Verified by 
Which cancer risk feels scarier to you; nuclear radiation, pesticides, or beer? A study just published in the British Medical Journal suggests that beer, or wine, or alcohol of any kind, causes far more cancer than radiation or pesticides. But it sure doesn't feel that way, does it. How many people on the West Coast have been stocking up on iodine pills lately, and easing their tensions with a couple glasses of Chardonnay? How many organic food eaters wash down their pesticide-free vegetarian dinner with a couple of bottles of locally brewed ale? Why does it sound ridiculous to say "I only have nuclear radiation socially," or "I only have pesticides in moderation," when you could substitute beer or wine or liquor for radiation or pesticides, and those statements would sound just fine?
Let me put this another way. Why do some risks worry us more than the evidence warrants, and some risks worry us less than the evidence warns, and what does getting risk wrong do to our overall risk?
It's long been known that alcohol breaks down in the body into a chemical called acetaldehyde that damages DNA, which can lead to cancer. The more alcohol you drink, the greater your chance of getting breast, colorectal, liver, mouth, esophageal, and larynx cancer. The new study, which looked at the health records of 364,000 western Europeans, found that one cancer in 33 for women was caused by excessive alcohol consumption. For breast cancer it was 1 in 20. For men, it was one cancer in ten! Out of all cancers. From alcohol!
So why do people who fret so much about radiation or pesticides or asbestos so readily consume this known carcinogen? They'll stand there at the bar or party and declare with alarm; "Did you hear about the radioactive cloud coming from Japan!", or "They want to spray for West Nile virus!?" or "They found asbestos in the boiler room of my office building!"...while willingly tossing back drinks far more likely than any of those other threats to give them cancer. Why?
The answer lies in one word in the previous sentence. Willingly. Nobody asks to be exposed to radiation from accidents at nuclear power plants, or have pesticides put on their plate, or asbestos in the air they breath. Those risks are imposed. But the cancer risk from alcohol is voluntary. It may be more likely, but it's less scary because it's a risk we choose to take. So, bottoms up.
Making risk choices like this clearly raises our risk. Protecting ourselves from things we don't need to worry about that much, and not protecting ourselves from the things we should worry about more, can be dangerous. What feels right, may not be right, if only we could just see the evidence with a coldly rational eye. The only thing is, we can't. That's the thing with risk perception. It's not a matter of the odds or the cold hard facts. It's a matter of how those facts feel.
As we judge what to worry about, we take the few bits of information we have and run them through emotional filters that give those facts meaning. One of those filters is choice. A risk we take by choice worries us less than the same risk if it's imposed on us. Think about the fear of nuclear radiation. We're more afraid of the kind that comes from nuclear power plant accidents than the kind we get when we have an X ray, or fly. They expose us to the same stuff (and unless we live within a few miles of the nuclear plant, the X ray and flight expose us to more), but the exposure is voluntary, so like the carcinogen of alcohol, it scares us less
Cancer scares us more for another reason too. Cancer is perceived to involve more pain and suffering than heart disease, and greater pain and suffering is another of those emotional filters that makes any risk more frightening. But in the talks I give and classes I teach, when I ask people which scares them more, cancer or heart disease, nearly everyone says cancer. When I ask them why, they say heart disease feels like something they can do something about, a risk that arises voluntarily from diet and lifestyle choices. Cancer, they say, feels more imposed.
In fact, the same diet and lifestyle choices that can dramatically reduce your risk of heart disease can reduce your risk of getting cancer by about the same amount, as much as 50%! But environmentalists draw our attention to carcinogens imposed on us by industry and polluters, and the press report far more about carcinogens from industry and polluters because those stories are scarier and more likely to get our attention, so the "War on Cancer" - governmental policy that addresses what we're most afraid of - regulates all sorts of imposed carcinogens...but not tobacco, and not alcohol.
Choice. We all want it. We feel better when we have it. But choice is one of several instinctive factors that can mess with our risk radar. You want to drink? Smoke? Be my guest (as long as you don't smoke near me, or drive drunk.) You want to fret more about nuclear radiation or pesticides than that second glass of Pinot Grigio? Be my guest. Hey, it's your life. Just be aware that the way you're perceiving risk, may be making it shorter.
