3 ms·

I might be mixing up my jargon here, but I was under the impression that "no safe amount" and similar phrases refer to a standard of categorization that is scie

I might be mixing up my jargon here, but I was under the impression that "no safe amount" and similar phrases refer to a standard of categorization that is scientifically meaningful but usually offers little practical guidance relative to common lifestyle patterns (e.g. by this standard there's also no safe amount of wood dust to inhale and no safe amount of cured meat to eat). My understanding is that the risks of alcohol consumption are highly nonlinear, so the upshot is that while the risk of something like 5 standard drinks per week is not zero, it's so small for the average person that the stress of actively worrying about it might very well be worse for their health than the alcohol itself.

User23 4y ago
Given that yeast leavened bread is around 1.5% alcohol and food can naturally ferment in your gut, it’s nearly certain that there is in fact some safe amount of regular alcohol intake that’s well within the bounds of homeostasis and thus as safe as anything can be. But that’s not how people drink is it? People use alcohol to intentionally disrupt homeostasis. It’s certainly plausible that there is no safe regularly taken psychoactive dose. And it’s incontrovertible that seeking the psychoactive effects of alcohol can have unfortunate side effects.
- bena 4y ago
  All alcohol has carcinogenic properties. That's just a simple fact. Cancer is bad. Anything that increases our chances of cancer is bad. And considering alcohol has no beneficial qualities when consumed, it's technically all downside. So while bread may have some alcoholic content, it has other beneficial properties. As does the sun, even though it is a huge carcinogen. However, I do like to remind people, that while nearly everyone with lung cancer is a smoker, most smokers do not get lung cancer. So, do what you will with your own body, but know the risks and don't try and downplay disappointing information because you don't like it.
  - User23 4y ago
    If the State of California is to be believed, basically everything I come in contact with in my daily life has carcinogenic properties. That's just a simple fact. Thus the actual target is to limit contact with carcinogens such that the body can maintain homeostasis. Cancer is a particularly unpleasant and potentially permanent failure of maintaining homeostasis, but that doesn't change the general principle. Also there is a concept called hormesis, which tells us that in some situations being exposed to stressors, which is to say stimuli that temporarily disrupt homeostasis, actually improves the body's overall ability to maintain homeostasis. None of that is to downplay the well known risks of alcohol abuse. It's an avoidable cause of death and disability.
  - llamaimperative 4y ago
    It seems extremely reductive to say people don’t get positive effects from alcohol. That’s why they drink it!

User23 4y ago

Given that yeast leavened bread is around 1.5% alcohol and food can naturally ferment in your gut, it’s nearly certain that there is in fact some safe amount of regular alcohol intake that’s well within the bounds of homeostasis and thus as safe as anything can be. But that’s not how people drink is it? People use alcohol to intentionally disrupt homeostasis. It’s certainly plausible that there is no safe regularly taken psychoactive dose. And it’s incontrovertible that seeking the psychoactive effects of alcohol can have unfortunate side effects.

bena 4y ago
All alcohol has carcinogenic properties. That's just a simple fact. Cancer is bad. Anything that increases our chances of cancer is bad. And considering alcohol has no beneficial qualities when consumed, it's technically all downside. So while bread may have some alcoholic content, it has other beneficial properties. As does the sun, even though it is a huge carcinogen. However, I do like to remind people, that while nearly everyone with lung cancer is a smoker, most smokers do not get lung cancer. So, do what you will with your own body, but know the risks and don't try and downplay disappointing information because you don't like it.
- User23 4y ago
  If the State of California is to be believed, basically everything I come in contact with in my daily life has carcinogenic properties. That's just a simple fact. Thus the actual target is to limit contact with carcinogens such that the body can maintain homeostasis. Cancer is a particularly unpleasant and potentially permanent failure of maintaining homeostasis, but that doesn't change the general principle. Also there is a concept called hormesis, which tells us that in some situations being exposed to stressors, which is to say stimuli that temporarily disrupt homeostasis, actually improves the body's overall ability to maintain homeostasis. None of that is to downplay the well known risks of alcohol abuse. It's an avoidable cause of death and disability.
- llamaimperative 4y ago
  It seems extremely reductive to say people don’t get positive effects from alcohol. That’s why they drink it!