โฒ 1573 โผ Rich ppl live longer (media.piefed.zip) submitted 2 months ago by FundMECFS@piefed.zip to c/science_memes@mander.xyz 115 comments fedilink hide all child comments ๐ 2
[โ] TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 months ago (17 children) Idk... a lot of gen Z people I know just don't drink at all permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [โ] tmyakal@infosec.pub 59 points 2 months ago (15 children) OP is referring to the j-curve historically seen in studies about drinking. Because researchers didn't control for people who stopped drinking after years of abuse or people who couldn't drink because of other health issues, it looked like having 0 drinks per day led to worse health outcomes than 1-2 drinks per day. Because of that, many health organizations spent decades telling people that 1-2 drinks per day was better for you than 0 drinks per day. Someone finally controlled for those variables a few years ago, and the j-curve vanished. Most health organizations now say they're is no amount of alcohol that is safe to consume. So it's got nothing to do with Gen Z drinking habit specifically, and the science has been corrected since. But a lot of people still internalized and parrot the "1-2 drinks is healthy" thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago (14 children) No amount of alcohol is safe? Is that like saying no amount of driving is safe? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [โ] Dave@lemmy.nz 9 points 2 months ago (3 children) Sure. Any driving you do increases your risk of death. But it's likely you need to drive for other reasons that reduce your risk of death (like buying food). Drinking is different because no one needs to drink. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago (2 children) Haha, ymmv but I find driving to be unnecessary permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] Dave@lemmy.nz 5 points 2 months ago (1 child) Yes but this depends significantly on where you live. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago For sure, I'm very lucky to live where I do. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago Yep. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] Viceversa@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (8 children) alcohol is driving? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (7 children) Exactly! I meant that plenty of people drink reasonable amounts alcohol all the time with no apparent issues. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [โ] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 5 points 2 months ago (6 children) It means that any amount of alcohol increases the odds of you dying sooner or having other negative health effects sooner (which will lead to you dying sooner). There is no amount that won't increase those odds. It says nothing about how much any given drink would impact your life span. I'm not saying it's negligible or significant, but I can't be bothered to look it up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (5 children) Come on, you have to say it's positively correlated rather than causative that's the whole point of the thread. This isn't a hill I want to die on, but I don't think it's a meaningful claim without a bit more nuance. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [โ] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 2 points 2 months ago (3 children) Well, the WHO puts it in the same category as tobacco. Is tobacco just strongly correlated to cancer? And I don't need to say it is causative, because The Lancet did. You can stack that data up against your anecdotes however you like. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [โ] myyass@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago I wonder if this is something that changed over time. As in preservatives and all sorts of chemicals being added to tobacco or alcohol. For example, I can smoke Japanese cigarettes without a problem. I've smoked Vietnam era MRE cigarettes, Old Ukrainian unfiltered cigarettes. But I can't smoke US made ones since around 2007, they make me sick and taste like ash. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child) Did you read that paper? I don't believe it supports your argument. The mechanism by which smoking causes e.g. lung cancer and the significant rate at which it does so is well understood. I'm not convinced the same can currently be said of alcohol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [โ] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 1 point 2 months ago permalink fedilink source parent [โ] exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago No, it's causal. We know the mechanisms by which alcohol causes negative health effects, to basically all the systems in the body. It's not a particularly strong effect for the occasional drinker, but the degree of confidence we have in the correlation is very strong, and we have an underlying model of the biological mechanisms that cause poor health outcomes. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago Yeah but these (usually flawed) studies that have wormed their way into the public consciousness were done long before gen z was drinking age. From up-to-date information it's pretty clear that any amount of any kind of alcohol is quite bad for you. Obviously increasing with quantity. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] tmyakal@infosec.pub 59 points 2 months ago (15 children) OP is referring to the j-curve historically seen in studies about drinking. Because researchers didn't control for people who stopped drinking after years of abuse or people who couldn't drink because of other health issues, it looked like having 0 drinks per day led to worse health outcomes than 1-2 drinks per day. Because of that, many health organizations spent decades telling people that 1-2 drinks per day was better for you than 0 drinks per day. Someone finally controlled for those variables a few years ago, and the j-curve vanished. Most health organizations now say they're is no amount of alcohol that is safe to consume. So it's got nothing to do with Gen Z drinking habit specifically, and the science has been corrected since. But a lot of people still internalized and parrot the "1-2 drinks is healthy" thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago (14 children) No amount of alcohol is safe? Is that like saying no amount of driving is safe? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [โ] Dave@lemmy.nz 9 points 2 months ago (3 children) Sure. Any driving you do increases your risk of death. But it's likely you need to drive for other reasons that reduce your risk of death (like buying food). Drinking is different because no one needs to drink. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago (2 children) Haha, ymmv but I find driving to be unnecessary permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] Dave@lemmy.nz 5 points 2 months ago (1 child) Yes but this depends significantly on where you live. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago For sure, I'm very lucky to live where I do. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago Yep. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] Viceversa@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (8 children) alcohol is driving? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (7 children) Exactly! I meant that plenty of people drink reasonable amounts alcohol all the time with no apparent issues. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [โ] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 5 points 2 months ago (6 children) It means that any amount of alcohol increases the odds of you dying sooner or having other negative health effects sooner (which will lead to you dying sooner). There is no amount that won't increase those odds. It says nothing about how much any given drink would impact your life span. I'm not saying it's negligible or significant, but I can't be bothered to look it up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (5 children) Come on, you have to say it's positively correlated rather than causative that's the whole point of the thread. This isn't a hill I want to die on, but I don't think it's a meaningful claim without a bit more nuance. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [โ] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 2 points 2 months ago (3 children) Well, the WHO puts it in the same category as tobacco. Is tobacco just strongly correlated to cancer? And I don't need to say it is causative, because The Lancet did. You can stack that data up against your anecdotes however you like. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [โ] myyass@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago I wonder if this is something that changed over time. As in preservatives and all sorts of chemicals being added to tobacco or alcohol. For example, I can smoke Japanese cigarettes without a problem. I've smoked Vietnam era MRE cigarettes, Old Ukrainian unfiltered cigarettes. But I can't smoke US made ones since around 2007, they make me sick and taste like ash. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child) Did you read that paper? I don't believe it supports your argument. The mechanism by which smoking causes e.g. lung cancer and the significant rate at which it does so is well understood. I'm not convinced the same can currently be said of alcohol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [โ] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 1 point 2 months ago permalink fedilink source parent [โ] exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago No, it's causal. We know the mechanisms by which alcohol causes negative health effects, to basically all the systems in the body. It's not a particularly strong effect for the occasional drinker, but the degree of confidence we have in the correlation is very strong, and we have an underlying model of the biological mechanisms that cause poor health outcomes. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago (14 children) No amount of alcohol is safe? Is that like saying no amount of driving is safe? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [โ] Dave@lemmy.nz 9 points 2 months ago (3 children) Sure. Any driving you do increases your risk of death. But it's likely you need to drive for other reasons that reduce your risk of death (like buying food). Drinking is different because no one needs to drink. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago (2 children) Haha, ymmv but I find driving to be unnecessary permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] Dave@lemmy.nz 5 points 2 months ago (1 child) Yes but this depends significantly on where you live. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago For sure, I'm very lucky to live where I do. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago Yep. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] Viceversa@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (8 children) alcohol is driving? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (7 children) Exactly! I meant that plenty of people drink reasonable amounts alcohol all the time with no apparent issues. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [โ] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 5 points 2 months ago (6 children) It means that any amount of alcohol increases the odds of you dying sooner or having other negative health effects sooner (which will lead to you dying sooner). There is no amount that won't increase those odds. It says nothing about how much any given drink would impact your life span. I'm not saying it's negligible or significant, but I can't be bothered to look it up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (5 children) Come on, you have to say it's positively correlated rather than causative that's the whole point of the thread. This isn't a hill I want to die on, but I don't think it's a meaningful claim without a bit more nuance. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [โ] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 2 points 2 months ago (3 children) Well, the WHO puts it in the same category as tobacco. Is tobacco just strongly correlated to cancer? And I don't need to say it is causative, because The Lancet did. You can stack that data up against your anecdotes however you like. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [โ] myyass@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago I wonder if this is something that changed over time. As in preservatives and all sorts of chemicals being added to tobacco or alcohol. For example, I can smoke Japanese cigarettes without a problem. I've smoked Vietnam era MRE cigarettes, Old Ukrainian unfiltered cigarettes. But I can't smoke US made ones since around 2007, they make me sick and taste like ash. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child) Did you read that paper? I don't believe it supports your argument. The mechanism by which smoking causes e.g. lung cancer and the significant rate at which it does so is well understood. I'm not convinced the same can currently be said of alcohol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [โ] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 1 point 2 months ago permalink fedilink source parent [โ] exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago No, it's causal. We know the mechanisms by which alcohol causes negative health effects, to basically all the systems in the body. It's not a particularly strong effect for the occasional drinker, but the degree of confidence we have in the correlation is very strong, and we have an underlying model of the biological mechanisms that cause poor health outcomes. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] Dave@lemmy.nz 9 points 2 months ago (3 children) Sure. Any driving you do increases your risk of death. But it's likely you need to drive for other reasons that reduce your risk of death (like buying food). Drinking is different because no one needs to drink. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago (2 children) Haha, ymmv but I find driving to be unnecessary permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] Dave@lemmy.nz 5 points 2 months ago (1 child) Yes but this depends significantly on where you live. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago For sure, I'm very lucky to live where I do. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago (2 children) Haha, ymmv but I find driving to be unnecessary permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] Dave@lemmy.nz 5 points 2 months ago (1 child) Yes but this depends significantly on where you live. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago For sure, I'm very lucky to live where I do. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] Dave@lemmy.nz 5 points 2 months ago (1 child) Yes but this depends significantly on where you live. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago For sure, I'm very lucky to live where I do. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago For sure, I'm very lucky to live where I do. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] Viceversa@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (8 children) alcohol is driving? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (7 children) Exactly! I meant that plenty of people drink reasonable amounts alcohol all the time with no apparent issues. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [โ] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 5 points 2 months ago (6 children) It means that any amount of alcohol increases the odds of you dying sooner or having other negative health effects sooner (which will lead to you dying sooner). There is no amount that won't increase those odds. It says nothing about how much any given drink would impact your life span. I'm not saying it's negligible or significant, but I can't be bothered to look it up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (5 children) Come on, you have to say it's positively correlated rather than causative that's the whole point of the thread. This isn't a hill I want to die on, but I don't think it's a meaningful claim without a bit more nuance. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [โ] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 2 points 2 months ago (3 children) Well, the WHO puts it in the same category as tobacco. Is tobacco just strongly correlated to cancer? And I don't need to say it is causative, because The Lancet did. You can stack that data up against your anecdotes however you like. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [โ] myyass@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago I wonder if this is something that changed over time. As in preservatives and all sorts of chemicals being added to tobacco or alcohol. For example, I can smoke Japanese cigarettes without a problem. I've smoked Vietnam era MRE cigarettes, Old Ukrainian unfiltered cigarettes. But I can't smoke US made ones since around 2007, they make me sick and taste like ash. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child) Did you read that paper? I don't believe it supports your argument. The mechanism by which smoking causes e.g. lung cancer and the significant rate at which it does so is well understood. I'm not convinced the same can currently be said of alcohol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [โ] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 1 point 2 months ago permalink fedilink source parent [โ] exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago No, it's causal. We know the mechanisms by which alcohol causes negative health effects, to basically all the systems in the body. It's not a particularly strong effect for the occasional drinker, but the degree of confidence we have in the correlation is very strong, and we have an underlying model of the biological mechanisms that cause poor health outcomes. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (7 children) Exactly! I meant that plenty of people drink reasonable amounts alcohol all the time with no apparent issues. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [โ] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 5 points 2 months ago (6 children) It means that any amount of alcohol increases the odds of you dying sooner or having other negative health effects sooner (which will lead to you dying sooner). There is no amount that won't increase those odds. It says nothing about how much any given drink would impact your life span. I'm not saying it's negligible or significant, but I can't be bothered to look it up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (5 children) Come on, you have to say it's positively correlated rather than causative that's the whole point of the thread. This isn't a hill I want to die on, but I don't think it's a meaningful claim without a bit more nuance. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [โ] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 2 points 2 months ago (3 children) Well, the WHO puts it in the same category as tobacco. Is tobacco just strongly correlated to cancer? And I don't need to say it is causative, because The Lancet did. You can stack that data up against your anecdotes however you like. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [โ] myyass@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago I wonder if this is something that changed over time. As in preservatives and all sorts of chemicals being added to tobacco or alcohol. For example, I can smoke Japanese cigarettes without a problem. I've smoked Vietnam era MRE cigarettes, Old Ukrainian unfiltered cigarettes. But I can't smoke US made ones since around 2007, they make me sick and taste like ash. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child) Did you read that paper? I don't believe it supports your argument. The mechanism by which smoking causes e.g. lung cancer and the significant rate at which it does so is well understood. I'm not convinced the same can currently be said of alcohol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [โ] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 1 point 2 months ago permalink fedilink source parent [โ] exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago No, it's causal. We know the mechanisms by which alcohol causes negative health effects, to basically all the systems in the body. It's not a particularly strong effect for the occasional drinker, but the degree of confidence we have in the correlation is very strong, and we have an underlying model of the biological mechanisms that cause poor health outcomes. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 5 points 2 months ago (6 children) It means that any amount of alcohol increases the odds of you dying sooner or having other negative health effects sooner (which will lead to you dying sooner). There is no amount that won't increase those odds. It says nothing about how much any given drink would impact your life span. I'm not saying it's negligible or significant, but I can't be bothered to look it up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (5 children) Come on, you have to say it's positively correlated rather than causative that's the whole point of the thread. This isn't a hill I want to die on, but I don't think it's a meaningful claim without a bit more nuance. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [โ] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 2 points 2 months ago (3 children) Well, the WHO puts it in the same category as tobacco. Is tobacco just strongly correlated to cancer? And I don't need to say it is causative, because The Lancet did. You can stack that data up against your anecdotes however you like. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [โ] myyass@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago I wonder if this is something that changed over time. As in preservatives and all sorts of chemicals being added to tobacco or alcohol. For example, I can smoke Japanese cigarettes without a problem. I've smoked Vietnam era MRE cigarettes, Old Ukrainian unfiltered cigarettes. But I can't smoke US made ones since around 2007, they make me sick and taste like ash. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child) Did you read that paper? I don't believe it supports your argument. The mechanism by which smoking causes e.g. lung cancer and the significant rate at which it does so is well understood. I'm not convinced the same can currently be said of alcohol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [โ] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 1 point 2 months ago permalink fedilink source parent [โ] exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago No, it's causal. We know the mechanisms by which alcohol causes negative health effects, to basically all the systems in the body. It's not a particularly strong effect for the occasional drinker, but the degree of confidence we have in the correlation is very strong, and we have an underlying model of the biological mechanisms that cause poor health outcomes. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (5 children) Come on, you have to say it's positively correlated rather than causative that's the whole point of the thread. This isn't a hill I want to die on, but I don't think it's a meaningful claim without a bit more nuance. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [โ] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 2 points 2 months ago (3 children) Well, the WHO puts it in the same category as tobacco. Is tobacco just strongly correlated to cancer? And I don't need to say it is causative, because The Lancet did. You can stack that data up against your anecdotes however you like. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [โ] myyass@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago I wonder if this is something that changed over time. As in preservatives and all sorts of chemicals being added to tobacco or alcohol. For example, I can smoke Japanese cigarettes without a problem. I've smoked Vietnam era MRE cigarettes, Old Ukrainian unfiltered cigarettes. But I can't smoke US made ones since around 2007, they make me sick and taste like ash. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child) Did you read that paper? I don't believe it supports your argument. The mechanism by which smoking causes e.g. lung cancer and the significant rate at which it does so is well understood. I'm not convinced the same can currently be said of alcohol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [โ] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 1 point 2 months ago permalink fedilink source parent [โ] exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago No, it's causal. We know the mechanisms by which alcohol causes negative health effects, to basically all the systems in the body. It's not a particularly strong effect for the occasional drinker, but the degree of confidence we have in the correlation is very strong, and we have an underlying model of the biological mechanisms that cause poor health outcomes. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 2 points 2 months ago (3 children) Well, the WHO puts it in the same category as tobacco. Is tobacco just strongly correlated to cancer? And I don't need to say it is causative, because The Lancet did. You can stack that data up against your anecdotes however you like. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [โ] myyass@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago I wonder if this is something that changed over time. As in preservatives and all sorts of chemicals being added to tobacco or alcohol. For example, I can smoke Japanese cigarettes without a problem. I've smoked Vietnam era MRE cigarettes, Old Ukrainian unfiltered cigarettes. But I can't smoke US made ones since around 2007, they make me sick and taste like ash. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child) Did you read that paper? I don't believe it supports your argument. The mechanism by which smoking causes e.g. lung cancer and the significant rate at which it does so is well understood. I'm not convinced the same can currently be said of alcohol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [โ] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 1 point 2 months ago permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] myyass@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago I wonder if this is something that changed over time. As in preservatives and all sorts of chemicals being added to tobacco or alcohol. For example, I can smoke Japanese cigarettes without a problem. I've smoked Vietnam era MRE cigarettes, Old Ukrainian unfiltered cigarettes. But I can't smoke US made ones since around 2007, they make me sick and taste like ash. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] jdr@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child) Did you read that paper? I don't believe it supports your argument. The mechanism by which smoking causes e.g. lung cancer and the significant rate at which it does so is well understood. I'm not convinced the same can currently be said of alcohol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [โ] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 1 point 2 months ago permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago No, it's causal. We know the mechanisms by which alcohol causes negative health effects, to basically all the systems in the body. It's not a particularly strong effect for the occasional drinker, but the degree of confidence we have in the correlation is very strong, and we have an underlying model of the biological mechanisms that cause poor health outcomes. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago Yeah but these (usually flawed) studies that have wormed their way into the public consciousness were done long before gen z was drinking age. From up-to-date information it's pretty clear that any amount of any kind of alcohol is quite bad for you. Obviously increasing with quantity. permalink fedilink source parent