Lysrin
Well-known member
Cows on the moon might make it worth that visit!if they have cows in their moon simulations, this doesn't bode well for when the astronauts get there!
the 'Stuff That's Just Really Interesting 'thread
- Thread starter Marzipan
- Start date
Marzipan
Well-known member
oldest voice audio recording is from 1857, well before Thomas Edison took credit for that.
www.bbc.com
Listen to the oldest known recording of a human voice
Thomas Edison wasn't the first person to record sound. It was a Frenchman who invented sound recording in 1857.
www.bbc.com
GeezerGamer
Well-known member
Can't say I approve.........
Marzipan
Well-known member
so, they're saying all alcoholic beverages are bad for you, not even one drink is the recommendation, responsible moderation be darned.
www.nytimes.com
Is That Drink Worth It to You?
Alcohol is riskier than previously thought, but weighing the trade-offs of health risks can be deeply personal.
That link is create an account to view. Pass. I'll have a beer instead.
Marzipan
Well-known member
sorry ... I've got a subscription and didn't realize it's locked away.That link is create an account to view. Pass. I'll have a beer instead.
FreeKnight
Well-known member
There was two major issues with a lot of the 'alcohol is good for you' studies or arguments (which I kind of mentioned related to the ozempic study post).so, they're saying all alcoholic beverages are bad for you, not even one drink is the recommendation, responsible moderation be darned.
Is That Drink Worth It to You?
Alcohol is riskier than previously thought, but weighing the trade-offs of health risks can be deeply personal.
1- Most studies broke drinkers and non-drinkers into separate groups, as expected. That's fine at first glance, but what they weren't doing was looking at the people in the non-drinking group and controlling for cause of abstinence. As a result the 'non-drinking' groups were skewing heavily into people that couldn't drink for health reasons such as liver diseases or cirrhosis, kidney failure, reactions with medication, etc.
As a result the 'non-drinker' sample was getting disproportionate amounts of people with serious medical conditions vs the 'average person' being sampled in the drinking column. Once that was corrected, studies have found drinking, in any regular amount, is bad for you.
2- A lot of the general (non-scientific) arguments tended to rely on cross-cultural examination. "The French drink more than us and live longer, healthier lives", "The Italians love wine and live longer", "The Japanese drink like it's 1999, and they live the longest!". More or less true, but generally ignored that lifestyles were substantially different in the countries with higher life expectancy and correlation isn't causation. These are all countries where walking long distances through the day is the norm, tend to eat substantially less processed food and generally have better performing health care systems than US, Canada or the UK.
Alcohol companies didn't skimp on advertising the 'health benefits' of moderate consumption and once middle aged white women found an excuse to justify 'wine Wednesday' the memes flowed freely.
It's likely small amounts of intermittent consumption will likely end up showing minimal negative affects overall, and IIRC a British NHS study found that women over 50 continued to show an overall benefit from up to two glasses of white wine a week, even factoring in control group corrections.
A good example of 'better studies can reverse general medical knowledge'. I almost never drink (vacation, occasional birthday of whoever I'm dating at any given time), so it doesn't perturb me, but some people get pretty upset when told they should drink less for health reasons haha.
LaughingCrow
Well-known member
I'm almost abstaining. I've had 1 six pack of beer this year. A friend of mine passed away recently and I'll probably get a small bottle of Drambuie (when the LCBO strike is over).
We have a lot of synonyms for drunk, inebriated, under the influence, etc. But someone pointed out the meaning of one word to me: Intoxicated. inTOXICated; the etymology of the word 'intoxicate' is derived from the Latin "toxicare meaning "to poison". Even way back in the 1500s in England, people tried to give it a more positive spin apparently, by changing the meaning: "excite to a high pitch of feeling."
The Liquor Control Board Ontario, is on strike, after the Premier made some significant & costly changes to booze here. The other day in the grocery store ahead of me was a guy with a dozen bottles of wine - no food. So the grocery corps now profit from even more booze sales. I thought people with cell phones in grocery stores are annoying; now we'll get the drunks...
Marzipan
Well-known member
I espouse moderation. I drink so rarely that I'm not worried. In my 44 years I can count the number of times I've been inebriated on two fingers.
FreeKnight
Well-known member
I suspect it'll eventually iron out to a 'infrequent or intermittent light drinking' levels of drinking while not quite harmless, aren't enough to significantly raise your levels of cancer or other disease. I.e.: A drink or two every weekend won't kill you, or at least something else will do the damage long before that.
Meanwhile, I suspect that even infrequent binge drinking or regular consumption of 2-3 beers most days will likely have more serious increases in negative health outcomes.
That's entirely speculation on my part, but I think of it like other 'low level toxic' materials. You inhale benzene every time you gas up your vehicle in small amounts, but it's infrequent (1-3x week for most people depending on commutes, jobs, etc) and you're exposed in limited doses and likely doesn't increase your risk of anything in a statistically significant way.
If you work in a refinery, you're getting a regular low-level exposure for 8-10hrs a day and, surprise, they have higher rates of lung cancer and leukemia.
It's also why I suspect even infrequent binge drinking, beyond tipsy, into 'wasted' territory, say 2-3x a month will pan out to be fairly serious. Lots of chemicals have something of a 'mostly harmless' or exposure threshold, that once passed, your body starts really having difficulty processing or the damage piles up in an accelerating fashion.
As usual, 'dosage makes the poison', 'all things in moderation', 'I'm not a doctor', 'never believe what someone on the internet tells you - Abraham Lincoln', etc, etc.
Meanwhile, I suspect that even infrequent binge drinking or regular consumption of 2-3 beers most days will likely have more serious increases in negative health outcomes.
That's entirely speculation on my part, but I think of it like other 'low level toxic' materials. You inhale benzene every time you gas up your vehicle in small amounts, but it's infrequent (1-3x week for most people depending on commutes, jobs, etc) and you're exposed in limited doses and likely doesn't increase your risk of anything in a statistically significant way.
If you work in a refinery, you're getting a regular low-level exposure for 8-10hrs a day and, surprise, they have higher rates of lung cancer and leukemia.
It's also why I suspect even infrequent binge drinking, beyond tipsy, into 'wasted' territory, say 2-3x a month will pan out to be fairly serious. Lots of chemicals have something of a 'mostly harmless' or exposure threshold, that once passed, your body starts really having difficulty processing or the damage piles up in an accelerating fashion.
As usual, 'dosage makes the poison', 'all things in moderation', 'I'm not a doctor', 'never believe what someone on the internet tells you - Abraham Lincoln', etc, etc.
