New lower UK alcohol limits... "no safe level of drinking"

n97 mini

Dunno if anyone spotted this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35255384

No material changes, but now they're recommending that no alcohol is better than in moderation as it's a cancer risk. Gone is the red wine is good for you thing too.

I wonder will we see changes here too?

andekwarhola

Is this really applicable to this forum or is tub thumping in one thread not enough?

Morf

Just recommendations.

Lots of people will benefit from alcohol in moderation.

Some will benefit from none at all.

Sounds like very much erring on the conservative side with this suggestion.

BuilderPlumber

It is obvious that healthocracy will be the future fascist ideology long after any nationalist or religious movement is effective. This sort of scaremongering, achieved without evening brandishing a gun or shouting fist clenched religious or nationalist slogans, is the most sinister thing I have ever seen. This is disgraceful carry on.

Who the hell is behind all this? Ex-alcoholics? ISIS? Drug dealers? Or people even worse? Whoever it is, this stuff is a threat. Doctors are not infallible and can be bought. I met a medical doctor earlier today who agreed that this had no basis whatsoever in medical research.

Mesrine65

No safe level of drinking...

As far as I can gather, every ****ing thing causes cancer these days :eek:

Lower your left arse cheek to the toilet seat first...cancer.

Only eat blue M&M's, you guessed it...cancer.

Dink away, carry on regardless, we're all going to die anyway...probably of cancer at this stage :rolleyes:

RupertsHabit

Bit extreme alright. I dont think it will have the intended effect.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Alcohol is a class one carcinogen now isn't it? They can't really have that on one hand, and on the other say it's OK to drink 10 pints of beer a week.

BeerNut

Here's a look at some of what's going on in the background of the new UK guidelines.

odyssey06

BeerNut wrote: »

Here's a look at some of what's going on in the background of the new UK guidelines.

Thanks... there was something about the way the information was presented that was setting off an alarm bell in my head ... data being massaged ... special pleading ... etc and this confirms it.

For instance, the 'old' limit was 21 units. But as far as I can tell, this report doesn't compare the risk of 14 units versus 21 units, it compared 14 units versus 35 units. Why would you do that unless you had already decided what the outcome of your report would be, and worked back from there?

Abstaining for 2 days a week may make good medical sense, from this report I haven't the foggiest notion why. Why 2 days, why not 1 day, or 3? Or why not only abstain if you've have more than X units the previous day?
If you're only drinking 1 glass of wine with dinner every day, what would be the benefit to abstaining the next day?
The report is not helpful and seems designed for political rather than medical purposes.

I must remember the name Sally Davies and discount any information from this source...

Herb Powell

That's in the UK. We're grand. Carry on.

Carawaystick

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

Alcohol is a class one carcinogen now isn't it? They can't really have that on one hand, and on the other say it's OK to drink 10 pints of beer a week.

Being outside in the daytime is in the same carcinogen category as ham and alcohol.
I don't recall any advice to never go out in the day...

odyssey06

Herb Powell wrote: »

That's in the UK. We're grand. Carry on.

At last we get the real reason for 1916.

afatbollix

According to the dep of health Ireland sees it a bit different.


‘Drinking alcohol is part of everyday adult life in Ireland,’ says the country’s health department. A standard drink here is 10g, and men should not have more than 17 standard drinks in a week and women 11 drinks, the guidance states.

hatrickpatrick

This is just part of the incredibly tired and jaded anti alcohol push by the liberal media over the last number of years. It's a shame, because the healthy range of drinking was probably in their documentation at some point in the past, but as they've become more and more extreme, from "three pints of beer in an evening is a binge drinking session" to this "no level of alcohol is safe" bullsh!t, they've essentially lost the goodwill of the public and become consigned, in the public's eyes, to all of the other hyperbolic "literally everything will kill you" fear mongerers of the 21st century.

To put this another way, when they weren't teetotaller extremists, these guys were somewhat respected and people felt that they had something useful to say. Advice about units of alcohol, drink driving limits, drinking water to avoid hangovers, not mixing different cogners etc - these were all respected bits of advice which people found genuinely useful.

An analogy would be if the "think condoms" safe sex campaigns morphed into "you should basically never have sex, ever". People would just dismiss them as fanatical cranks, and this is exactly what's happening to the responsible drinking lobby.

Muppets one and all.

BuilderPlumber

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is just part of the incredibly tired and jaded anti alcohol push by the not very liberal media over the last number of years. It's a shame, because the healthy range of drinking was probably in their documentation at some point in the past, but as they've become more and more extreme, from "three pints of beer in an evening is a binge drinking session" to this "no level of alcohol is safe" bullsh!t, they've essentially lost the goodwill of the public and become consigned, in the public's eyes, to all of the other hyperbolic "literally everything will kill you" fear mongerers of the 21st century.

To put this another way, when they weren't teetotaller extremists, these guys were somewhat respected and people felt that they had something useful to say. Advice about units of alcohol, drink driving limits, drinking water to avoid hangovers, not mixing different cogners etc - these were all respected bits of advice which people found genuinely useful.

An analogy would be if the "think condoms" safe sex campaigns morphed into "you should basically never have sex, ever". People would just dismiss them as fanatical cranks, and this is exactly what's happening to the responsible drinking lobby.

Muppets one and all.

Had to correct the above for you

This stuff is about as liberal as the Taliban or ISIS. All this 3 pints in the evening and no alcohol is safe stuff is intolerant BS that wins no favours.

The whole irony of it all is that those writing it are probably not teetotallers at all but those who drink a lot and who are well paid to write this rubbish because they are being paid by malfunctioning health services to deflect attention from the real issues in healthcare such as (in Ireland) HSE bureaucracy, health insurance costs and people on trolleys.

n97 mini

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

The whole irony of it all is that those writing it are probably not teetotallers at all but those who drink a lot and who are well paid to write this rubbish because they are being paid by malfunctioning health services to deflect attention from the real issues in healthcare such as (in Ireland) HSE bureaucracy, health insurance costs and people on trolleys.

Ah that's complete fantasy.

The liver breaks down alcohol into acetaldehyde, which is Class 1 carcinogen according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer... so its potency is not really contested, and the logic is the more the exposure the more the risk.

BuilderPlumber

n97 mini wrote: »

Ah that's complete fantasy.

The liver breaks down alcohol into acetaldehyde, which is Class 1 carcinogen according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer... so its potency is not really contested, and the logic is the more the exposure the more the risk.

Everyone can agree that there are dangerous levels of drinking that bring all types of risk factors. What I do not see is agreement on the specifics and I see all the inconsistency of all this though:

Why has the definition of what a unit itself is varied?
Why was it that some state 21 units, others 17, others 14 and now no alcohol as avoiding the risk?
Why does cancer exist in people who do not do any of the so-called risk factors?

There is a lot of inconsistencies with research on these issues in my view. This does not mean what is said is totally untrue but a lot of it is argued in a black and white way.

Unfortunately, researchers clearly know very little about cancer, its causes, its risk factors and especially its cure/reversal/halting. Not enough is known to make sweeping statements. Everyone knows too much alcohol consumption just like too much fat, sugar, salt, etc. consumption is bad but that's basic primary school stuff. We need more specific knowledge of conditions like cancer and only then can we find a proper cure/prevention/halting of it.

hatrickpatrick

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Had to correct the above for you

This stuff is about as liberal as the Taliban or ISIS. All this 3 pints in the evening and no alcohol is safe stuff is intolerant BS that wins no favours.

The whole irony of it all is that those writing it are probably not teetotallers at all but those who drink a lot and who are well paid to write this rubbish because they are being paid by malfunctioning health services to deflect attention from the real issues in healthcare such as (in Ireland) HSE bureaucracy, health insurance costs and people on trolleys.

I apologise, when I said "liberal" I didn't mean in the traditional sense in the world, I meant in the sense of today's "progressives" who are in fact more socially repressive than the Catholic Church, but toxically wrapped up in pseudo intellectualism.

odyssey06

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To put this another way, when they weren't teetotaller extremists, these guys were somewhat respected and people felt that they had something useful to say. Advice about units of alcohol, drink driving limits, drinking water to avoid hangovers, not mixing different cogners etc - these were all respected bits of advice which people found genuinely useful.

+1 on this