It seems low because alcohol is socially acceptable and ubiquitous but ethanol is a poison and a fuel. A toxic limit indicates the amount of a substance consumed over a period of time before degradation occurs. There is a toxic limit for ionising radiation, carbon monoxide, ultra violet and many other things. We limit our exposure to these sources of harm for good reason.
My source was David Nutt’s research group, who were tasked with assessing the effects of alcohol in order to inform public policy in the UK. The toxic limit is not precise, it’s variable depending on many factors but I would imagine it’s lower than most people would guess, considering the legal status compared to substances that are non-toxic like LSD, heroin, cannabis, psilocybin, etc. Our laws and attitudes to substances often don’t make sense, when considering the overall harm that they do.
Alcohol use, especially in large amounts and prolonged periods, increases the risks of a variety of diseases. Drinking large quantities of alcohol causes harm to the liver, stomach, heart, and other vital organs. It also increases the risk of a variety of cancers, like bowel cancer, mouth cancer, and breast cancer.
But I’m pretty sure a wine/water ratio greater than 150ml/1500L is not considered a large amount.
I don’t think it’s the ratio of dilution so much as the volume over time. Weaker beverages like 2% beer are less harmful than spirits because it’s much harder to binge but they still do some damage. I don’t think they are arguing for prohibition, their emphasise is on harm reduction. A world without alcohol might not be desirable and if we are informed about how to use alcohol in a sustainable way that is surely better than what we have now.
It seems low because alcohol is socially acceptable and ubiquitous but ethanol is a poison and a fuel. A toxic limit indicates the amount of a substance consumed over a period of time before degradation occurs. There is a toxic limit for ionising radiation, carbon monoxide, ultra violet and many other things. We limit our exposure to these sources of harm for good reason.
Oh, alcohol can be very harmful. And everything is carcinogenic to some degree.
It’s the precise measurement of half a glass of wine per year I’m questioning. That’s an almost homeopathic dosage.
My source was David Nutt’s research group, who were tasked with assessing the effects of alcohol in order to inform public policy in the UK. The toxic limit is not precise, it’s variable depending on many factors but I would imagine it’s lower than most people would guess, considering the legal status compared to substances that are non-toxic like LSD, heroin, cannabis, psilocybin, etc. Our laws and attitudes to substances often don’t make sense, when considering the overall harm that they do.
But I’m pretty sure a wine/water ratio greater than 150ml/1500L is not considered a large amount.
I don’t think it’s the ratio of dilution so much as the volume over time. Weaker beverages like 2% beer are less harmful than spirits because it’s much harder to binge but they still do some damage. I don’t think they are arguing for prohibition, their emphasise is on harm reduction. A world without alcohol might not be desirable and if we are informed about how to use alcohol in a sustainable way that is surely better than what we have now.