Surgeon General Warns of Connection Between Alcohol Use and Cancer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s about time they make an announcement about alcohol. Kids go crazy in college drinking and then it continues into their 20s-30s because it is the social thing to do. ‘Let’s get drinks!’ Etc. Yet, it’s the first question the oncologist asks when you initially get diagnosed with cancer. ‘Do you drink and how much?’ Then, ‘Do you smoke?’ So, they have known for decades that there is a link to cancer. Both are rough and unnatural to your body. Just now the U.S. Surgeon General is going to label it.

Younger people are drinking less than previous generations https://time.com/7203140/gen-z-drinking-less-alcohol/

Anecdotally I see this at work. Happy hour is not as popular and even when we have one at work, there is a huge demand for nonalcoholic fun drinks.

Everyone is drinking less. The post war trend of binge drinking that lasted into the 2000s is over. Even on college campuses drinking is way down. It’s all for the better. The high side of moderate drinking and heavy drinking is likely skewing all of these studies in a big way. There is a level of drinking that is unquestionably bad for you and it’s becoming less and less common.

But the people who insist that it’s 0 or near 0 (2 drinks a month?) are bananas. They started the same hysteria over lead and asbestos (any amount is toxic and will increase the chance of adverse health effects). It’s just not true - you have environmental exposure to both substances that don’t involve a statistically significant increase in cancer. Both substances are highly toxic and the most convincing evidence involve chronic or occupational exposure. Further studies have shown that lower levels are also hazardous. And that has been blown out of proportion to say, for example, a 1 time exposure to asbestos insulation makes you at risk for mesothelioma.

Public health professionals need to educate people on the science, not engage in fear based advocacy. Look at all the stupid shit people still believe about transmitting Covid. Like all other respiratory viruses it’s transmitted by particles expelled from the lungs and requires 15 minutes+ of direct exposure to the shared air. COVID isn’t likely (though technically possible to demonstrate in ideal lab environments) to be transmitted via fomites, toilet plume, auto passenger air intakes, etc. Your chances of getting it in well-ventilated or outdoor spaces, especially with passing contact, is virtually 0.

People have been brainwashed to “follow the science” but the science doesn’t say what they think it says. They’re following the dumbed down overly simplified cliffs notes version brought to you buy public health officials and their media relations departments who are trying to alter population level health behavior through fear because they think everyone is too stupid to understand the actual studies.

Yes, sadly people don’t understand nuance and they don’t understand that not all effects are linear. (Eg people think if a little bit of something is good for you, lots of it must be even better!) but I think this announcement is helpful because I think a lot of people were totally unaware of the link. I mean, you could also probably safely smoke a couple cigarettes a week for life. But we put the warnings on the boxes because lots of people don’t stop there, they smoke a pack daily. I know a lot of people that drink a couple drinks daily and absolutely think that’s good for them. It’s probably not the worst thing in the world, but it’s not the best either.

And I totally agree that plastics are the bigger risk but there’s also a societal benefit to plastics that doesn’t exist for alcohol. Is it better for people to give up eating yogurt and berries because they come in plastic? Probably not. I am super paranoid about plastics but I’m still buying those products.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In law school we had to sit through multiple seminars about alcoholism in the profession but then were also invited to just so many networking happy hours and similar. I learned and used the "lime in a sprite" trick to hide that I didn't drink in those contexts.

There are also some people who will grill you if you're not drinking, especially if you're female they'll assume you're pregnant. Which A) no, lots of reasons people don't drink sometimes and B) in the instance when this happened when I was pregnant, it was early enough I didn't want to talk about it, certainly not around people I'd just met and it was frustrating to be put in that position.

I'm not anti alcohol, but, boy, the way drinking culture is ingrained in some contexts, to the extent you're interrogated by some people for NOT drinking is messed up.

This is mostly a function of maturity. I’ve seen this decrease (though not totally go away) the older my “crowd” gets.

I have college age kids and in fact this culture doesn't exist anymore. Even before that, most people really couldn't care less if you're drinking or not. The holier than thou non-drinkers just like to project their judginess onto those who drink.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s about time they make an announcement about alcohol. Kids go crazy in college drinking and then it continues into their 20s-30s because it is the social thing to do. ‘Let’s get drinks!’ Etc. Yet, it’s the first question the oncologist asks when you initially get diagnosed with cancer. ‘Do you drink and how much?’ Then, ‘Do you smoke?’ So, they have known for decades that there is a link to cancer. Both are rough and unnatural to your body. Just now the U.S. Surgeon General is going to label it.

Younger people are drinking less than previous generations https://time.com/7203140/gen-z-drinking-less-alcohol/

Anecdotally I see this at work. Happy hour is not as popular and even when we have one at work, there is a huge demand for nonalcoholic fun drinks.

Everyone is drinking less. The post war trend of binge drinking that lasted into the 2000s is over. Even on college campuses drinking is way down. It’s all for the better. The high side of moderate drinking and heavy drinking is likely skewing all of these studies in a big way. There is a level of drinking that is unquestionably bad for you and it’s becoming less and less common.

But the people who insist that it’s 0 or near 0 (2 drinks a month?) are bananas. They started the same hysteria over lead and asbestos (any amount is toxic and will increase the chance of adverse health effects). It’s just not true - you have environmental exposure to both substances that don’t involve a statistically significant increase in cancer. Both substances are highly toxic and the most convincing evidence involve chronic or occupational exposure. Further studies have shown that lower levels are also hazardous. And that has been blown out of proportion to say, for example, a 1 time exposure to asbestos insulation makes you at risk for mesothelioma.

Public health professionals need to educate people on the science, not engage in fear based advocacy. Look at all the stupid shit people still believe about transmitting Covid. Like all other respiratory viruses it’s transmitted by particles expelled from the lungs and requires 15 minutes+ of direct exposure to the shared air. COVID isn’t likely (though technically possible to demonstrate in ideal lab environments) to be transmitted via fomites, toilet plume, auto passenger air intakes, etc. Your chances of getting it in well-ventilated or outdoor spaces, especially with passing contact, is virtually 0.

People have been brainwashed to “follow the science” but the science doesn’t say what they think it says. They’re following the dumbed down overly simplified cliffs notes version brought to you buy public health officials and their media relations departments who are trying to alter population level health behavior through fear because they think everyone is too stupid to understand the actual studies.

Amen!
I will argue one point: there's one downside to the decrease in college drinking: the cannabis lobby has led those like you describe above to believe that it's perfectly safe. We are going to say an entire generation go through a painful withdrawal from regular cannabis use when they hit real adulthood. It's simply a bad idea to use pot every day.

Totally. CBD, THC, hemp products, and marijuana overall is much more hazardous than people acknowledge. The idea that it’s generally safe at all levels has permeated society. Smoking marijuana is as dangerous related to lung cancer as smoking tobacco - perhaps it’s “better” because very few people inhale the equivalent amount of smoke as a pack of cigarettes or something. Marijuana isn’t chemically addictive but it is addictive. It also has an adverse impact on your brain function. Somehow people have decided that “stoners” aren’t a thing. The related products like CBD and edibles are also hazardous, but again, the long term health impact is largely a function of dose/frequency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s about time they make an announcement about alcohol. Kids go crazy in college drinking and then it continues into their 20s-30s because it is the social thing to do. ‘Let’s get drinks!’ Etc. Yet, it’s the first question the oncologist asks when you initially get diagnosed with cancer. ‘Do you drink and how much?’ Then, ‘Do you smoke?’ So, they have known for decades that there is a link to cancer. Both are rough and unnatural to your body. Just now the U.S. Surgeon General is going to label it.

Younger people are drinking less than previous generations https://time.com/7203140/gen-z-drinking-less-alcohol/

Anecdotally I see this at work. Happy hour is not as popular and even when we have one at work, there is a huge demand for nonalcoholic fun drinks.

Everyone is drinking less. The post war trend of binge drinking that lasted into the 2000s is over. Even on college campuses drinking is way down. It’s all for the better. The high side of moderate drinking and heavy drinking is likely skewing all of these studies in a big way. There is a level of drinking that is unquestionably bad for you and it’s becoming less and less common.

But the people who insist that it’s 0 or near 0 (2 drinks a month?) are bananas. They started the same hysteria over lead and asbestos (any amount is toxic and will increase the chance of adverse health effects). It’s just not true - you have environmental exposure to both substances that don’t involve a statistically significant increase in cancer. Both substances are highly toxic and the most convincing evidence involve chronic or occupational exposure. Further studies have shown that lower levels are also hazardous. And that has been blown out of proportion to say, for example, a 1 time exposure to asbestos insulation makes you at risk for mesothelioma.

Public health professionals need to educate people on the science, not engage in fear based advocacy. Look at all the stupid shit people still believe about transmitting Covid. Like all other respiratory viruses it’s transmitted by particles expelled from the lungs and requires 15 minutes+ of direct exposure to the shared air. COVID isn’t likely (though technically possible to demonstrate in ideal lab environments) to be transmitted via fomites, toilet plume, auto passenger air intakes, etc. Your chances of getting it in well-ventilated or outdoor spaces, especially with passing contact, is virtually 0.

People have been brainwashed to “follow the science” but the science doesn’t say what they think it says. They’re following the dumbed down overly simplified cliffs notes version brought to you buy public health officials and their media relations departments who are trying to alter population level health behavior through fear because they think everyone is too stupid to understand the actual studies.

Yes, sadly people don’t understand nuance and they don’t understand that not all effects are linear. (Eg people think if a little bit of something is good for you, lots of it must be even better!) but I think this announcement is helpful because I think a lot of people were totally unaware of the link. I mean, you could also probably safely smoke a couple cigarettes a week for life. But we put the warnings on the boxes because lots of people don’t stop there, they smoke a pack daily. I know a lot of people that drink a couple drinks daily and absolutely think that’s good for them. It’s probably not the worst thing in the world, but it’s not the best either.

And I totally agree that plastics are the bigger risk but there’s also a societal benefit to plastics that doesn’t exist for alcohol. Is it better for people to give up eating yogurt and berries because they come in plastic? Probably not. I am super paranoid about plastics but I’m still buying those products.

I think it’s generally good to raise awareness of the adverse impact alcohol can have on your health (especially beyond liver disease and the short term risk of accidents, which are both pretty well understood).

The gripe I have is the publicity they’re creating for the idea that small amounts of relatively diluted alcohol (let’s say a bottle of wine per week every other week, which would be just over a half a drink a day of something that’s 13% alcohol) with a meal is notable increase in cancer. They don’t know because that’s not how the studies were designed. Instead they retreat to “no alcohol is the only safe amount” because it’s the laziest and easiest to demonstrate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s about time they make an announcement about alcohol. Kids go crazy in college drinking and then it continues into their 20s-30s because it is the social thing to do. ‘Let’s get drinks!’ Etc. Yet, it’s the first question the oncologist asks when you initially get diagnosed with cancer. ‘Do you drink and how much?’ Then, ‘Do you smoke?’ So, they have known for decades that there is a link to cancer. Both are rough and unnatural to your body. Just now the U.S. Surgeon General is going to label it.

Younger people are drinking less than previous generations https://time.com/7203140/gen-z-drinking-less-alcohol/

Anecdotally I see this at work. Happy hour is not as popular and even when we have one at work, there is a huge demand for nonalcoholic fun drinks.

Everyone is drinking less. The post war trend of binge drinking that lasted into the 2000s is over. Even on college campuses drinking is way down. It’s all for the better. The high side of moderate drinking and heavy drinking is likely skewing all of these studies in a big way. There is a level of drinking that is unquestionably bad for you and it’s becoming less and less common.

But the people who insist that it’s 0 or near 0 (2 drinks a month?) are bananas. They started the same hysteria over lead and asbestos (any amount is toxic and will increase the chance of adverse health effects). It’s just not true - you have environmental exposure to both substances that don’t involve a statistically significant increase in cancer. Both substances are highly toxic and the most convincing evidence involve chronic or occupational exposure. Further studies have shown that lower levels are also hazardous. And that has been blown out of proportion to say, for example, a 1 time exposure to asbestos insulation makes you at risk for mesothelioma.

Public health professionals need to educate people on the science, not engage in fear based advocacy. Look at all the stupid shit people still believe about transmitting Covid. Like all other respiratory viruses it’s transmitted by particles expelled from the lungs and requires 15 minutes+ of direct exposure to the shared air. COVID isn’t likely (though technically possible to demonstrate in ideal lab environments) to be transmitted via fomites, toilet plume, auto passenger air intakes, etc. Your chances of getting it in well-ventilated or outdoor spaces, especially with passing contact, is virtually 0.

People have been brainwashed to “follow the science” but the science doesn’t say what they think it says. They’re following the dumbed down overly simplified cliffs notes version brought to you buy public health officials and their media relations departments who are trying to alter population level health behavior through fear because they think everyone is too stupid to understand the actual studies.

Yes, sadly people don’t understand nuance and they don’t understand that not all effects are linear. (Eg people think if a little bit of something is good for you, lots of it must be even better!) but I think this announcement is helpful because I think a lot of people were totally unaware of the link. I mean, you could also probably safely smoke a couple cigarettes a week for life. But we put the warnings on the boxes because lots of people don’t stop there, they smoke a pack daily. I know a lot of people that drink a couple drinks daily and absolutely think that’s good for them. It’s probably not the worst thing in the world, but it’s not the best either.

And I totally agree that plastics are the bigger risk but there’s also a societal benefit to plastics that doesn’t exist for alcohol. Is it better for people to give up eating yogurt and berries because they come in plastic? Probably not. I am super paranoid about plastics but I’m still buying those products.

I think it’s generally good to raise awareness of the adverse impact alcohol can have on your health (especially beyond liver disease and the short term risk of accidents, which are both pretty well understood).

The gripe I have is the publicity they’re creating for the idea that small amounts of relatively diluted alcohol (let’s say a bottle of wine per week every other week, which would be just over a half a drink a day of something that’s 13% alcohol) with a meal is notable increase in cancer. They don’t know because that’s not how the studies were designed. Instead they retreat to “no alcohol is the only safe amount” because it’s the laziest and easiest to demonstrate.

What it is is the easiest way to test how to control society. Blanket, sweeping statements and fear. Use critical thinking and good judgment people. It's the only way out of our downward, scary slope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s about time they make an announcement about alcohol. Kids go crazy in college drinking and then it continues into their 20s-30s because it is the social thing to do. ‘Let’s get drinks!’ Etc. Yet, it’s the first question the oncologist asks when you initially get diagnosed with cancer. ‘Do you drink and how much?’ Then, ‘Do you smoke?’ So, they have known for decades that there is a link to cancer. Both are rough and unnatural to your body. Just now the U.S. Surgeon General is going to label it.

Younger people are drinking less than previous generations https://time.com/7203140/gen-z-drinking-less-alcohol/

Anecdotally I see this at work. Happy hour is not as popular and even when we have one at work, there is a huge demand for nonalcoholic fun drinks.

Filled with sugar and food-coloring. So healthy.

All these what aboutisms are pretty exhausting.

[Anonymous]

Stop justifying your choices. No one care if you drink. It is your body and your health.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stop justifying your choices. No one care if you drink. It is your body and your health.

No one is discussing personal habits, except the temperance union who looks for any opportunity to shove abstinence talking points down everyone’s throat.

The rest of us are just discussing the best way to communicate what science says and doesn’t say.

[Anonymous]

In my 20s:
i miss getting hammered with coworkers after work.
And the Friday pitcher of beer for 4 lunches.
In my 30s-40s
And the 2 glass of wine weekday lunches on the Hill.
In my 40s, 50s, 60s
And the bottle of wine at dinner in Europe, Asia, Hawaii, NYC, Australia

Covid came. Stole 5 years already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For decades they have been saying moderate drinking is fine and, for some of that period, they said red wine was beneficial to the heart. I am 52 and drink a glass of red wine maybe 2-3 times a week. Probably too late for me.

Those studies on red wine being beneficial were called into question years ago. At this point, people who like alcohol tune out the obvious.

Yes but I think the evidence is still somewhat more mixed on red wine which is why the French and Italians aren’t dying in droves. American-style beer, white wine, and all the gin and tonic type stuff has no real redeeming qualities.

French and Italians walk/get exercise. They eat healthier overall and a lot less! That is why they live longer.

There are lots of differences between the Frnch/Italians and Americans, and the studies are not able to assess which ones are responsible for their greater longevity.

One key difference is that southern Europeans temd to have much better social networks- family, yes, but also friends. The benefits of social interaction on physical and mental wellbeing are extremely strong. And wine, in moderation, serves to lubricate these vital social interactions. So it isn’t as simple as saying cut out the wine and everyone will be healthier. If you cut out the wine you might in fact cause more ancillary damage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If this is what takes me out so be it. Something will. I’ll die happy

+1000

The prob with modern life is the ignorance to enjoy it. Along with some other hardcore truths which is a longer post but honestly, if I was afraid to do things I enjoyed because it would kill be faster, I would stop living to the fullest and I never want to do that. It's how you live - if you're a raging alcoholic I'm not sure it matters that the booze might be killing you rather, your relationships are gonna go to hell faster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In my 20s:
i miss getting hammered with coworkers after work.
And the Friday pitcher of beer for 4 lunches.
In my 30s-40s
And the 2 glass of wine weekday lunches on the Hill.
In my 40s, 50s, 60s
And the bottle of wine at dinner in Europe, Asia, Hawaii, NYC, Australia

Covid came. Stole 5 years already.

I hear you. Covid stole a lot and it revealed a lot about how much people will believe and how easily their behaviors are affected by any old statements that come from the government. This war on alcohol started shortly afterward. It's troubling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For decades they have been saying moderate drinking is fine and, for some of that period, they said red wine was beneficial to the heart. I am 52 and drink a glass of red wine maybe 2-3 times a week. Probably too late for me.

Those studies on red wine being beneficial were called into question years ago. At this point, people who like alcohol tune out the obvious.

Yes but I think the evidence is still somewhat more mixed on red wine which is why the French and Italians aren’t dying in droves. American-style beer, white wine, and all the gin and tonic type stuff has no real redeeming qualities.

French and Italians walk/get exercise. They eat healthier overall and a lot less! That is why they live longer.

There are lots of differences between the Frnch/Italians and Americans, and the studies are not able to assess which ones are responsible for their greater longevity.

One key difference is that southern Europeans temd to have much better social networks- family, yes, but also friends. The benefits of social interaction on physical and mental wellbeing are extremely strong. And wine, in moderation, serves to lubricate these vital social interactions. So it isn’t as simple as saying cut out the wine and everyone will be healthier. If you cut out the wine you might in fact cause more ancillary damage.

And they don't have the long working hours we do. They are happy to just simply relax and enjoy leisurely meals together. We just don't rarely do that here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s about time they make an announcement about alcohol. Kids go crazy in college drinking and then it continues into their 20s-30s because it is the social thing to do. ‘Let’s get drinks!’ Etc. Yet, it’s the first question the oncologist asks when you initially get diagnosed with cancer. ‘Do you drink and how much?’ Then, ‘Do you smoke?’ So, they have known for decades that there is a link to cancer. Both are rough and unnatural to your body. Just now the U.S. Surgeon General is going to label it.

Younger people are drinking less than previous generations https://time.com/7203140/gen-z-drinking-less-alcohol/

Anecdotally I see this at work. Happy hour is not as popular and even when we have one at work, there is a huge demand for nonalcoholic fun drinks.

Everyone is drinking less. The post war trend of binge drinking that lasted into the 2000s is over. Even on college campuses drinking is way down. It’s all for the better. The high side of moderate drinking and heavy drinking is likely skewing all of these studies in a big way. There is a level of drinking that is unquestionably bad for you and it’s becoming less and less common.

But the people who insist that it’s 0 or near 0 (2 drinks a month?) are bananas. They started the same hysteria over lead and asbestos (any amount is toxic and will increase the chance of adverse health effects). It’s just not true - you have environmental exposure to both substances that don’t involve a statistically significant increase in cancer. Both substances are highly toxic and the most convincing evidence involve chronic or occupational exposure. Further studies have shown that lower levels are also hazardous. And that has been blown out of proportion to say, for example, a 1 time exposure to asbestos insulation makes you at risk for mesothelioma.

Public health professionals need to educate people on the science, not engage in fear based advocacy. Look at all the stupid shit people still believe about transmitting Covid. Like all other respiratory viruses it’s transmitted by particles expelled from the lungs and requires 15 minutes+ of direct exposure to the shared air. COVID isn’t likely (though technically possible to demonstrate in ideal lab environments) to be transmitted via fomites, toilet plume, auto passenger air intakes, etc. Your chances of getting it in well-ventilated or outdoor spaces, especially with passing contact, is virtually 0.

People have been brainwashed to “follow the science” but the science doesn’t say what they think it says. They’re following the dumbed down overly simplified cliffs notes version brought to you buy public health officials and their media relations departments who are trying to alter population level health behavior through fear because they think everyone is too stupid to understand the actual studies.

Yes, sadly people don’t understand nuance and they don’t understand that not all effects are linear. (Eg people think if a little bit of something is good for you, lots of it must be even better!) but I think this announcement is helpful because I think a lot of people were totally unaware of the link. I mean, you could also probably safely smoke a couple cigarettes a week for life. But we put the warnings on the boxes because lots of people don’t stop there, they smoke a pack daily. I know a lot of people that drink a couple drinks daily and absolutely think that’s good for them. It’s probably not the worst thing in the world, but it’s not the best either.

And I totally agree that plastics are the bigger risk but there’s also a societal benefit to plastics that doesn’t exist for alcohol. Is it better for people to give up eating yogurt and berries because they come in plastic? Probably not. I am super paranoid about plastics but I’m still buying those products.

Well, I grew up with my strawberries in cardboard and my yogurt in glass. There's no good reason we can't go back to that. Why isn't the surgeon general putting warnings on the plastic containers? They are far worse than a few glasses of wine each month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I have any alcohol, my resting heart rate increases for up to two days afterwards. You can see it on Apple Watch. This is just one biomarker. It’s obviously not good for you; really no surprise on the cancer link. I think that if you can control it (big if) you’re probably ok once a month or something. Beyond that, it’s going to be negative.

But all the studies would prove you wrong. That's the thing. You see alcohol=bad, without reading a single study with a critical mind. You're just blindly accepting broad statements without using any free thinking to understand it. That's what is so disturbing about this. It's almost like a test to see what they can do to get people to believe what they say, without question. This is about control, not public health.

The only one experiencing any sort of control here is you. The hooch evidently has such a death grip on your reality that you have managed to cook up this conspiracy theory.

Anybody that drinks who has half a brain can figure out the stuff is poison. Just like anybody with a decent level of risk tolerance can enjoy tying one off every once in a while if they want to. In the end, having an alcohol habit with any amount of daily frequency is not going to be particularly compatible with an overall healthy and active lifestyle. To each their own.