The news media have been filled with reactions to the U.S. Surgeon General’s recent pronouncement that alcohol was a major cancer risk, and that alcoholic beverages should carry a cancer warning label like that on cigarette packages. (Ireland currently requires such warning labels.)

            The World Health Organizations estimates that about 4% of cancers worldwide are alcohol-related.

            The long-touted heart protective effects of alcohol have been questioned.

            What should you believe?

            First, some definitions. A “standard” drink is defined as 5 ounces of wine, 12 of beer and 1.5 ounces of liquor.

            Women metabolize alcohol differently than men, and so have higher blood levels than men from the same amount consumed.

            Almost all studies of the effects of alcohol on health are flawed.

            First, they depend on self-reported consumption. Since many, if not most, people know that heavy drinking is not good, there is a strong tendency to under-report what you drink.

            Second, they are observational: groups are followed and their health outcomes studied. We know that this type of study is prone to bias. People who drink alcohol may have many other habits that non-drinkers do not share, such as smoking.

            Alcohol consumption has been linked to higher incidences of head and neck cancer, liver cancer, colorectal cancer, esophageal cancer and breast cancer.

            Even the most toxic of substances only cause harm at threshold doses, and for most toxins, the more, the worse. Consistent with this, the National Academy of Medicine estimated that 2 drinks/week would shorten your life by less than a week, 7 drinks/week would shorten your life by 2.5 months while 5 drinks/day would shorten it by over two years.

            A recent study from Spain shed fascinating light on wine and the heart. Rather than ask subjects how much they drank, they took urine samples and measured metabolites of wine to objectively estimate how much they drank. They found that light-to-moderate drinkers (from ½ to 1 glass/day) had 50% fewer cardiac events over 6 years of follow-up. This protective effect disappeared in those who drank more than 1 glass/day.

            My take-aways:

            If you do not drink, there is no reason to start. There are no net health benefits to drinking.

            If you drink heavily (more than 2 drinks/day for men, 1/day for women), please cut down. You are harming yourself.

            If you enjoy a glass of wine a few times a week, relax. The slight increased cancer risk is probably balanced by less heart disease.

            The Greeks had it right: all things in moderation.

            Edward Hoffer MD is Associate Professor of Medicine, part-time, at Harvard.

What Does The Doctor Say?

By Dr. Edward Hoffer

            In what can only be described as a coincidence, a surprising coincidence, Rochester’s Plumb Library along with the Friends of the Library, hosted Matt Davis on January 11. Davis’ timely lecture was on the topic of coping with threats from natural disasters.

Davis brought his understanding of how humans cope with natural disasters in a lecture that was informative and insightful. After spending years researching the psychology behind rebuilding in disaster zones and coping with monumental losses, the former professor spoke to the challenges facing growing populations and the very human trait of wanting to remain on one’s home turf.

            His studies are a unique blend of geology and phycology which he admitted was not a well-known path. Yet given what we are perceiving as increases in natural disasters (let’s say it together – “global warming”), it’s a timely topic to consider.

            Davis told the audience that our planet is a restless ever-changing place to carve out a living. And it has always been this way.

            The researcher said that one example of environmental disaster has been documented over 200 times in ancient writings including the Bible, the great flood that features Noah as a central player. Davis said that early people considered volcanic eruptions as openings to hell, while floods and other climatic events were considered punishments. His point is that there have always been severe weather and global events and there always will be. It comes down to how we cope.

            Davis’ studies have taken him to far away places working with local agencies both before, during and after devasting events. What he found regarding human nature is fascinating. But the most striking take-way is this, we want to stay in places we call home in spite of future floods, wildfires, and the like.

            Take for instance Tornado Alley; also called Tornado Valley. The states of Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Kansas, South Dakota, Iowa, and Nebraska produce and suffer from 80-percent of all tornadoes in the world, Davis stated. And yet, rather than moving, people stay, rebuild, bury the dead, and go on living. The same can be said for those living in and near the area known as the Ring of Fire. This vast area comprising Tonga, Indonesia, the Philippines, Japan, and the Aleutians sits on volcanoes that are active and ready for action.

            Modern devices are now employed to monitor seismic action, air currents, the presence of tsunamis, and weather predictions. We receive warnings via the internet, cell phones, TV and radio. We are told to seek shelter and often times have days to prepare securing water and other supplies. But do we pay attention.

            Davis cautioned, “If you are told to evacuate then evacuate.” Better safe than sorry.

            Davis pointed to the fact that people are inclined to rebuild in the same threatened locations after they have lost everything, including family and friends. “The California wildfires are not new. It’s a reoccurring patten of wet periods and dry periods. Los Angeles should never have been so big.” Today some 36-million people live in the Los Angeles area. Considering Los Angeles for a moment, Davis conjectured that amazing “views” are a primary reason people roll the dice and build in areas where earthquakes and other environmental dangers are ever-present. He noted the San Francisco Bay Area as another location where people have densely built on top of active earthquake fault lines.

            Today, developers and regulatory agencies are looking long and hard at hazard mitigation planning. It’s a topic often spoken at various board meetings around our home the Tri-Town area. But Davis said there are added costs associated with such considerations, different building materials, and longer construction periods.

            Denial, Davis said, factors into human perception of whether or not an area is reasonably safe to build on. We tend to evaluate risk in measured proportions, “…how likely will something bad happen (risk perception)? How likely, how soon, how seriously.”

            And even if advance warning technology is available and is employed, “…where would the people go?”

            Davis spoke to issues that arose during hurricane Katrina, an enormous storm that Louisiana has yet to fully recover from. “Disaster response was total chaos.” He said disaster relieve agencies weren’t synchronized in their messaging and challenged at every turn to provide victims with accurate information in order to receive assistance.

            On the topic of preparedness Davis believes everyday problems and needs outweigh those efforts, “There are new apartment complexes in the shadow of Mt. Vesuvius.” Vesuvius is still an active volcano. But there’s no place like home.

            Available now is Davis’ latest book At Home in the World, Reflections of a Travel Addict.

By Marilou Newell