I’ve been drinking for 7 years. Typicall I’ve only drank 3-4 drinks a year. If I stop drinking now, would that help decrease chances of cancer? If it does will it take a long time?

  • @Dmian
    link
    -41
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    deleted by creator

      • @busturn
        link
        01 year ago

        Oh come on, you don’t have to drink. Drinking is a choice and an easily avoidable health risk.

      • @Dmian
        link
        -23
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        deleted by creator

        • AmidFuror
          link
          fedilink
          131 year ago

          Which fallacy is the one where you cite a paper that doesn’t say what you claim it does?

          1. The optimum level of sun exposure for vitamin D production does not mean that level is “safe.” You’re trading vitamin D for cancer risk. Your claim about alcohol didn’t make any cost / benefit analysis. It was only that there is no safe level. You paid no regard to how small the risks were, only that there was any risk.

          2. You can get vitamin D from your diet or supplements. You can get skin cancer and retinal cancer from the sun.

          • AmidFuror
            link
            fedilink
            -1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            But the WHO didn’t write a report that breathing ages you (because it requires the passage of time), this risking age-related health problems and ultimate, inevitable death.

    • @KuchiKopi
      link
      English
      271 year ago

      As a non-drinker who has seen the ravages of alcohol abuse in several loved ones, I completely understand the “no level is safe” guideline.

      That said, 3-4 drinks per year is far below any measure of alcohol use that is seriously studied, where researchers look at drinking at the “amount per week” level. 3-4 drinks per year is essentially on the level of being a non-drinker.

    • @gorysubparbagel
      link
      231 year ago

      Technically yes, but 3-4 drinks per year is such a small amount it’s going to make a negligible difference.

      • @KuchiKopi
        link
        English
        111 year ago

        Yep, it’s like saying that drinking communion wine at church is a risky amount of alcohol.

        • @mr_jawa
          link
          English
          51 year ago

          Yeah, when everyone knows it’s really religion that’s cancerous.

      • @Dmian
        link
        -32
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        deleted by creator

        • Matte
          link
          fedilink
          11
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          this is basically not understanding what “risk” means. if you have a 1% risk of developing cancer, and by doing something (ie drinking) you double relatively-wise that risk, it’s still only 2% of risk. would you stop drinking and enjoying alcohol and living a happier life for a mere 1%?

          all the numbers I’m using are totally random, but it shows that saying “it increases the risk” although technically correct doesn’t mean shit and it’s just fearmongering and a basic inability of understanding information.

          • @Dmian
            link
            -14
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            deleted by creator

    • @ThreeHalflings
      link
      71 year ago

      An effect can be observable but still negligible in terms of the actual increase of risk.

      • @Dmian
        link
        -15
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        deleted by creator

    • @Zeth0s
      link
      61 year ago

      Change of risk for 3 drinks a year is unnoticeable. You can’t tell it from normal noise.

    • @n3m37h
      link
      1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Removed by mod