Well, yes, there is a strong correlation between alcohol consumption and cancer rates. I am not sure if it was ever tested on animals to prove that it directly leads to cancer, but in observational studies this is often pointed out as a culprit for high cancer rates.
Ethanol is classified by the WHO and the American Cancer Society (and others) as a carcinogen, in the same group as asbestos, hepatitis and plutonium.
That doesn't mean it's "equally carcinogenic" as those others...just that our knowledge of its carcinogenic properties are similarly confident. It's definitely a carcinogen.
I believe they did have proof that some Asians don't have the gene which helps break down alcohol, and those that had that gene were at a higher risk of cancer if they drank alcohol. No, I guess it isn't definitive proof though. Still, Russia is on the Asian continent, so this theory holds water.
I would take whatever is written by the American Cancer Society with a grain of salt. They have also a political agenda, since they recommend "children and teens" not to consume alcohol at all, even though there is no study or data to support that claim. In most countries around the world, teens and even children drink alcohol early in their lives without notable health effect on the long run as long as their consumption remains reasonable.
Besides, their claim on "There are many ways of reducing heart disease risk, including avoiding smoking, eating a diet low in saturated and trans fats, staying at a healthy weight, staying physically active, and controlling blood pressure and cholesterol." is only partially true and just reflects the current thinking of specialists. The evidence on LDL/HDL levels is not very compelling and there was a post very recently on HN from a surgeon claiming heart disease was rather linked to tissue inflammation than cholesterol.
> there was a post very recently on HN from a surgeon claiming heart disease was rather linked to tissue inflammation than cholesterol
I believe the "surgeon" you referred to is Dwight Lundell. His claim is just that, a claim. Suffice to note that he has his medical license revoked because of "unprofessional conduct":
That means their recommendation reflects the current medical consensus. Of course American Cancer Society is going to make their recommendations based on current medical consensus instead of some wild claim made by someone who has his medical license revoked. To do anything else would be irresponsible.
