Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Turned Out Nice Again

New Unisex Government Alcohol Consumption Guidelines

Recommended Posts

It's utter nonsense. The Government might as well tell me what colour socks to wear.

I say drink until you have had enough, and then stop. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're trying to simplify it and still failing because of this spurious "units" measure; they need to drop that and put it out as a gallon of beer or two bottles of wine a week and leave it there.

Anybody on spirits will be oblivious to it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently Ms Millitant-Fem-Health is drawing up guidelines on male masturbation....

Once a year.

I'm not denying booze causes some cancers.

I have a feeling that he biggest factor in booze-cancer probably hinges on the sugar/carbs in booze, rather than the actual alcohol.

I noticed shes not demanding an equalising of health spending between sexes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a yawn.

The BBC are addicted to pumping out this faux medical report/guideline stuff instead of real news presumably because they do not employ real journalists any more

Truth is it won't make a blind bit of difference to whether people booze too much or become complete teetotallers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently Ms Millitant-Fem-Health is drawing up guidelines on male masturbation....

Once a year.

I'm not denying booze causes some cancers.

I have a feeling that he biggest factor in booze-cancer probably hinges on the sugar/carbs in booze, rather than the actual alcohol.

I noticed shes not demanding an equalising of health spending between sexes.

If that's the case, are those developing cancer have diets high in sugar/carbs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The figures are nonsense, or at least the reporting is. For example they state that the 14 units brings the risk into line with daily car driving at a 1% risk (I'm assuming lifetime?). Really?

In 2013 there were 1713 road user detaths, nearly 600 weren't car or motorcycle users. Even with the higher figure, if that is 1% then are we saying only 171,300 people die each year. Ok so it may be that not everyone uses the roads so in fact if only about 1/3 of people use the roads on a daily basis then the 1% rate comes close to the roughly 500,000 deaths in England and Wales. We've left out Scotland of course, but maybe so did the original article.

Overall I call BS on those stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The figures are nonsense, or at least the reporting is. For example they state that the 14 units brings the risk into line with daily car driving at a 1% risk (I'm assuming lifetime?). Really?

In 2013 there were 1713 road user detaths, nearly 600 weren't car or motorcycle users. Even with the higher figure, if that is 1% then are we saying only 171,300 people die each year. Ok so it may be that not everyone uses the roads so in fact if only about 1/3 of people use the roads on a daily basis then the 1% rate comes close to the roughly 500,000 deaths in England and Wales. We've left out Scotland of course, but maybe so did the original article.

Overall I call BS on those stats.

A v bad comparator regardless of the actual numbers for the simple reason of with whom the risk falls.

With drinking, the drinker makes the decision to drink and bears the health risk.

With driving, the driver is as likely (more likely possibly - as you say hundreds are killed by drivers just for being on the street) to kill someone else.

If the govt is going to stick its nose in then it would makes sense to do so in the latter case and not the former - which is entirely a private affair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nanny state........I thought this was a free country, free to decide what and how you treat and maintain your body, it does not belong to bussy bodies trying to right all wrongs, telling us what is good for us and what is not......as long as nobody is harmed or mistreated.

We are responsible and intelligent enough to make our own decissions regarding our own health and well being.......we will all die one day...who is it to tell us how we should die and what we should or should not die from....

Old long lived people cost more to keep than people that work hard, play hard and die happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yawn.

What I found annoying was the typical "no safe level" drivel. No sh1t Sherlock, if there's a chance of something happening at all then you'll vary the probability by changing the level. That doesn't mean that there aren't levels at which you must be pathetically paranoid to have the slightest concern. And even on higher levels it reaches "so what?" amounts of concern, when the wide-scale misery of avoiding them is a much bigger problem than the odd victim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "no safe level" looks to me like the first faltering step upon the road to making alcohol as much a frowned-upon and restricted product as tobacco.

This then opens the door to punitive taxation "because it's bad for you".

£10 pint and a boom in home-brewing on their way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm doing "dryjanuary" last drink was new years day.

To tell the truth i feel fantastic better than i have for years.

Mind you i was a bit of a drinker.

I'm giving dry january a miss - saving myself for bevuary :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "no safe level" looks to me like the first faltering step upon the road to making alcohol as much a frowned-upon and restricted product as tobacco.

Probably :( Just looks to me though like another reason to think society has lost it. I just wish that more people had more than two braincells to knock together. After all there's no safe level of standing on your feet (you can always fall over and bang your head). Perception of risk is dreadful and there's a whole Health and Safety industry making it worse under the cloak of managing to do the odd decent thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'Interference Sector' continues to grow doesn't it - every one of these busy-bodies paid for by the taxpayer.

The alcohol unit figures were made up back when it was 21 and 14 (QI did it), and these recommended limits vary country.

To have to such a low limit and to equalize the sexes (men and women are different) is jumping the shark. Of course, these 'nudges' pave the way to other things brought in for your own good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "no safe level" looks to me like the first faltering step upon the road to making alcohol as much a frowned-upon and restricted product as tobacco.

This then opens the door to punitive taxation "because it's bad for you".

£10 pint and a boom in home-brewing on their way.

Does no safe level include tee total?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They'll be telling us bacon and other pork products are bad for us next.... The sun is dangerous too so it's best to wear a big frock and grow a beard to reduce the risk. It's for the children don't you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They seem to be implying that no drinking at all is the safest way. I'm not sure you can be so categorical as this. If 7/1,000 die of liver disease or cancer related to moderate drinking even by keeping within the 14 units guidelines whose to say 8/1,000 wouldn't have been saved the fate of heart disease by drinking the occasional glass of red.

http://www.heartmdinstitute.com/video-library/web-shows/myth-buster-series/437-is-red-wine-and-alcohol-good-for-your-heart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   100 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.