<story><title>No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation</title><url>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-20/is-a-glass-of-wine-a-day-good-for-me-heart-federation-says-no</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>idontwantthis</author><text>Secondhand smoke is the cost of being in a bar outside of the US. Good luck making friends with European expats without some secondhand smoke.</text></item><item><author>thrashh</author><text>We’re not talking smoking though&lt;p&gt;We’re talking second hand smoke&lt;p&gt;Who exactly is looking to get some second hand smoke in their face while avoiding actually smoking?</text></item><item><author>dleslie</author><text>&amp;gt; Nobody gains anything from an activity that fundamentally requires exposure to tobacco smoke.&lt;p&gt;Except smokers, of course.&lt;p&gt;Smoking isn&amp;#x27;t just addictive and deadly, like alcohol, it has its own appeal to users.</text></item><item><author>babypuncher</author><text>I think the difference is that there is something to be gained in exchange for the risk posed by cosmic rays during air travel, so people are more interested in taking a nuanced approach to it. Meanwhile second hand smoke is a nuisance at best and a legitimate health concern at worse. Most people (myself included) are happy to ban smoking on airplanes or in restaurants even if the health benefits are negligible at best.&lt;p&gt;I do agree though, studies like this should always include useful context rather than just making absolutist statements. Perhaps alcohol and tobacco smoke need something similar to the banana equivalent dose used when talking about radiation exposure.</text></item><item><author>dionidium</author><text>If you want to feel some dissonance about this, you might note that this is the &lt;i&gt;exact&lt;/i&gt; language the CDC uses for things like secondhand smoke -- &amp;quot;There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke&amp;quot; --  which everybody nods along to and accepts without much scrutiny.&lt;p&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.cdc.gov&amp;#x2F;tobacco&amp;#x2F;data_statistics&amp;#x2F;fact_sheets&amp;#x2F;secondhand_smoke&amp;#x2F;health_effects&amp;#x2F;index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.cdc.gov&amp;#x2F;tobacco&amp;#x2F;data_statistics&amp;#x2F;fact_sheets&amp;#x2F;seco...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Meanwhile, when it&amp;#x27;s something like, say, cosmic radiation exposure from commercial air travel, suddenly the CDC is very interested in levels of exposure and has language that provides context intended to downplay the risks.&lt;p&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.cdc.gov&amp;#x2F;nceh&amp;#x2F;radiation&amp;#x2F;air_travel.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.cdc.gov&amp;#x2F;nceh&amp;#x2F;radiation&amp;#x2F;air_travel.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Why these statements bother us when they&amp;#x27;re about one thing and not another -- or, indeed, why our health agencies would choose language like this for some kinds of risks and not others -- is left as an exercise for the reader.</text></item><item><author>solox3</author><text>I am fine with abstinence as a general recommendation, but critical thinking pointed out two issues with the WHF Policy Brief, which I suppose I have read in sufficient depth:&lt;p&gt;1. There is no citation on the sentence, &amp;quot;Recent evidence has found that no level of alcohol consumption is safe for health.&amp;quot; This is really the only line we are interested in.&lt;p&gt;2. There is no comparison on the effects of alcohol on the body by dosage (and frequency), which is, again, what is required from the brief to make that claim.&lt;p&gt;Again, while I don&amp;#x27;t necessarily disagree with what&amp;#x27;s in the report, and that it is already established that drinking too much is not good for the heart, considering many otherwise toxic substances have a hormetic zone, it is critical that a study like this rules out the its existence for ethanol.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>afcapel</author><text>In general European countries have bans on smoking in public places much stricter than the US.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;List_of_smoking_bans#Smoking_bans_by_country&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;List_of_smoking_bans#Smoking_b...&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation</title><url>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-20/is-a-glass-of-wine-a-day-good-for-me-heart-federation-says-no</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>idontwantthis</author><text>Secondhand smoke is the cost of being in a bar outside of the US. Good luck making friends with European expats without some secondhand smoke.</text></item><item><author>thrashh</author><text>We’re not talking smoking though&lt;p&gt;We’re talking second hand smoke&lt;p&gt;Who exactly is looking to get some second hand smoke in their face while avoiding actually smoking?</text></item><item><author>dleslie</author><text>&amp;gt; Nobody gains anything from an activity that fundamentally requires exposure to tobacco smoke.&lt;p&gt;Except smokers, of course.&lt;p&gt;Smoking isn&amp;#x27;t just addictive and deadly, like alcohol, it has its own appeal to users.</text></item><item><author>babypuncher</author><text>I think the difference is that there is something to be gained in exchange for the risk posed by cosmic rays during air travel, so people are more interested in taking a nuanced approach to it. Meanwhile second hand smoke is a nuisance at best and a legitimate health concern at worse. Most people (myself included) are happy to ban smoking on airplanes or in restaurants even if the health benefits are negligible at best.&lt;p&gt;I do agree though, studies like this should always include useful context rather than just making absolutist statements. Perhaps alcohol and tobacco smoke need something similar to the banana equivalent dose used when talking about radiation exposure.</text></item><item><author>dionidium</author><text>If you want to feel some dissonance about this, you might note that this is the &lt;i&gt;exact&lt;/i&gt; language the CDC uses for things like secondhand smoke -- &amp;quot;There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke&amp;quot; --  which everybody nods along to and accepts without much scrutiny.&lt;p&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.cdc.gov&amp;#x2F;tobacco&amp;#x2F;data_statistics&amp;#x2F;fact_sheets&amp;#x2F;secondhand_smoke&amp;#x2F;health_effects&amp;#x2F;index.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.cdc.gov&amp;#x2F;tobacco&amp;#x2F;data_statistics&amp;#x2F;fact_sheets&amp;#x2F;seco...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Meanwhile, when it&amp;#x27;s something like, say, cosmic radiation exposure from commercial air travel, suddenly the CDC is very interested in levels of exposure and has language that provides context intended to downplay the risks.&lt;p&gt;Source: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.cdc.gov&amp;#x2F;nceh&amp;#x2F;radiation&amp;#x2F;air_travel.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.cdc.gov&amp;#x2F;nceh&amp;#x2F;radiation&amp;#x2F;air_travel.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Why these statements bother us when they&amp;#x27;re about one thing and not another -- or, indeed, why our health agencies would choose language like this for some kinds of risks and not others -- is left as an exercise for the reader.</text></item><item><author>solox3</author><text>I am fine with abstinence as a general recommendation, but critical thinking pointed out two issues with the WHF Policy Brief, which I suppose I have read in sufficient depth:&lt;p&gt;1. There is no citation on the sentence, &amp;quot;Recent evidence has found that no level of alcohol consumption is safe for health.&amp;quot; This is really the only line we are interested in.&lt;p&gt;2. There is no comparison on the effects of alcohol on the body by dosage (and frequency), which is, again, what is required from the brief to make that claim.&lt;p&gt;Again, while I don&amp;#x27;t necessarily disagree with what&amp;#x27;s in the report, and that it is already established that drinking too much is not good for the heart, considering many otherwise toxic substances have a hormetic zone, it is critical that a study like this rules out the its existence for ethanol.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>babypuncher</author><text>I can&amp;#x27;t stand the smell of cigarettes, many of them make me feel nauseous. This may be because I&amp;#x27;m young enough that public smoking has been banned for most of my life, so I never ever got used to the smell.</text></comment>