No Healthy Level of Alcohol Consumption, Says Major Study (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Even the occasional drink is harmful to health, according to the largest and most detailed research carried out on the effects of alcohol, which suggests governments should think of advising people to abstain completely. The uncompromising message comes from the authors of the Global Burden of Diseases study, a rolling project based at the University of Washington, in Seattle, which produces the most comprehensive data on the causes of illness and death in the world. Alcohol, says their report published in the Lancet medical journal, led to 2.8 million deaths in 2016. It was the leading risk factor for premature mortality and disability in the 15 to 49 age group, accounting for 20% of deaths. The study was carried out by researchers at the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), who investigated levels of alcohol consumption and health effects in 195 countries between 1990 to 2016. They used data from 694 studies to work out how common drinking was and from 592 studies including 28 million people worldwide to work out the health risks. According to the report, "27.1% of cancer deaths in women and 18.9% in men over 50 were linked to their drinking habits." The biggest causes of death linked to alcohol in younger people were tuberculosis (1.4% of deaths), road injuries (1.2%), and self-harm (1.1%).

"Worldwide we need to revisit alcohol control policies and health programs, and to consider recommendations for abstaining from alcohol," said the report's senior author, Professor Emmanuela Gakidou. "These include excise taxes on alcohol, controlling the physical availability of alcohol and the hours of sale, and controlling alcohol advertising. Any of these policy actions would contribute to reductions in population-level consumption, a vital step toward decreasing the health loss associated with alcohol use."

Comments

Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean... I'm here for a good time, not for a long time.

Re: Well Fuck

[Archfeld]

Smoking ANYTHING is bad news. Vaporizing or atomizing is better but certainly not good for anything but your 'head' and attitude. Just like grilling meat is not 'good' for you, but is damn tasty. Just do things in moderation, even moderation :)

Re:Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to love the quote at the end of the Guardian article, though it really should have been put at the beginning:

But David Spiegelhalter, Winton professor for the public understanding of risk at the University of Cambridge, said the data showed only a very low level of harm in moderate drinkers and suggested UK guidelines were very low risk.

“Given the pleasure presumably associated with moderate drinking, claiming there is no ‘safe’ level does not seem an argument for abstention,” he said. “There is no safe level of driving, but government do not recommend that people avoid driving. Come to think of it, there is no safe level of living, but nobody would recommend abstention.”

Re:Well Fuck

[houghi]

Too many people are hung up about quantity of life, not quality of life.

I am fat (for somebody in Europe) that my doctor asked me if I was willing to change my life habits, meaning eating and drinking. I said no.
I do not want to get old. I know what getting old is. My great-aunt was 115. She was healthy. My parents lived to an above average age and also lived, not just existed.
If I die, I die. At least I had fun.

And what greater fun that having a few drinks in great company of friends? In the end, that is all that matters. And I know. My great aunt told me, as well as other old people. And if you look at the photo on Wikipedia that I took, she is taking some advocaat at the age of 113.

Oh and on the WIki page, the thing about wisdom she told about hering and orange juice was not completely true.
She said it because she did not want to say anything about alcohol, because kids would read the newspaper and take it out of context. When _I_ asked her why she became so old, the answer was "Luck. Somebody has to be the oldest and by pure luck, this time it is me."

And even as the oldest person, she choose quality of life over quantity.

Re:Well Fuck

[sad_]

maybe so, but your quality of life will suffer much earlier then somebody who lives healthy.
you won't be able to do some things anymore when you're 40, while the 'healthy' person probably still can.
will you have done all the items on your bucket list when you're 50 or 60?
i agree that there is a limit, i don't see the point in reaching 100 years of age, it will be miserable, so far nobody that age is still well enough to actually have a quality life. but i want to enjoy doing everything i love for as long as i can. (those things don't include consuming alcohol, for me)

Re: Well Fuck

[blind biker]

This is true - smoking pot can lead to emphysema. It's still less likely than inhaling smoke from wood or coal burning, but yeah, some potheads will smoke in such excess that they may suffer from emphysema at some point.

But that's why I exclusively consume edibles! All the benefits, including health benefits, of cannabis, and none of the downsides.

Edibles, gentlemen, it's the right thing to do.

Re:Well Fuck

[Ol Olsoc]

maybe so, but your quality of life will suffer much earlier then somebody who lives healthy. you won't be able to do some things anymore when you're 40, while the 'healthy' person probably still can. will you have done all the items on your bucket list when you're 50 or 60?

Let me tell you about my mother in law. Non smoker, non drinker. Plenty of exercise.

This woman was the very archetype of the modern healthy adult livin the dream well into old age.

She caught dementia at 68, and it took her 10 years to die. The thing with dementia is that it doesn't just affect your mind. Her bones kind ot rotted, her bodily functions slowed down gradually, and she wasn't a happy demented person, but one of the ones who cry constantly.

I would take death right now to avoid that.

If you really want to live to an ancient age, by all means do. But I'll take quality over longevity every time. The only people that make out in the life extension game are the ones running nursing homes.

Did they study...

[Anonymous Coward]

...how many ugly people got laid because of alcohol?

And how many babies got made because of alcohol?

I wonder if the number of lives created by alcohol's ability to facilitate sex is greater than the number of deaths it causes.

Re:Did they study...

[Snotnose]

...how many ugly people got laid because of alcohol?

According to my sample size of 1, about 12. Not counting myself.

And how many babies got made because of alcohol?

According to my sample size of 1, about 0. That I know of. And I'd know, else I'd have changed states sometime in the past 55 years.

Re:Did they study...

[The Evil Atheist]

You shouldn't impose your lifestyle choice on others.

Hence the Ban on Pot

[rtb61]

So you know exactly why the alchohol companies spent so much to keep pot banned. Also the amount of profit generated by the alchohol industries is greater than the cost of the damage caused by alchohol, privative the profit, socialise the loss.

Re:Hence the Ban on Pot

[smi.james.th]

Well, parts of the profit are socialised as well. No government will advise citizens not to drink at all because they all get a juicy "sin tax" on the sale of alcohol.

Anyone else notice

[Anonymous Coward]

The rise of anti alcohol studies and the rise of both feminists and jihadists.

I am not saying they are the same. But they both hate alcohol and white men.

Sounds like a terrible study.

[Anonymous Coward]

The summary is this:

First, we consolidated 694 individual and population-level data sources to estimate alcohol consumption levels among current drinkers. Second, we developed a method to adjust population-level consumption for alcohol consumed by tourists. Third, we improved pre-existing methods that account for unrecorded population-level consumption. Fourth, we did a new systematic review and meta-analysis of alcohol use and 23 associated health outcomes, which we used to estimate new dose–response curves of relative risk. Fifth, using the new relative risk curves and a new analytical method, we estimated the exposure of alcohol consumption that minimises an individual's total attributable risk.

Which just sounds like a lot of malarkey.

So they combined a bunch of data sources together (likely of very different quality, measures, etc), massaged it together to "estimate population level consumption by tourists", the massaged it a bit more, made some more estimates here and there... and BOOM alcohol is resposible for x% of cancer!

This is the kind of stuff that gives science a bad name. Where's the control? There isn't any. This barely qualifies as science.

People aren't going to stop drinking. We tried that already, and it didn't work out so well. It just feels too damn good to have a drink now and a again after the day is over. It's worth it! Frankly even if have a 10% increase in cancer from 1 drink a day, I'll take it. Do I really care if I have a 11% chance of cancer with an occasional drink vs an 10% chance of cancer with zero?

Realistically it just can't be THAT bad for you since we'd see large effects between drinkers and non-drinkers. Smoking, for instance increases your chance of lung cancer (over your lifetime) by a factor of 17. That is, smokers have about a 17% lifetime chance of getting lung cancer, and non-smokers have a 1% chance. That's HUGE, and the kind of thing we should be concerned about. But alcohol? Nonsense, the effect just can't be very big, or else we'd see it more obviously in the existing data.

If they really wanted to study this, take some similar populations. Study Mormons vs Ex-Mormons, or practicing vs non-practicing Muslims. But don't take data from 694 different studies and then do some weird data manipulation on it. Quite honestly, how do they know if they're right, or they just managed to tweak the data in the right way?

Denmark vs. Pakistan

[Venona2018]

Countries with the highest rates of drinking: Denmark and Norway
Countries with the lowest rates of drinking: Pakistan and Bangladesh.

I'm betting people are happier in Denmark and Norway vs. Pakistan and Bangladesh. They certainly are wealthier, healthier, and live longer.

Maybe drinking is good?

Lot more than zero

[Roger W Moore]

the number of Marijuana deaths is zero.

Was this study done by the same researchers that did this one because it sounds about as accurate? For a start the alcohol numbers above include drink-driving deaths and this also applies to marijuana and the rate is increasing.

Left out the key statement

[larryjoe]

The slashdot title stated the most sensational part of the study, but the summary left out the single-most important statement in the entire study:

"The level of alcohol consumption that minimised harm across health outcomes was zero (95% UI 00–08) standard drinks per week."

This statement is at odds with some studies and the hopes of many recreational drinkers. However, there have been other meta-studies that have found that studies that find a health benefit from moderate drinking often aggregate teetotalers due to religion/philosophy with teetotalers due to illness.

Re: And still

[Anonymous Coward]

So cannabis smoke is, then, a carcinogen. Got it, thanks.

Re: And still

[c6gunner]

Absolutely. I used the same defense at my drunk driving trial. "Just because I was drunk doesn't mean alcohol had anything to do with me rear-ending a cop car!"

Judge didn't buy it. Fucking asshole.

Re:And still

[markdavis]

>"the number of Marijuana deaths is zero."

That is just nonsense (and, actually, irresponsible). For one, ANYTHING you are doing that requires your peak senses and/or rationality will be negatively impacted by using Marijuana. For things like driving, surgery, operating dangerous power tools, whatever, it is not a good idea to be "altered". And claiming that throughout all history, being high on pot has not directly caused or contributed to death, is just *ridiculous*.

And if the choice of consumption of Marijuana involves SMOKING it (instead of eating it, ingesting a pill, or vaporizing it, or whatnot), well, let's just say that breathing in any type of smoke into the lungs is very unhealthy, no matter what type it is.

Now, if you were to say something more reasonable like "Marijuana is the safest illicit drug" most would readily agree with you. If you were to say it was safer than alcohol, again, most people would probably agree.

Re: And still

[PopeRatzo]

Methinks you have a bit of an anger management issue.

Only when he's been drinking.

Re:And still

[PopeRatzo]

Wait, slashdot has a private messaging system?

Yes, but only for those who pay for Slashdot Premium, and only on the mobile app.

I can give you a promotional code for a 60-day trial if you send me your info.

Re:And still

[PopeRatzo]

Pot smokers account for lots of driving deaths....

We'd account for even more driving deaths if we could only find our car keys.

This is only half of the story

[hyades1]

"Alcohol, says their report published in the Lancet medical journal, led to 2.8 million deaths in 2016."

These idiots clearly failed to grasp the other half of the equation. Alcohol probably prevented just as many deaths. Let's face it, if you couldn't decompress with a couple of beers after work, sooner or later you'd wind up skinning your boss with a letter opener and skull-fucking the company president and his snotty secretary to death with the rolled up hide.

What is the politically correct way to die?

[petes_PoV]

Many people used to die from malaria, tuberculosis, pneumonia. Then we got drugs that prevented those. So they started to die from smoking-related diseases instead. So we all stopped smoking. Now people die from cancers: some caused by excessive drinking.

If that ceases to be a major cause of death, what is next? Obesity? We get told off for that, too.

So what will people die from in the future? Too much exercising? terminal anxiety? boredom?

How should we go about preventing those deaths and then, ultimately, at what point will all these studies, research groups and advice-givers give up and admit that everybody is going to die from something. What causes of death will be deemed "natural"?

Re:What is the politically correct way to die?

[thegarbz]

Many people used to die from malaria

To be fair, there's no healthy level for drinking malaria either.

Re:No this is not nonsense

[CrimsonAvenger]

When people speaks of marijuana death they usually do not speak about secondary death (accident, inattention) because that criteria tells nothing about the LD50 of drugs.

And yet, this article about alcohol does, in fact, include "secondary death (accident, inattention)" as part and parcel of the alcohol deaths....

Re:That's part of the problem.

[x0]

My dad made homemade wine for decades. Never over-consumed. Profited no one. His consumption was as close to balanced as it gets. But the thing is, his wine tasted awful...because alcohol tastes awful. In every single form. Not to see this is to lie to yourself.

No, it tastes awful to you...

I enjoy many types of alcoholic beverages just fine, as do the vast majority or people. If it were truly that bad, and people had to lie to themselves to 'enjoy' it, alcohol consumption would be a fringe affectation.

Stop projecting your experiences on others; It's annoying and smacks of virtue signaling.

m