Alcohol dangerous for everyone not just alcoholics
Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Overseas... on the shore of an uncharted desert isle.
Posts: 254
Actually - despite the article's headline - this applies to anyone who might have the same ALDH2 iso-enzyme mutation - white, black, brown, or asian... it just happens to be much more prevalent amongst Asians ( & Native Americans).
Alcohol flush signals cancer risk for East Asians
Alcohol flush signals cancer risk for East Asians
Alcohol flush signals cancer risk for East Asians
Mon Mar 23, 5:04 pm ET
WASHINGTON – Turn a bit red when you drink a mere half bottle of beer? If you're of East Asian descent, consider that a warning: You may be at higher risk of alcohol-caused esophageal cancer. Researchers reported the link Monday in hopes of increasing awareness that the inherited flushing trait — found in about a third of people from Japan, China and Korea — offers valuable health information.
Alcohol is a known risk factor for a variety of cancers, including esophageal, and heavier drinking is considered riskier than light drinking.
Lots of people turn slightly red if they imbibe too much. At issue here is facial flushing from a small amount of alcohol. It's due to a deficiency in an enzyme that helps metabolize alcohol, called ALDH2.
People with a severe deficiency of the enzyme usually don't drink because it makes them feel too bad; in addition to flushing they feel nausea and a rapid heartbeat.
But people with a partial deficiency — they inherited one bad copy of the enzyme-producing gene instead of two — may put up with the flushing. A series of studies by Dr. Akira Yokoyama of Japan's Kurihama Alcohol Center found that those people are six to 10 times more likely to develop esophageal cancer than people who drink a comparable amount but aren't enzyme-deficient.
"Somehow the message just hadn't gotten out," said Dr. Philip J. Brooks, who researches alcohol and cancer at the U.S. National Institutes of Health.
So he paired with Yokoyama and others to review the link for PLoS Medicine, a journal published by the Public Library of Science.
Without enough of that enzyme, alcohol breaks down into a DNA-damaging chemical similar to formaldehyde but it doesn't go the next step and turn into yet another chemical that's non-toxic, said Brooks. Don't drink, and the flushers aren't at increased risk.
Esophageal cancer is fairly rare, but it's also hard to treat. Worldwide, anywhere from 12 percent to a third of people who develop it survive five years.
Up to 8 percent of the world's population has the enzyme deficiency, meaning if even a small number of the at-risk avoided alcohol, esophageal cancer deaths could drop substantially, the review concluded.
In the U.S., most esophageal cancer is a type called adenocarcinoma that is linked to chronic, severe heartburn. The flushing-linked type is squamous cell carcinoma, less common here than abroad.
Mon Mar 23, 5:04 pm ET
WASHINGTON – Turn a bit red when you drink a mere half bottle of beer? If you're of East Asian descent, consider that a warning: You may be at higher risk of alcohol-caused esophageal cancer. Researchers reported the link Monday in hopes of increasing awareness that the inherited flushing trait — found in about a third of people from Japan, China and Korea — offers valuable health information.
Alcohol is a known risk factor for a variety of cancers, including esophageal, and heavier drinking is considered riskier than light drinking.
Lots of people turn slightly red if they imbibe too much. At issue here is facial flushing from a small amount of alcohol. It's due to a deficiency in an enzyme that helps metabolize alcohol, called ALDH2.
People with a severe deficiency of the enzyme usually don't drink because it makes them feel too bad; in addition to flushing they feel nausea and a rapid heartbeat.
But people with a partial deficiency — they inherited one bad copy of the enzyme-producing gene instead of two — may put up with the flushing. A series of studies by Dr. Akira Yokoyama of Japan's Kurihama Alcohol Center found that those people are six to 10 times more likely to develop esophageal cancer than people who drink a comparable amount but aren't enzyme-deficient.
"Somehow the message just hadn't gotten out," said Dr. Philip J. Brooks, who researches alcohol and cancer at the U.S. National Institutes of Health.
So he paired with Yokoyama and others to review the link for PLoS Medicine, a journal published by the Public Library of Science.
Without enough of that enzyme, alcohol breaks down into a DNA-damaging chemical similar to formaldehyde but it doesn't go the next step and turn into yet another chemical that's non-toxic, said Brooks. Don't drink, and the flushers aren't at increased risk.
Esophageal cancer is fairly rare, but it's also hard to treat. Worldwide, anywhere from 12 percent to a third of people who develop it survive five years.
Up to 8 percent of the world's population has the enzyme deficiency, meaning if even a small number of the at-risk avoided alcohol, esophageal cancer deaths could drop substantially, the review concluded.
In the U.S., most esophageal cancer is a type called adenocarcinoma that is linked to chronic, severe heartburn. The flushing-linked type is squamous cell carcinoma, less common here than abroad.
Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 21
Originally Posted by Tom67 
My point is I think the facts say that anyone arguing that alcohol can be used in a healthy fashion is speaking in ignorance. Alcohol is carcinogenic and toxic even in small amounts separate from alcohol issues related to "alcoholism" or "problem/hard drinking".
Look...i'm not going to become one of those people that once they quit drinking is then going to try to convince people who aren't alcoholics how awful drinking is for them. Because it's not.
alcohol is perfectly fine for some people. It's not carcinogenic or toxic. That's nonsense.
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Htown, baby!
Posts: 384
Even if small amounts of alcohol are beneficial, normal drinkers get drunk sometimes too, and any time you exceed 2 or 3 drinks in one day you're damaging your body, alcoholic or not. Thats why studies that tout the health benefits of alcohol are misleading and reckless, because only very light drinkers that I know of can keep it under 2 a day.
Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Colorado Prairie
Posts: 1,417
Who cares?? Here in America our lifespans are actually decreasing for the first time in history. We're pathetically fat and lazy and spend the bulk of our lives in front of the tube stuffing McDonalds into our faces. We can't even get our fat asses out of the car and walk 50 feet to the door. We have to use the drive through.
When it comes to our decreasing health and lifespans pointing to alcohol is like picking flycrap out of the pepper.
When it comes to our decreasing health and lifespans pointing to alcohol is like picking flycrap out of the pepper.
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 21
Originally Posted by Wallace
there are also studies that show alcohol is moderation can extend life. Alcohol can be used in a healthy way by some people. But not alcoholics.
Look...i'm not going to become one of those people that once they quit drinking is then going to try to convince people who aren't alcoholics how awful drinking is for them. Because it's not.
alcohol is perfectly fine for some people. It's not carcinogenic or toxic. That's nonsense.
Look...i'm not going to become one of those people that once they quit drinking is then going to try to convince people who aren't alcoholics how awful drinking is for them. Because it's not.
alcohol is perfectly fine for some people. It's not carcinogenic or toxic. That's nonsense.
again, the latest studies and The International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization disagrees with you, the WHO lists it as a class one carcinogen, absolutely carcinogenic to humans, in addition to being a cocarcinogen, no doubt the NIAAA soon will follow suit with the latest studies.
my aim is simply to put the idea that alcohol is healthy for some where it belongs ... in the trash
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 21
Originally Posted by Pinkcuda
Who cares?? Here in America our lifespans are actually decreasing for the first time in history. We're pathetically fat and lazy and spend the bulk of our lives in front of the tube stuffing McDonalds into our faces. We can't even get our fat asses out of the car and walk 50 feet to the door. We have to use the drive through.
When it comes to our decreasing health and lifespans pointing to alcohol is like picking flycrap out of the pepper.
When it comes to our decreasing health and lifespans pointing to alcohol is like picking flycrap out of the pepper.
I agree there are a lot of reasons why people are so sick. But just because there are doesn't mean you give up and don't start picking them apart. Plenty of people don't smoke and have awful health. We still recognize (at one time we didn't and actually recognized benefits) that you still don't want to smoke because of the health issues it brings on, causes cancer etc. Probably at least some measure of the nations ill health is owed to poor nutrition and here we are talking about a beverage that is carcinogenic and offers little in the way of nutrition (actually contributes to leaky gut syndrome unlike say soda). Sure people also eat crap, don't move much, drink stimulants and take pharmeceuticals to counter the effects of the previous that have god knows what side effects.... it all adds up and is all likely connected.
Last edited by Tom67; 03-24-2009 at 02:23 PM.
TruthJustice
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The Boondocks
Posts: 112
Alcohol is highly toxic to me...so to get my anti-oxidants I drink grape juice or acai juice.
Everything is a carcinogen as was hinted at earlier due to free radicals. I'd like to think alcohol is bad for normal drinkers but in moderation that isn't really the case. I've made peace with my "alcohol envy" long ago.
I'm skeptical of any study not published in a peer reviewed journal - even those can be a bit nutty depending on who sponsored the study and what the studied was powered to see (meta-analyses are the worst). Show me a study about how alcohol is bad for you and I can show you one that says it's good for you - for me personally scare tactics never worked, but if you reach one person I'm all for it!
"There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics." - Mark Twain
Everything is a carcinogen as was hinted at earlier due to free radicals. I'd like to think alcohol is bad for normal drinkers but in moderation that isn't really the case. I've made peace with my "alcohol envy" long ago.
I'm skeptical of any study not published in a peer reviewed journal - even those can be a bit nutty depending on who sponsored the study and what the studied was powered to see (meta-analyses are the worst). Show me a study about how alcohol is bad for you and I can show you one that says it's good for you - for me personally scare tactics never worked, but if you reach one person I'm all for it!
"There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics." - Mark Twain
Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Colorado Prairie
Posts: 1,417
You're on a recovery board for people suffering from alcoholism. You're wasting keystrokes. You would do just as well telling anorexics that they need to eat more. Alcoholics have a craving for alcohol that most people don't have. Dr. Silkworth called it The Phenomonon of Craving. He stated, "This phenomonon, as we suggested, may be the manifestation of an allergy that differentiates these people and sets them apart as a distinct entity".
I believe him because I am an Alcoholic and I can attest to these cravings. Even those who are not AA members understand these cravings.
You can not scare these cravings away with studies and results. You can not reason with these cravings. Logic does not apply.
Our book states that we should not show an intollerance or hatred of drinking as an institution. It suggests that those whom we may have been able to help otherwise will view us a witchburner instead of someone woven of the same fabric they are. Therefore we will not gain the trust that we would otherwise. I believe that tidbit of advise to be more valuable than anything science can come up with when it comes to combating alcoholism.
I believe him because I am an Alcoholic and I can attest to these cravings. Even those who are not AA members understand these cravings.
You can not scare these cravings away with studies and results. You can not reason with these cravings. Logic does not apply.
Our book states that we should not show an intollerance or hatred of drinking as an institution. It suggests that those whom we may have been able to help otherwise will view us a witchburner instead of someone woven of the same fabric they are. Therefore we will not gain the trust that we would otherwise. I believe that tidbit of advise to be more valuable than anything science can come up with when it comes to combating alcoholism.
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 21
Originally Posted by VeritasAequitas
Everything is a carcinogen as was hinted at earlier due to free radicals.
Everything is not a carcinogen. If that were the case there would be no need for a "not carcinogenic" option on the carcinogecity scale. The generation of free radicals is a natural and necessary part of living, its an ongoing process that may lead to damage and cancer. The topic of free radicals as I understand it is controversial on many levels. Substances which promote or propagate cancer are carcinogens.
Originally Posted by VeritasAequitas
I'd like to think alcohol is bad for normal drinkers but in moderation that isn't really the case.
TruthJustice
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The Boondocks
Posts: 112
Originally Posted by Tom67
I see. I guess the cancer studies (most are negative) and the WHO are wrong.
It wouldn't be the first time... Wrong: World Health Organization claims that health goes down as carbon goes up Watts Up With That?
Uh, yeah I guess I should have expected you to take me literally regarding the carcinogens. The air you breathe? Full of carcinogens so anything else is moot...sorry I refuse to buy the fear you're selling but like I said if it helps someone that's great.
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 21
Originally Posted by Pinkcuda
I believe him because I am an Alcoholic and I can attest to these cravings. Even those who are not AA members understand these cravings.
You can not scare these cravings away with studies and results. You can not reason with these cravings. Logic does not apply.
You can not scare these cravings away with studies and results. You can not reason with these cravings. Logic does not apply.
All I'm saying is the beverage is unhealthy itself. I'm not saying that would ever make anyone want to quit - alcoholic or not. I'd argue probably not. I'm just calling out those who flippantly claim moderate drinking can be healthy for non alcoholics....based on the majority of cancer studies, this is not true. The WHO lists it as a class one carcinogenic...the worst.
And if I had a dime for every apparently moderate healthy drinker that I know that went unmoderate later I'd have a dollar and some change.
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 21
Originally Posted by VeritasAequitas
sorry I refuse to buy the fear you're selling but like I said if it helps someone that's great.
well, if you are an alcoholic I'd imagine you have already stopped because of the various problems it has brought you - you are addicted to it and likely drank it a lot etc ...the only way to deal with it is not to drink it ever again or at least today
all I'm saying is that, in addition to this phenomena of alcoholism and addiction that exisits with the beverage ... it is also generally carcinogenic and people who are not alcoholic and drink occasionally or moderately should be aware there is a cancer risk, and at best, it is not a healthy drink
yes, people can drink moderately and never have an addiction problem with it .... in that sense - they have a relatively/comparatively "healthy" relationship with it.... but, overall, if you are increasing your risk of cancer doing something, then maybe its not so healthy in general imo
TruthJustice
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The Boondocks
Posts: 112
I can understand why you would think that...however you are assuming all of the studies to be correct.
Check out this link for the health benefits of alcohol... http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/alcoholandhealth.html you'll have info from Harvard, American Heart Association, American Diabetes Associate, and even the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism demonstrating the benefits of alcohol. The benefits are too numerous to list but I will copy and past this one...
Kidney Cancer. An analysis of data from 760,044 men and women who were tracked for seven to 20 years found that moderate drinkers are about 30% less likely to develop kidney cancer than are abstainers. 90 A large prospective study of 59,237 Swedish women age 40-76 found that those who consumed at least one drink per week had a 38% lower risk of kidney cancer than did abstainers or those who drank less. For women over 55, the risk dropped by two-thirds (66%). 91
and this one...
Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (Cancer). A review of findings from nine international studies suggests that drinking alcohol reduces the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) by 27%. The protective effect of alcohol did not vary by beer, wine, or distilled spirits consumption.. The research also found that alcohol's protective effect varies by form or subtype of non-Hodgkin‘s lymphoma. Drinkers were about half as likely as non-drinkers to develop Burkitt's lymphoma. The cancer is the sixth most common in the USA. 93
I won't play a double standard either Tom, these studies may have the same flaws of the studies you presented. My points are that scare tactics rarely work with alcoholics and that for every study that shows how bad moderate alcohol consumption is there is one that praises moderate consumption.
All the best my friend.
Check out this link for the health benefits of alcohol... http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/alcoholandhealth.html you'll have info from Harvard, American Heart Association, American Diabetes Associate, and even the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism demonstrating the benefits of alcohol. The benefits are too numerous to list but I will copy and past this one...
Kidney Cancer. An analysis of data from 760,044 men and women who were tracked for seven to 20 years found that moderate drinkers are about 30% less likely to develop kidney cancer than are abstainers. 90 A large prospective study of 59,237 Swedish women age 40-76 found that those who consumed at least one drink per week had a 38% lower risk of kidney cancer than did abstainers or those who drank less. For women over 55, the risk dropped by two-thirds (66%). 91
and this one...
Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (Cancer). A review of findings from nine international studies suggests that drinking alcohol reduces the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) by 27%. The protective effect of alcohol did not vary by beer, wine, or distilled spirits consumption.. The research also found that alcohol's protective effect varies by form or subtype of non-Hodgkin‘s lymphoma. Drinkers were about half as likely as non-drinkers to develop Burkitt's lymphoma. The cancer is the sixth most common in the USA. 93
I won't play a double standard either Tom, these studies may have the same flaws of the studies you presented. My points are that scare tactics rarely work with alcoholics and that for every study that shows how bad moderate alcohol consumption is there is one that praises moderate consumption.
All the best my friend.
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 21
Yes, there are conflicting studies, studies that show benefits, studies that show the studies that show the benefits were due to study errors, and studies showing those studies wrong.
My point is there is enough evidence to suggest there may be serious health issues connected with moderate alcohol consumption to warrant caution with proclamations that alcohol in moderation can be healthy. I wouldn't be so sure about that. The lastest studies certainly would not support such a claim. As a mycotoxin (many of which are super carcinogenic), one that just happens to addict many people to the point of fast self destruction, I am not surprised at the consistent finding of cancer.
My point is there is enough evidence to suggest there may be serious health issues connected with moderate alcohol consumption to warrant caution with proclamations that alcohol in moderation can be healthy. I wouldn't be so sure about that. The lastest studies certainly would not support such a claim. As a mycotoxin (many of which are super carcinogenic), one that just happens to addict many people to the point of fast self destruction, I am not surprised at the consistent finding of cancer.
Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 652
l don't see any harm what so ever for a "normal" person to have a glass of wine now and then.
l wouldn't be able to do it, but there are enough people that can.
Never take the advice of someone who has not had your kind of trouble.
- Sidney J. Harris. -
l wouldn't be able to do it, but there are enough people that can.
Never take the advice of someone who has not had your kind of trouble.
- Sidney J. Harris. -
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 21
Originally Posted by penny74
l don't see any harm what so ever for a "normal" person to have a glass of wine now and then.
l wouldn't be able to do it, but there are enough people that can.
l wouldn't be able to do it, but there are enough people that can.
I understand the attractiveness of such an idea - that alcohol is fine and even healthy in moderation for many - we have a special problem and can't drink it all and are "alcoholics"...we can never do what others can easily do (drink moderately) - this seems to be used to bolster the idea that we just must accept that we can never drink ... I mean the juxtaposition of the idea that some people can drink and it is actually healthy for them and we can't at all because it will lead to our destruction and never can clearly makes the point - however, if in fact moderate drinking is not healthy, then saying it is to bolster this idea is simply wrong. The fact of the matter will always be we can't drink at all, ever, regardless of whatever any study says. Another fact may be that moderate unalcoholic drinking may increase the risk of cancer and people should be aware of it. As people who are not addicted to it anyway, they might want to know that it may cause cancer - especially those who drink it soley because they believe that it is healthy.
Forward we go...side by side-Rest In Peace
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Serene In Dixie
Posts: 36,740
Before I quit drinking....depression was my daily companion.
I was diagnosed with situational depression.
I began AA recovery...within 2 months my depression vanished.
3 years later I came on line and did a search
finding many resources about this correlation.
Here is one....from my files
Alcohol Chemistry and You
Adding toxins to your brain /body is jsimply dangerous.
I was diagnosed with situational depression.
I began AA recovery...within 2 months my depression vanished.
3 years later I came on line and did a search
finding many resources about this correlation.
Here is one....from my files
Alcohol Chemistry and You
Adding toxins to your brain /body is jsimply dangerous.
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
