It's not exaggerated. Your claim of "no amount of driving is safe" is also not hyperbolic, it's real. You drive, you're at risk.
What's going on here is that the previous conclusion was not "no level of alcohol consumption is safe." The previous conclusion was "some alcohol is good for your heart." All this new conclusion says is that this is no longer the case.
Nobody lives their life off the mantra "no amount of driving is safe"... That would be crazy but it would be entirely wrong to say that, "some amount of driving improves your life expectancy" when this is clearly not the case.
Hence the need for the WHF to take an official stance on this. It's a data driven conclusion, but you of course need to be the judge about what you need to do with that conclusion.
> What's going on here is that the previous conclusion was not "no level of alcohol consumption is safe." The previous conclusion was "some alcohol is good for your heart."
Something can be deemed "unsafe" and good for your heart. There's more than one internal organ. The word "unsafe" doesn't provide context.
Here's a better way to put it. Alcohol never was good for your heart. IN fact it's bad for your heart and does nothing good for your body. That is what the WHF means when you ignore all the semantic pedantry.
What's going on here is that the previous conclusion was not "no level of alcohol consumption is safe." The previous conclusion was "some alcohol is good for your heart." All this new conclusion says is that this is no longer the case.
Nobody lives their life off the mantra "no amount of driving is safe"... That would be crazy but it would be entirely wrong to say that, "some amount of driving improves your life expectancy" when this is clearly not the case.
Hence the need for the WHF to take an official stance on this. It's a data driven conclusion, but you of course need to be the judge about what you need to do with that conclusion.