3 ms·

Uh... quantity for starters. Not that the UK drinks the most, that honor apparently goes to Belarus according to the WHO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of

Uh... quantity for starters. Not that the UK drinks the most, that honor apparently goes to Belarus according to the WHO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol_consumption_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol_c...), but the study itself states a dose-relationship response to some forms of cancer. Therefore the amount of alcohol a population consumes would affect the 4% number, and the UK is demonstrably not a representative sample of the rest of the world. There are also biological/ethnic factors. Native Americans are more susceptible to alcoholism, and Asian populations are more likely to be allergic to alcohol. There are also regional differences in diet and the type of alcohol consumed, even when and how it's consumed. You can't just take a 4% number from one region and apply it generally.

ajross 9y ago
Surely the study you cite was about a correlation to quantity and cancer, though, which would mean they've already corrected for that. To do otherwise would be laughably awful science. If you want to make that assertion, you need to show that the study is flawed, not just assert that you personally believe they are idiots who don't know how to get a paper published. And the stuff about alcoholism and allergies[1] is just you flailing to find an excuse to discredit a result you don't like. That's not the way science works. At all. [1] FWIW: it's not an allergy at all. East asians are more likely to carry a defective gene for alcohol dehydrogenase, meaning that ethanol metabolism goes through a different process in their bodies and tends to produce an inflamation response.
- scottLobster 9y ago
  The study I cite, and the link you clearly didn't click, is simply a table of countries sorted by alcohol consumption per capita, showing the massive differences in consumption and types of alcohol consumed between countries as of 2010. That's just the largest factor of many that affect cancer rates due to alcohol consumption. Also you seem to have the impression I'm trying to disprove the study. As I stated in my original comment I'm not, I simply think they were being hyperbolic in the introduction and that annoyed me. And assuming the UK study is the sole source of that 4% number, then it's wrong and alarmist as presented and should be qualified. I have no trouble believing their results, which are wholly unrelated to this minor point. And I hope your defensive pedantry about the definition of an allergy makes you feel better, because it doesn't disprove my argument.
  - ajross 9y ago
    > The study I cite, and the link you clearly didn't click, is simply a table of countries sorted by alcohol consumption per capita I meant the UK study. You say it can't be right because brits drink more. I say that it's clearly already written as a correlation between consumption and cancer rates (because what else would it be?), which indeed makes your point sort of specious. > defensive pedantry about the definition of an allergy You're pontificating on the internet about the validity of alcohol studies, yet dismissing a clear fact about the same subject as "pedantry". I think that says all that needs to be said about the argument. LOL, as it were.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

ajross 9y ago

Surely the study you cite was about a correlation to quantity and cancer, though, which would mean they've already corrected for that. To do otherwise would be laughably awful science. If you want to make that assertion, you need to show that the study is flawed, not just assert that you personally believe they are idiots who don't know how to get a paper published. And the stuff about alcoholism and allergies[1] is just you flailing to find an excuse to discredit a result you don't like. That's not the way science works. At all. [1] FWIW: it's not an allergy at all. East asians are more likely to carry a defective gene for alcohol dehydrogenase, meaning that ethanol metabolism goes through a different process in their bodies and tends to produce an inflamation response.

scottLobster 9y ago
The study I cite, and the link you clearly didn't click, is simply a table of countries sorted by alcohol consumption per capita, showing the massive differences in consumption and types of alcohol consumed between countries as of 2010. That's just the largest factor of many that affect cancer rates due to alcohol consumption. Also you seem to have the impression I'm trying to disprove the study. As I stated in my original comment I'm not, I simply think they were being hyperbolic in the introduction and that annoyed me. And assuming the UK study is the sole source of that 4% number, then it's wrong and alarmist as presented and should be qualified. I have no trouble believing their results, which are wholly unrelated to this minor point. And I hope your defensive pedantry about the definition of an allergy makes you feel better, because it doesn't disprove my argument.
- ajross 9y ago
  > The study I cite, and the link you clearly didn't click, is simply a table of countries sorted by alcohol consumption per capita I meant the UK study. You say it can't be right because brits drink more. I say that it's clearly already written as a correlation between consumption and cancer rates (because what else would it be?), which indeed makes your point sort of specious. > defensive pedantry about the definition of an allergy You're pontificating on the internet about the validity of alcohol studies, yet dismissing a clear fact about the same subject as "pedantry". I think that says all that needs to be said about the argument. LOL, as it were.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]