I’ve been drinking for 7 years. Typicall I’ve only drank 3-4 drinks a year. If I stop drinking now, would that help decrease chances of cancer? If it does will it take a long time?
I’ve been drinking for 7 years. Typicall I’ve only drank 3-4 drinks a year. If I stop drinking now, would that help decrease chances of cancer? If it does will it take a long time?
That’s completely wrong. There’s no safe level of alcohol intake:
https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-alcohol-consumption-is-safe-for-our-health
https://time.com/6248439/no-safe-amount-of-alcohol/
Edit: from the articles, in case you don’t have time to read them:
“We cannot talk about a so-called safe level of alcohol use. It doesn’t matter how much you drink—the risk to the drinker’s health starts from the first drop of any alcoholic beverage”
No safe level of sunlight by the same logic.
Oh come on, you don’t have to drink. Drinking is a choice and an easily avoidable health risk.
deleted by creator
Are you my coworker?
deleted by creator
I might!
deleted by creator
Which fallacy is the one where you cite a paper that doesn’t say what you claim it does?
The optimum level of sun exposure for vitamin D production does not mean that level is “safe.” You’re trading vitamin D for cancer risk. Your claim about alcohol didn’t make any cost / benefit analysis. It was only that there is no safe level. You paid no regard to how small the risks were, only that there was any risk.
You can get vitamin D from your diet or supplements. You can get skin cancer and retinal cancer from the sun.
deleted by creator
But the WHO didn’t write a report that breathing ages you (because it requires the passage of time), this risking age-related health problems and ultimate, inevitable death.
As a non-drinker who has seen the ravages of alcohol abuse in several loved ones, I completely understand the “no level is safe” guideline.
That said, 3-4 drinks per year is far below any measure of alcohol use that is seriously studied, where researchers look at drinking at the “amount per week” level. 3-4 drinks per year is essentially on the level of being a non-drinker.
Technically yes, but 3-4 drinks per year is such a small amount it’s going to make a negligible difference.
Yep, it’s like saying that drinking communion wine at church is a risky amount of alcohol.
Yeah, when everyone knows it’s really religion that’s cancerous.
deleted by creator
this is basically not understanding what “risk” means. if you have a 1% risk of developing cancer, and by doing something (ie drinking) you double relatively-wise that risk, it’s still only 2% of risk. would you stop drinking and enjoying alcohol and living a happier life for a mere 1%?
all the numbers I’m using are totally random, but it shows that saying “it increases the risk” although technically correct doesn’t mean shit and it’s just fearmongering and a basic inability of understanding information.
deleted by creator
An effect can be observable but still negligible in terms of the actual increase of risk.
deleted by creator
Change of risk for 3 drinks a year is unnoticeable. You can’t tell it from normal noise.
Sounds like the American equivalent of pot. I brew beer and have customers who drink 50L kegs every week and have for years, try doing that with asbestos and live…