Nearly 3/4 Million Cancers A Year Linked To Alcohol Use

[REWahoo]

This was a bit of a surprise to me. Everyone knows about the link between smoking and cancer but I wasn't aware of a similar link to alcohol use.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsa...-million-cancers-a-year-linked-to-alcohol-use

At least 4% of the world's newly diagnosed cases of esophageal, mouth, larynx, colon, rectum, liver and breast cancers in 2020, or 741,300 people, can be attributed to drinking alcohol...

They found that the more alcohol people drink, the higher their risk of an alcohol-related cancer. Drinking at least two, and more than six, drinks a day, defined as risky to heavy drinking, posed the greatest risk of a future cancer. Even moderate drinking, two or fewer drinks a day, accounted for an estimated 14%, or 103,000 cases, of alcohol-related cancers, according to the study.

Cheers! ...or maybe not.

 

[audreyh1]

Really? Is it one of those epidemiology studies that has a million confounders?

When European countries that drink a lot of wine show much higher incidence of cancers (particularly at younger ages) I might pay attention.

4% huh?

And 14% of 4% = 0.56% of those specific cancers attributed to moderate or lower alcohol use.

Hmmmmm……

 

[nash031]

"They found that the more alcohol they drink, the higher the risk of alcohol-related cancers."



We had to have a study to tell us that?

 

[audreyh1]

Well, the opposite would have been quite disturbing unless you are a heavy drinker!

 

[ncbill]

Lost my last megacorp boss to alcohol abuse just last year.

Not cancer though...he fell & bled out.

Too young...he was only around 15 years older than I.

I wish companies would take alcohol abuse more seriously than they do.

 

[ER Eddie]

Had a friend who drank heavily, died of colon cancer.

The trouble with these studies, though, as audrey alluded to, is that we have a bunch of uncontrolled confounding variables. For example, someone who drinks heavily (or sometimes even moderately) often has a host of other negative health habits -- sedentary lifestyle, being overweight, eating crap food, etc. The epidemiology often tries to "control" for these influences by partialling out the variance after the fact, but that methodology is suspect and rests on a bunch of assumptions which could or could not be true. It's like trying to pull ingredients out of a cake, after you've already baked it.

It makes sense that heavy drinking would cause physical deterioration and set the stage for cancer. The link to mild alcohol use seems more tenuous.

 

[USGrant1962]

This is a bit of a click-bait article. Not to minimize the significant health impacts of alcohol, but 80-90% of lung cancer is attributable to smoking. Comparing the two bad habits is apples to oranges with respect to cancer.

Of course a lot more people die from alcohol-related accidents than smoking-related accidents, at least since they improved cigarette and mattress fire safety decades ago.

 

[ivinsfan]

Alcohol related deaths are a big number for sure but how many "moderate" drinkers would have gotten cancer without have a drink.A lot I bet.


My SisIL is upset today, her younger sister is in the hospital with "heart related" issues. I've only seen her at family functions, but she's been beyond drunk every time I've seen her. She's 63 going on 83. At our joint nephews wedding she came onto my DH in front of me and another nephew. She was staggering.


A slow form of suicide IMO.

 

[ownyourfuture]

I always have a large grain of salt available when reading any new reports/studies.

When I was in grade school in the 70s, I was told that we were going into an ice age, & within 50 years, we'd be commuting to the Moon on a daily basis

 

[NW-Bound]

From the quoted article:

The lowest rates of alcohol-related cancers in the world were found in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, where religious-based policies ensure low rates of drinking...

One wonders if the above countries have a better longevity, being teetotalers.

It turns out that Saudis rank 86 in the world, and Kuwait at #83. They are about the same as poor Vietnam at #84, and behind war-torn Syria (#81), and of course trail the Western countries by far.

Could it be that a little alcohol thwarts off some other diseases?

 

[bloom2708]

Summer = bbq'd and charred red meat and lots of alcohol.

The esophogeal, stomach, colon, bladder cancers are running wild.

Not all that surprising. YODO (you only die once).

Refresher:

https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-d...he-consumption-of-red-meat-and-processed-meat

 

[razztazz]

From the quoted article:
One wonders if the above countries have a better longevity, being teetotalers.

It turns out that Saudis rank 86 in the world, and Kuwait at #83. They are about the same as poor Vietnam at #84, and behind war-torn Syria (#81), and of course trail the Western countries by far.

Could it be that a little alcohol thwarts off some other diseases?

If I am not mistaken, there might have been some social changes in recent decades, but the countries you mentioned smoke like chimneys

 

[Sojourner]

0.56% of those specific cancers attributed to moderate or lower alcohol use.

Yeah, this is the number that sticks out to me. If roughly 1 out of every 200 new cases of cancer can be directly attributed to moderate drinking, then IMHO that's not a risk worth making a major lifestyle change to avoid. Certainly not worrisome enough for me to give up my glass or two of wine with dinner several times a week. I mean, how many people would give up having a "moderate" amount of sex if you told them there's a 1 in 200 chance it might give them cancer?

 

[NW-Bound]

Summer = bbq'd and charred red meat and lots of alcohol.

The esophogeal, stomach, colon, bladder cancers are running wild.

Not all that surprising. YODO (you only die once).

Refresher:

https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-d...he-consumption-of-red-meat-and-processed-meat

If meat and alcohol hasten one's demise, then it stands to reason that Buddhist monks would have better longevity because they do not drink, and do not eat any meat let alone red meat. They don't smoke either.

I am still looking for a definitive statistical number, but on the Web just saw a lot of claims without a substantiating study.

And if Buddhist monks do live longer, it may be other factors, such as less stress in life, and better physical fitness, reduced risk of death from occupational hazards, etc...

 

[friar1610]

If meat and alcohol hasten one's demise, then it stands to reason that Buddhist monks would have better longevity because they do not drink, and do not eat any meat let alone red meat. They don't smoke either.

I am still looking for a definitive statistical number, but on the Web just saw a lot of claims without a substantiating study.

And if Buddhist monks do live longer, it may be other factors, such as less stress in life, and better physical fitness, reduced risk of death from occupational hazards, etc...

I’ve noticed anecdotally in the newspaper obituaries that nuns seem to have excellent longevity. I suspect they’re not as strict as Buddhist monks regarding their food and beverage consumption but they’re probably a lot more sensible than many population groups. Their work isn’t necessarily stress-free (e.g., teaching, working with the poor in inner cities, health care) but I suspect they have a greater sense of purpose and mission than the general population. And the time devoted to prayer, meditation and contemplation must certainly help with stress. And, as my wife would hasten to point out, they don’t have the daily frustrations of dealing with husbands.

 

[Markola]

Our species seems to like alcohol:

“The history of alcohol and humans is at least 30,000 and arguably 100,000 years long. Alcohol, a flammable liquid produced by the natural fermentation of sugars, is currently the most widely used human psychoactive agent around the world today, ahead of nicotine, caffeine, and betel nut. It was made and consumed by prehistoric societies in six of the seven continents (not Antarctica), in a variety of forms based on a variety of natural sugars found in grains and fruits…”

https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-alcohol-a-timeline-170889

 

[maestro]

I always have a large grain of salt available when reading any new reports/studies.

When I was in grade school in the 70s, I was told that we were going into an ice age, & within 50 years, we'd be commuting to the Moon on a daily basis

+1 Especially from an NPR 'news' desk, sourcing a study by WHO. Of course, more 'taxation of the problem' is their answer and lends to their agenda for a more 'global' economy.

 

[marko]

My mom is 91, spry, alert, still drives and has a cocktail every night...or two.

Someone told her that if she stopped drinking she'd live to 110. She said "yes, but why would you want to?" (if you couldn't drink)

 

[RAE]

Yeah, this is the number that sticks out to me. If roughly 1 out of every 200 new cases of cancer can be directly attributed to moderate drinking, then IMHO that's not a risk worth making a major lifestyle change to avoid. Certainly not worrisome enough for me to give up my glass or two of wine with dinner several times a week.

+1, I agree. My guess is that the typical American diet, full of refined processed foods, industrial seed oils, high fructose corn syrup, and other junk food contributes FAR more to the development of many cancers than a glass or two of wine each day. In fact, lots of studies support the idea that moderate consumption of alcohol such as red wine is healthy, and promotes longevity.

 

[11522914]

Not all that surprising. YODO (you only die once)

According to Seth, we all die thousands of times

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1878424076/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1627004833&sr=8-3

 

[EastWest Gal]

If meat and alcohol hasten one's demise, then it stands to reason that Buddhist monks would have better longevity because they do not drink, and do not eat any meat let alone red meat. They don't smoke either.

I am still looking for a definitive statistical number, but on the Web just saw a lot of claims without a substantiating study.

And if Buddhist monks do live longer, it may be other factors, such as less stress in life, and better physical fitness, reduced risk of death from occupational hazards, etc...

I don't believe Buddhist monks have better physical fitness, nor a particularly good diet, since they depend on. A life of sitting in meditation is pretty sedentary. They often rely on sugary drinks and juices. This article in the Irish Times discusses the epidemic of obesity amongst the monks in Thailand:

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and...-eat-after-noon-so-why-are-they-fat-1.3594526

 

[NW-Bound]

I don't believe Buddhist monks have better physical fitness, nor a particularly good diet, since they depend on. A life of sitting in meditation is pretty sedentary. They often rely on sugary drinks and juices. This article in the Irish Times discusses the epidemic of obesity amongst the monks in Thailand:

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and...-eat-after-noon-so-why-are-they-fat-1.3594526

Thanks for the eye-opening info.

I guess it's too much to think all Buddhist monks are like Shaolin monks.

And the trend of the health of the general Thai population is also alarming.

 

[MichealKnight]

Thanks for posting. Disclosure: I know less about science, medical studies, etc than I would know about the kinky mating habits of rhinoceros swinger couples on the coast of Eastern Africa.

Sometimes I wonder - is the topic of the study indicative of a 'whole' lifestyle? To each his own I'm not judging - but - someone who has 2-6 drinks per DAY - - is it possible he also doesn't exercise? Maybe is under socioeconomic stresses? Doesn't pay attention to other parts of life that affect health?

It's like when they say - people who eat more fruits and veggies are healthier and prevent this or that. Sure, I buy it. BUT - someone who makes an effort to eat that many healthy choices per day - odds are they are exercising. Controlling stresses. Odds are they are better off on the economic ladder and are paying attention to doctor visits, dentist visits, etc.

A totally unscientific observation to this end: Last week I was at Burger King (I'm at fast food often) -- many fat people like me.

A few days ago I was at Ruth's Chris - pricier place. And sure, everyone was steak and lobster and butter etc - -- but I noticed maybe one fat person like me there. I just think that those people *not* better humanity - - we're all equal. But I think enlightenment, intellectual curiosity, priorities, socioeconomic status - while not absolutes, would be a far more common trait in the healthy versus the unhealthy. Exceptions to the rules always, I'm just speaking in general. In a nutshell: Are there more yoga studios next to Walmart, or Whole Foods?

 

[audreyh1]

Yes, generally in epidemiological studies there are usually major confounding variables. Exactly like someone who is a heavy drinker may also get a lot less exercise and may also have other health issues or doesn't avail themselves of annual check-ups etc. Socio-economic status is also often a major confounder.

Then the study tries to somehow adjust for some of these - but then suddenly you're dealing with complicated modeling and a lot of judgement calls.

It's generally very messy and you never know if you are even close to right! But authors publish anyway because that's their career.

 

[Kroeran]

“Beer is proof God loves us” B Franklin