As I mentioned earlier, it's a possibility that a beneficial effect of alcohol on the heart will actually raise your risk of developing cancer in your lifetime. You don't drop dead at 70 from a heart attack so you live long enough to contract cancer at 75.

If it were easy to figure out, someone would have done it by now.

This difference is important it comes to funding for healthcare and having enough hospitals to treat cancer patients, but to an individual person, not so much.

You could say the same thing about all sorts of things that might kill you, from crime to pollution to anything else. What is your threshold for considering something important?

The number that gets bandied around for something to be significant on a personal level is a relative risk of 5, but I'm pretty sure that's a number that got pulled out of someone's arse. It really seems to be on a case by case basis. As I had relative risk explained to me, it depends on the initial over all risk. The greater the overall risk, the more important an increase in relative risk is. I'm not a statistician, so I don't think I can make an informed decsion as to what an acceptable general threshold is, but view of the ones I've polled with regards to the increased risk of cancer from the study is that it is pretty meaningless on a personal basis.

[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.

Hey dipshit, did it ever occur to you that taking a negligable risk to prevent a much more serious risk might be a a smart thing? You know, since pregnancy is a much bigger health risk than a contraceptive pill?

Fuck off Flagg. negligible risk is still negligible risk no matter how you swing it.

Make of that what you will, but one can hardly say (as Zac Naloen insists on doing) that "moderate" consumption is entirely benign and perhaps even beneficial, especially when this is just one of the many cancers in which alcohol has been implicated.

No I haven't, I've said MY level of cosumption isn't LIKELY to kill me as it's already way below recommended levels. Stop strawmanning my position. I don't happen to agree with their designation of moderate drinking. But considering that it is the medically agreed position by WHO and is pretty much universal I'm not going to go around proclaiming those numbers innaccurate just because I disagree.[/quote]

[Flagg]

It does?

Could have fooled me.

She said that the risk is negligible not non existant.

Hey dipshit, did it ever occur to you that taking a negligable risk to prevent a much more serious risk might be a a smart thing? You know, since pregnancy is a much bigger health risk than a contraceptive pill?

Fuck off Flagg. negligible risk is still negligible risk no matter how you swing it.

Oh, blow it out your ass you fucking dicksneeze. There's a difference between taking a negligable risk to avoid a larger risk and just being a stupid fuck who wants to keep engaging in a dangerous activity while trying to argue that it's not much of a risk despite what studies say.

[Colonel Olrik]

Oh, blow it out your ass you fucking dicksneeze. There's a difference between taking a negligable risk to avoid a larger risk and just being a stupid fuck who wants to keep engaging in a dangerous activity while trying to argue that it's not much of a risk despite what studies say.

We do activities where we assume the risk is negligenciable all the time, often for no purpose other than recreation. Driving, sports, etc are all activities that kill or grievely injure a significant number of people every year if you consider the numbers for the entire population. There is a direct correlation between driving to the lake on a Sunday and a violent death, but a normal person assumes that by driving responsibly the risk is acceptable.

Spin Echo has said it, consciously or not we make our decisions about what activities to undertake based on the relative risk of those activities.

[Flagg]

Oh, blow it out your ass you fucking dicksneeze. There's a difference between taking a negligable risk to avoid a larger risk and just being a stupid fuck who wants to keep engaging in a dangerous activity while trying to argue that it's not much of a risk despite what studies say.

We do activities where we assume the risk is negligenciable all the time, often for no purpose other than recreation. Driving, sports, etc are all activities that kill or grievely injure a significant number of people every year if you consider the numbers for the entire population. There is a direct correlation between driving to the lake on a Sunday and a violent death, but a normal person assumes that by driving responsibly the risk is acceptable.

Spin Echo has said it, consciously or not we make our decisions about what activities to undertake based on the relative risk of those activities.

I'm more taking issue with the comparison of something that reduces other, more dangerous risks with something that is simply consumed for pleasure as a justification for engaging in the unhealthy activity of alchohol consumption.

[Colonel Olrik]

I'm more taking issue with the comparison of something that reduces other, more dangerous risks with something that is simply consumed for pleasure as a justification for engaging in the unhealthy activity of alchohol consumption.

The pill is not a necessity to avoid getting pregnant. It's just generally more convenient than the alternative. A drink now and then is not healthy but it's pleasurable and socially convenient. Like in outdoor sports or driving, by doing it with responsibility the associated risk is too small to justifiably prevent the activity.

[Flagg]

I'm more taking issue with the comparison of something that reduces other, more dangerous risks with something that is simply consumed for pleasure as a justification for engaging in the unhealthy activity of alchohol consumption.

The pill is not a necessity to avoid getting pregnant. It's just generally more convenient than the alternative. A drink now and then is not healthy but it's pleasurable and socially convenient. Like in outdoor sports or driving, by doing it with responsibility the associated risk is too small to justifiably prevent the activity.

Bleh, conceded.

[Justforfun000]

One thing I'd like to point out as well is that studies are also inherently flawed to at least a fair degree when measuring vices. People usually tend to underreport their habit. For example my mother claims she drinks alcohol moderately, but she sometimes ends up having 5 glasses of wine at night. Argue with her the next day and she'll claim it was 3 and she actually thinks that.

So I'd also interpret the results of these studies involving self-reporting to be at least moderately pessimistic.

Also I'd have to agree with the general attitude of the ones here who defend the practice of drinking for personal enjoyment. It is relatively unique in it's ability to relax you and enhance social bonds, and this has made impacts on people's lives in many beneificial ways. There is something about shared revelry with people that is enhanced by a little glow on from alcohol, and it forms stronger attachments and memories. (Well, sometimes bad ones if it backfires, but the point is it has an effect for good or ill).

Practically all studies I recall reading made it clear that detoxifying one ounce of alcohol was a walk in the park for the liver. This is of course assuming good health.

I like that quote above. Life is a game that no one gets out of alive. It's important to remember that while it should be desirable to want to keep on living, we have to have something to want to live FOR. 'Vices' of many kinds bring happiness to people and give reasons to enjoy life. I'd wager to say that there would be a lot more miserable people in the world if they were forcing themselves to be abstinant, vegetarian, teetotaller, burkha-covered sun-avoiders that wouldn't shake your hand for fear of catching the flu.

Moderation is still the best buzzword when dealing with something that has other positive or desirable sides to their use. Alcohol affects social behaviour and personal moods in sometimes positive ways. How you choose to balance the potential risks of physical damage to such a thing has to be individual.

[FSTargetDrone]

It's important to remember that while it should be desirable to want to keep on living, we have to have something to want to live FOR. 'Vices' of many kinds bring happiness to people and give reasons to enjoy life. I'd wager to say that there would be a lot more miserable people in the world if they were forcing themselves to be abstinant, vegetarian, teetotaller, burkha-covered sun-avoiders that wouldn't shake your hand for fear of catching the flu.

It all depends on what one sees as desirable to quality of life, I suppose. Actually, the latter 3 of the bolded part above applies to me! At least in part. I don't sunbathe because I have fair skin and quite frankly the idea of people tanning is quite unappealing to me (though I do like to spend time outdoors as much as possible, jogging, hiking and whatnot). If I never have another alcoholic drink again in my life, I won't feel as if I've missed anything. I'm don't find it particularly enjoyable to drink any only do so in social settings when it's "expected" (a toast, for example) but even then I may only sip at the drink or simply raise the glass, which is exactly what I did at a wedding over the summer. I'm also vegan for both personal as well as health reasons, but I don't feel I'm missing out on anything there either. It's funny, I spent the first ~23 of my 33 years eating an omnivorous diet, but since I stopped eating animal products, I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything.

Anyway, back to alcohol use, I last got drunk in 1997, I think it was. That's not something I want to do again. I don't want to lose the control. It isn't fun for me, so it's no real sacrifice in my case. It doesn't make me unhappy and certainly not miserable. I'm quite content, actually, with my life. Drinking doesn't make me happy. I'd rather be doing other things.

[CmdrWilkens]

In any case, if we take the present population of 300 million people in the US, assume roughly half are female, this would indicate that roughly two hundred thousand will get colon cancer, of which perhaps forty thousand would be attributable to "moderate" alcohol consumption. Make of that what you will, but one can hardly say (as Zac Naloen insists on doing) that "moderate" consumption is entirely benign and perhaps even beneficial, especially when this is just one of the many cancers in which alcohol has been implicated.

The problem is, life is a game where no one gets out alive. In the cancers listed where extensive alcohol use is indicated in a risk factor, the biggest risk factor for those cancers appears to be getting old. So if by eliminating the lesser additional risk confered by drinking 50g of alcohol a day, the person might live a few more years such that they contract cancer by the bigger risk of getting older. So on a personal level, it's good, as those 2 people per 10000 get a few more years of life, but it may not actually have much effect in terms of the number of people that get cancer and the burden society has to bear.

As I mentioned earlier, it's a possibility that a beneficial effect of alcohol on the heart will actually raise your risk of developing cancer in your lifetime. You don't drop dead at 70 from a heart attack so you live long enough to contract cancer at 75.

If it were easy to figure out, someone would have done it by now.

I think there the problem is that you have to start having folks die off before your methodolgy can be shown correct or not. As I mentioned earlier I'm not so much concerned about the relative risk in and of itself. As Broomstick pointed out I increase my relative risk of dying in a car accident with every road mile I travel by car and I increase my relative risk of dying in a trian accident for every mile I travel by rail and increase my risk of household injury for every hour I telecommute instead of going in to work so its a no-win scenario. The question remains one of balancing risk an reward. For situations where the risk is highly compensated by the reward (I need the money to feed my wife and I so I have to work and the work I am best compensated for requires travel therefore I must) then I engage in the activity but I want to make informed choices. Then the question becomes one of which is going to ill me sooner. As above if commuting by train against commuting by car creates an average life expectancy that is higher or lower than driving then I would like to know that although I would still balance that decision against the economic risk of both methods.

With alcohol the question no one seems to be yet able to answer is whether drinking in moderate (by the definition provided or a close approximate) amounts raises or lowers average life expectancy for those in my age profile. We continue to see competing balances with alcohol reducing stress but increasing likelyhood of mechanical injury or accident due to judgment impairment. The risk of cancer against the benifits for the heart. Yet not once have we gotten a picture of which way the scale tips as far as life expectancy and I rather suspect it is because of the rather huge number of activities that encompass the current average lifespan. You can't control for everything a person will do over the course of 60,70, or 80 years and trying to create a meaningful statistical conclusion would be difficult, not impossible just hellishly difficult. So until then I want all the informaiton I can get but I'm still going to approach life to enjoy it but in moderation so that if it turns out that even moderation is negative its easier to stop.

[Darth Wong]

Once again, as stressed several times already, it all depends on what you think "moderate" means. Colonel Olrik defines it as "a drink now and then", which seems to be well below the threshold of anything that the study concerns itself with. On the other hand, the average alcohol apologist seems to define it as "anything short of binge drinking", even if that means you consume a few alcoholic drinks every single day, and that sounds an awful lot like an addiction to me.