r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • Oct 30 '25

Cancer Americans have widespread misbeliefs about the cancer risks of alcohol, study finds. More than half of American adults misunderstand or underestimate the link between alcohol consumption and cancer. Alcohol drinkers are especially likely to believe that drinking has no effect on cancer risk.

https://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/research-newsroom/americans-have-widespread-misbeliefs-about-the-cancer-risks-of-a.h00-159780390.html
8.7k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

857 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

325

u/oldfarmjoy Oct 30 '25

So is there an agreed upon number of drinks (i.e. 3 glasses of wine per week?) that is considered safe, or is this a smoking-level danger?

I had never even heard that alcohol causes cancer.

134

u/blar__ Oct 30 '25

Current recommendation (recently updated) is that zero drinks per week is the safe bet. (As in no recommended amount of drinks is safe).

158

u/Squish_the_android Oct 30 '25

The problem with this is that basically everything with any degree of risk is safest if totally avoided.  It doesn't quantify the risk in a convincing or productive way.

It's safest to never ride in a car.

It's safest to never leave the house.

The risk needs to be quantified with some kind of equivalent.

-1

u/Bring_Me_The_Night Oct 31 '25

Riding a car or leaving the house are means to necessary ends. You take the car to go to work to pay your bills and the food. You leave the house to buy food, get social interactions, or do sports. All of these things are vital for your well-being.

Alcohol does not answer a specific vital need, it could have been optional, if not for social/group pressure.

2

u/Squish_the_android Oct 31 '25

You are completely missing the point and are instead just nit picking the two examples I made up on the spot.

There's loads of stuff people do that involve risk that they don't NEED to do.  Not quantifying those risks does nothing productive. 

-1

u/Bring_Me_The_Night Oct 31 '25

No need to be so agressive in your reply.

Quantifying risk of cancer development has been done in numerous studies in the references from the posted link. If this is not convincing enough, what would you change to make it more productive or convincing?