[Thanos]

Sigh. At least five spelling mistakes in there.

Fuck it. I'm gonna go get drunk.

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

I say everything in moderation...

Including moderation!

There's a time to drink deeply and a time to feast and a time to love passionately.

[Jabberwalker]

For the most part, we drink a lot less than our ancestors did four or five generations ago (if your origins are Northwest European). Either all of those horrible cancers were undiagnosed, people didn't live long enough to die of cancer, alcohol is being catalysed by some new chemicals ... or ... this article is yet more hooey like that last two dozen hysterical health scares.

[Thanos]

I'll go with increased emphasis on the hooey for $1000, Alex. Just more crap from tightasses who never drank a Duff in their entire lives.

[andyt]

anything to defend your boozing habits I guess. Shame on Zip tho, calling himself a scientist and putting out that twaddle that the rest of you gulped down. New cases means people newly getting cancer, not new meaning above the norm. What the fuck is wrong with you guys? Booze really does cause brain damage. Just like theres x number of new cases of breast cancer and lung cancer etc that were not extant the year before. Ie they are saying booze caused 1,000 - 3000 case of cancer that year. Or

$1:

The agency estimated that in 2010, alcohol accounted for two to four per cent of all new cancer cases in Ontario.

You think all cancer cases went up in Ontario? Let's see 2 percent = 3000, 100 percent = 150000 cancers over and above the usual? Idiots.

[PluggyRug]

andyt andyt:

anything to defend your boozing habits I guess. Shame on Zip tho, calling himself a scientist and putting out that twaddle that the rest of you gulped down. New cases means people newly getting cancer, not new meaning above the norm. What the fuck is wrong with you guys? Booze really does cause brain damage. Just like theres x number of new cases of breast cancer and lung cancer etc that were not extant the year before. Ie they are saying booze caused 1,000 - 3000 case of cancer that year. Or

$1:

The agency estimated that in 2010, alcohol accounted for two to four per cent of all new cancer cases in Ontario.

You think all cancer cases went up in Ontario? Let's see 2 percent = 3000, 100 percent = 150000 cancers over and above the usual? Idiots.

Wot ya mumbling about.

Zip nailed and we both know it.

[andyt]

When you sober up, maybe you can understand. Zip thinks the article is talking about a rise in cancers. Nowhere does it say there's a rise, that cancers due to drinking went up. Who knows, maybe they went down, since people drink less now. New cancers refers to cancers diagnosed the year of the study. Another way of saying it is that alcohol causes 1000 to 3000 cancers every year. Get it?

[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

When you sober up, maybe you can understand. Zip thinks the article is talking about a rise in cancers. Nowhere does it say there's a rise, that cancers due to drinking went up. Who knows, maybe they went down, since people drink less now. New cancers refers to cancers diagnosed the year of the study. Another way of saying it is that alcohol causes 1000 to 3000 cancers every year. Get it?

In Ontario there were 564 and 119,579 injuries to motor vehicle accidents.

We should stop driving as well.

89 people drowned. Stay away from water.

One could go on with the list of things that kill us. Yep, it can do bad things to you. Are you suddenly going to stop everything you do that can hurt you?

By the way, you missed the part that said:

$1:

The World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research recommend that if alcohol is consumed, the number of drinks should be limited to:

No more than two drinks per day for men.
One drink per day for women.

In other words, moderation if you are going to indulge. Any way, as a former drug user, you are hardly in a position to tut tut here.

[andyt]

Former alcohol user too, who actually had a few glasses of wine so far this year - 3 or 4. Lots of drug users on this forum too, whether licit or illicit. And I didn't tut tut, except to point out what bullshit Zippy was slinging.

But as far as moderation, there's quite a crowd on here that sure likes to brag about how one beer is never enough (Lemmy), post while shitfaced, Thanos, or just celebrate what doesn't sound like moderation to me. There's a real denial in our society about how much harm alcohol really does. It's good to bring stories like this out (I didn't post it) and it's good to see that alcohol consumption is going down.

[Thanos]

Oh for sure, john.

[PluggyRug]

andyt andyt:

When you sober up, maybe you can understand. Zip thinks the article is talking about a rise in cancers. Nowhere does it say there's a rise, that cancers due to drinking went up. Who knows, maybe they went down, since people drink less now. New cancers refers to cancers diagnosed the year of the study. Another way of saying it is that alcohol causes 1000 to 3000 cancers every year. Get it?

Another way of saying it (cold sober) is Bullshit.

[martin14]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

andyt andyt:

When you sober up, maybe you can understand. Zip thinks the article is talking about a rise in cancers. Nowhere does it say there's a rise, that cancers due to drinking went up. Who knows, maybe they went down, since people drink less now. New cancers refers to cancers diagnosed the year of the study. Another way of saying it is that alcohol causes 1000 to 3000 cancers every year. Get it?

Another way of saying it (cold sober) is Bullshit.

andy's specialty is bullshit.

[Zipperfish]

What I'm against is advocacy organizations masquerading as disinterested observers. "Alcohol causes harm"--granted. No problem there.

"Therefore more government control is recommended." Problem.

[Jabberwalker]

... or then there's the "legalize pot, problem solved" logic.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

What I'm against is advocacy organizations masquerading as disinterested observers. "Alcohol causes harm"--granted. No problem there.

"Therefore more government control is recommended." Problem.

I have no problem with you having a problem. But your argument was that this represents an increase in cancer cases, and thus their premise is false. But it was your premise that was false, because you didn't think what new cancer cases could possibly mean. Since you now seem to get it, maybe you can explain it to the slow learners here who still don't.