3 ms·

What we do know about alcohol is that the WHO has officially classified it as a Group 1 carcinogen. Studies have linked even low levels of consumption to an inc

What we do know about alcohol is that the WHO has officially classified it as a Group 1 carcinogen. Studies have linked even low levels of consumption to an increase in cancer risk, so even one drink per days seems higher than it realistically should be. As for the life expectancy issue, that remains a mystery, but it would appear unlikely that higher alcohol intake is beneficial from a health perspective.

bena 6y ago
Cancer shows us just how bad we are at statistics and risk management. Most lung cancer is a result from smoking. That is true. However, it is also true that most smokers don't get lung cancer. So while drinking alcohol will increase your risk of cancer by a substantial amount comparatively, we're still comparing really small numbers. An increase of 0.1% to 0.2% is a 100% increase in risk, but you're still not likely to get it. And before anyone reads this as a pro-smoking message, there are many other ailments that come with smoking that happen with greater frequency. However, smoking will not guarantee you get lung cancer.
- webmaven 6y ago
  > Cancer shows us just how bad we are at statistics and risk management. > Most lung cancer is a result from smoking. That is true. However, it is also true that most smokers don't get lung cancer. > So while drinking alcohol will increase your risk of cancer by a substantial amount comparatively, we're still comparing really small numbers. An increase of 0.1% to 0.2% is a 100% increase in risk, but you're still not likely to get it. The problem with this sort of thinking is that risk factors are, roughly speaking, multiplicative. So if you have other risk factors such as a family history of lung cancer, smoking may bump your personal risk from 12% to 24%. Still an increase of 100%. And of course, that's just a combination of two specific risk factors, many of which are implicated in multiple conditions (for example smoking also increases the risk for other lung conditions such as emphysema, heart problems, etc., meanwhile alcohol consumption also increases risks for diabetes, cirrhosis, heart problems, stroke, etc.), and many risk factors aren't as obvious (or as well marketed). The flip side of the multiplicativity of risk factors is that if you have several that are at least nominally under your control just eliminating one or two factors is probably going to be worth the effort (but if you are an overweight, snoring, sedentary, smoker and drinker, who consumes way too much sugary and salty snacks, etc. etc., choosing to take the stairs instead of the elevator is probably not the place to start). Anyway, sidestepping those risk factors you can both identify and do something about is probably worth it, because no individual is really representative of the population as a whole (ie. there are no people who are average in every way), and you don't really know how large your personal base level of risk is that the one isolated factor is multiplying.

bena 6y ago

Cancer shows us just how bad we are at statistics and risk management. Most lung cancer is a result from smoking. That is true. However, it is also true that most smokers don't get lung cancer. So while drinking alcohol will increase your risk of cancer by a substantial amount comparatively, we're still comparing really small numbers. An increase of 0.1% to 0.2% is a 100% increase in risk, but you're still not likely to get it. And before anyone reads this as a pro-smoking message, there are many other ailments that come with smoking that happen with greater frequency. However, smoking will not guarantee you get lung cancer.

webmaven 6y ago
> Cancer shows us just how bad we are at statistics and risk management. > Most lung cancer is a result from smoking. That is true. However, it is also true that most smokers don't get lung cancer. > So while drinking alcohol will increase your risk of cancer by a substantial amount comparatively, we're still comparing really small numbers. An increase of 0.1% to 0.2% is a 100% increase in risk, but you're still not likely to get it. The problem with this sort of thinking is that risk factors are, roughly speaking, multiplicative. So if you have other risk factors such as a family history of lung cancer, smoking may bump your personal risk from 12% to 24%. Still an increase of 100%. And of course, that's just a combination of two specific risk factors, many of which are implicated in multiple conditions (for example smoking also increases the risk for other lung conditions such as emphysema, heart problems, etc., meanwhile alcohol consumption also increases risks for diabetes, cirrhosis, heart problems, stroke, etc.), and many risk factors aren't as obvious (or as well marketed). The flip side of the multiplicativity of risk factors is that if you have several that are at least nominally under your control just eliminating one or two factors is probably going to be worth the effort (but if you are an overweight, snoring, sedentary, smoker and drinker, who consumes way too much sugary and salty snacks, etc. etc., choosing to take the stairs instead of the elevator is probably not the place to start). Anyway, sidestepping those risk factors you can both identify and do something about is probably worth it, because no individual is really representative of the population as a whole (ie. there are no people who are average in every way), and you don't really know how large your personal base level of risk is that the one isolated factor is multiplying.