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.
Not true, and also a fallacy (a false equivalence fallacy, to be precise).
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170308083938.htm
deleted by creator
But the WHO didn’t right a report that breathing ages you (because it requires the passage of time), this risking age-related health problems and ultimate, inevitable death.
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
Are you my coworker?
deleted by creator
I might!
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.
OP asked: “will it decrease the risk?”
And the answer is: “yes”.
The rest of the discussion is accessory, and won’t change the facts.
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
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.
An effect can be observable but still negligible in terms of the actual increase of risk.
How do you know? Do you know OP’s medical records? Do you know if he has a genetic propensity to develop cancer or not?
You can’t generalize in that way without information.
We all know anecdotal cases of people who smoked or drunk heavily and lived long lives. And people who were non-smokers and died young from second hand smoke. You don’t know how your body will tolerate a substance you put in it. Some people can deal with things that other can’t.
So saying “negligible in terms of the actual increase of risk” without actually having all the information about a person is a really bold thing to say, in my opinion.
Removed by mod