Posts Tagged ‘Alcohol’

coffee (1)

In another confirmation of what we have always fervently believed, you can chalk up another benefit to downing your favourite morning brew: drinking coffee may protect your liver, research from the our old alma mater the University of Southampton in the U.K. has found.

After analyzing data on 432,000 people from 5 separate studies, the researchers concluded that people who drank one cup of coffee a day were 22 percent less likely to develop cirrhosis—scarring of the liver that eventually causes it to fail—than those who didn’t drink any.

But it gets better. The more coffee they consumed, the better their livers fared: People who drank two cups a day were 43 percent less likely to get the disease, while those who drank four cups a day had a 65 percent lower risk of it.

The study didn’t separate between decaf and regular coffee. But it’s likely that the caffeine does play a protective role, says study author Oliver Kennedy, M.D.

Caffeine blocks the adenosine receptors in your body, which are responsible for activating certain liver cells that lay down scar tissue. If this process is hindered, scar tissue—and eventually cirrhosis—may be less likely to occur, he says.

Still, it’s possible that there’s something in coffee itself that may be responsible for the beneficial effects, too.

For instance, one component called diterpenes — found in both regular and decaf coffee — may tamp down inflammation in the liver, reducing the risk of cirrhosis, Dr. Kennedy says.

So if you want to keep your liver safe, consider adding a cup or two of coffee to your day, as well as maintaining a healthy weight and limiting alcohol consumption, says Dr. Kennedy. And stick to no more than two alcoholic drinks a day.

We’re not sure about that last one, frankly, and we’d love to stay and talk, but right now we’re off to make another coffee.

Legal warning: This is not professional health advice. We do not warrant the information contained on this website or indeed any other as accurate or represent it to you as advice to follow. All information on this website is Copyright, er, Us and may not be reproduced or used without permission. All Rights Reserved, whatever that means. This is a really long disclaimer, isn’t it? Anyway, unless the word aqbsquatulation has been used in its correct context elsewhere than in this warning, it does not have any legal or grammatical purpose and may, for the purposes of this disclaimer, be ignored. No animals were harmed in the construction of this website. Those of you with an irrational fear of the unknown will be relieved to hear that reading this website backwards produces nothing other than a headache, and there are no hidden messages of an unpleasant nature. Have a nice day.



We noticed a comment made by a judge in America, sentencing a drunk driver who killed another driver to six and a half years in prison, that in America substance abuse was involved in 65 percent of criminal cases in which the accused pleaded guilty. We suspect the statistic is very similar elsewhere in the world.

Certainly visiting Old Melbourne Goal for the Whitelion charity “lock in” a couple of years ago means that Wellthisiswhatithink was made privy to some of the more alarming facts about the Victoria, Australia prison population. Specifically that over 80% of criminals in goal in Victoria on any given day are there for drugs offences. Most of them not drug kingpins, of course, but people a long way down the feed chain. People picked up for minor offences that would be better off in diversion or rehab programs than sitting in chokey, where access to their drugs of addiction, of course, are nearly always available.

The judge concerned commented that “I firmly believe that alcohol and drugs are almost an epidemic in this society. This is a very serious matter – a very serious matter – because it concerns all of society,” he said.

Every day in the United States, almost 30 people die in motor vehicle crashes involving an alcohol-impaired driver, amounting to one death every 48 minutes, according to the Centers for Disease Control, a US government agency.

It put the annual cost of alcohol-related crashes at more than $51 billion and the total number of drunk-driving fatalities in 2010 at 10,228 – about a third of all traffic deaths.

Victoria leads the world in reducing road trauma, through an extremely aggressive program of driver education, (including extremely graphic TV ads), road speed cameras, and reducing speed limits. And at one level at least, the message on alcohol appears to have got through.

The proportion of drivers and motorcycle riders killed with a BAC greater than 0.05g/100ml has declined from 38% in 1987 to 16% in 2011.

Since 1991, Victoria Police have breath tested more than 20 million drivers and riders from Booze Bus operations, catching close to 70,000 drivers and riders  with an illegal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) over this period.

The vast majority (99.6%) of drivers tested do not exceed prescribed blood alcohol levels. This must surely be considered one of the most successful public health campaigns anywhere in the world. Personal behaviour has changed. The stats tell the story, but so does our anecdotal experience. “Drink driving” has become socially unacceptable. To drive home drunk from a dinner party or pub would now be considered unthinkable by most of our friends and colleagues. People arrange “designated drivers” who stay sober, or use taxis, trams and trains.

But not yet, tragically, everyone. Close to one in four drivers and riders killed in the last five years had a BAC greater than 0.05. It may just be that there is a level below which society cannot put the demon of drink driving back in the bottle.

Nevertheless, jurisdictions all over the world have taken note of Victoria’s success. In an era when random breath testing, for example, is still considered an infringement of civil liberties by some Americans, we would urge them to consider giving up some of their ‘rights’ to achieve a greater right.


An example of the “Bloody idiot” campaign that has changed society’s views over 20 years runs below. What is sad is that one can imagine wowsers complaining that the ad has a mild swear word in it, when they would be silent on the death toll on our roads. Sometimes, we feel a little bluntness is very much the lesser of two evils.

The Transport Accident Commission ads pull no punches. Nor, in our very considered opinion should they. The stats are their own justification.

So would you welcome seeing ads like this on your TV screen at night? The general opinion of most Victorians is to grit their teeth and bear it. Even as they induce a wince, it is a wince of recognition. There is communal gratitude that families are being protected by both the advertising and the law enforcement. But there is little doubt: it is very challenging.

I guess yer pays yer money, and yer takes your choice. What do you think?