Surgeon general calls for cancer warning labels on alcohol

gtyellowjacket said:
1. One drink increases cancer risk but more drinks tends to increase risks at a faster rate than just 1+1. An occasional drinker would have exponentially lower risk than a daily drinker possibly because the body has time to repair itself. There is also some question whether a one or two drink a night drinker would decrease his risk of cardiovascular death more than he increases his risk for cancer. As the number of daily drinks increases, that risk equation becomes much less of a question. More research needed there.
2. No. Alcohol is alcohol.
3. Its the alcohol, or specifically the ethanol. It interacts with the dna damaging cells, alters hormone levels for cancers like prostate and breast, and depletes nutrients like vitamin b which help protect against cancer. Some studies show red wine consumption is superior for heart health bit it makes no difference for cancer.
4. About equal. Even diluted alcohol like beer contains the ethanol which is the issue.
Click to expand...
You’re going to have to link to sources backing what you’ve written.
 
farce© said:
Why do you go out of your way to be an insufferable prick?
Click to expand...


Thought I was being the opposite of being an insufferable prick by answering his questions. Then dude asked for a link to a Surgeon General's report he could easily google but was too lazy. Not sure why he can't or won't. If he doesn't care to do it, I'm not going to do it for him.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Just ignore the answers and keep drinking. I might be wrong since I didn't link anything. You'll probably be fine.
Click to expand...
I was asking for more specific things than “smoking causes cancer” or “alcohol causes cancer.”

In terms of you and this board and ZZL and ZZLP, no one has defecated on any of those boards more than you.

You crapped ALL OVER the friendliest thread on IC because you are you.

You, YOU, are an unmitigated douche bag, YellowJacket.
 
Zoo_View said:
I was asking for more specific things than “smoking causes cancer” or “alcohol causes cancer.”

In terms of you and this board and ZZL and ZZLP, no one has defecated on any of those boards more than you.

You crapped ALL OVER the friendliest thread on IC because you are you.

You, YOU, are an unmitigated douche bag, YellowJacket.
Click to expand...
You're a peach and everyone on this board and ZZL and ZZLP and the bar you go to enough that the bartender knows your favorite drink likes you, Zooview.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
1. One drink increases cancer risk but more drinks tends to increase risks at a faster rate than just 1+1. An occasional drinker would have exponentially lower risk than a daily drinker possibly because the body has time to repair itself. There is also some question whether a one or two drink a night drinker would decrease his risk of cardiovascular death more than he increases his risk for cancer. As the number of daily drinks increases, that risk equation becomes much less of a question. More research needed there.
2. No. Alcohol is alcohol.
3. Its the alcohol, or specifically the ethanol. It interacts with the dna damaging cells, alters hormone levels for cancers like prostate and breast, and depletes nutrients like vitamin b which help protect against cancer. Some studies show red wine consumption is superior for heart health bit it makes no difference for cancer.
4. About equal. Even diluted alcohol like beer contains the ethanol which is the issue.
Click to expand...
#2 and #4 are false. I read the report and I even asked chatGPT. Also, your point #1 and #2 are contradictory but you know how it goes. Also, the word you want is not "exponentially." It's a power-law relationship.
 
superrific said:
#2 and #4 are false. I read the report and I even asked chatGPT. Also, your point #1 and #2 are contradictory but you know how it goes. Also, the word you want is not "exponentially." It's a power-law relationship.
Click to expand...
Are you really going to do the Super thing on something like this? This isn't some stupid politics where you get to argue a tiny point and it doesn't really matter. Someone might read that and trust you and die from your posts.

Alright. Congrats to you and zoo. Here is the quote from the report you pretended to read:

"Further, the data in humans on alcohol and health show a strong association
between drinking alcohol and increased cancer risk, regardless of the type of
alcohol (e.g., beer, wine, and spirits).6,28 "


And 1 and 3 aren't contradictory. The type of alcohol doesn't matter for cancer risk but may make a difference as a prophylactic for cardio vascular health.
 
Mammalian (human) cells metabolize ethanol (C2H6O) into acetaldehyde (C2H4O). Acetaldehyde can attack DNA and is mutagenic. Ethanol in cells can also increase mutagenic reactive oxygen species. Ethanol can further disrupt endocrine hormone production including oncogenic growth hormones like estrogen in women.

Mutagenesis is typically necessary but not sufficient for cancer. Cells must additionally evade the body's protections (apoptosis, immune protections, etc.), reprogram nutrient pathways like growing blood vessels, and other organ/tissue-specific system modifications.

Total ethanol risk is a function of genetic background and environmental exposures (G, E, and GxE) other than from ethanol (smoking, air and water pollution, diet, even social determinants of health like sleep and social stress). This complexity makes modeling specific cancer risk by time and dose under simple models like regression difficult and likely requires significant epidemiological sample size for power - potentially in the millions of individuals. Cancer risk may further be a function of specific windows of susceptibility (perhaps that include epigenetic reprogramming of subsets of cells) that are not well understood.
 
HeelingAg said:
I suppose there is argument for a small sliver of folks that can drink 4-6 drinks a day for 30 years and not be classified as having alcohol use disorder
Click to expand...
If you pace yourself, you could drink 4 drinks an evening and barely catch the slightest of buzzes. Kinda odd to regard someone as an alcoholic who has barely ever caught a buzz, much less gotten anything close to drunk. One of the main criterion for alcoholism (at least according to AA) is that you frequently (almost always) drink more than you intended. Someone stopping at 4 drinks every night is basically never drinking more than they intended to. Well, unless they only intended to drink 2 or 3 I guess...
 
hedge said:
If you pace yourself, you could drink 4 drinks an evening and barely catch the slightest of buzzes. Kinda odd to regard someone as an alcoholic who has barely ever caught a buzz, much less gotten anything close to drunk. One of the main criterion for alcoholism (at least according to AA) is that you frequently (almost always) drink more than you intended. Someone stopping at 4 drinks every night is basically never drinking more than they intended to. Well, unless they only intended to drink 2 or 3 I guess...
Click to expand...
AUD is far broader than buzzed or drunk.
 
hedge said:
If you pace yourself, you could drink 4 drinks an evening and barely catch the slightest of buzzes. Kinda odd to regard someone as an alcoholic who has barely ever caught a buzz, much less gotten anything close to drunk. One of the main criterion for alcoholism (at least according to AA) is that you frequently (almost always) drink more than you intended. Someone stopping at 4 drinks every night is basically never drinking more than they intended to. Well, unless they only intended to drink 2 or 3 I guess...
Click to expand...
On the days I have 4+ drinks, I almost never catch a buzz because I’m consuming those drinks over the course of 5-6 hours at a pace of about 1 per hour.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Are you really going to do the Super thing on something like this? This isn't some stupid politics where you get to argue a tiny point and it doesn't really matter. Someone might read that and trust you and die from your posts.
Click to expand...
[curtain rises as a man opens his front door after a knock]

hedge: Well, hello Paine!
Paine: Thanks for inviting me over, hedge. I could use some company.
hedge: What's wrong?
Paine: Physically, I'm 100%. But man, that election took a lot out of me.
hedge: tell me about it
Paine: I've even tried to console myself by binge-reading the past seasons of Jacobin. They are pretty boring fourth time round.
hedge: Yeah. Try Shakespeare. Almost unlimited rewatchability
Paine: Shakespeare is fine, but the heroes are like kings and princes. I can't root for them.
hedge: Why not?
Paine: You know who the Jacobins were, right?
hedge: Got it. Not all Shakespeare protagonists are royalty. Just most.
Paine: Super suggested that I might like something called "The Persecution and Assassination Of Jean-Paul Marat As Performed By The Inmates Of the Asylum Of Cherendon Under The Direction Of The Marquis De Sade"
hedge: I've heard that's good. Did you try it?
Paine: No. Super said it was formative for him.
hedge: Oh. Well, there's always tequila [taking out two shot glasses and a bottle]
Paine: I don't know. I've been trying to avoid alcohol because of the cancer risk
hedge: You don't have to worry about that
Paine: Are you sure?
hedge: Well, super said something vague and non-committal in a short post at 2AM.
Paine: That's good enough for me. Down the hatch!
[the two share a drink]
hedge: Not bad
Paine: I'm not feeling so well all of a sudden. Man, my throat really hurts
hedge: Let me look at it. Open your mouth
Paine: [opening] Aaaaahhhh
hedge: OH MY GOD! You've developed stage 4 throat cancer!!
Paine: That doesn't sound good!
hedge: it's really bad for most people. We know this guy, though . . . Paine, open your eyes!
Paine: I'm dying, hedge. I should have listened to the contrarian
hedge: Paine, Paine, don't let go. [sobbing after Paine expires] Oh, Gods! This is even sadder than Timon Of Athens
[door opens, to reveal zoo-view]
Zoo: If you're not using that bottle, I'll gladly take it off your hands.
hedge: Get out, you ghoul. This is your fault. Yours and super's. You killed a good man!
 
gtyellowjacket said:
A few years ago it was probably about 8 to 10 drinks a week. Now it's probably four a month and that's tapering off.

Honestly feels so much healthier and my sleep is improved. Haven't lost a dagum ounce which is annoying.
Click to expand...
No impact on your weight? Wow. What were you drinking before?
 
HeelingAg said:
I suppose there is argument for a small sliver of folks that can drink 4-6 drinks a day for 30 years and not be classified as having alcohol use disorder; I simply haven’t met them amongst the hundreds of people I’ve encountered, inpatient, with that pattern of drinking.

Also, withdrawals are a single criteria amongst several. Alcohol Use Disorder: A Comparison Between DSM–IV and DSM–5 | National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). AUD includes criteria like [paraphrase] “I have to drink more than I use to for the same effect” and “I’ve engaged in risky activity during or soon after drinking (eg drive, operated machinery, went swimming, risky sexual encounter)”. You only need 2 of 11 criteria for a diagnosis.

Maybe a better way to phrase it is “it’s exceedingly unlikely that someone drinking 4-6 drinks everyday, for 20-30 years, doesn’t have AUD.”
Click to expand...
Yeah I have a very hard time believing that anyone that has 4-6 drinks every single day over the course of decades isn’t physically and mentally dependent on alcohol on some level. Let’s call a spade a spade lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top