Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
ALCOHOL IS LINKED to around 2.8 million deaths a year across the world, making it the seventh leading risk factor for premature death and disability in 2016.
The authors of a new study suggest there is no safe level of alcohol as benefits against heart diseases are outweighed by the adverse effects on other areas of health, cancer in particular.
An average of one in three people, or 2.4 billion people drink alcohol – 2.2% of women and 6.8% of men die from alcohol-related health problems each year.
Alcohol was also associated with tuberculosis, road injuries, and self-harm among people aged 15-49 years old.
For people aged 50 years and older, cancers were a leading cause of alcohol-related death, constituting 27.1% of deaths in women and 18.9% of deaths in men.
The findings were published in a Global Burden of Disease study published in The Lancet that estimates levels of alcohol use and health effects in 195 countries between 1990 to 2016.
The study’s authors estimate that, for one year, in people aged 15-95 years, drinking one alcoholic drink a day increases the risk of developing one of the 23 alcohol-related health problems by 0.5% compared with not drinking at all (from 914 people in 100,000 for one year for non-drinkers aged 15-95 years, to 918 in 100,000 people a year for 15-95 year olds who consume one alcoholic drink a day).
What does alcohol actually do to your body?
Alcohol has a complex association with health – there are a number of ways it can affect your health.
Drinking alcohol regularly can damage your organs and tissues; acute intoxication can lead to injuries or poisoning; and alcohol dependence may lead to frequent intoxication, self-harm or violence.
Some previous research has suggested that low levels of consumption can have a protective effect against heart disease and diabetes.
Other studies have found that drinking alcohol in moderation can have benefits in some cases – for example this study from earlier this month found that those who abstained from alcohol in middle age were at increased risk of dementia than those who drank within the recommended daily guidelines.
But the authors of this study said that they found no evidence of this.
“Previous studies have found a protective effect of alcohol on some conditions, but we found that the combined health risks associated with alcohol increase with any amount of alcohol.
In particular, the strong association between alcohol consumption and the risk of cancer, injuries, and infectious diseases offset the protective effects for ischaemic heart disease in women in our study.
“Although the health risks associated with alcohol starts off being small with one drink a day, they then rise rapidly as people drink more,” says lead author Dr Max Griswold, Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, USA.
“Policies focusing on reducing alcohol consumption to the lowest levels will be important to improve health.
“The widely held view of the health benefits of alcohol needs revising, particularly as improved methods and analyses continue to shed light on how much alcohol contributes to global death and disability.”
Methodology
The study used data from 694 studies to estimate how common drinking alcohol is worldwide and used 592 studies including 28 million people worldwide to study the health risks associated with alcohol between 1990 to 2016 in 195 countries.
In the study, a standard alcoholic drink is defined as 10g of alcohol.
Previous studies looking at these risks rely on self-reported surveys and alcohol sales data to estimate consumption levels.
These have limitations, including that non-drinkers may avoid alcohol as they have health issues, they do not take into account types of alcohol that are not purchased (home-brews), and most studies assume that not drinking minimises risk but do not study the association to confirm this.
The new study combined alcohol sales data with the prevalence of alcohol drinking and abstinence, self-reported data on the amount of alcohol drank, tourism data to estimate the number of alcohol-drinking visitors to an area, and estimating levels of illicit trade and home brewing.
The Lancet said that it also includes a new, more robust systematic review and meta-analysis of alcohol consumption and the associated health problems, which used specific controls to reduce confounding factors.
It also used a new statistical method to estimate the risks related to drinking between 0-15 standard drinks each day. The authors used this to estimate the amount of alcohol exposure that would minimise an individual’s risk of alcohol-related health problems.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
You do know young are facing the same problem all over the country. It’s not just Dublin. The housing market is broken all over the country and people are angry. If you are heading for 40 and don’t own your own home you are in trouble because a mortgage of €450k(govt says its affordable) needs to be paid back over 25 years meaning payments are huge on it.
@Diarmuid O’Braonáin: your right. The rising price of materials is not helping at all. The price of land also.
The lifting of silly restrictions around town lands would help. Their forcing everyone into towns or just do nothing and get a free A rated home
Or just wait for a free home.
@Stephen: Exactly. They want everyone living in identical semi Ds or boxy cramped apartments. Now they won’t let you even own it. The councils are in cahoots with developers, only making large sites zoned for residential bit-by-bit that only large development companies can afford. Meanwhile I’ve seen small sites within LAPs, surrounded by houses, refused planning because the land was zoned agricultural. Small sites zoned residential are very very rare and are usually not very good. And you can forget about outside towns; you have to have a “genuine need”, be from the area (5km of the site) or living there 7 years and working there too despite the fact that the “locals only” rule is illegal under EU law. The council controls zoning. They can buy large tracks of agricultural land for cheap next to towns (or use government owned land), split them into smaller plots, service them and sell them on with planning guaranteed for reasonable development at cost.
@Stephen: Ireland is the least densely populated nation in the EU yet we have the highest land prices. There should be a tax on land hoarders.
All those empty buildings in Dublin and other town centres should be taxed (not just property tax but a ‘derelict’ tax) Thus the market would be larger with more land/buildings changing hands.
More supply will mean lower prices.
Then you think of the Billions spent on the hospital by Leo. I wonder how many houses could have been built for two Billion?
While I’m on a roll…..
3. Move all government offices and functions out of Dublin city centre and remove ALL parking spaces from government / public service employees – Thus driving a move towards reducing pressure on Dublin housing and infrastructure.
@Pete Lee: Ok, you lost me here. So no schools or hospitals to allow their empolyees to park there as long as they are in Dublin city centre. I assume Rotunda midwifes are all supposed to cycle to work?
Thousands of council residential property’s empty, awaiting refurbishment!!! Outsourcing that work if the councils can’t or won’t do it would be a massive dent. There just does not appear to be an appetite for it. Question is why?
@Tony Harris:
Very good Question!
Yet the excellent Peter McVerry Trust has a useful scheme whereby unloved dilapidated single houses owned privately around the country are brought back into use by clever funding arrangements with the owner and working closely with Local Councils with housing requirements.
Tradesmen hired to carry out the work are paid market rates for their services.
So, whose feelings do the Councils not want to hurt by tackling something very urgent, given the overhang of dilapidated council-owned units and nationwide shortage of homes?
It’s another Question that could be put to our housing minister if anyone is interviewing him tomorrow.
Nearly 90% of council funding comes from central government – all of it with strings attached. Dilapidated properties often don’t get repaired because the DOE wont fund them. Fire damaged council houses often wait years for the relevant private insurance company to fund re building or repair. Changing this has not been a DOE priority. One of the many ways government operates to slow the supply of decent housing to the populace in favour of creating demand for the private rental and purchase sectors at prices people cannot afford to drive supply. I hate SF but accept that they will win the next election as they are committed to ending the new absentee landlord support policies of FFG and the continuing transfer of wealth from the creators (workers) to the takers ( vulture capitalists.)
Ideology. That’s it. It’s a question of will.
@Darren Priest: 100%. Materials, zoning, labour market – all smoke and mirrors. You look at the global response to covid and see how many World governments made radical decisions to confront that crisis. Housing is in crisis here, if powers that be wanted to put the shoulder to the wheel they would.
Padraig Pearce gave his life that Irish men & women would be able to run their country, our current politicians are a joke, financial interests are running this country.
@trebloc01: they don’t see us as the citizens of our own country. They see us as “customers” to be drained. Regina Doherty even referred to welfare recipients as customers when talking about the public service card. They don’t hide it. Recently at an FG meeting the only problem they saw with housing crisis is that they’ll lose votes. Wasn’t even a leaked quote, it’s just what they think.
The writer is probably right though. In the end, this will probably be a two-horse FG-SF race where the voters will be speaking for the country!
As for FF, that man is driving it into the ground
1. DA GOV – allows the funds because they build or promote house building
2. Why are FDI / etc. not encouraged out of Dublin – thus Demand reductiion
It’s cheaper to buy than to rent . A situation that is daft .buying a house is a guarantee of some financial independence in your old age . The old party system has only worked for the benefit of overseas funds , who also get special tax allowances.
I don’t blame the funds from exploiting the situation, but I do blame the voters for persisting with weak governments.
It’s time for a leap in the dark
Population increasing at faster pace than infrastructure. Check stats for pop in 1998. You have your answer. And the prices per kilometer for Houston to Connolly underground is Irelands reality. Deal with it.
@John O Connor: The lack of investment in infrastructure is a choice by successive Govts. It’s not a way of life to just be accepted
Sign Rory Hearn’s petition here:-
https://my.uplift.ie/petitions/stop-investors-buying-our-homes
Referendum on Housing petition here:-
https://www.change.org/p/irish-referendum-on-family-home-special-status
38 amendments to the Constitution to date but the Housing Referendum is still undone since the 1974 Kenny Report. Housing must be taken out of the control of others and placed firmly in the control of the citizens. It is fundamental for a decent Irish society .. nothing less will solve the problem of Political failure to deliver affordable homes.
Simple solution, don’t rent them! Simples
@Mickomacko: so where do you live?
have your say