Drinking over 1 pint "raises cancer risk"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12999000

Drinking more than a pint of beer a day can substantially increase the risk of some cancers, research suggests

The Europe-wide study of 363,988 people reported in the British Medical Journal found one in 10 of all cancers in men and one in 33 in women were caused by past or current alcohol intake.

...

Always knew it caused cancer, but didn't know that over 1 pint would be enough. Well, never felt any need to drink anyways.

I'm danish.
pineapple.

They should put pictures of cancer, skull fractures, burning cars, destroyed liver etc. in all alcohol drinks. No. Not really.

My opinion is that alcohol ads should be banned where cigarette ads are. I think it's just ridiculous to waste money on crafting blank cigarette packs with disgusting photos in them. Cutted off lungs are disgusting regardless of the cigarette effect in them or not.

-> I have nothing against drinking or smoking and not fan of either, but government should stricten their alcohol laws, if they have already done it for cigarettes and drugs.

The difference is that there are no safe levels of consumption for cigarettes while alcohol can have no negative effects or even have a positive effect if consumed moderately.

The difference is that there are no safe levels of consumption for cigarettes while alcohol can have no negative effects or even have a positive effect if consumed moderately.

I find it a bit hard to believe that until I have seen some statistics. Even when I see statistics I may be skeptic cause I'm thinking of the motives the source has.

Both sides, in this case, tobacco companies and "health-nazis" have their own motives and they only look in info that that supports their objectives. They must be leaving out some details, because otherwise the results wouldn't vary as much as they do.

Good thing I don't drink much beer, just hard alcohol on the weekends.

I find it a bit hard to believe that until I have seen some statistics. Even when I see statistics I may be skeptic cause I'm thinking of the motives the source has.

Both sides, in this case, tobacco companies and "health-nazis" have their own motives and they only look in info that that supports their objectives. They must be leaving out some details, because otherwise the results wouldn't vary as much as they do.

Are you serious?
Everyone and their mother knows that smoking is way worse than alcohol. Alcohol can be broken down by the liver, while tar and stuff in your lungs cannot. Alcohol is broken down by oxidation with the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase. An average human being eliminates 5% of alcohol with urine, exhales 5% and then the rest is from oxidation. So if your kidney is healthy, it would take about an hour or so to break down the alcohol in a 355 ml can. Your body can't do anything to break down the tar and sh`it that gets into your lungs from smoking, so drinking in moderation is far better than smoking cigarettes or tobacco in general.

I don't know why you need statistics here when the medical effects of both are pretty fully mapped out and medically documented. You just need to educate yourself instead of justifying your dislike of something out of willful ignorance.

The Europe-wide study of 363,988 people reported in the British Medical Journal found one in 10 of all cancers in men and one in 33 in women were caused by past or current alcohol intake.

More than 18% of alcohol-related cancers in men and about 4% in women were linked to excessive drinking.

So they found euros who have cancer then took a survey on drinking and decided their was a correlation? Is there any indication that this research is not completely shoddy and just using cancer as a means to draw attention to the research and get some funding?

So they found euros who have cancer then took a survey on drinking and decided their was a correlation? Is there any indication that this research is not completely shoddy and just using cancer as a means to draw attention to the research and get some funding?

Depends on the quality of peer reviewing in the British Medical Journal.

Is this causation or correlation?

(Because I know people that drink goes on parties way more often than others, so, you know, maybe the reason is parties instead?)

What doesn't cause cancer risk nowadays?

Is this causation or correlation?

(Because I know people that drink goes on parties way more often than others, so, you know, maybe the reason is parties instead?)

Article says caused, but I don't know if they are using the term loosely.

Is this causation or correlation?

(Because I know people that drink goes on parties way more often than others, so, you know, maybe the reason is parties instead?)

You mean some lurking variables? I think this is an observational study and not an experiment. If it is an observational study, then a cause and effect link CANNOT be concluded from the results. That's just basics statistics.

You mean some lurking variables? I think this is an observational study and not an experiment. If it is an observational study, then a cause and effect link CANNOT be concluded from the results. That's just basics statistics.

it's a pretty awful term to use loosely but i see nothing indicative of causation and a strong argument could be made agianst there even being a correlation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12999000



Always knew it caused cancer, but didn't know that over 1 pint would be enough. Well, never felt any need to drink anyways.

According to studies, meat, soy only on men, mobile phones, chicken skin, pollution... And a huge list of normal stuff cause it.

Also, to the people on smoking VS drinking.

Drinking moderately (keyword. This is the side where the problems may start) lets you filter stuff better, but throwing some smoke inside your lungs or people near you is always 100% negative. The lungs can't filter all that black filth in them, and become stagnant, slowly degenerating.

Drinking is not as bad as cigarrette?
They're both bad, awful bad.
Both cause adictions, different types though.
Alcohol= physical adiction, meaning it'll be harder to quit and if you try you'll get sick (abstinence syndrome). While,
Cigarrette= psychological adiction, meaning it'll be just as hard to quit but you won't get sick if you do.
Also, alcohol can kill you in 1 night, while cigarrette takes more time. Actually both are long term killers.
Alcoholism is disease that kills tons of people a year. If you drink moderately and you don't mix stuff, "good" for you.
For those who don't do the first: brain cells dying, passing out is not good (although, it forces you to stop drinking), if you drink a lot and you mix it with cocaine or any similar drugs you might die of alcohol overdose.

Alcohol is just socialy accepted but that doesn't make it "better" than cigarrette and some drugs.
If you consider it some psychotropics that are legal/ilegal and socially accepted/not-accepted sometimes aren't even legal/ilegal for rightful reasons.

Alloy, your point?
Let me guess: all addictions aren't bad?
Sadly, yes they're.
If it's "true" addiction, to the point one would stop studying and/or working to play videogames, isn't it bad? Shouldn't it be consider a disease (at least to some extent)?
The thing with addictions is:
There's a "feel the effect" limit and a dangerous limit. You're allowed to drink (do anything) between those limits. If you're addicted you'll need a bigger/longer dose to feel the effect, therefore making your healthy "spot" smaller. If the addiction is bad you'll reach the dangerous limit and die. It works that way with alcohol.

Someone that lives in the US could please tell me how many people die a year because of alcohol?

Drinking is not as bad as cigarrette?
They're both bad, awful bad.
Both cause adictions, different types though.
Alcohol= physical adiction, meaning it'll be harder to quit and if you try you'll get sick (abstinence syndrome). While,
Cigarrette= psychological adiction, meaning it'll be just as hard to quit but you won't get sick if you do.
Also, alcohol can kill you in 1 night, while cigarrette takes more time. Actually both are long term killers.
Alcoholism is disease that kills tons of people a year. If you drink moderately and you don't mix stuff, good for you.
For those who don't do the first: brain cells dying, passing out is not good (although, it forces you to stop drinking), if you drink a lot and you mix it with cocaine or any similar drugs you might die of alcohol overdose.

Alcohol is just socialy accepted but that doesn't make it "better" than cigarrette and some drugs.

Videogames cause addictions.

Drinking is not as bad as cigarrette?
They're both bad, awful bad.
Both cause adictions, different types though.
Alcohol= physical adiction, meaning it'll be harder to quit and if you try you'll get sick (abstinence syndrome). While,
Cigarrette= psychological adiction, meaning it'll be just as hard to quit but you won't get sick if you do.
Also, alcohol can kill you in 1 night, while cigarrette takes more time. Actually both are long term killers.
Alcoholism is disease that kills tons of people a year. If you drink moderately and you don't mix stuff, good for you.
For those who don't do the first: brain cells dying, passing out is not good (although, it forces you to stop drinking), if you drink a lot and you mix it with cocaine or any similar drugs you might die of alcohol overdose.

Alcohol is just socialy accepted but that doesn't make it "better" than cigarrette and some drugs.
If you consider it some psychotropics that are legal/ilegal and socially accepted/not-accepted sometimes aren't even legal/ilegal for rightful reasons.

Drinking can be very bad if taken in high ammounts, cigarettes are always bad.
Absorbing something through your stomach is always less harmful than through your lungs.

You say they have the same consequences but you fail to adress the ammount/frequency at which they need to be consumed to achieve the same effects.
You also do not say how much you need to have in order to get addicted.

Drinking can be very bad if taken in high ammounts, cigarettes are always bad.
Absorbing something through your stomach is always less harmful than through your lungs.

You say they have the same consequences but you fail to adress the ammount/frequency at which they need to be consumed to achieve the same effects.
You also do not say how much you need to have in order to get addicted.

Huh, I'd look up statistics or something to answer that. However, it really depends on each person, some don't get addicted to stuff as eaasy as others.
I know that they're not the same, but they should both be considered bad and have better restrictions.
I forgot to say my main point with addictions, as far as I know it's HARD to have cigarrette overdose while it's not that hard with alcohol.