fifty5
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2003
- Posts
- 3,619
Mathematical BBC Radio 4 programme, More Or Less , yesterday had an item on drinking too much, inspired by 2 recent reports on drinking, 1 UK, 1 AUS.
The mathematical bit came in because of analysis in the UK report, which defined 2 levels of "too much", "hazardous" and "harmful". What Tim Harford, More Or Less presenter, was commenting upon was the point that almost all the media reported that it is middle-class, home counties drinking at home that tops the "hazardous" league table, and ignored the more serious "harmful" category, where poor Glaswegians etc. continue to do worst. "News-worthy-ness" continues (surprise to no-one) to concern editors far more than covering a whole story rationally.
Link via "richer, more detailed reporting seems to be less popular (with readers as well as editors?) than oversimplified sound-bites" to the Australian report, which does present detailed analysis, but still comes up with a very simple recommendation: drinking up to 1 unit (10gm) of alcohol per day has less than 1/100 chance of harm. (Less than 1 in 100 who follow this advice will die of alcohol related causes.)
There was also a link to the full, PDF-format report - inviting readers to assess their own risks.
So I did - and found that my alcohol risks seem to be at least 6 times higher.
But that means instead of being 99% likely to die of non-alcohol-related causes, I'm reducing that risk to only 94%!
Getting less flippant again, I - we all - are going to die. Aren't the most important questions: "Which way do you prefer to go?" and "How do you want to get there?"
I wish I could answer either of those. The only 'nice' deaths I've seen were the virtually painless lethal injections given to pets. Mind you, those are the only deaths I've actually seen...
Ho hum!
The mathematical bit came in because of analysis in the UK report, which defined 2 levels of "too much", "hazardous" and "harmful". What Tim Harford, More Or Less presenter, was commenting upon was the point that almost all the media reported that it is middle-class, home counties drinking at home that tops the "hazardous" league table, and ignored the more serious "harmful" category, where poor Glaswegians etc. continue to do worst. "News-worthy-ness" continues (surprise to no-one) to concern editors far more than covering a whole story rationally.
Link via "richer, more detailed reporting seems to be less popular (with readers as well as editors?) than oversimplified sound-bites" to the Australian report, which does present detailed analysis, but still comes up with a very simple recommendation: drinking up to 1 unit (10gm) of alcohol per day has less than 1/100 chance of harm. (Less than 1 in 100 who follow this advice will die of alcohol related causes.)
There was also a link to the full, PDF-format report - inviting readers to assess their own risks.
So I did - and found that my alcohol risks seem to be at least 6 times higher.
But that means instead of being 99% likely to die of non-alcohol-related causes, I'm reducing that risk to only 94%!

Getting less flippant again, I - we all - are going to die. Aren't the most important questions: "Which way do you prefer to go?" and "How do you want to get there?"
I wish I could answer either of those. The only 'nice' deaths I've seen were the virtually painless lethal injections given to pets. Mind you, those are the only deaths I've actually seen...
Ho hum!