Is it just me or is this article terribly written? Everything is said in the most obtuse way possible (like the opening paragraph which actually doesn't even make grammatical sense) and then jumps into a recounting of a rape, in some level of detail, without warning, and just ends the story with that.
I tried not to conflate absolute and relative risk. The numbers I was going with came from the link I posted, which was not from a science journalist, but from the US National Cancer Institute. Also, note that the comment you replied to was more about an off the cuff comparison of the risk between CT scans and drinking alcohol. It wasn't meant to present scientific rigour.
Below is directly from the linked article, emphasis mine:
Using data from Australia, recalculated using US standard drinks, the recent Surgeon General’s Advisory reports that
among 100 women who have less than one drink per week, about 17 will develop an alcohol-related cancer
among 100 women who have one drink a day, 19 will develop an alcohol-related cancer
among 100 women who have two drinks a day, about 22 will develop an alcohol-related cancer
This means that women who have one drink a day have an absolute increase in the risk of an alcohol-related cancer of 2 per 100, and those who have two drinks a day an absolute increase of 5 per 100, compared with those who have less than one drink a week. For men, the number of alcohol-related cancers per 100 is 10 for those who have less than one drink a week, 11 for those who have one drink a day (an increase of 1 per 100), and 13 for those who have two drinks a day (an increase of 3 per 100).
Ethanol (alcohol) causes cancer through biological mechanisms as the compound breaks down in the body, which means that any beverage containing alcohol, regardless of its price and quality, poses a risk of developing cancer.
Risks start from the first drop
To identify a “safe” level of alcohol consumption, valid scientific evidence would need to demonstrate that at and below a certain level, there is no risk of illness or injury associated with alcohol consumption. The new WHO statement clarifies: currently available evidence cannot indicate the existence of a threshold at which the carcinogenic effects of alcohol “switch on” and start to manifest in the human body.
So no, you're wrong, it specifically says your example is not "safe". They said "beverage", but consuming alcohol laden fruit would fall in the same category. The same would go for many "non-alcoholic" beers which are <0.5% alcohol, and many other things like kombucha, baked goods, chocolate, etc. You can debate whether they're correct or not, but they were very clear that tiny amounts are not safe.
Now, it's all about risk. And the more alcohol consumed, the higher the risk of developing cancer. The question is at what point the benefits outweigh the risk. Benefits could range from vitamins, minerals, fiber and healthy compounds, to reduced social anxiety and other psychological factors.
I'm not a statistics expert, so very possibly bad wording or outright errors ahead.
Versus non-drinkers,
1 drink a day increases the absolute risk of getting cancer by 2%
2 drinks a day increases the absolute risk of getting cancer by 5%
Unfortunately, I'm having trouble finding the absolute risk increase for a single CT scan... But I think it is around 0.1%. This is based on the recent JAMA study that said that the scans from a given year (about 93 million of them) would it in 103000 future cancers developing.
A couple of takeaways: on an individual basis the risk of developing cancer from a CT scan is pretty low. On a population scale, its pretty damn high. Also though the increased chance is low (especially compared to the numbers above for alcohol) it's actually pretty significant if you consider it takes just one scan.
Ballpark, you might be talking the equivalent of 3 drinks a month?
It's an interesting question. I actually turned down a CT scan recently because it wasn't clear what the benefits of knowing the results would be, versus this extra risk.
450ml of liquor per week isn't light to moderate by most definitions?
If you read the one published by the WHO, It says "light" to "moderate" is less than 450ml, presumably meaning 450ml and over is considered "heavy" (which more or less lines up with 2 drinks a day.)
Generally, light is considered to be 1 drink a day, moderate is 1.5 and heavy is 2. So 1 drink a day is the cause of half of all alcohol-attributable cancers (according to the WHO).
Yes, recently (the past couple of years) the connection between small amounts of alcohol and increased cancer risk has been more thoroughly documented. Check the link from the WHO.
Party pooper: Consuming alcohol significantly increases your chance of getting cancer. To the point that it compares with asbestos, radiation and tobacco.
A recent study counters that info a little bit (says there isn't a link for some cancers) but it's important to note that the study is still disputed. Also, cancer is on top of liver and heart disease, dementia and many other things that alcohol is known to directly increase.
You should do your best to reduce your alcohol consumption or cut it out completely - if you care about your health.
The full version was offered for free at one point. That's how I got it. I've never been sure how safe it is from a privacy standpoint.
It does a lot, but can't create uncompressed zip files. I discovered this recently when I was changing phones and wanted to grab a bunch of uncompressable stuff from my secure folder. Solid Explorer can but isn't free.
I have Material Files installed (recently) but haven't played with it yet.
“We aren’t having elections” is them saying… we are past this and we need to plan for the next thing.
Except now you're literally projecting onto the words they're saying.
And that's the problem... They are making an off-hand comment without substance and a ton of negative space. It doesn't add to the discourse, it sets it off in wild tangents as everyone fills that negative space with whatever they want to project onto it. And from what Ken said somewhere in his replies, he gets 100s of comments like that.
Agreed about the drain. We have the same problem in Canada and I think it's because the insurance companies, restoration companies, and builders are conspiring here to keep it that way.
But I would prefer that the shower was self contained and had its own drain. The wet baths I constantly deal with when I travel are one of my pet peaves.
NordVPN wasn't hiding my IP address when using bittorrent, so if you're using it for that you should test if it's working.