Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Major Study Debunks Myth that Moderate Drinking can be Healthy

posted by mrpg on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the hic dept.

"exec" writes:

Major study debunks myth that moderate drinking can be healthy.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

LONDON (Reuters) - Blood pressure and stroke risk rise steadily the more alcohol people drink, and previous claims that one or two drinks a day might protect against stroke are not true, according to the results of a major genetic study.

The research, which used data from a 160,000-strong cohort of Chinese adults, many of whom are unable to drink alcohol due to genetic intolerance, found that people who drink moderately - consuming 10 to 20 grams of alcohol a day - raise their risk of stroke by 10 to 15 percent.

For heavy drinkers, consuming four or more drinks a day, blood pressure rises significantly and the risk of stroke increases by around 35 percent, the study found.

-- submitted from IRC

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Major Study Debunks Myth that Moderate Drinking can be Healthy | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 35 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: -1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @10:54AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @10:54AM (#827835)

    I imagine that is the exact same thought process of every man-made-climate-change scientist today. "1000 variables affect climate but we're going to ignore 999 of them and concentrate on CO2. Heck, if the weather today is hotter, colder, dryer, wetter,or windier than the same day last year let's say MM climate change is causing those normal variations as well."

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Troll=1, Informative=1, Overrated=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   -1  

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @11:37AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @11:37AM (#827845)

    I'm not sure you'd be quoting an actual scientist there. Sounds more like a SoMe campaign person.

    If a scientist is going to focus on humans and our contribution to climate change, it makes sense to focus on that area instead of solar winds. Doesn't mean you shouldn't take them into account when you measure the climate changes and I know they do. We have plenty of ice-drillings on Greenland and I can assure you that they are the most thorough and boring scientists you can imagine.

    I'll give you that the public opinion on the cause of climate change being entirely pinned on CO2 seems out of proportions, but the reason I don't care is that the general direction of the actions taken because of that belief is good for the survival of living matter on the planet.

    You can't expect the news to tell you about science. First you get a crappy summary, then people tell you to RTFA, but it's not until you read the fucking research article you know what the scientists found.

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:29PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:29PM (#828093)

    I imagine that is the exact same thought process of every man-made-climate-change scientist today.

    Just be careful to always keep in mind that this is just your imagination, not the reality.

  • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Thursday April 11 2019, @05:22PM

    by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 11 2019, @05:22PM (#828128) Homepage Journal

    I'm sure the climate scientists are concerned about methane as well.