Science says there is no healthy dose of alcohol - no moderation, but complete absence.
Healthy for what, exactly? Because it certainly isn’t incompatible with a long, good, moderately healthy life.
I’m guessing if you want to perform at peak or reduce your risk of cancer as much as humanly possible, then sure. But that’s probably the goal of a minority.
Yeah, it’s a very technically correct wording of “We cannot talk about a so-called safe level of alcohol use. It doesn’t matter how much you drink – the risk to the drinker’s health starts from the first drop of any alcoholic beverage. The only thing that we can say for sure is that the more you drink, the more harmful it is – or, in other words, the less you drink, the safer it is.”
There’s nothing wrong with this statement.
It’s simply that the risks are in practice pretty negligible for the most part.
The exact same sentence structure also works with “We cannot talk about a so-called safe level of driving. It doesn’t matter how much you drive – the risk to the driver’s health starts from the first kilometer on any public road. The only thing that we can say for sure is that the more you drive, the more dangerous it is – or, in other words, the less you drive, the safer it is.”
I’m not sure on the statistics, but I’d guess if you compared the risks between drivers and drinkers at different segments of a normal distribution of drinking/driving quantity, driving would be more risky. I haven’t checked, though. There would probably be a better way to compare the risks, I haven’t looked at any of the statistics recently.
