Slashdot Mirror
3 Drinks a Day Keeps the Doctor Away
Nzimmer911 writes "Heavy drinkers outlive non-drinkers according to a 20 years study following 1,824 people. From the article: 'But a new paper in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research suggests that - for reasons that aren't entirely clear - abstaining from alcohol does actually tend to increase one's risk of dying even when you exclude former drinkers. The most shocking part? Abstainers' mortality rates are higher than those of heavy drinkers.'"
The article says that they define heavy drinking as more than three drinks a day.
Does that help?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazard_ratio
This is what they're talking about. Don't blame the reporters; if they said "non-drinkers have a hazard ratio of 1.6 ± 0.2 (p 0.05) relative to heavy drinkers" most people would say "Whaaa ...?"
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
There's nothing I can disagree with in your post. All those are reasonable and plausible points.
However, the study was done by experienced researchers (who have other papers on alcohol, depression vs alcohol, and alcoholism) and controlled for most of the things you raised (including people being told to avoid alcohol).
No data collection will ever come out the same (I learned that back in college lab. Everyone got similar but different data in the same damn room with very simple things to measure).
The study could be wrong, but it fits with prior moderate drinking data. One of the problems of our puritan heritage is that this kind of data (especially for pot and Nixon) has been suppressed in the past. And another problem is when the people collecting the data have an agenda.
Looking over the other papers by two of the authors, it seemed to me they are the classic dry scientist types and lack an agenda.
I'm not a teetotaler, moderate drinker or heavy drinker. I'm a sub moderate drinker (1/10th to 1/2 a drink a day) who has a couple heavy drinking vacations a year.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The way he is twisting the joke is removing the punchline. In Frank Sinatra's version the joke teller proclaims how he feels bad for people who don't drink, then explains it is because they don't have hangovers. Normally not having a hangover is considered to be a good thing, so this is a comedic reversal.
In the GGPs version, there is no reversal. He feels bad for people who don't get high, because they don't get high. The equivalent (and equally unfunny) form of this joke for drinking would be if Frank Sinatra felt bad for people who didn't drink because when they woke up they were not going to get drunk later that day. Again no comedic reversal, just an unfunny statement of the obvious.
This is why I explained that the joke was referring to hangovers, not the actual intended effects of the substance. You could perhaps argue that the new joke is also funny, but it is a new joke. Its form has been fundamentally changed.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)