• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

All types of alcohol raise cancer risk

QuestionEverything

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Sep 8, 2002
Messages
3,176
All types of alcohol — wine, beer or liquor — add equally to the risk of developing breast cancer in women, American researchers said Thursday.

"This is a hugely underestimated risk factor," said Dr. Patrick Maisonneuve, head of epidemiology at the European Institute of Oncology in Italy, who was not connected to the study.

"Women drinking wine because they think it is healthier than beer are wrong," he said. "It's about the amount of alcohol consumed, not the type."

Previous studies have shown a link between alcohol consumption and breast cancer, but there have been conflicting messages about whether different kinds of alcohol were more dangerous than others.

The researchers, led by Dr. Arthur Klatsky of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program in Oakland, Calif., revealed their findings at a meeting of the European Cancer Organization in Barcelona.

Researchers analyzed the drinking habits of 70,033 women of various races and asked them questions during health exams between 1978 and 1985. By 2004, 2,829 of these women had been diagnosed with breast cancer.

Klatsky and his colleagues looked at which types of alcohol the women drank, as well as their total alcohol intake. They compared that to women who had less than one drink a day.

Researchers found no difference in the risk of developing breast cancer among women who drank wine, beer, or liquor. Compared with light drinkers — those who had less than one drink a day — women who had one or two drinks a day increased their risk of developing breast cancer by 10 percent. Women who had more than three drinks a day raised their risk by 30 percent.

"A 30 percent increased risk is not trivial," Klatsky said. "It provides more evidence for why heavy drinkers should quit or cut down."

Some experts said that people might be confused by suggestions that drinking red wine is healthy, since some studies have suggested that it protects against heart disease.

"None of these mechanisms have anything to do with breast cancer," Klatsky said. Though it is not entirely clear how alcohol contributes to breast cancer, some experts think it raises hormone levels in the blood to levels that could potentially cause cancer.

Still, doctors said that other factors, such as genetics, obesity, and age, were more important in raising the breast cancer risk than was alcohol consumption.

More public education may be needed. "Alcohol has had a lot of good publicity. People may not realize the risk they're taking when they have a few drinks," said Tim Key, of the Cancer Research UK Epidemiology Unit at Oxford. Key was not involved in the study.

According to data published in the British Journal of Cancer in 2002, 4 percent of all breast cancers — about 44,000 cases a year — in the United Kingdom are due to alcohol consumption.

Only a small proportion of women are thought to be heavy drinkers. But experts now say there is enough evidence to blame alcohol for breast cancer — and to start educating the public.

"Any alcohol consumption will raise your breast cancer risk," Key said. "Women don't have to abstain from alcohol entirely, but they need to be aware of the risks they're taking when they have a few too many drinks."

-------------------------------------------
All types of alcohol raise cancer risk
By MARIA CHENG, AP Medical Writer
Thu Sep 27, 8:50 AM ET

Yahoo! News
 
Last edited by a moderator:
pwned? wtf?

I saw this on the news today, it has me concerned over some of my friends usage.
 
Huray for the males then... Statistics like this are the shit you make from it...
Wonder how many had become diabetic, schizophrenic,anxious, depressed, suicidal etc... from alcohol during the testing time, just some doc / prof who wants his name in the paper with irrelevant connections/sugestions aka thinking he made a huge discovery against preventing breast cancer (4%?) a load of #!it to me...
so what is the real reason for the majority? genetics, pollution,the premade/ genetic altered food we eat,the cigarettes/ tobacco,druuuugs, silicone implants??? tell me that...
Also quote "Researchers found no difference in the risk of developing breast cancer among women who drank wine, beer, or liquor" so if they drank 1 consumption of beer (6% alcohol), wine (11% alcohol) or liquor (20-40% alcohol) it made no difference???!!!
 
Last edited:
I have a feeling that alchohol in general raise your risk to get any kind of cancer. Just my theory.
 
Lies, damn lies and statistics. Interesting study but some of the leaps taken here are a bit over the top.
 
LD50 said:
Huray for the males then... Statistics like this are the shit you make from it...
Wonder how many had become diabetic, schizophrenic,anxious, depressed, suicidal etc... from alcohol during the testing time, just some doc / prof who wants his name in the paper with irrelevant connections/sugestions aka thinking he made a huge discovery against preventing breast cancer (4%?) a load of #!it to me...
so what is the real reason for the majority? genetics, pollution,the premade/ genetic altered food we eat,the cigarettes/ tobacco,druuuugs, silicone implants??? tell me that...
Also quote "Researchers found no difference in the risk of developing breast cancer among women who drank wine, beer, or liquor" so if they drank 1 consumption of beer (6% alcohol), wine (11% alcohol) or liquor (20-40% alcohol) it made no difference???!!!

LOL... I'm sure they adjusted the amount of alcohol when they compared them.

What they mean is it makes no difference whether you drink an equivalent amount of wine or beer or liquor - alcohol is alcohol. Granted, liquor contains more, but 1 shot = about 1 beer.

This is no concrete study obviously, the only way to imply causation is to have a controlled experiment, and an experiment of this kind would be unethical, so we have no real proof. However, it does document a disturbing trend, which should be taken into consideration.

Edit: And they didn't force the people to drink the alcohol, the women drank it regardless of what anyone said. The doctors simply asked them how much they drank, so there is nothing unethical about it.
 
Plus there are the other lifestyle factors that someone who drinks 3 or more drinks a day does. Like the difference between relaxing drinking a beer watching tv, and going out and exercising. I know if i get a few drinks in me all I'll want to do, is get a few more drinks in me.
There are soooooo many factors that play into this besides the alcohol. Not to mention whose who volunteered just filled out surveys, so the potential to lie is always there. some people (all my friends) are in just a lil bit of denial when it comes to alcohol. I wouldn't be suprised if at least a handful of the people surveyed lied their asses off.
 
This will be kept on the lowdown for alcohol companies. Payoffs go a looooong way.
 
Statistics like this are the shit you make from it...
+1
I have a feeling that alchohol in general raise your risk to get any kind of cancer. Just my theory.
+1 but change the word 'alcohol' for 'living'
aka thinking he made a huge discovery against preventing breast cancer (4%?)
Exactly! That's about as close to being statistically irrelevant as a statistic can be before a statistic is statistically irrelevant!.. ok not quite but hardly worth not saying that parody of a woodchuck.
"None of these mechanisms have anything to do with breast cancer," Klatsky said. Though it is not entirely clear how alcohol contributes to breast cancer, some experts think it raises hormone levels in the blood to levels that could potentially cause cancer.

Still, doctors said that other factors, such as genetics, obesity, and age, were more important in raising the breast cancer risk than was alcohol consumption.
umm... thats the conclusion.
except this is;
caner research is one of the most important medical researches currently under progress. The exception is HIV/AIDS, and thats only if you care about Africans, IV drug users and male homosexuals. Please support the research theories that make the most sense to you, and instead of funding research on the theories that alcohol is a cause of cancer (with the exception of liver cancer) fund more relevant theoretical researches. Such as the possible anti-cancer agents found within red-wine, or the researches attempting to understand the possible natural defenses against lung cancer, which, not even including my prophesied carbon enriched atmosphere which is developing due to global pollution, is statistically the most likely form of cancer to kill you. You are more likely to be cured of either breast cancer, or prostate cancer, which you are also more likely to be afflicted by.

Point: This study is yet another study which has only wasted valuable time, money and resources, to prove a point that was already obvious to the Down Syndrome suffering child of first cousins. A point that in itself holds no actual merit or applicable understanding. "Cancer is complex, and we don't understand it, but we are able to slowly prove certain facts, such as that anything can be statistically provable to have, at a minimum, a minor effect on a human beings chances of developing cancer."

gee thanx... useful tidbit guys... many thanx.
 
echo off said:
+1

+1 but change the word 'alcohol' for 'living'

Exactly! That's about as close to being statistically irrelevant as a statistic can be before a statistic is statistically irrelevant!.. ok not quite but hardly worth not saying that parody of a woodchuck.

umm... thats the conclusion.
except this is;
caner research is one of the most important medical researches currently under progress. The exception is HIV/AIDS, and thats only if you care about Africans, IV drug users and male homosexuals. Please support the research theories that make the most sense to you, and instead of funding research on the theories that alcohol is a cause of cancer (with the exception of liver cancer) fund more relevant theoretical researches. Such as the possible anti-cancer agents found within red-wine, or the researches attempting to understand the possible natural defenses against lung cancer, which, not even including my prophesied carbon enriched atmosphere which is developing due to global pollution, is statistically the most likely form of cancer to kill you. You are more likely to be cured of either breast cancer, or prostate cancer, which you are also more likely to be afflicted by.

Point: This study is yet another study which has only wasted valuable time, money and resources, to prove a point that was already obvious to the Down Syndrome suffering child of first cousins. A point that in itself holds no actual merit or applicable understanding. "Cancer is complex, and we don't understand it, but we are able to slowly prove certain facts, such as that anything can be statistically provable to have, at a minimum, a minor effect on a human beings chances of developing cancer."

gee thanx... useful tidbit guys... many thanx.

I'm loving the racist characterization of HIV; it seems that only homos, blacks, and drug users have HIV now. Who would have known!

This is just one out of the myriad of statistical studies scientists and doctors have to simply document a trend. Regardless of the findings or the merits of the research, how can you call a study a waste of money? Every year countries across the world spend billions on defense and you call a study on the risks of cancer a waste of resources?

It does not prove anything, but it shows a remarkable relationship between women who drink considerably and the risk of getting cancer. Sure there are many confounding variables to take into account, but that comes as a risk to most studies that are done. Even with all these other variables to take into account, 30% is a large number, and simply shouldn't be ignored altogether.

I love every time one of these studies is done, everyone thinks they are a complete genius and points out all these "flaws" in the study. Don't you think the doctors already know this? They are not claiming to have a cure; researchers know statistical studies are not as concrete as controlled experiments. A correlation that is strong can have any number of conclusions, they are taking the results and interpreting it in a way that they feel makes the most sense. It's called a theory; they aren't saying its 100% factual.
 
Kkool said:
I'm loving the racist characterization of HIV; it seems that only homos, blacks, and drug users have HIV now. Who would have known!

Thank you for saying this for me. :D
 
^statistically speaking, hes correct, AIDS has a bit of a niche market, although it is spreading quickly in India and China and all of SE Asia.
 
kidamnesiac said:
^statistically speaking, hes correct, AIDS has a bit of a niche market, although it is spreading quickly in India and China and all of SE Asia.

The statistics wasn't my main issue so much as his treatment of minorities.

"thats only if you care about Africans, IV drug users and male homosexuals"

of course you should care, what an ignorant statement. I can give ur mom aids, does that make her either one of the above 3 groups?
 
^
I think the majority of us disagree with echo's bigoted viewpoint.

Let's move on please.
 
^if we illegalized it the problem would be worse

on average people would be consuming more liquor than beer/wine (much easier for the black market, sneak a truck full of beer for a couple people or a truck full of liquor for a hundred people?) which means higher dosing and more addiction and even more higher dosing
 
^wouldn't be hard to test for purity. any amateur who's had a semester of general chem could do that study. anyone up for adding some scientific knowledge to bluelight?
 
>>Plus there are the other lifestyle factors that someone who drinks 3 or more drinks a day does. Like the difference between relaxing drinking a beer watching tv, and going out and exercising.>>

Competent statistical studies account for covariates.

ebola
 
Top