Drinking over 1 pint "raises cancer risk"

Moderate drinking is considered about 1070ml of alcohol or lower, in my opinion.

In pure ethanol volume? Over what period of time?

You're not seeing facts either, sorry.
Alcohol has effects on both cerebelum and frontal lobe. One is in charge of motor skills the other is in charge of thinking, taking desitions and uhh will check later. So, basicly you take poor decitions while being drunk. Sure, people already are stupid, alcohol just makes it worse. According to one study (the one I have's in spanish) any amount of alcohol makes your motor skills bad, so the chances of crashing even if you only drank 1 beer are higher than while being sober. One must count car crashes and stupid pomegranate people do while being drunk.

Accorrding to WHO "stupid pomegranate" make alcohol and alcoholism and public health issue:

Originally Posted by WHO
* The harmful use of alcohol results in 2.5 million deaths each year.
* 320 000 young people between the age of 15 and 29 die from alcohol-related causes, resulting in 9% of all deaths in that age group.
* Alcohol is the world’s third largest risk factor for disease burden; it is the leading risk factor in the Western Pacific and the Americas and the second largest in Europe.
* Alcohol is associated with many serious social and developmental issues, including violence, child neglect and abuse, and absenteeism in the workplace.

________

I have the impression that since alcohol is socially accepted people think it's not as bad.
Alcohol is just as bad as cigarrete:
Alcohol is just socially accepted but that doesn't make it "better" than cigarrette and some drugs.
Also on a side note, who knows maybe in 50years cigarrette and alcohol will be banned and cannabis will be legal. Those things tend to change a lot depending on social context.
If you consider it some psychotropics that are legal/ilegal and socially accepted/not-accepted sometimes aren't even legal/ilegal for rightful reasons.


[SIZE="1"]I should be doing my homework that's somehow related to this instead of writting here.[/SIZE]

Is this a joke? You just post incomplete thoughts,

You're not seeing facts either, sorry.
Alcohol has effects on both cerebelum and frontal lobe. One is in charge of motor skills the other is in charge of thinking, taking desitions and uhh will check later.

ignore that I actually did compare them with and without additional harms for alcohol (as well as point out exactly why they should not be included when talking about health risks),

Without:

Now it's time for some alcohol stats. I couldn't find them for 2006 but for 2007 this is what i got, also from the CDC.

Number of alcoholic liver disease deaths: 14,406
Number of alcohol-induced deaths, excluding accidents and homicides: 23,199

With:

100,000. It's estimated at 100,000 counting accidents, falls and homicides. Oh look it's less. by a little over 75%.

A quick note about this estimate is that i think its high and is just the first one i came to as i couldn't get this directly from the CDC. The reason i think it is way too high is because you figure most of these would come from drunk driving deaths so you think that would be quite a lot. The number of drunk driving deaths was reported by the CDC to be 10,839 in 2009. That leaves ~65962 alcohol related deaths (read: homicides and non-driving related accidents). I figured i'd cut into this a little more with some easy to get stats such as the total homicides in 2009 at around 16,470 (I used the homicide rate (5.4 per 100,000 people) combined with the U.S. population at the time (305 million people) to arrive at this number) For simplicities sake we will assume that all homicides were influenced by alcohol. That leaves us with 49,805 unexplained deaths that are evidentially alcohol related. It's almost a full half of the 100,000s. Seems nonsensical. Especially when you consider that the only relevant ones are THOSE THAT AREN'T INFLUENCED BY ALCOHOL, BUT CAUSED BY IT. AKA THE INITIAL NUMBER I PROVIDED.

and despite it is still being way less deaths annually (completely skipping over the thing i posted about financial harms), you insist that it must be relevant and they must be equal.

Alcohol is just as bad as cigarrete

100,000woops, that number is completely irrelevant. 23,1999 < 443,000 It is less, by a lot. And this is still disregarding that you don't die from alcohol poisoning or liver disease from moderate drinking. While smoking with any regularity at all is virtually guaranteed to have adverse health effects.

and you then go on toCOMPARE AND CONTRASTS LOLINTERNATIONAL STATS TO THOSE FOR JUST AMERICA. By the way, the WHO makes generally worse and far less accurate stats than the CDC as they do way less research and much more estimation. And you know, don't have access to some sort of f'ucking international death records. (no such thing exists)

-snip

vs

-snip-

Furthermore, you didn't get any smoking stats from the WHO. Just drinking. (this is a terrible way to make any sort of comparison is what i'm getting at here) Yet you insist they are equal.

This is borderline on getting a global ignore, you're insanely obtuse. You are crazy insistent on there being no reasonable degree of drinking whatsoever when it is easily doable with zero harms as a result. You're mixing up your personal values or feelings with medical facts and then trying to use them in a factual argument. It's retarded.

If you're trying to make points, please try again. I'll give you a second shot to respond to the same stuff you just responded to (since i essentially posted nothing new except for stating the obvious in a fashion that is somehow more obvious). If you don't do better than this i don't have any interest in discussing this with you further and i'll probably just be putting you on my global ignore list.

If this post made you feel insulted, it should, that it is intended. I am insulting you. BUT I feel I do so rightly, because i feel you first insulted me by creating this mess of a post and just going, "LOL, apt response." When it isn't. It's sloppy and nonsensical and is full of your insignificant and naive opinion in relation to FACTS about health risks. I'm not claiming that I somehow deserve a response to everything i may say, but going halfway on a response; or just responding when you evidentially don't understand is far worse than not responding at all. Trolls and idiots do this, and I don't think you believe you are either of those things. Before I thought you were naive; now i think you are an intentionally ignorant. Either think about what you read before responding to it, or don't respond. Those are the options available to reasonable people. Also spell-check or quick proof read never killed anyone nevermind, you might argue that it has, like how drinking makes you kill people.

Everything causes cancer at this point.... Hell, looking at my computer monitors probably puts me at risk.

What else is new?

My point is you should stop considering moderate as safe. It can still pineapple you up.
Not sure about moderate being healthy.

It's ok, you can ignore the numbers you want from alcohol, but use for your defense the cigarette ones.

What you are also not counting in is that tobacco doesn't cause any rapes, assaults, broken bones, violence etc.

2.5mil die every year, but how many get wounded for rest of their life, how many get wounded or abused even though they weren't the one drinking?

What you are also not counting in is that tobacco doesn't cause of any rapes, assaults, broken bones, violence etc.

2.5mil die every year, but how many get wounded for rest of their life, how many get wounded or abused even though they weren't the one drinking?

I'm not arguing that point (is anyone?), extreme consumption of alcohol is very bad and causes lots of indirect damage (I'd say more than cigarettes). However, alcohol can be consumed at levels that don't cause problems at all if the person doing it is responsible about it (like not driving when drunk).

What you are also not counting in is that tobacco doesn't cause of any rapes, assaults, broken bones, violence etc.

2.5mil die every year, but how many get wounded for rest of their life, how many get wounded or abused even though they weren't the one drinking?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19399161

What you are also not counting in is that tobacco doesn't cause any rapes, assaults, broken bones, violence etc.

And neither does drinking. People who have no disposition to violence don't get hammered and suddenly turn into murderous assaulting rape crazy drunk-driving bastards. You have to have a predisposition to those things. Blaming that on alcohol is just an excuse (hell, when most people drink they don't even get drunk, let alone hammered. In fact, i had been drinking about an hour before my previous last post, look how organized and sensible it was. I also did not rape or murder any of my friends that night). Until a bottle of beer on it's own free will rapes you to death, this point is insanely stupid. But hey, counting the other deaths using the stats actually based on physical and real records that I provided IT IS STILL LESS BY A LOT. WHY YOU THINK THAT WOULD CHANGE WHEN TAKEN TO A GLOBAL SCALE MAKES NO SENSE.

The harms from alcohol that can actually be called a health issue (again, this is actually the topic) don't come from typical or regulated consumption. The harms from cigarettes actually do. Another thing to note is I did not get stats from all tobacco products. Just cigarettes.