A blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08% while driving is considered impaired, and it's associated with an increase in motor vehicle accidents. But what about a “quick pop”? You know, being buzzed? How does that figure into the thinking? A new study sifts through the data.
Completely banning alcohol would only prevent about 3.5% of cancer deaths. That, of course, means the other 96.5% of fatal cancers are caused by things other than alcohol. Given that cancer is the #2 leading cause of death in America, there's a good chance that you're going to die of cancer no matter what you do. So chill out and have a drink.
As a society, we have done a good job stigmatizing the completely unacceptable behavior of driving under the influence of alcohol. But because marijuana has been destigmatized, people are driving while high. It's time to take action.
A new study suggests that there is no safe amount of alcohol that can be consumed. Do the flaws of the study mean we can ignore the findings? Pour yourself a glass and read on.
From a public health perspective, what's the biggest preventable cause of cancer? Pesticides? Poor diet? Pollution? UV light? No, no, no, and nope. It's tobacco, by far. Obesity and infectious diseases are #2 and #3.
Last month, we discussed the risks associated with traveling to the Dominican Republic, where nine Americans died under mysterious circumstances. Now, a recent development should point investigators in a particular direction: a huge number of deaths in Costa Rica, linked to consuming alcohol adulterated with methanol, or wood alcohol.
This is what the CDC is proposing because binge drinkers tend to abuse opioids. But that makes no sense. It would be like adding a special tax to automobiles because some people drive them at 100 mph.
The Lancet has gone on an ideological bender against alcohol consumption and refuses to publish data that challenges their shaky assertions.
A study of the health effects of alcohol separates the population by a genetic difference: the ability to metabolize alcohol. Researchers found no benefit to drinking, moderate or not. Is it true? Maybe if you're Chinese.
In the same way second-hand smoke characterized a personal decision in the context of a public health hazard, can a stronger case be made for second-hand alcohol abuse?
The famous vodka company cashes in on the anti-science movement, announcing that it was renouncing GMO corn in its famous "No. 21 vodka." What's wrong with GMO corn? Nothing. In fact, it's a net positive for the environment.
A new paper published in the journal Intelligence adds to the body of literature that characterizes how intelligent people differ from others. Mimicking the behaviors of intelligent people will not make a person intelligent, but it could provide a health boost.