Boozing definitely isn't safe if your pints are the colour shown in that photo
Boozing is unsafe at ‘any level’, thunders chief UK.gov quack
The government’s chief advisor on health ignored more than 80 studies to produce her new Puritanical guidelines on booze – which asks Britons to forego their Friday drink. Civil servant Dame Sally Davies has drawn up the lowest recommendations in the West: there is no “safe drinking level”, her team declared. The question is …
COMMENTS
-
-
-
Friday 8th January 2016 22:50 GMT Anonymous Coward
"Can't for the life of me remember what it was called "
Green Dragon - Pint glass. 1" orange juice, 1 shotish of Blue Curaceu (hic), two to four shots of gin and/or vodka to taste and fill up with "snake bite" (50/50 lager/cider). To add a bit more interest, use barley wine and scrumpy for the Snake Bite component. This beast tastes a lot nicer than it sounds and should have a clean crisp flavour. Bloody lethal though.
However a Green Dragon is not transparent and more grass green.
-
Friday 8th January 2016 23:29 GMT a cynic writes...
Bloody hell...The gin and the orange juice were a new one on me. The version I used to drink 20-odd years ago was just a snake bite and Blue Curacao.
One abiding memory is when I introduced a mate to them. A few hours later he was praying at the porcelain alter and I heard the plaintive wail "...you fucking bastard - IT'S GREEN" .
-
Monday 11th January 2016 08:45 GMT I ain't Spartacus
Oh god! The memories! My friend drank 9 bottles of Orange Hooch. I guess the Yanks had to do something with their left over Agent Orange, when the Cold War ended.
I've never seen fizzy, Sunny Delight coloured vomit before.
His plaintive cry, while praying to the porcelain, was "mummy". He wasn't allowed to forget this fact. He didn't drink it again.
That shit can shorten your life.
-
-
-
Monday 11th January 2016 09:19 GMT Vic
I have had a pint that came out around that hue - and was supposed to. Can't for the life of me remember what it was called
Stonehenge do a beer called "Sign of Spring", which is green. I've not tasted it.
There was another one a few years ago; I've forgotten the name. It wasn't up to much...
Vic.
-
-
-
Friday 8th January 2016 18:09 GMT Anonymous Coward
Billy Connolly used to tell a joke about this.
Two Glaswegians find themselves in Rome, and ask for two pints of "heavy" in a bar. The barman says he's never heard of that, so they ask him what the Pope drinks.
The barman says "I believe the Pope drinks crème-de-menthe".
"Ok", say the Glaswegians, "we'll have two pints of that then".
After downing their green pints and standing up to leave the bar, one Glaswegian turns to the other and says "Christ, no wonder they carry him around in a chair".
-
-
Monday 11th January 2016 09:12 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: colors
I was on a skiing holiday in Breckenridge, Colorado in 1993 over St Patrick's Day. Not only do they put green food dye in the beer (improves the flavour was one comment, and that was from an Australian!), but they also had a town "Beer Race".
The course consisted of a few miles interspersed by nominated bars in which the competitor had to down a medium sized (green) beer. In earlier years it had been a gentle stroll but as with everything USA, it had turned into a hard competition.
Breckenridge was a lovely old mining town especially covered in fresh clean snow. It wasn't improved with hundreds of dollops of green foaming ejecta from competitors lightening the load.
-
-
-
-
Friday 8th January 2016 16:26 GMT Dr Who
Thank God
For El Reg!
There I was feeling like a pariah and thanks to you, the Registrati, I feel normal again. Let's face it, most of us have sailed past the new weekly limit before breakfast on a Monday. By the end of a boozy Sunday lunch sitting in front of the snooker with a couple of cold ones I should, it appears, be dead. Instead, as the white ball clacks softly into the black, I find myself blissfully at one with the world and all creatures that inhabit it.
-
Monday 11th January 2016 12:18 GMT Just Enough
Re: Thank God
If you've "sailed past" 14 units before Monday morning, then you are not "normal". You have a problem. And no, "most of us" do not spend Sunday downing more than the equivalent of seven pints of lager. If you seriously believe that then you're seriously deluded.
The amount of bullshit macho posturing that goes on about alcohol consumption is pathetic. The fact you drink alcohol doesn't, in itself, make you a better person. It doesn't make you more of a loveable bloke, it doesn't make you more normal, it certainly doesn't make you more witty (there's nothing more boring than a drunk who thinks he's hilarious) and it isn't something worth crowing about. It just means you like a drink. You may as well brag about your potato crisp consumption.
I'm not a teetotaller, but I understand that, like everything, moderation is the key. And I don't feel the need to strut about proclaiming "See me, I drink lots me! Cos I'm such a damn fine bloke. And so does everyone else!"
As for these guidelines; if you don't like them then ignore them. No one is forcing you to do anything. They're mainly for the kind of idiots who don't accept responsibility for their own lives and, once they end up in hospital getting their stomach pumped, wail "This isn't my fault! Why did nobody tell me!"
-
-
Friday 8th January 2016 16:27 GMT Zog_but_not_the_first
I predict...
Many comments. I could dive in and add my two-pennyworth but I'm still looking through the report and I'm certainly not relying on the newspaper "summaries". Most interesting observation to date - the report is one covering general health issues, including the important topic on the prospects for funding future care for an ageing population. Of course, everyone's talking about the booze.
This will have to do for a Sir Humphrey icon.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Friday 8th January 2016 16:54 GMT BenDwire
According to the Beeb: ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35255384 )
"The 14-unit limit has been chosen because at that point, your drinking leads to a 1% risk of dying from alcohol-related causes.
This has been deemed to be an acceptable level of risk as it is approximately the same risk that someone has when they do an every day task such as driving a car."
and,
"Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter, an expert in understanding risk from the University of Cambridge, said it was important to put the 1% risk in context. He said an hour of TV watching or a bacon sandwich a couple of time a week was more dangerous."
So, not only can't we get bladdered any more, we can't sober up with a bacon sarnie whilst watching telly.
Please. Won't someone think of the children?
-
-
Friday 8th January 2016 22:13 GMT R Callan
Re: Aiee!
It's worse than you think. As far back as I can detect, all of my deceased relatives, with the exception of a great uncle who snuggled up to an exploding shell in 1915, have died in bed! Perhaps beds (and acceptable substitutes like chairs or floors) should be banned as being far far far too dangerous.
-
-
-
Saturday 9th January 2016 00:12 GMT Mark 85
Well.. we need to stop smoking (and vaping), no more bacon, no more pastrami (or any beef), no more alcohol. Even veggies are unsafe.. organics for the e-coli, etc that happens frequently here in the States and non-organic because of pesticides, etc.
There's nothing left then to live for... except work and paying taxes. I wonder if that's the plan....
-
-
Friday 8th January 2016 16:28 GMT ZSn
Outrage
It's funny that whenever alcohol guidelines of whatever stripe come out that indicate that *you* dear reader are drinking too much there is much outrage.
I drink one or two pints per year. It doesn't make me more virtuous that you, far from it, all it allows me to do is get very bored at the antics in pubs, and the streets after 11pm, and any Friday/Saturday night in town. The problem is that a lot of people have a very destructive attitude to alcohol whatever the drinking recommendations.
-
Friday 8th January 2016 18:58 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Outrage
I drink one or two pints per year. It doesn't make me more virtuous that you, far from it, all it allows me to do is get very bored at the antics in pubs, and the streets after 11pm, and any Friday/Saturday night in town. The problem is that a lot of people have a very destructive attitude to alcohol whatever the drinking recommendations.
I had the opposite problem back in University - used to drink a pint or two of vodka every Friday/Saturday night, and turns out it had a very destructive attitude to my liver. All mended now, though.
-
Friday 8th January 2016 22:13 GMT ZSn
Re: Outrage
Same here - at university I once or twice had a go at a pint of the optics (essentially a pint of neat spirits). A one hour walk home from the bar took all of 30 seconds from what I could remember of it. One student I was at a conference with fell out of the window above mine while drunk and spent a few weeks in intensive care. I remember the craving to have a pint at lunch time - hence I don't drink.
-
-
Monday 11th January 2016 09:24 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Outrage
You raise an interesting point.
I mean, I also drink maybe a couple of times in a year.
But I'm actually with my slightly-tipsy brethren in that I'm aggrieved a department for health is actually ignoring science in an attempt to push a puritanical agenda. Alcohol is clearly a problem for much of the UK, but problems aren't solved by lying about the science behind them.
-
Monday 11th January 2016 09:29 GMT John Brown (no body)
Re: Outrage
"It's funny that whenever alcohol guidelines of whatever stripe come out that indicate that *you* dear reader are drinking too much there is much outrage.
I drink one or two pints per year. It doesn't make me more virtuous that you, far from it, all it allows me to do is get very bored at the antics in pubs, and the streets after 11pm, and any Friday/Saturday night in town. The problem is that a lot of people have a very destructive attitude to alcohol whatever the drinking recommendations."
You are conflating what even the 1960's report said was moderate and safe with very heavy binge drinkers who are almost certainly well above any safe level.
-
-
Friday 8th January 2016 16:28 GMT chivo243
Gov't and Non-Science
In my best Church Lady voice:
"How Convenient!"
You can pry my mug out of my hand when either: It's empty(and you mean to refill it), or I'm on the nod.
I wonder if this Dame believes in Little Green Men, Bigfoot, Lochness Monster etc... sound like she'll believe anything, maybe Santa didn't bring her any booze this year?
Speaking of which, there is cold one calling me now ;-}
-
-
Friday 8th January 2016 16:51 GMT Oldfogey
Re: It all about Tax you fools
That will have no effect on me - I make my own.
And no, they can't stop or tax it when the ingedients are available from most hedgerows and supermarkets in the country.
In Norway, home distillation is all the rage, and they are well equiped for simple freeze distillation.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
-
Friday 8th January 2016 16:29 GMT Anonymous Coward
Cherry Picking Works All Ways
Isn't the supposed protective effect of alcohol similarly cherry-picked in the first place? Given the exceptional difficulty in isolating alcohol from a host of other factors that might come along with being someone who drinks a unit of alcohol every couple of days - off the top of my head without extending a lot of thought this could suggest a person who has discipline and restraint whilst enjoying themselves which might extend to similar practice with their diet and exercise.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Friday 8th January 2016 18:09 GMT fishman
Re: Cherry Picking Works All Ways
"Ironically, the substance in red wine that is supposed to be beneficial to your health, is also abundant in soy sauce. But most people don't chose to consume soy sauce instead of wine just for the health benefits..."
People don't consume glasses of soy sauce, either.
-
Friday 8th January 2016 18:58 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Cherry Picking Works All Ways
Ironically, the substance in red wine that is supposed to be beneficial to your health, is also abundant in soy sauce. But most people don't chose to consume soy sauce instead of wine just for the health benefits...
Then why do people drink glasses of soy sauce? Surely all that salt can't be good for them?
-
-
Friday 8th January 2016 19:18 GMT Phil O'Sophical
Re: Cherry Picking Works All Ways
Isn't the supposed protective effect of alcohol similarly cherry-picked in the first place?
Something I read over Christmas suggested that the real reason moderate drinking is healthy is that we do it with friends, and it's socializing with friends that is healthy. It's the sad teetotallers & lone boozers who have health problems.
Sounds believeable (enough) to me. Sláinte!
-
-
-
-
Friday 8th January 2016 18:58 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Calling Ben Goldacre
Just don't get it mixed up with the washing up water if someone's been generous with the Fairy Liquid...
And I'm not even going to ask what colour it comes out if it goes in bright green in sufficient quantities...
So the "fairy" in [Green] Fairy Liquid is, of course, Absinthe.
That's a reason you SHOULD drink it.
-
-
-
Friday 8th January 2016 18:09 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Calling Ben Goldacre
Get used to it. Most 'bouncers' in the US seemd to think that anything but an in-state Driving license is forged.
I was 'carded' at a WallMart last June. "ID Please".
I showed my UK Passport. No sale of booze. I'm 62 with grey hair. Got threatened with 'Leave the store immediately SIR or I'll call the Police'.
A JOBSWORTH situation probably but just don't ever, ever try to fight these sort of rules in the USA. That is a one was ticket (do not pass go) to Jail.
-
Saturday 9th January 2016 01:33 GMT el_oscuro
Re: Calling Ben Goldacre
I got carded on my 40th birthday, local state license and all. Dude was real serious too. Even funnier was a few years later was when the guy at the firework store carded me too. You only have to be 18 to buy those and I damn sure didn't look like an 18 year old. The other lady who worked at the store was laughing her ass off.
Another time I was in 7-11 and the guy in front of me was buying beer. He looked kind of young, less than 25, and the lady carded him. He then announced that he was a cop and it was a spot check, and thanked the lady for carding him.
-
Monday 11th January 2016 08:47 GMT swampdog
Re: Calling Ben Goldacre
This is why we should be communists. Except possibly for the tainted vodka. I'm also not too fond of vodka. Too many stories about blindness from crappy communist vodka.
Then you get capitalism where you're not allowed in.
Fuck it. Communist blind StarTrek "wodka".
Scrumpy.. hmm.
-
-
-
Monday 11th January 2016 09:16 GMT Chika
Re: There is no safe level…
Many a true word is spoken in jest!
The fact is that drinking only increases the chances. It doesn't actually cause anything by itself. Nothing is completely safe; life is full of risks and hazards and it's how you deal with them that makes the difference!
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm constructing a cancer butty which I shall wash down with a nice cool pint of cancer. ;)
-
Friday 8th January 2016 16:52 GMT Paul Johnston
The Great Thing About the Internet
You can always find something in a blog which agrees with what you want to hear.
Give me the raw data and I'll work it out for myself.
Just saying it said in the 1960s they said a bottle of wine a day is obviously the way to go. Suppose you can find articles from then saying smoking is not a danger to anyone and you don't need to worry about asbestos.
I'm sticking to beer!
-
Friday 8th January 2016 18:02 GMT Amorous Cowherder
Bollocks! If I fancy a beer, I shall bloody well have a beer! If I fancy a few shots of something nasty, I shall have a few shots of some vile coloured liquid.
I'm a middle aged adult, I know that when my head starts to get a little fuzzy it's time to hit the lemonade for a round or two until it subsides. When I was a youngster I enjoyed the novelty of the fuzziness and even pushed things a little further because at that age I had no experience of what real life was like, I thought I was immortal. Now I have grown older I know I am not and thus my common sense comes to bear with anything dangerous, be it a knife, a power tool or a pint of chemicals that will pickle my innards!
Take your nanny state and stick it up your arse! I'm a human being and I want to feel emotion and pain in my otherwise humdrum and quite dull 9-5 life, just to remind me that I am a real, living, breathing, thinking person with needs and wants. The gimp mask, 'cos pain is close to pleasure and a good playful beating from the Missus let's me know we're both very much alive and kicking!!
-
Monday 11th January 2016 09:29 GMT AdamWill
er, what nanny state?
"Bollocks! If I fancy a beer, I shall bloody well have a beer!"
Well yes, yes you will. It's a free country. That's why the government health body issues *guidelines* and *recommendations*, not orders. So I'm not sure exactly what brave stand you think you're taking because everyone would be perfectly happy to acknowledge that yes, you have the right to drink however the hell much beer you like.
-
Friday 8th January 2016 18:02 GMT 45RPM
Consider for a moment, if you will, the danger to the economy of this quackery. Consider also the damage caused by ‘Dry January’ (and every other dry month - there are a worrying number).
I’m not saying that everyone should drink - some people might have very good reasons for abstaining (not least that they don’t like booze very much). I’m not saying that some people shouldn’t cut back a little (but, on the basis of this report, it seems to me that some people could do with upping their intake rather a lot). I am saying that, provided what I do affects only me, the government should butt the fuck out and leave me to get on with it. I’d hate for pubs to have to shut because of all this foolishness.
Join with me in a New Year Resolution - make 2016 the ‘Support the Publican’ year. Don’t drink at home. Don’t abstain (well, unless you’re teetotal - in which case, carry on). Go down to your local boozer at every opportunity and sink a couple. Your stress levels will go down - and your enjoyment of life will improve immeasurably - even as its duration shrinks infinitesimally.
chin chin!
-
-
-
Monday 11th January 2016 09:16 GMT harmjschoonhoven
Re: There is no “safe drinking level”
Umber reports the casus of a suicidal nurse who injected herself with with 27 grams of mercury, resulting in a small mercury lake in her right heart chamber. She lived many years thereafter and died of an unrelated cause.
Sven Moeschlin, Klinik und Therapie der Vergiftungen, page 99.
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Friday 8th January 2016 18:02 GMT Anonymous Coward
What's it supposed to achieve?
"As Snowden shrewdly observes, the alcohol guidelines aren’t written for the public, which will simply ignore them..."
Indeed, the public will ignore them, but I can't really buy the idea that it's just to achieve faux moral one-upmanship at bureaucratic and diplomatic junkets either.
As the article points out, this advice/recommendation runs counter to all of the evidence thus far gained and as such is a contradiction of reality.
The most worrying aspect of this announcement is not that drinking is dangerous at any level but that the government's chief medical advisor thinks it's a good idea to make this announcement, in contradiction of reality, according to all the available evidence, and will achieve some objective by doing so.
Given that the announcement is targeted at the public, and in a pretty high-profile way, as it's in all of the national media, I can't accept that the objective is simply bragging rights at junkets.
I suspect that the real purpose of this announcement is to justify a big rise in booze prices, via a reduction in quantity for the same price, along the same lines as we've seen with recommendations to reduce sugar content and the size of food servings for health reasons, but with no corresponding price cut. Now these measures may deter those who do over-consume, but I doubt it; those who do over-consume already know they are doing so, and will continue to do so, as long as they can afford to. No, I think it's really for everyone else, who doesn't over-consume, and will just have to pay more to get the same (reasonable) amount.
-
Friday 8th January 2016 18:02 GMT Keith 21
Hands up who didn't see this coming?
It's been obvious that this was coming ever since they banned smoking in public places, slapped huge duties on it, and cast smokers in the role of pariahs.
I remember at the time, when several non-smoking drinkers were smugly celebrating their victories over smokers, saying that drink would be the next target. Sadly, it seems to be coming to pass.
So, watch for increasing propaganda against drinking, leading to massive hikes in alcohol taxes "For the good of the public health".
Then once they have achieved that for alcohol, it'll be on to the next item on their agenda, namely sugar (I note they have already started on that).
"First they came for the smokers, but I didn't speak out because I am not a smoker..." to coin a quote.
-
Friday 8th January 2016 21:33 GMT Swiss Anton
Re: Hands up who didn't see this coming?
The state can try to stop us drinking by quadrupling (or more) the tax on booze. However unlike tobacco, its easy enough to make your own beer/wine/spirits. True, most homebrew is horrible, but its amazing how, after just a few glasses, you kind of stop noticing how bad it is.
-
Monday 11th January 2016 09:20 GMT allthecoolshortnamesweretaken
Re: Hands up who didn't see this coming?
"...unlike tobacco, its easy enough to make your own beer/wine/spirits..."
Tobacco is a plant. You can grow it in your garden or in a box on the windowsill or indoors. (If you live in northern Scandinavia or similar, you'd need some sort f greenhouse anyway.) Even the bit after the harvest isn't that complicated and about on par with makein wine or beer, distilling is a bit more tricky. Source: my grandparents did this for a while, way back when.
-
-
Saturday 9th January 2016 00:31 GMT JEDIDIAH
Re: Hands up who didn't see this coming?
...except smoke in general is a poison that will kill you and one that people usually avoid.
2nd hand smoke also contains nasty industrial pollutants that may not harm the smoker but can and do harm the people around him.
Booze only pickles the person actually drinking. The fact that my cancer (likely caused by 2nd hand smoke) has left my liver in a condition that forces me to be sober does not put me at any risk from the guy guzzling booze next to me.
Entirely different situation.
...now even Russian males don't think it's cool to subject people to 2nd hand smoke and they're like the biggest jack*sses on the planet.
-
Monday 11th January 2016 09:16 GMT TheProf
Re: Hands up who didn't see this coming?
" a condition that forces me to be sober does not put me at any risk from the guy guzzling booze next to me."
As long as he:
isn't driving his car in your direction.
doesn't take exception to your face.
doesn't gesture wildly at you with his glass,.
doesn't puke/piss on you.
Jeez, just being in a pub is dangerous.
-
Tuesday 12th January 2016 12:17 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Hands up who didn't see this coming?
Quite a lot of people suffer ill-health due to the second-hand damage caused by drinking.
Partners, kids, random folk in the street, people on the roads...
I'm not anti-either; I just find the moral argument that smoking is deadly 2nd hand, but drinking is not, a touch disingenuous.
-
-
Monday 11th January 2016 08:47 GMT Chika
Re: Hands up who didn't see this coming?
Very true.
It's almost like somebody just looked around a pub, made a list then gave it to some oik to produce "recommendations" on.
Just wait. Sooner or later there will be a report on the negative health aspects of chicken in a basket, crisps, pork scratchings, dominoes and darts!
Sometimes I wonder if it's just a case of the idiots behind these reports are either afraid to have fun or just want to live forever!
-
Monday 11th January 2016 09:12 GMT swampdog
Re: Hands up who didn't see this coming?
My mother lives next door to a nurse. Middle of nowhere. Nurse has been increasingly rabid about my mother smoking to the point they've fallen out. Nurse has had two sprogs. Nurse was slim. Now nurse is a fat bloater. Nurse used to smoke.
Last time my elderly mother had an incident, I had to drive 80 miles because "NHS retained" flat bloater two sprog "I'm working" "child credit" woman has decided my mother's bird table is causing rats in her garden.
Nurse needs counseling. Not going to happen. Tax dollars at work folks.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Friday 8th January 2016 18:07 GMT Destroy All Monsters
"Wowsers" These people are called "Wowsers"
Learn something new every day thanks to Jimbo's Fortean Grabbag of Deep Knowledge
-
Friday 8th January 2016 23:15 GMT David 132
Re: "Wowsers" These people are called "Wowsers"
@DAM: Excellent. Thank you for expanding my vocabulary. Filed under "I never knew that!"
I was almost as confused as Rincewind about the word:
...'Oh, you don't wanna go to Bugarup,' said Remorse. 'Nothing in Bugarup but a bunch of wowsers and pooftahs.'
' 's okay, I like parrots,' mumbled Rincewind, who was just hoping that they would let him go so that he could hold on to the ground again. [The Last Continent]
-
-
Friday 8th January 2016 18:09 GMT Chuunen Baka
Confused?
14 units/week = 1% risk of alcohol related death.
From the Beeb article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35255384
"Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter, an expert in understanding risk from the University of Cambridge, said it was important to put the 1% risk in context. He said an hour of TV watching or a bacon sandwich a couple of time a week was more dangerous."
What?
-
Friday 8th January 2016 18:10 GMT Charlie Clark
Reminds me of Woody Allen
Repeated studies have shown that alcohol in moderation prolongs life: it reduces the risk of heart disease and strokes. In fact the benefits of alcohol in preventing strokes and heart disease are far clearer than the negatives of drinking.
See the film "Sleeper" talking about smoking and eating hamburgers.
I have a lot of time for Sally Hawkins and would side with her on the statement: "there is no safe level". But I think you can do this without being puritanical. Alcohol has strong physiological effects on pretty much all of our major systems and is known to be addictive and mood-changing: some of the worst damage is caused indirectly through injuries and alcohol-fuelled violence.
I also can't recall any studies that suggested that the chemical alcohol was in any way healthy. There are various benefits attributed to some of the byproducts of some of our tipples (red wine for hearts, pseudo-oestrogen for bones, etc.) but I don't think we'll ever see dispensaries of surgical alcohol.
But banning something rarely makes it go away. Health education is the key to helping people make more informed decisions. There is much in our lifestyle that increases the risk to health but as the Dutch say "geniet, maar met mate" – "all things in moderation". I'll drink to that.
-
Monday 11th January 2016 09:12 GMT swampdog
Re: Reminds me of Woody Allen
"I also can't recall any studies that suggested that the chemical alcohol was in any way healthy."
It doesn't mean there aren't any. It's almost certain you exist because of it. Alcohol produces children. Alcohol enabled the parents to stay alive long enough to produce those children. Alcohol allowed those children to survive long enough to themselves procreate.
Much though I fancy a tomato or lettuce when I've a hangover, neither of of those make my wife more fertile - (directly - snigger).
-
-
Friday 8th January 2016 18:10 GMT AnoniMouse
The dangers of "safe"
As many politicians and others have found in the past, there are huge dangers in talking about anything that is risk-related in terms of absolutes - "safe", "secure", etc.
In this case, "safe" has been defined as a less than 1% increased risk; which, as many others have pointed out, is small compared to many other risks to which we are exposed daily.
-
Friday 8th January 2016 18:58 GMT AnoniMouse
The dangers of "safe"
As many politicians and others have found in the past, there are huge dangers in talking about anything that is risk-related in terms of absolutes - "safe", "secure", etc.
In this case, "safe" has been defined as a less than 1% increased risk; which, as many others have pointed out, is small compared to many other risks to which we are exposed daily.
-
-
-
Friday 8th January 2016 19:18 GMT Anonymous Coward
Bollocks to Govs
Remember LSD was further developed by the US Government for troops on the ground (in 'Nam) to keep them going 24/7 with no sleep if I am correct (can't be arsed to google it, too drunk). Also when I was an apprentice in Pompey Dockyard 1976 ~ 1980 all the matelots got 2 free cans of beer a day and 200 fags (called blue liners) when the ship/boat was in dry dock.
Now they say it's all wrong, you STUPID foolish people. I reckon the only reason these stupid obsversations are now in place is to keep people alive longer as then you end up paying more taxes in the long run (WTF do you have to pay tax on a pension?).
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Friday 8th January 2016 20:14 GMT Darryl
No offence, but after reading this article and the one about smart meters, it just makes me glad that our (Canadian) government isn't alone in its ability to make monumentally stupid decisions and proclamations all in the name of showing how much they care, and not so much in the name of actually doing anything useful. Sometimes misery DOES love company.
-
Friday 8th January 2016 21:33 GMT Charles Manning
Just more white male guilt
Ok, we can all agree that an absolute puke-every-night consumption of alcohol is not good for you, so this report saying all alcohol is bad is really directed at shaming/guilting the once in a while/beer-o'clock drinker that are the white male storm troopers of the patriarchy.
Whte, male: whatever you do, the Nanny State will say you're wrong. Certainly if you're enjoying yourself in any way. You should be reflecting on your Original Sin because of the colour of your skin and the thing in your pants.
-
Monday 11th January 2016 09:29 GMT John Brown (no body)
Re: Just more white male guilt
As a white male full of guilt I think I'll just convert to Catholicism and attend every service available, maybe even carry out some of my own at home, Not only will I then have a protected right to drink the "blood of Christ" without fear of discrimination against my religious practices but I get to confess my guilt for absolution whenever I feel the need. Drink and happy, no guilt!
Unless, of course, dear reader, you can suggest a better religion that involves alcohol as part of the ritual but requires less actual ritual.
-
-
-
Monday 11th January 2016 09:30 GMT Rampant Spaniel
Re: Cannabis
I don't personally care one way or the other about its use, but it is not legal in the USA in general. Over 20 states have medical use exceptions that allow limited cultivation and use at home, I think a couple went further and did legalize / decriminalize it, but it's technically still illegal even there until the feds decide. Plus while it's legal in a few places you can still be fired for failing a drugs test for it and you can't drive under the influence. So basically the entire situation is fubar :) I just don't want anyone getting off a plane, sparking up and spending 20 years in the slammer :) Use is widespread but lots of people get in varying degrees of trouble for it.
Canada may allow it, but they even accept the French and put gravy on cheesy chips.
-
-
Friday 8th January 2016 22:50 GMT Tom -1
@45RPM
Sink a couple (daily) and "your life's duration will shrink infinitesimally"???
That's nonsense. Your life's duration will increase, and not infinitesimally - unless all I ever learned about statistics is utterly wrong. And if the couple is a couple of pints of 3.6% bitter and you are a 5ft 10in tall male weighing 161 lbs an extra jar (to make it 3 pints daily) would produce a further increase in life expectancy. (But if you are overweight you have to keep the alcohol down to a level where it won't make that worse, which may mean very little alcohol at all).
Senior civil servants selecting the evidence to deliver the result they want (the famous prejudice-based judgement) is not at all unusual, it appears to be far more common in those circles than evidence-based judgement, and is certainly very visible in these draft recommendations and the accompanying claptrap.
I've reached the grand old age of 71 now and decided to keep my alcohol consumption down to a reasonable level - no more than 50 units per week.That will reduce my life expectation compared to 42 units per week, but will probably be better for me than 28 units per week unless my weight starts going up. At least that's how I, as a mathematician and engineer, read the evidence.
-
Friday 8th January 2016 23:29 GMT Herby
Then there is Prohibition...
And as all can see we tried that here in the good 'ol USA, and notice how it worked out (not very).
As my mom says:
There are "Lies", "Danm lies" and "statistics".
All cam be manipulated, just ask a politician (any politician!).
On the other hand, I am surprised to see that the percentage of beer icons is not very high.
-
Monday 11th January 2016 09:20 GMT a_yank_lurker
Re: Then there is Prohibition...
@Herby - The cause was the same inane stupidity and implied moral arrogance blabbed by Doc Moron. To many of the "experts" have personal agendas they must impose on others regardless of any evidence to the contrary. It is moral incompetence and arrogant certitude that causes more problems.
The Prohibition was a disaster for the US as it made organized crime a massive problem throughout the US. The "War on Drugs" has not been much better either.
-
-
Friday 8th January 2016 23:29 GMT Anonymous Coward
(Tom -1): "unless all I ever learned about statistics is utterly wrong"
No but I think you might be lightly accused of misapplying it! It's that anecdote vs data thing. You can't really talk about Mr 45RPM's life duration with respect to his drinking as though it is a deterministic process viz: drink three pints a day and therefore you will live x time longer.
Both of us and all the other commentards on here could bore ourselves silly with "well my gran drank 40 fags a day and snorted 10 glasses of homebrewed wine a night and lived to 95" stories. Those are still anecdotes and are not statistics unless we gather enough of them, in which case they will obviously form one of the finest studies ever performed.
All we can really do with these types of statistics is make predictions across a population <slurps more wine>
-
Friday 8th January 2016 23:29 GMT phil dude
drinking, smoking and some basic biology.
Smoking is *awful*. Not just for you but for me too. There is nothing good about breathing toxic compounds.
Drinking, however, is food. It is part of any organisms method to staying alive. In fact, in the case of Homo sapiens sapiens it has been such an integral part of our evolutionary survival we have got *very* good at it. Even then there is still a great deal of diversity in tolerance*.
Drink too much, too often, you will knacker your liver. The same is true if you take small molecules that are prescribed or the ones that are sold by some bloke in the pub. Things that can effect your body are by definition powerful and dangerous - kinda obvious, no?
Most of the population have control over drink or drugs (illegal that is). For the small proportion that do not have clinical control, no amount of law, taxation or pointless politician posturing will make a noticeable difference.
It will just get the way of our being ADULTS, and prevent another intrusion into our private lives.
P.
*I swear my undergrad dorm was a clinical trial.
-
Monday 11th January 2016 09:12 GMT swampdog
Re: drinking, smoking and some basic biology.
"Smoking is *awful*. Not just for you but for me too. There is nothing good about breathing toxic compounds."
You have been conned. It's pollution. Nasty diesel. Idiot council traffic calming measures. My car does 40+ mpg on a run. It used to do 30mpg round town. Now it does under 20mpg. Even in the middle of the night the traffic light sensors are programmed to make lights go red as you approach.
Traffic calming measures are making your child asthmatic.
-
-
Monday 11th January 2016 08:44 GMT Captain DaFt
Applying daft logic here.
"there is no “safe drinking level”, her team declared."
Drinking zero alcohol is a level of drinking.
Therefore it's as safe to drink heavily as it is to abstain according to them.
Therefore... <ahem>... Therefore....
Hey waiter! This mug ain't gonna refill itself, is it?
-
Monday 11th January 2016 09:15 GMT DocJames
Sadly
Dame Sally is right. The claimed protective effects of alcohol have been vastly overstated, and may be non existent. The risk of harm with alcohol starts with any consumption and increases.
The level of harm remains small for the vast majority of the population. (There are a few who will develop cirrhosis at tiny - like under 1 pint/day for 5 years - doses of alcohol, but even in the very highest consuming groups - 2 bottles spirits/day for decades - not everyone develops cirrhosis. They never look particularly healthy, mind.) Any level of intake will increase risk factors for vascular disease like BP, dyslipidaemia, inflammation (if you are foolish enough to believe cardiologists about inflammation being bad), and risk of malignancy. It also contains a fair number of calories - hence beer bellies.
Having said all that, drinking is enjoyable; it's your life; these are only guidelines and apply to the population not individuals. If you don't want to follow guidelines you don't need to; being angry about it isn't helpful. And the suggestions that this is to "increase taxes" seems proper nutter internet conspiracy theory.
my choice of alcohol -->
(to cope with all the downvotes:-)
-
-
Wednesday 13th January 2016 07:28 GMT DocJames
Re: Sadly
Good link, and well argued points. Have an upvote. But old references. I think subsequent empirical data suggests that the protective affect is overstated.
And I think the statistician has taken the population mean and assumed that it relates to him... which is a rather embarrassing error for such a detailed rebuttal! Same for the linear assumption - that describes a population not an individual (although in that case I agree it's more likely to be a sigmoidal curve - I suspect a linear one has been used as we can't be sure where the inflection points are and putting them in would cause more problems that it would solve).
-
-
-
Monday 11th January 2016 09:16 GMT Nanners
All I have to say is
I was in London for a week 3 weeks ago and you guys drink like Mormons. Nothing but 4 % session ales. I got ahold of a 7% and they warned me about how strong it was and then had the keystone cop follow me around to make sure I wouldn't cause trouble. So what's this guy going on about? And has he been outside London's boarders before?
-
Monday 11th January 2016 09:20 GMT Anonymous Coward
The main reason alcohol has the appearance of increasing life is that there are things in grapes that have health benefits: polyphenols, proanthoyanidins, and resveratrol.
Alcohol itself is damaging, unless you are eating tainted food where it might do the bugs more damage than the bugs would do to you.
Grape juice, or grape seed extract would do you more benefit.
There is a small space for doubt though as a good mood is good for health. If it brings joy maybe it is not terrible. Of course, that also means if you just get grumpier, then it is doubly bad.
Vodka though there is no doubt is harmful. The average Russian who drinks that stuff lives several years less.
-
Monday 11th January 2016 09:24 GMT Anonymous Coward
Good on the UK government
The new recommended alcohol limits give an estimated 1% probability of an alcohol-related death. This seems very sensible.
Earlier evidence that alcohol was "good for you" is either flawed or less important than it seemed. Some of the research had a conflict of interest (e.g. funding from the alcohol industry).
Given the many more studies and the newly appreciated link with cancer, it was time to review the guidelines.
Looking back to 1960s recommendations is of historical interest only. In the 1960s, the (enormous) dangers of smoking were only just accepted, asbestos was still used for all sorts of things, and radium paint was not wholly phased out. We would expect drink guidelines from the 1960s to be wide of the mark.
So - good on the UK government for making the change. Many of us do drink too much. Think about how much you like a drink, and how much you like staying alive. So long as you don't drink-drive or put others at risk in some other way, then in the end it's a personal choice. But now, it can be more informed one.
-
Monday 11th January 2016 09:24 GMT Anonymous Coward
This is a scientific site...
So I propose a scientific study. I need 50 of you to get completely wrecked all day, every day for the next 10 years. In 10 years time, dash off a few words about how much it cost (in money and self-esteem), how you feel, how your life's gone, whether your children still speak to you, and so forth as a comment in the containerisation, storage or flash story of your choice on this fine site.
I'll then do some really clever statistics and sums on your answers, or something, and come up with some dead smart theories and stuff. The winner gets a bottle of wine if we're still drinking fluids in the year 2026, or a vitamin pill if not.
If you're in, please reply to my comment with the subject "Yes, I'll gladly get shit-faced for science".
Good luck, readers. Science needs you.
-
-
Monday 11th January 2016 11:37 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: How big are those jugs?
Those are litre (1.76 pints) glasses, Munich beerfest style. You can lift them one-handed. The German beerfraus run round with about 6 in each hand, so you'd be too embarrassed to use 2 hands. They're mostly used for lager-style beers, so they could be downed in one maybe, but it'd be pretty gassy for a while...
-
-
Monday 11th January 2016 09:29 GMT Anonymous Coward
I would just like to express solidaity
with the bulk of the Commentardiat; despite being damned close to being both a Veggie and a tea-totaler (ie: the amount of meat and alcohol that I consume is a long way under the national average), and a feminist lefty to boot, any government minister or spokesperson spouting arrant nonsense and trying to enforce stupidity upon us all should be tarred and feather and otherwise ignored. IMHO.
Esme (off to deliberately eat a bacon sarnie washed down with a nice single malt)
-
Monday 11th January 2016 09:29 GMT AdamWill
three pints, moderate? er...
"with moderate drinking defined as men who drink about three pints a day and women who have two glasses of wine a day."
Er, I really don't think that can be right. IIRC a pint is counted as two units. Three pints a day would be 42 units a week. I'm pretty sure that's never been considered 'moderate'. I suspect you were shooting for 21 units a week, which would be a pint and a half a day.
-
Monday 11th January 2016 09:30 GMT Rampant Spaniel
Well she can **** right off.
Great, so they will be shutting down all the bars in the Palace of Westminster and stopping them buying drinks on expenses then!
Who is this witch? how is she a dame and what planet is she currently in orbit of? It is crap like this that lends even more credence to the assertion that the political classes should be loaded onto a giant trebuchet and fired sunwards.
Ps lived the Billy connelly reference, I remember having that on a cassette for a school trip and playing it on the coach radio.
-
Monday 11th January 2016 09:30 GMT Buzzby
One big Fraud
I went into Wetherspoons last night and started reading their news sheet. There was a large write up about this, seriously debunking it all.
The writer was a science journalist and producer of the BBC Horizon. He contacted N.I.C.E. regarding the article and was sent a copy of the so called research. Go to .jdwetherspoon.com/news and see the blog.
Tim's Viewpoint - It is hard to fathom why a gastroenterologist with an anti-alcohol agenda was asked to pronounce on matters of the mind, but it’s no surprise that his emissions on the subject have a distinct whiff. All the press seemed to fall for it. Read the blog it is very interesting.
Mine's a pint for obvious reasons.
-
Monday 11th January 2016 09:34 GMT s. pam
Which cash-sucking consulting firm is involved?
I've just done the survey.
It has too much consultant-speak and should simply say "drinking whilst pregnant may injure, deform, or destroy your unborn child". Or it should say "drinking too much may damage necessary organs, cause you to injure yourself" or "drinking too much in one session will cause you to have spawn just like yourself"!
The instructions to the pubic are filled with thousands of words when 10-20 would suffice!
-
Monday 11th January 2016 09:34 GMT tiggity
meh, in the context of other risks
Relative risks.
I work, with lots of associated (unhealthy) stress that is also relatively sedentary.
I live in a Radon area (& have done for 20 years)
It's also not a smokeless zone (i.e. people still allowed to burn coal, wood etc. on fires) and near a busy road so plenty of airborne pollution.
I drive most days of the week.
I sometimes eat meat.
The exercise I get is not in an airconditioned gym but outside, often pounding pavements near busy roads with not the cleanest of air.
Before the smoking ban I have worked in workplaces with high exposure to second hand smoke (and went to such places socially when v. smoke filled e.g. pubs, gig venues etc)
So, in the general context of "health risks", in my life, any alcohol I have is just another of many risks.
I do not drink much (though on average it would be higher than the new reduced recommendation of 14 units a week) & gov selective stat cherry picking is not going to alter my limited intake.
-
Monday 11th January 2016 09:34 GMT MacroRodent
Biases for and against
I have read articles both for and against the benefits of moderate alcohol, and they have left me with a nagging suspicion that the studies (or some of them) showing benefits have been biased by the quite substantial alcoholic beverages industry. There is quite a bit more money to be made by the pro-alcohol stance, than the teetotaler one.
Other than that, I would be much happier if moderate alcohol usage really were healthier (so don't downvote too hard...)