How Dangerous Is Moderate Drinking?
http://www.addictioninfo.org/articles/2139/1/How-Dangerous-Is-Moderate-Drinking/Page1.html
Statistical Assessment Service
Since its founding in 1994, the non-profit, non-partisan Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) has become a much-valued resource on the use and abuse of science and statistics in the media.
www.stats.org
Also see articles by Maia Szalavitz.
www.stats.org
Also see articles by Maia Szalavitz.
By Statistical Assessment Service
Published on 01/8/2008
The Chicago Tribune moralizes about the risks of alcohol with numbers, but misleads readers on the real story; it seems to have put moderate drinking in the doghouse.
The Chicago Tribune moralizes about the risks of alcohol with numbers, but misleads readers on the real story; it seems to have put moderate drinking in the doghouse.Rebecca Goldin Ph.D.
The Chicago Tribune moralizes about the risks of alcohol with numbers, but misleads readers on the real story.
The Chicago Tribune seems to have put moderate drinking in the doghouse.
According to its a recent news story, “comprehensive reviews of the scientific evidence” have found people are at risk for cancer, even if they drink moderately.
The point of the article seems to be a cost/benefit analysis. Do the known benefits of moderate alcohol consumption outweigh the known harm – or as the sub heading puts it: “Something to Ask Yourself: Is It Worth It?”
But the author is playing dirty: the benefits of moderate consumption are compared to the costs of heavy alcohol consumption!
According to the study cited by the Tribune, moderate drinkers (people who consume, on average, just over one drink a day) “increase their chances of developing colon cancer by about 15 percent.”
And as for breast cancer, “women who have one to two drinks a day increase their breast cancer risk by 13 percent.”
The numbers may or may not seem scary to the average reader, sipping wine over the evening paper, especially compared to the benefits of alcohol.
The very same level of moderate alcohol consumption is associated with a 10-15 percent reduction in heart attacks and strokes caused by blocked arteries.
Unfortunately, the Tribune peppers all these statistics with other statistics about the risks of heavy drinking.
After mentioning the colon cancer risk associated with just over a drink a day, we read that those who drink four drinks a day face a 40 percent increase in the likelihood of colon cancer.
And just after hearing about the modest risk increases in breast cancer, we are told that women who have over four drinks a day face a 50-percent increased likelihood.
Then Juergen Rehm, head of public health and regulatory policies at the Ontario Center for Addiction and Mental Health, is quoted saying that “alcohol is detrimental for more than 60 diagnoses.” Of course, there is no mention of how common these diagnoses are.
The death rates are sorely misrepresented. There are an estimated 30,000 lives which are saved by moderate alcohol intake (by virtue of these people not having fatal heart attacks).
But the lives lost to cancer due to moderate alcohol intake are not cited. Instead, the Tribune compares this number with the cancers caused by excessive and moderate drinking combined. That’s 12,000 people.
And then for good measure, they throw in the number of traffic deaths attributed to drinking: 13,674. Somehow the absurdity of the comparison escaped the editor’s notice.
Even more to the point, these numbers sum to 25,674, still fewer than the 30,000 lives saved.
When the Tribune gets off of its soap box (on which it cites an epidemiologist on her opinions about excise taxes) and the dust clears, the statistics will still say that moderate drinking has a much greater positive impact on health than negative one.
The Chicago Tribune moralizes about the risks of alcohol with numbers, but misleads readers on the real story.
The Chicago Tribune seems to have put moderate drinking in the doghouse.
According to its a recent news story, “comprehensive reviews of the scientific evidence” have found people are at risk for cancer, even if they drink moderately.
The point of the article seems to be a cost/benefit analysis. Do the known benefits of moderate alcohol consumption outweigh the known harm – or as the sub heading puts it: “Something to Ask Yourself: Is It Worth It?”
But the author is playing dirty: the benefits of moderate consumption are compared to the costs of heavy alcohol consumption!
According to the study cited by the Tribune, moderate drinkers (people who consume, on average, just over one drink a day) “increase their chances of developing colon cancer by about 15 percent.”
And as for breast cancer, “women who have one to two drinks a day increase their breast cancer risk by 13 percent.”
The numbers may or may not seem scary to the average reader, sipping wine over the evening paper, especially compared to the benefits of alcohol.
The very same level of moderate alcohol consumption is associated with a 10-15 percent reduction in heart attacks and strokes caused by blocked arteries.
Unfortunately, the Tribune peppers all these statistics with other statistics about the risks of heavy drinking.
After mentioning the colon cancer risk associated with just over a drink a day, we read that those who drink four drinks a day face a 40 percent increase in the likelihood of colon cancer.
And just after hearing about the modest risk increases in breast cancer, we are told that women who have over four drinks a day face a 50-percent increased likelihood.
Then Juergen Rehm, head of public health and regulatory policies at the Ontario Center for Addiction and Mental Health, is quoted saying that “alcohol is detrimental for more than 60 diagnoses.” Of course, there is no mention of how common these diagnoses are.
The death rates are sorely misrepresented. There are an estimated 30,000 lives which are saved by moderate alcohol intake (by virtue of these people not having fatal heart attacks).
But the lives lost to cancer due to moderate alcohol intake are not cited. Instead, the Tribune compares this number with the cancers caused by excessive and moderate drinking combined. That’s 12,000 people.
And then for good measure, they throw in the number of traffic deaths attributed to drinking: 13,674. Somehow the absurdity of the comparison escaped the editor’s notice.
Even more to the point, these numbers sum to 25,674, still fewer than the 30,000 lives saved.
When the Tribune gets off of its soap box (on which it cites an epidemiologist on her opinions about excise taxes) and the dust clears, the statistics will still say that moderate drinking has a much greater positive impact on health than negative one.