3 ms·

I would be shocked to see any statistically significant[1] difference. The things about alcohol that kill you are cumulative. 3 drinks isn't going to kill you

by jlgreco 13y ago

I would be shocked to see any statistically significant[1] difference. The things about alcohol that kill you are cumulative. 3 drinks isn't going to kill your internal organs, not even 1 in a million times. [1] I would be shocked if, give two groups of a million, both groups had the exact same number of deaths in a predetermined time period. 1 death difference between two groups that large is pure background noise.

eli 13y ago
I'm not sure I buy that, but either way you're not visualizing it quite right: both groups go on to have regular lives... it's just that one group drank an additional 0.5 liters [1]. Like you said, death by alcohol is a cumulative risk, so that means each and every drink must raise your risk a teensy tiny amount. How about this way: you agree that if you drink enough alcohol it will kill you, right? So you could surely find someone who almost drank themselves to death. Perhaps they got liver disease and came very very close to dying, but survived. So there must be a line somewhere. Given a huge enough pool of people, it should be possible to find someone who came so close to death that a single extra drink could have killed them. ([1] It's a thought experiment. The two groups lead otherwise identical lives besides the additional alcohol.)
- jlgreco 13y ago
  You are assuming a linear relationship between alcohol and risk of death. There is absolutely no reason to think that.
  - eli 13y ago
    What would you propose instead? Isn't it obvious that alcohol can cause certain fatal diseases in proportion to consumption?
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      You mean what sort of relationship between alcohol and death do I propose? One that isn't a neat mathematical line for sure, particularly since it seems possible that moderate amounts of alcohol are actually beneficial. If the relationship were linear, then you could spread that 500 milliliters out over 100 days and see the same effect, which is plainly ludicrous. The rate of alcohol consumption plays a large role, a single binge can kill you, slow and steady drinking can plausibly extend your life. A single extra drink is also going to do way more harm to a long-term alcoholic than it will to a young healthy Mormon; that Mormon is at absolutely no chance at getting cirrhosis, the risk to the alcoholic is non-zero. The relationship between alcohol and mortality is something that you could probably fill damn near half a medical library with. "half a liter is a micro-mortality" is silly oversimplified nonsense. It might work for radiation exposure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model) but it is nonsense for alcohol.
      - eli 13y ago
        Is there some amount of cigarettes that is beneficial too? So long as the line is going up and to the right, it's specific shape only matters if you want to debate the micromort value, not whether the concept exists.
        jlgreco 13y ago
        If you go up to the top of this thread, I think you will find that we are bickering about specific micromort values listed on the Wikipedia page. Some of these things plausibly can be modeled as LNT. Radiation possibly can, perhaps airplane rides too. Some of them cannot be, like alcohol consumption.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Isn't it obvious that alcohol can cause certain fatal diseases in proportion to consumption? Its obvious that consumption is positively correlated to certain fatal conditions, but its not at all obvious that the risk is in proportion to (i.e., linearly correlated with) total lifetime consumption. That's simply not the way things work.
Dylan16807 13y ago
You're dodging the question. You can achieve statistical significance by using a large sample size, iff there is a real effect. If we had 10e20 people in each group and gave an extra 0.5 liters of alcohol to each one, would you be shocked that a millionth of them died?
- njr123 13y ago
  Yes, I would be shocked if an extra millionth died, because we have done many many studies of alcohol consumption, and they show that below a certain level (40ml a week or something?) there is no measurable effect on health.
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    I thought wine was supposed to be vaguely positive?
- jlgreco 13y ago
  I am not dodging the question; my answer is yes. Applying a LNT model to alcohol exposure is silly. Do you really think that a Mormon drinking 3 glasses of wine in his life has a one in a million chance of losing his liver?
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    That specific mechanism? Probably not. But I wasn't here to say the effects were linear. I was just pointing out that complaining about sample size in a theoretical experiment where you can multiply the size in your head is a nonsensical objection.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Perhaps. I was merely trying to be precise with my answer so that I wouldn't say something silly (expecting the exact same number of deaths). I wasn't trying to be bitchy, though I fear it came off that way.
- deleted 13y ago

by jlgreco 13y ago

eli 13y ago

I'm not sure I buy that, but either way you're not visualizing it quite right: both groups go on to have regular lives... it's just that one group drank an additional 0.5 liters [1]. Like you said, death by alcohol is a cumulative risk, so that means each and every drink must raise your risk a teensy tiny amount. How about this way: you agree that if you drink enough alcohol it will kill you, right? So you could surely find someone who almost drank themselves to death. Perhaps they got liver disease and came very very close to dying, but survived. So there must be a line somewhere. Given a huge enough pool of people, it should be possible to find someone who came so close to death that a single extra drink could have killed them. ([1] It's a thought experiment. The two groups lead otherwise identical lives besides the additional alcohol.)

jlgreco 13y ago
You are assuming a linear relationship between alcohol and risk of death. There is absolutely no reason to think that.
- eli 13y ago
  What would you propose instead? Isn't it obvious that alcohol can cause certain fatal diseases in proportion to consumption?
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    You mean what sort of relationship between alcohol and death do I propose? One that isn't a neat mathematical line for sure, particularly since it seems possible that moderate amounts of alcohol are actually beneficial. If the relationship were linear, then you could spread that 500 milliliters out over 100 days and see the same effect, which is plainly ludicrous. The rate of alcohol consumption plays a large role, a single binge can kill you, slow and steady drinking can plausibly extend your life. A single extra drink is also going to do way more harm to a long-term alcoholic than it will to a young healthy Mormon; that Mormon is at absolutely no chance at getting cirrhosis, the risk to the alcoholic is non-zero. The relationship between alcohol and mortality is something that you could probably fill damn near half a medical library with. "half a liter is a micro-mortality" is silly oversimplified nonsense. It might work for radiation exposure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model) but it is nonsense for alcohol.
    - eli 13y ago
      Is there some amount of cigarettes that is beneficial too? So long as the line is going up and to the right, it's specific shape only matters if you want to debate the micromort value, not whether the concept exists.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        If you go up to the top of this thread, I think you will find that we are bickering about specific micromort values listed on the Wikipedia page. Some of these things plausibly can be modeled as LNT. Radiation possibly can, perhaps airplane rides too. Some of them cannot be, like alcohol consumption.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Isn't it obvious that alcohol can cause certain fatal diseases in proportion to consumption? Its obvious that consumption is positively correlated to certain fatal conditions, but its not at all obvious that the risk is in proportion to (i.e., linearly correlated with) total lifetime consumption. That's simply not the way things work.

Dylan16807 13y ago

You're dodging the question. You can achieve statistical significance by using a large sample size, iff there is a real effect. If we had 10e20 people in each group and gave an extra 0.5 liters of alcohol to each one, would you be shocked that a millionth of them died?

njr123 13y ago
Yes, I would be shocked if an extra millionth died, because we have done many many studies of alcohol consumption, and they show that below a certain level (40ml a week or something?) there is no measurable effect on health.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  I thought wine was supposed to be vaguely positive?
jlgreco 13y ago
I am not dodging the question; my answer is yes. Applying a LNT model to alcohol exposure is silly. Do you really think that a Mormon drinking 3 glasses of wine in his life has a one in a million chance of losing his liver?
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  That specific mechanism? Probably not. But I wasn't here to say the effects were linear. I was just pointing out that complaining about sample size in a theoretical experiment where you can multiply the size in your head is a nonsensical objection.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Perhaps. I was merely trying to be precise with my answer so that I wouldn't say something silly (expecting the exact same number of deaths). I wasn't trying to be bitchy, though I fear it came off that way.
deleted 13y ago