Pour offrir les meilleures expriences, nous utilisons des technologies telles que les cookies pour stocker et/ou accder aux informations des appareils. Le fait de consentir ces technologies nous permettra de traiter des donnes telles que le comportement de navigation ou les ID uniques sur ce site. Le fait de ne pas consentir ou de retirer son consentement peut avoir un effet ngatif sur certaines caractristiques et fonctions.FonctionnelFonctionnelAlways activeLaccs ou le stockage technique est strictement ncessaire dans la finalit dintrt lgitime de permettre lutilisation dun service spcifique explicitement demand par labonn ou lutilisateur, ou dans le seul but deffectuer la transmission dune communication sur un rseau de communications lectroniques.PrfrencesPrfrencesLaccs ou le stockage technique est ncessaire dans la finalit dintrt lgitime de stocker des prfrences qui ne sont pas demandes par labonn ou linternaute.StatistiquesStatistiquesLe stockage ou laccs technique qui est utilis exclusivement des fins statistiques.Le stockage ou laccs technique qui est utilis exclusivement dans des finalits statistiques anonymes. En labsence dune assignation comparatre, dune conformit volontaire de la part de votre fournisseur daccs internet ou denregistrements supplmentaires provenant dune tierce partie, les informations stockes ou extraites cette seule fin ne peuvent gnralement pas tre utilises pour vous identifier.MarketingMarketingLaccs ou le stockage technique est ncessaire pour crer des profils dinternautes afin denvoyer des publicits, ou pour suivre lutilisateur sur un site web ou sur plusieurs sites web ayant des finalits marketing similaires.

Thorncrown Chapel | John Langholz, FLickr UserLocated within the wooded hills of Eureka Springs, Arkansas, Thorncrown Chapel exemplifies architectural precision and environmental integration. Designed by E. Fay Jones and completed in 1980, the structure reflects a seamless relationship between architecture and nature. Influenced by Frank Lloyd Wrights principles of organic architecture, Jones created a space that honors its surroundings. Recognized by the American Institute of Architects as one of the top buildings of the 20th century, Thorncrown Chapel demonstrates how architecture can elevate the experience of place.Thorncrown Chapel Technical InformationArchitects1-2: E. Fay JonesLocation: Eureka Springs, Arkansas, USAClient: Jim ReedArea: 120 m2 | 1,300 Sq. Ft.Construction Year: 1980Photographs: See Caption DetailsA place to think your best thoughts. E. Fay JonesThorncrown Chapel Photographs Randall Connaughton Randall Connaughton Randall Connaughton Randall Connaughton Randall Connaughton Randall Connaughton Randall Connaughton John Langholz, FLickr User John Langholz, FLickr UserArchitectural Features and MaterialityThorncrown Chapels design achieves complexity through simplicity. The structure features over 425 windows and a lattice of wooden beams integrating with the surrounding Ozark landscape. The transparency of the design merges the interior and exterior, creating a connection to nature.Jones utilized local materials to reduce environmental disruption and strengthen the chapels connection to its site. The timber framework and clear glass panels highlight sustainable design and reinforce the chapels purpose. The geometry reflects Gothic cathedral architecture, reinterpreted in a modern, organic style. Its pitched roof and vertical elements emphasize spatial depth and lightness.The chapels compact footprint belies its structural intricacy. Each component was designed for assembly without heavy machinery to preserve the forested site. This attention to detail underscores the architects focus on environmental sensitivity.Spatial Experience and Emotional ImpactWalking into Thorncrown Chapel is an immersive experience. Light and shadow interact dynamically through the wooden lattice, echoing the rhythms of nature. This lighting enhances the chapels contemplative atmosphere.Jones designed the space to foster introspection and connection. The chapels scale provides a sense of intimacy, while its open design integrates with the surrounding landscape. This balance invites both communal gatherings and solitary reflection.The alignment of the chapel with its natural backdrop enhances its meditative quality. Framing views of the sky and trees, the structure extends the natural environment, offering a thoughtful and serene experience.Thorncrown Chapel Lessons for ArchitectsThorncrown Chapel is a sustainable, contextual architecture model demonstrating how buildings can respect and enhance their environments. For architects, it highlights the importance of simplicity, material authenticity, and the emotional resonance of design.E. Fay Jones work encourages architects to consider aesthetics, functionality, and the spiritual dimensions of their designs. Thorncrown Chapel stands as an example of architecture that prioritizes harmony and context.In an era of increasing urbanization, Thorncrown Chapel emphasizes the value of spaces that connect us to nature and ourselves. It remains a reflection of architectural clarity and environmental respect.Thorncrown Chapel PlansFloor Plan | E. Fay JonesElevation & Section | E. Fay JonesThorncrown Chapel Image GalleryAbout E. Fay JonesCredits and Additional NotesStructural Engineer: Maurice Jennings (Collaborator with E. Fay Jones)

The winners of international contest to revamp the Museum of Architecture in Wrocaw, Poland have been revealedThe contest sought proposals to restore and extend the museum which is located in a series of 15th-century buildings in Wrocaws Old Town including the St Bernardine of Sienna Church and a monastic quadrangle with a garden.The overall winner of the approximately 10,000 (PLN 50,000) prize was Warsaw-based practice TO Micha Sikorski Architekt which will now be invited to negotiate for a design contract. The firms winning scheme was praised by judges for its use of recycled materials and for cleverly combining a reinterpretation of the past with thoughts about the present and future.The second prize of around 8,000 (PLN 40,000) went to Ch+ architectural studio from Wroclaw while a third prize of around 6,000 (PLN 30,000) was awarded to Warsaw-based Jdrak-Kociesza Pracownia Projektowa.Museum of Architecture in WrocawCredit:Image by Maciej KaczorThe estimated 21.75 million (PLN 110 million) project will overhaul and upgrade the facility which was founded in 1965, features the largest collection of stained glass in Poland, includes exhibitions of architecture spanning from the medieval to constructivist periods, and is the countrys only architecture museum.Founded during the sixth century as a trade settlement on the Amber Road known as Budorigum, Wrocaw in the Lower Silesian region of Poland is today a growing city of more than 674,000 inhabitants with strong cultural and economic links to Germany and the Czech Republic.Local architectural landmarks in Wrocaw include the 1913 Centennial Hall exhibition space designed by Max Berg and the Plac Grunwaldzki housing estate designed by Jadwiga Grabowska-Hawrylak.The museum is located in the centre of the historic city formerly part of Germany and known as Breslau and is a short distance from the unique Racawice Panorama museum which hosts a huge 15 by 114m cycloramic painting showing the Battle of Racawice.Museum of Architecture in WroclawCredit:Image by Jerzy WypychThe latest contest comes six years after an international competition was launched to design a new entrance lobby for the Krupa art gallery which overlooks a 13th-century Market Square in the centre of Wrocaw.Key aims of the project include making the museum fully accessible to people with disabilities and delivering a new multi-functional education area with a modern caf and bookstore that can transform the museum into a 'vibrant centre for meetings and the dynamic exchange of ideas.'Judges for the contest included Micha Duda, director of the Museum of Architecture in Wrocaw; Bartomiej wierczewski, deputy director of the Department of Sustainable Development at the Wrocaw City Office; and Aleksandra Jaeschke, assistant professor at the Faculty of Architecture of the University of Texas, Austin.Duda said: The winning [proposal] weaves together several different ideas. For one, it talks about the past, including the identity of this institution, which, at the beginning, was mostly concerned with collecting the remains of non-existent buildings.On the other hand, it offers a contemporary perspective on the circularity of objects, a truly thought-provoking subject. Its crucial to emphasize that the project is not yet finished, but rather serves as an invitation to our entire team to collaborate on the implementation strategy. This marks the beginning of a new and exciting chapter.

The UK government has expressed reservations about legislative proposals from Lord Tim Clement-Jones to improve the scrutiny of algorithmic decision-making tools in the public sector, arguing the concerns raised by his bill are already covered by its own proposed data reforms and the existing Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (ATRS).Introduced as a private members bill in September 2024, Clement-Jones said at the time the proposals were needed because the existing safeguards on algorithmic and automated decision-making (ADM) tools were not enough to ensure redress once the computer says no.During the second reading debate of his bill in December 2024, Baroness Maggie Jones the under-secretary of state at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) said the combination of governments reforms to make the ATRS mandatory for central government departments, as well as its proposed Data Use and Access Bill (DUAB), are not only sufficient to address Clement-Jones concerns, but also better align with the governments own priorities of accelerating innovation, technology for good, and modern digital government.These reforms strike the right balance between ensuring that organisations can make the best use of automated decision-making technology to support economic growth, productivity and service delivery, while maintaining high data protection standards and public trust, she said.However, Clement-Jones expressed his own reservations about the government data reforms, citing past incidents involving the use of ADM tools to describe the dangers of unchecked algorithm systems including lack of transparency, loss of public trust in artificial intelligence (AI), and infiltration of bias and racism in unregulated decision-making systems.He reminded Lords of the 2020 A-level and GCSE grading fiasco, where students unfairly missed out on university places; the use of ADM systems by councils, where 540,000 citizens were assigned fraud risk scores before refusing them of housing benefits on the basis of fraudulent data; and the Post Office Horizon scandal. It is a dangerous confidence if the government really thinks that the ATRS, combined with the watered-down ADM provisions in the GDPR [General Data Protection Regulation], are going to be enough, said Clement-Jones. The bill is crucial to ensuring that the benefits of these technologies are realised while safeguarding democratic values and individual rights.Baroness Jones, however, argued that the governments data reforms under the DUAB specifically provide that human involvement must be meaningful. This is to prevent cursory human involvement being used to rubber-stamp decisions as having had meaningful involvement.One of Clement-Jones major concerns was about the transparency of ATRS. Since its launch in 2022, he said, only six records of algorithmic transparency in the public sector have been published. Government defended itself by claiming that a number of these records have been completed since it was made mandatory for all government departments, and that those will soon be published.As it stands, there are currently 23 records contained in the ATRS.Clement-Jones bill also contains a section on Algorithmic Impact Assessments (AIA) that public authorities would have to conduct prior to the deployment of any decision-making tools. AIAs would make it mandatory for them to constantly assess and disclose the tools impact on safety and administrative decision-making when the algorithm is updated or the tools scope changes.Conservative peer Viscount Camrose Jones predecessor at DSIT further argued that enforcing impact assessments even before purchase would be unrealistic, and, as a result, the bill would create an administrative burden. He also criticised Clement-Jones bill for being too prescriptive, rather than allowing public sector the flexibility to make choices in the face of their wildly differing needs.Baroness Jones claimed the ATRS provided a holistic view on safeguards regarding the impact of the tool while avoiding negative outcomes, and that legislating for transparency was therefore not needed: We do not believe that legislation for either mandatory transparency records or AIAs for public authorities is necessary at this time, she said.Read more about automated decision-makingSwedish authorities urged to discontinue AI welfare system: Amnesty International is calling on Swedens social insurance agency to immediately discontinue its machine learning-based welfare system, following an investigation by Lighthouse Reports and Svenska Dagbladet that found it to be discriminatory.Denmarks AI-powered welfare system fuels mass surveillance: Research reveals the automated tools used to flag individuals for benefit fraud violate individuals privacy and risk discriminating against marginalised groups.AI disempowers logistics workers while intensifying their work: Conversations on the algorithmic management of work largely revolve around unproven claims about productivity gains or job losses - less attention is paid to how AI and automation negatively affect low-paid workers.References were also made to Canada, which has recently implemented a similar AIA framework to the one proposed. Baroness Martha Lane Fox requested caution in the implementation of Clement-Jones bill, saying it might add to bureaucracy. Canada has also been trying to move to greater regulation of algorithmic transparency, and the implementation has been very heavy and difficult, she said.One key distinction of the private members bill is that it raises the importance of scrutinising systems during procurement stage instead of after they are put to use to ensure that systems are properly assessed for their efficacy and impacts before they are purchased.Speaking in support of improved procurement measures, Lane-Fox said: The skills on the digital procurement side of the civil service are under-egged, and the deals done with suppliers are far from ideal as we move to a world in which we want to encourage innovation but must also encourage safety. I very much hope that procurement will be positioned very closely at the heart of any future plans.The private bill is introduced by Clement-Jones at a time when government is looking to use AI to drive growth and boost the economy. Peter Kyle previously said in July 2024 that were putting AI at the heart of the governments agenda to boost growth and improve our public services.Meanwhile, prime minister Keir Starmer said during his AI Action Plan speech on 13 January that the technology is the defining opportunity of our generation. Mark my words, Britain will be one of the great AI superpowers, he said.

A Samsung Galaxy S25 'Slim' would be refreshing, although it'll likely come later as Apple prepares its iPhone 17 Air launch.

WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 13: Participants hold signs in support of TikTok outside the U.S. Capitol ... [+] Building on March 13, 2024 in Washington, DC. The House of Representatives will vote Wednesday on whether to ban TikTok in the United States due to concerns over personal privacy and national security unless the Chinese-owned parent company ByteDance sells the popular video app within the next six months. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)Getty ImagesA social media app called RedNote is emerging as a top contender to dethrone TikTok. Thats an interesting development since its looking more and more likely that the federal government will impose a ban starting January 19 for anyone hooked on the addictive short-form video app.The only problem? RedNote has all the same problems as TikTok. For starters, its also owned by a Chinese company and appears to have even fewer assurances that the data collected in the app wont be used for coercion or to influence us.The app is so new to many of us that its been called both Red Note (with a space) and RedNote (without a space). The company itself calls the app REDnote. To make things even more confusing, app stores in the United States use the Chinese name Xiaohongshu. The app also doesnt have the sheen of a TikTok clone, unlike the typical app you might build if youre a Silicon Valley startup.Ironically, with these barriers to entry, RedNote is the number one download on app stores right now and skyrocketing in popularity with those who are frustrated by the looming TikTok ban. I keep seeing posts about people switching to RedNote like TikTok has become a graveyard.The truth is, there could be a final hour decision to save TikTok (say, President-elect Trump trying to negate the ban) and rumors are flying that everyone from Elon Musk to Mr. Beast are interested in acquiring it, minus the algorithm.MORE FOR YOUInstalling and using RedNoteOnce you have figured out how to install and use RedNote, youll find its very similar to TikTok with a few obvious differences. One is that you have to select your interests right away. I always liked how TikTok doesnt force you to do that and you can just see whatever is trending and let the algorithm guide you to fresh content. I remember testing TikTok years ago and pausing to watch a few videos related to music production and then loved how the app kept feeding me more.The default interface in RedNote, unlike TikTok, is to show thumbnails of videos for browsing. You have to click the trending feed to start scrolling.I also didnt like how RedNote got lost on my phone. I dont bother swiping to see apps anymore but always search and type in the name. RedNote uses its Chinese name so I had to hunt around for it and put it on my home screen. Not a big deal, but also not exactly a smooth or intuitive experience.RedNote and data securityI will admit that the idea of adding yet another app to my phone, handing over my phone number, and agreeing to the terms made me feel a bit leery. I dont know anything about the parent company Xingin and I have no idea how they plan to use my data. I wonder how many other users will question whether this is a good idea.Its also important to note that the content is just not that great right now. In my time getting to know the app, I saw a few comedy videos including one that made fun of the fact that English-speaking users are flocking to the app. I mostly saw videos that mention TikTok or welcome new users to the new app.My guess is that people are making a statement that perhaps they just dont care about the data collection issue and are specifically choosing a Chinese app as an act of defiance. Theres an uprising of sorts from those who think it is heavy-handed to ban a beloved and widely used app. They are not happy.Interestingly, they may be causing their own problem. As people switch from TikTok to RedNote, they are unknowingly putting the app on the radar of government officials. Users also appear to be making a statement about not wanting to switch to Facebook, Instagram or YouTube for their short-form videos. They want freedom of choice. Im just not sure if RedNote is the best option especially if it doesnt last that long on the app stores and suffers the same demise as TikTok.

What just happened? In a historic dual-launch mission, SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket successfully deployed two commercial lunar landers early Wednesday morning, marking a significant milestone in the race to establish a sustainable presence on the Moon. The launch, which took place at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida at 1:11 am EST, sent the spacecraft on separate trajectories towards Earth's celestial neighbor. The mission featured two robotic lunar landers: one from Texas-based Firefly Aerospace and another from the Japanese space company ispace. Both landers, each roughly the size of an SUV, were released into slightly different orbits ranging from 200,000 to 225,000 miles from Earth. This strategic deployment will allow the spacecraft to utilize their own propulsion systems for the final maneuvers required to enter lunar orbit in the coming months.Firefly's Blue Ghost lander, part of NASA's Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program, carries a suite of scientific instruments and technology demonstrations. The CLPS program, established in 2018, aims to foster the development of commercial lunar landers while providing NASA with a cost-effective means of delivering payloads to the Moon. Joel Kearns, deputy associate administrator for exploration in NASA's science directorate, acknowledged the high-risk nature of these missions to Ars Technica but emphasized their potential rewards. "We know it's high risk. We accept it's high risk, but man, it's high reward. So it is worth taking the risk because the science that we will get back from these missions is just going to be amazing."The Blue Ghost lander is scheduled to spend approximately 25 days in Earth orbit before embarking on a four-day transit to the Moon. Its target landing site is Mare Crisium, a vast impact basin on the Moon's near side. Upon touchdown, tentatively set for March 2, the lander will operate for about 14 days, conducting experiments with its onboard instruments, including a subsurface drill and an X-ray imager.Alongside Firefly's lander, ispace's Resilience lander represents a purely commercial venture. This mission marks ispace's second attempt at lunar landing, following a crash in 2023 due to a software error. "I think the fact that we have two lunar landers on the same rocket for the first time in history is pretty substantial," said Ron Garan, CEO of ispace's US-based subsidiary and a former NASA astronaut. "I think we all are rooting for each other." The Resilience lander will take a longer journey of four to five months to reach the Moon. It carries several innovative experiments, including a water electrolyzer to test equipment for converting lunar ice into electricity and rocket fuel. Additionally, it will deploy a micro-rover named Tenacious, designed to collect lunar soil samples and capture high-definition imagery.The mission showcases the growing collaboration within the commercial space sector and SpaceX's approach to reducing launch costs."When we have two missions that can each go to the Moon on the same launch, that is something that we obviously want to take advantage of," said Julianna Scheiman, director of NASA science missions for SpaceX.

Nvidia makes some of the best graphics cards, but Deep Learning Super Sampling (DLSS) is an increasingly big part of what makes them great. This can be seen very clearly in a new RTX 5090 gaming test, in which the behemoth flagship couldnt even maintain an average of 30 frames per second (fps) inCyberpunk 2077 at maximum settings when DLSS was toggled off.YouTuber PC Centric got to take the RTX 5090 for a quick spin at CES 2025, and while the GPU breezed through 4K gameplay at max settings with path tracing enabled, this was only true with DLSS in the picture.Gaming On The RTX 5090 With DLSS 4!The test was also a testament to the power of Nvidias upcoming multi-frame generation. With DLSS 4 and 4x frame generation enabled, as well as DLSS set to Performance, the RTX 5090 was hitting a whopping 290 fps and over 40ms of latency. This was with Nvidias Reflex 1, as Reflex 2 wasnt available for this test.Recommended VideosSwitching from Performance to Quality already dropped the frame rates by a considerable amount, now averaging around 200 fps and slightly higher latency. Still, 200 fps is more than anyone needs in a game likeCyberpunk 2077, which is not an esports title. As observed by NotebookCheck, turning down the frame generation from 4x to 2x didnt have a huge impact on latency.Getting rid of DLSS entirely exposed the actual performance of the RTX 5090 without any bells and whistles, and it didnt look good. Getting rid of frame generation sliced the frames down to around 65 fps, but turning off DLSS entirely resulted in the RTX 5090 being unable to hit even 30 fps. Thats well below console level, and bordering on unplayable.Get your weekly teardown of the tech behind PC gaming This doesnt mean that the RTX 5090 is going to be a bad GPU. On the contrary, its guaranteed to be Nvidias best, and itll beat its predecessor by a solid amount. But seeing such a drastic difference in frame rates leaves no doubt as to the importance of frame generation in modern AAA titles.Cyberpunk 2077 with path tracing at 4K is just about as taxing as it gets right now. Whether its a question of game optimization or a shift in the way GPUs are being made probably both its a fact that frame generation is becoming increasingly important.The RTX 5090 was also spotted in leaked benchmarks, and that gives us some insight into raw rasterization improvements. As spotted by VideoCardz, the card was tested in Vulkan, where it was up to 37% faster than the RTX 4090. The RTX 5090 fared worse in the OpenCL test, where it was up to 15% faster.As always, its important to remember that tests like this cant be taken at face value. Well know the full story once reviews of the card go live and the card is available to buy, so January 30 at the latest.Editors Recommendations

Compliance software firms are pushing artificial intelligence to decode Wall Streets near-impenetrable jargon.

Cheers More cancer, less death? New alcohol-risk reviews offer conflicting takeaways Two big, somewhat conflicting studies on alcohol risks will influence new guidelines. Beth Mole Jan 17, 2025 7:30 am | 27 Credit: Getty | Marina Cavusoglu Credit: Getty | Marina Cavusoglu Story textSizeSmallStandardLargeWidth *StandardWideLinksStandardOrange* Subscribers only Learn moreHeavy drinking is clearly bad for your health. But it's long been questioned whether moderate drinking is also riskyand, if so, how risky, exactly.Health researchers have consistently found links between alcohol consumption and several types of cancers (namely mouth, throat, colon, rectal, liver, and breast), as well as liver diseases, injuries, and traffic accidents. But nailing down the health risks from the lower levels of drinking has been tricky. For one, much of the data on moderate drinking are from observational studies in different countries, cultures, and populations. They cannot determine if alcohol is the direct cause of any given association, and they may be swayed by other lifestyle factors. The resulting data can be noisy and inconsistent.Moreover, many studies rely on people to self-report whether they drink and, if so, how much, which is problematic because people may not accurately assess and/or report how much they actually drink. A related problem is that studies in the past often compared drinkers to people who said they didn't drink. But, the trouble is, non-drinking groups are often some mix of people who are lifelong abstainers and people who used to drink but quit for some reasonmaybe because of health effects. This latter group has the potential to have lingering health effects from their drinking days, which could skew any comparisons looking for health differences.Then there's the larger, common problem with any research focused on food or beverages: some have been sponsored or somehow swayed by industry, casting suspicion on the findings, particularly the ones indicating benefits. This has been a clear problem for alcohol research. For instance, in 2018, the National Institutes of Health shut down a $100 million trial aimed at assessing the health effects (and potential benefits) of moderate drinking after it came to light that much of the funding was solicited from the alcohol industry. There was a lot of questionable communication between NIH scientists and alcohol industry representatives.With all of that in the background, there's been clamorous debate about how much risk, if any, people are swallowing with their evening cocktail, gameday beer, or wine with dinner.Currently, the US dietary guidance recommends that if adults drink, they should stick to drinking in moderation, defined as "alcohol intake to two drinks or fewer in a day for men and one drink or fewer in a day for women." But recently, health experts in the US and abroad have started calling for lower limits, noting that more data has poured in that fortify links to cancers and other risks. In 2023, for instance, Canada released recommendations that people limit their alcohol consumption totwo drinks or fewer per weekthat's down significantly from the previously recommended limit of 10 drinks per week for women and 15 drinks per week for men.Two reviewsNow, it's America's turn to decide if they'll also set the bar lower, too. This year, the US will update its dietary guidelines, which are carried out by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture every five years. The federal government has requested two big scientific reviews to assess the current knowledge of the health effects of alcohol, which will both inform any potential revisions to the alcohol guidelines. Now, both studies have been released and open for discussion.One is from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies), which was tasked by Congress to review the current evidence on alcohol with a focus on how moderate drinking potentially affects a specific set of health outcomes. The review compared health outcomes in moderate drinkers with those of lifelong abstainers. For the review, the National Academies set up a committee of 14 experts.The other report is from the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking (ICCPUD), which set up a Technical Review Subcommittee on Alcohol Intake and Health. For its report, the subcommittee looked not just at moderate drinking but health outcomes of a range of alcohol consumption compared to lifelong abstainers.Based on top-line takeaways and tone, the two reports seem to have very different findings. While the National Academies review found a mix of benefits and harms from moderate drinking (one drink per day for women, and two per day for men), the ICCPUD review suggested that even the smallest amounts of alcohol (one drink per week) increased risk of death and various diseases. However, a closer look at the data shows they have some common ground.The National Academies reviewFirst, for the National Academies' review, experts found sufficient evidence to assess the effects of moderate drinking on all-cause mortality, certain cancers, and cardiovascular risks. On the other hand, the reviewers found insufficient evidence to assess moderate drinking's impact on weight changes, neurocognition, and lactation-related risks.For all-cause mortality, a meta-analysis of data from eight studies found that moderate drinkers had a 16 percent lower risk of all-cause mortality (death from any cause) compared with lifelong abstainers. A meta-analysis of three studies suggested the risk of all-cause mortality was 23 percent lower for females who drank moderately compared to never-drinking females. Data from four studies indicated that moderate drinking males had a 16 percent lower risk of all-cause mortality than never-drinking males. Additional analyses found that the risk of all-cause mortality was 20 percent lower for moderate drinkers less than age 60 and 18 percent lower for moderate drinkers aged 60 and up."Based on data from the eight eligible studies from 2019 to 2023, the committee concludes that compared with never consuming alcohol, moderate alcohol consumption is associated with lower all-cause mortality," the review states. The reviewers rated the conclusion as having "moderate certainty."Cancer and cardiovascular diseaseFor a look at cancer risks, a meta-analysis of four studies on breast cancer found that moderate drinkers had an overall 10 percent higher risk than non-drinkers. An additional analysis of seven studies found that for every 10 to 14 grams of alcohol (0.7 to one standard drink) consumed per day, there was a 5 percent higher risk of breast cancer. The data indicated that people who drank higher amounts of alcohol within the moderate range had higher risks than those who drank lower amounts in the moderate range (for instance, one drink a day versus 0.5 drinks a day).For context, the average lifetime risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer in non-drinking females is about 11 to 12 percent. A 10 percent relative increase in risk would raise a person's absolute risk to around 12 to 13 percent. The average lifetime risk of any female dying of breast cancer is 2.5 percent.Overall, the reviewers concluded that "consuming a moderate amount of alcohol was associated with a higher risk of breast cancer," and the conclusion was rated as having moderate certainty.A meta-analysis on colorectal cancer risks found a "statistically nonsignificant higher risk" in moderate drinkers compared to non-drinkers. However, studies looking at alcohol consumption at the highest levels of moderate drinking for males (e.g., two drinks per day) suggested a higher risk compared to males who drank lower amounts of alcohol in the moderate range (one drink per day).The review concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support a link between moderate drinking and oral cavity, pharyngeal, esophageal, and laryngeal cancers.Finally, for cardiovascular risks, meta-analyses found moderate drinking was associated with a 22 percent lower risk of heart attacks and an 11 percent lower risk of stroke (driven by lower risk of ischemic stroke, specifically). The reviewers rated these associations as low certainty, though, after noting that there was some concern for risk of bias in the studies.For cardiovascular disease mortality, meta-analyses of four studies found an 18 percent lower risk of death among moderate drinkers compared with non-drinkers. Broken down, there was a 23 percent lower risk in female drinkers and 18 percent lower risk in male drinkers. The lower risk of cardiovascular disease mortality was rated as moderate certainty.The ICCPUD reviewThe ICCPUD subcommittee's report offered a darker outlook on moderate drinking, concluding that "Alcohol use is associated with increased mortality for seven types of cancer (colorectal, female breast, liver, oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, esophagus [squamous cell type])," and "Increased risk for these cancers begins with any alcohol use and increases with higher levels of use."The review modeled lifetime risks of cancer and death and relative risks for a long list of problems, including infectious diseases, non-communicable diseases, and injuries. Also, it didn't just focus on non- drinkers versus moderate drinkers, but it assessed the relative risk of six levels of drinking: one drink a week; two drinks a week; three drinks a week; seven drinks a week (one a day); 14 drinks a week (two a day) and 21 drinks a week (three a day).Overall, the analysis is very much a rough draft. There are some places where information is missing, and some of the figures are mislabeled and difficult to read. There are two figures labeled Figure 6, for instance and Figure 7 (which may be Figure 8), is a graph that doesn't have a Y-axis, making it difficult to interpret. The study also doesn't discuss the level of potential bias of individual studies in its analyses. It also doesn't make note of statistically insignificant results, nor comment on the certainty of any of its findings.For instance, the top-line summary states that "In the United States, males and females have a 1 in 1,000 risk of dying from alcohol use if they consume more than 7 drinks per week. This risk increases to 1 in 100 if they consume more than 9 drinks per week." But a look at the modeling behind these estimates indicates the cutoffs of when drinkers would reach a 0.1 percent or 1 percent risk of dying from alcohol use are broad. For males, a 0.1 percent lifetime risk of an alcohol-attributed death is reached at 6.5 standard drinks, with a 95 percent confidence interval spanning less than one drink per week and 13.5 drinks per week. "This lifetime risk rose to 1 in 100 people above 8.5 drinks per week," the text reads, but the confidence interval is again between one and 14 drinks per week. So, basically, anywhere between about one and 14 drinks a week, a male's lifetime risk of dying from alcohol may be either 0.1 or 1 percent, according to this modeling.Death risksRegarding risk of death, the study did not look at all-cause mortality, like the National Academies review. Instead, it focused on deaths from causes specifically linked to alcohol. For both males and females, modeling indicated that the total lifetime risk of any alcohol-attributed death for people who consumed one, two, three, or seven drinks per week was statistically non-significant (the confidence intervals for each calculation spanned zero). Among those who have 14 drinks per week, the total lifetime risk of death was about 4 in 100 from all causes, with unintentional injuries being the biggest contributor for males and liver diseases being the biggest contributor for females. Among those who have 21 drinks per week, the risk of death was about 7 in 100 for males and 8 in 100 for females. Unintentional injuries and liver diseases were again the biggest contributors to the risk.Some experts have speculated that the lower risk of all-cause mortality found in the National Academies' analysis (which has been seen in previous studies) may be due to healthy lifestyle patterns among people who drink moderately rather than the protective effects of alcohol. The line of thinking would suggest that healthy lifestyle choices, like regular exercise and a healthy diet, can negate certain risks, including the potential risks of alcohol. However, the ICCPUD emphasizes the reverse argument, noting that poor health choices would likely exacerbate the risks of alcohol. "[A]lcohol would have a greater impact on the health of people who smoke, have poor diets, engage in low physical activity, are obese, have hepatitis infection, or have a family history of specific diseases than it would other individuals."Relative risksIn terms of relative risk of the range of conditions, generally, the ICCPUD study found small, if any, increases in risk at the three lowest levels of drinking, with risks rising with higher levels. The study's finding of breast cancer risk was in line with the National Academies' review. ICCPUD found that pre-menopausal females who drink moderately (one drink per day) had a 6 percent higher risk of breast cancer than non-drinkers, while post-menopausal moderate drinkers had a 17 percent higher risk. (You can see the complete set of relative risk estimates in Table A6 beginning on page 70 of the report.)For some cancers, moderate drinking raised the risk substantially. For instance, males who have two drinks per day see their risk of esophageal cancer more than double. But, it's important to note that the absolute risk for many of these cancers is small to begin with. The average risk of esophageal cancer in men is 0.8 percent, according to the American Cancer Society. With the increased risk from moderate drinking, it would be below 2 percent. Still, alcohol consumption increased the risks of nearly all the cancers examined, with the higher levels of alcohol consumption having the highest risk.As for cardiovascular risks, ICCPUD's review found low risk in several of the categories. The risk of ischemic heart disease was lower than that of nondrinkers at all six drinking levels. The risk of ischemic stroke was lower among drinkers who had one, two, three, or seven drinks per week compared to non-drinkers. At 14 and 21 drinks per week, the risk of ischemic stroke rose by 8 percent.Beth MoleSenior Health ReporterBeth MoleSenior Health Reporter Beth is Ars Technicas Senior Health Reporter. Beth has a Ph.D. in microbiology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and attended the Science Communication program at the University of California, Santa Cruz. She specializes in covering infectious diseases, public health, and microbes. 27 Comments