On Mon, 12 May 1997, Ray Audette wrote:

> Ethyl alcohol is a proven human carcinogen.  This is the only problem
> with wine.

I would be interested to know at what consumption levels its
carcinogenic properties become measurable.  With respect to
cholesterol and HDL ratios, as I understand it there is a
J-shaped curve representing amounts versus benefits.  That is,
people who consume one or two small glasses of wine a day have
decreased blood lipid risk factors as compared to those who drink
none, but beyond those one or two glasses (depending on body
weight) the benefits disappear and the risk factors increase
steeply.

> Early man would be exposed to it only on a seasonnal basis as
> illustrated by the grackels (a type of blackbird)here in Texas in the
> fall when the imbide of certain fermented berries and become falling-down
> drunk (quite a sight).

I believe that a small amount of ethanol is actually produced in
the human body, by fermentation in the gut.  And you are right
that some berries actually ferment on the branch, or on the
ground (e.g., mulberries), so there's a reasonable chance that
early humans did consume at least very small quantities of
ethanol.  So the substance wouldn't necessarily be utterly
foreign to human physiology.

> I feel however that intoxicants do serve an important part in human life
> (hey, life's a bitch).  No matter what form you chose, exercise
> moderation.  If you know of a form of intoxicant that is without risk,
> please send me some!

Safe levels of wine consumption are hardly intoxicating at all.
Personally, giving up beer has been a more difficult thing.  I
was a dedicated homebrewer for several years, and very fond of
rich malty ales.  And I had the beerbelly to show for it, too.
For me, sipping red wine is a pale substitute for the feeling of
cold beer slamming into my gullet on a hot Philadelphia day.

As an alternative intoxicant, one might consider kava kava.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]