4 ms·

> Alcohol ... has been classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer decades ago – this is the highest risk group, which

by jp57 4y ago

> Alcohol ... has been classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer decades ago – this is the highest risk group, which also includes asbestos, radiation and tobacco. But as I understand it we do have a notion of "safe" dosages of radiation. Isn't this statement then like saying "no level of exposure to radiation is safe for our health?" Maybe I'm wrong but I would think that the risk of cancer from radiation increases smoothly as the dosage increases such that "there is no threshold at which the carcinogenic effects 'switch on'". Thus, by extension, nobody should ever fly on an airplane because the increased radiation exposure is inherently unsafe. The thing is, we draw these threshold lines on smooth continua all the time. Nothing special happens to you at midnight on your eighteenth or twenty-first birthday. You are not meaningfully more intoxicated at 0.07 BAC than at 0.08. To the extent that we expect agencies like the WHO to help us make informed, practical decisions regarding this sort of absolutist statement seems like an abdication of that responsibility. It equates all drinking of any amount into a single class with no gradations, which is clearly false. Drinking a lot has a lot more risk than drinking a little. And drinking a little may add only a little risk to a life that's full of other risk.

acidburnNSA 4y ago
The linear no threshold model of harm for radiation is debated but is the foundation of all nuclear protection policies. To policy, zero radiation is considered best and all increments above that, regardless of size or relative comparison to natural background radiation are bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model It's extremely hard to scientifically back this or challenge it due to the noise. Some people try to show that low dose radiation is measurably harmful while others try to show that it is beneficial (hormesis). The best science suggests that measurable, statistically significant harm (in the form of increased risk of lifetime cancer) begins around 100 mSv acute or 300 mSv over a period of time. If you get that, your lifetime risk of cancer goes from 42% baseline up to 43%. Natural background is about 3 mSv per year on average. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/resource/11340/beir_vii_final.pdf https://nap.nationalacademies.org/resource/11340/beir_vii_fi...
- bamboozled 4y ago
  So when you walk outside and into the sun, you're exposed to radiation, we need sunlight exposure to live, so again bringing up the parents comments regarding the need for "practical" advice.
  - Balgair 4y ago
    By radiation here it is meant ionizing radiation, which comes in 3 major forms (exceptions do exist): 1- Alpha radiation: Basically helium atoms. Pretty harmless on the outside of your body, really really bad if inside your body. Do not eat/inhale. 2- Beta radiation: Electrons. Harmfulness varies, kinda. Stay away from it. 3- Gamma radiation: Likely what you're thinking of. These are photons. Harmfulness increases with frequency/energy of photon, mostly. Think X-rays, not UVa radiation. Aside: UVa/b isn't ionizing, it just so happens to be the same wavelength as the short channel of your DNA strand and has a small, but noticeable, chance of breaking up your DNA. The biology of a sunburn is somewhat complicated, so please research on your own. Wear sunscreen and you're fine. With ionizing radiation you need to wear a lot of lead to be fine. Other forms of harm exist for every known particle, but you'd need to stand right inside of the LHC to experience it or be cosmically unlucky (for say, neutrino based ionizing radiation).
    - bamboozled 4y ago
      My understanding is you actually need to wear sunscreen that blocks UVb and a lot doesn't. Which is why Zinc is preferred in places like Australia, because it actually "blocks" UVa/UVb, does'nt just stop you from getting red skin, it protects your DNA from radiation.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
perrygeo 4y ago
Keep in mind that WHO recommendations go well beyond alcohol's role as a carcinogen. Alcohol has widespread and significant negative impacts across many of internal systems [1]. Even compared to "hard drugs", alcohol is a dangerous mind-altering substance with objectively high risk factors. Drawing a threshold on a distribution is inherently arbitrary, but it's also a) necessary for clear public communication and b) able to be refined by quantitative risk assessment models. As we have been refining that threshold and learning more about alcohol's impacts, that threshold for an equivalent level of risk has been dropping - i.e. our understanding of the "safe" level of alcohol has been approaching zero as we add more data to the model. The WHO is simply making the logical conclusion of this convergence to zero. Picking a non-zero threshold is simply not possible without significant risks. Given all the well-documented harms of alcohol, it's irresponsible to claim that there is any such thing as a "safe amount". So the public health message shifts from moderation to abstinence. You can choose to ignore the recommendations; go ahead and drink if it makes you feel better. But you can't ignore the many significant negative impacts or hide behind the dubious concept of "safe drinking". You're poisoning your body for recreation - own it. [1] https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/health-professionals-communities/core-resource-on-alcohol/medical-complications-common-alcohol-related-concerns#pub-toc1 https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/health-professionals-communities/c...
indus 4y ago
On flying on a plane vs alcohol: It is need vs want debate.

by jp57 4y ago

acidburnNSA 4y ago

The linear no threshold model of harm for radiation is debated but is the foundation of all nuclear protection policies. To policy, zero radiation is considered best and all increments above that, regardless of size or relative comparison to natural background radiation are bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model It's extremely hard to scientifically back this or challenge it due to the noise. Some people try to show that low dose radiation is measurably harmful while others try to show that it is beneficial (hormesis). The best science suggests that measurable, statistically significant harm (in the form of increased risk of lifetime cancer) begins around 100 mSv acute or 300 mSv over a period of time. If you get that, your lifetime risk of cancer goes from 42% baseline up to 43%. Natural background is about 3 mSv per year on average. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/resource/11340/beir_vii_final.pdf https://nap.nationalacademies.org/resource/11340/beir_vii_fi...

bamboozled 4y ago
So when you walk outside and into the sun, you're exposed to radiation, we need sunlight exposure to live, so again bringing up the parents comments regarding the need for "practical" advice.
- Balgair 4y ago
  By radiation here it is meant ionizing radiation, which comes in 3 major forms (exceptions do exist): 1- Alpha radiation: Basically helium atoms. Pretty harmless on the outside of your body, really really bad if inside your body. Do not eat/inhale. 2- Beta radiation: Electrons. Harmfulness varies, kinda. Stay away from it. 3- Gamma radiation: Likely what you're thinking of. These are photons. Harmfulness increases with frequency/energy of photon, mostly. Think X-rays, not UVa radiation. Aside: UVa/b isn't ionizing, it just so happens to be the same wavelength as the short channel of your DNA strand and has a small, but noticeable, chance of breaking up your DNA. The biology of a sunburn is somewhat complicated, so please research on your own. Wear sunscreen and you're fine. With ionizing radiation you need to wear a lot of lead to be fine. Other forms of harm exist for every known particle, but you'd need to stand right inside of the LHC to experience it or be cosmically unlucky (for say, neutrino based ionizing radiation).
  - bamboozled 4y ago
    My understanding is you actually need to wear sunscreen that blocks UVb and a lot doesn't. Which is why Zinc is preferred in places like Australia, because it actually "blocks" UVa/UVb, does'nt just stop you from getting red skin, it protects your DNA from radiation.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

perrygeo 4y ago

Keep in mind that WHO recommendations go well beyond alcohol's role as a carcinogen. Alcohol has widespread and significant negative impacts across many of internal systems [1]. Even compared to "hard drugs", alcohol is a dangerous mind-altering substance with objectively high risk factors. Drawing a threshold on a distribution is inherently arbitrary, but it's also a) necessary for clear public communication and b) able to be refined by quantitative risk assessment models. As we have been refining that threshold and learning more about alcohol's impacts, that threshold for an equivalent level of risk has been dropping - i.e. our understanding of the "safe" level of alcohol has been approaching zero as we add more data to the model. The WHO is simply making the logical conclusion of this convergence to zero. Picking a non-zero threshold is simply not possible without significant risks. Given all the well-documented harms of alcohol, it's irresponsible to claim that there is any such thing as a "safe amount". So the public health message shifts from moderation to abstinence. You can choose to ignore the recommendations; go ahead and drink if it makes you feel better. But you can't ignore the many significant negative impacts or hide behind the dubious concept of "safe drinking". You're poisoning your body for recreation - own it. [1] https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/health-professionals-communities/core-resource-on-alcohol/medical-complications-common-alcohol-related-concerns#pub-toc1 https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/health-professionals-communities/c...

indus 4y ago

On flying on a plane vs alcohol: It is need vs want debate.