Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports • Hacker News Board

Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports

#411

Post by Tokkemon » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 4:04 AM UTC

bamfly wrote: post #131

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sugar in the amount put in soda absolutely is terrible for you. The problem definitely is with people drinking too much soda, period, but replacing your average Americans's diet soda consumption with sugar soda consumption works out to an average increase of ~73 calories/person/day. Of course, most of that consumption is being done by the subset of the population currently primarily drinking diet soda, which multiple…

It's really weird that we've normalized consuming huge amounts of what's effectively an exceptionally-sweet dessert drink with most non-fancy restaurant or fast-food meals. Shit made a lot more sense when standard serving size was like 7oz and free soda refills weren't a common thing (so: the 1950s or whenever, for the former, and before some time in the '90s, for the latter). 20+oz glasses (and 32oz "medium-size" to…

Gotta do something with all that corn.

Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports

#412

Post by dmckeon » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 4:11 AM UTC

xpe wrote: post #390

colordrops wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can get cancer from not getting enough sleep. There are plenty of innocuous substances that look fine chemically but disrupt sleep. It doesn't have to be directly mutagenic to cause cancer.

Common writing, even from well-regarded sources, is often unnecessarily vague wrt statistics. Claim: we would benefit by building a culture where basic probability ranges are expected and used. Idea: Serious publications could: A. Set basic guidelines for talking about probability estimates; something akin to what you see in government or business intelligence publications. For example, maps terms to ranges: “highly…

Explore the Associated Press "AP Stylebook" (pay-walled, sadly), and propose a mapping to them. It would take a few years to get accepted and more to propagate throughout the working press.

Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports

#413

Post by Tokkemon » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 4:17 AM UTC

mjburgess wrote: post #120

sodathrowaway wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, is it good or neutral for you? I've always felt like these diet drinks were just marketing to make you think everything was fine, feel free to drink as many as you want. I've worked with a few people that would go through 4-6 Coke Zeros every day. In no world can I imagine that that wouldn't have negative long term effects on a human -- all things in moderation, right? Personally, I'll drink a Mexican Coke with…

> In no world can I imagine that that wouldn't have negative long term effects on a human -- all things in moderation, right? Why on earth would you think that? It's carbonated water with a tiny amount of food dye, sweeter and caffeine. The latter of which, iirc, has generally positive effects.

Exactly. I mixed soda syrups for my small business and had to learn what actually goes into it all. Soda is generally 80% soda water, and the syrup is usually only 50 °Bx (roughly 50% sugar by mass). Of course with sweetners the syrup is almost entirely water since you need a tiny amount of the sweetner to get the same level of sweetness. In an average soda drink, the flavor and dye is about 0.6% by volume of the syrup (again, more water since it's in solution), and the preservative is 0.2%. The amounts are so tiny you would have to consume a completely unreasonable amount to even get sick, let alone do lasting harm (except for the sugar, obviously).

Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports

#414

Post by antod » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 4:17 AM UTC

xpe wrote: post #385

jorvi wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I love bacon but I try to resist ever having any. Don't buy meats with nitrates. That is no way to live. In general, you should think about risk management, not exclusion. Have your bacon as a bi-monthly treat, and splurge for some high quality bacon at the butcher. I remember seeing a video of a talk where the host asked who was managing their health by going partially or fully vegetarian. Lots of raised hands. Th…

In the name of sanity, let’s all avoid “biweekly” and “bimonthly”. Just say twice a X to be clear. Pretty funny how the dictionary claims to be largely neutral by only reflecting the cultural ambiguity. I want an f-ing opinionated dictionary that says: avoid this ambiguous word!

If you mix the definitions, biweekly and bimonthly can even be the same timeframe!

Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports

#415

Post by Tokkemon » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 4:18 AM UTC

PreachSoup wrote: post #149

jeron wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

effectively this is pick your poison: aspartame or sugar

Sucralose is another a widely used option. Cokecola uses aspartame, pepsicola uses sucralose. You can also easily buy it off the shelf

Pepsi stopped using sucralose in favor of aspartame several years ago due to customer backlash.

Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports

#416

Post by Tokkemon » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 4:20 AM UTC

ravenstine wrote: post #189

asfgidonhio wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a common fallacy that increasing the dose necessarily increases the effects. There are a whole lot of chemicals where the relationship is more complex. There are drugs where negative effects only occur when the drug is discontinued, where the effect of the drug increases or decreases as it it taken continuously, where the effect rapidly saturates and does not increase with increasing dose, and so forth. I know e…

> It's a common fallacy that increasing the dose necessarily increases the effects. Can you provide an example of a chemical which has effects on the human body that are completely unrelated to the size of the dose? Just because the effects of a carcinogen may be non-linear in relation to the dosage, that doesn't mean that a greater risk of cancer incidents with a greater dose is an unreasonable expectation. Some thi…

Mercury or radioactive material come to mind.

Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports

#417

Post by SV_BubbleTime » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 4:23 AM UTC

failbuffer wrote: post #182

kodyo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's impossible for a layman to know because most people in accredited positions of authority lie without cessation. Identify people you trust on a subject, filter their claims through your own ideas about what is reasonable, and hope for the best. You might still get it wrong. Such is life.

That's not enough: you should also read the critics and opponents of what you think is true. That is, if you're truly trying to figure out reality and not just seeking psychological security. Remember, the test of a true intellectual is that they can convincingly defend a position they find abhorrent.

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”

― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports

#418

Post by dsign » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 4:26 AM UTC

xpe wrote: post #390

colordrops wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can get cancer from not getting enough sleep. There are plenty of innocuous substances that look fine chemically but disrupt sleep. It doesn't have to be directly mutagenic to cause cancer.

Common writing, even from well-regarded sources, is often unnecessarily vague wrt statistics. Claim: we would benefit by building a culture where basic probability ranges are expected and used. Idea: Serious publications could: A. Set basic guidelines for talking about probability estimates; something akin to what you see in government or business intelligence publications. For example, maps terms to ranges: “highly…

I work with readers and editors sometimes. They get swollen and puffy when they see numbers, though they will swallow their pain if it’s a scientific article. Otherwise they will complain loudly and the editors will use their red pens a lot.

With that said, I consider your idea has merit and should be implemented.

Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports

#419

Post by justinator » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 4:35 AM UTC

freedomben wrote: post #186

justinator wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it solved a problem that got in the way of selling you things! It's also still used in most every prop engine that flies over my house everyday at a normal schedule, so we still haven't solved the problem of leaded gas. We never will (in my lifetime).

> It's also still used in most every prop engine that flies over my house everyday at a normal schedule, so we still haven't solved the problem of leaded gas. We never will (in my lifetime). Do you know why? I was under the impression that avgas (aka leaded gas for airplanes) was being forced out (albeit slowly) by EPA

Engines don't work on unleaded fuel.

Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports

#420

Post by freshpots » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 4:41 AM UTC

tomcam wrote: post #400

freshpots wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"People still drink chlorified water and governments still are too lazy to use a biological cleaning process all over the world..." What biological cleaning process are you referring to? How does it prevent bacterial growth in the water distribution system?

Microscopic chloroforms. I’m pretty sure they’re related to midi-chlorians.

Thank you for telling everyone that you are not even remotely involved in water treatment, especially for those that are. No matter the treatment method, absolutely purified water can encounter pathogens. The water treatment process uses various methods to make water safe for consumption but the distribution system requires a residual for any biological contaminants that can enter, or be harbored within, and low concentrations of free chlorine (<2 ppm) provide that while carrying very little risk. Especially compared to most risks in modern life, like being in a passenger vehicle. Safe drinking water, partially due to chlorination is the greatest public health achievement of humanity so far. You are spreading misinformation.