Another "eggs are bad" article. Wake me when there's something other than a nothingburger here.
Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
421–430 of 584 posts
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#422Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 conc…
It was low-quality humor. I figured the midi-chlorian reference gave it away, due to the high density of Star Wars fandom on this site. Sorry to trigger you. I added a joke indicator, and I hope your blood pressure will decrease.
https://www.starwars.com/news/so-what-the-heck-are-midi-chlo...
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#423Earlier quoted context omitted.
So… restaurants?
Literally yes. Every Starbucks in California has a little placard with that stupid warning to the point where people tune it out.
WARNING: This location contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.
Prop 65. It's everywhere in California and it's completely useless.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#424Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sadly the marketing just works too well and now you're a conspiracy theorist for questioning the narrative.
What marketing? Everyone I know who drinks diet soda myself included basically assumes we're getting cancer from it eventually. It's like the most common meme about it.
??? I’m hearing this first. Know a lot of people who drink Diet Coke.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#425Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I drink a lot of Pepsi Max. I just love it especially in summer. I've drank it for decades. Would this make me worry a lot? Not really. I have worse health risks like being overweight, pfas etc. The "if it was that dangerous we'd see the effect" is a pretty decent argument IMO considering it's been heavily used for almost 40 years.
Cancer rates are rising rapidly. Soon 50% of people will have cancer. I’d say something is going on
Aren't you a Google search away from seeing that this is the opposite of the truth? I'm asking because I didn't look very hard, but I'm on IARC's dataviz site right now looking at a graph of cancer rates --- all causes excluding non-melanoma skin cancer --- sharply down since the '50s (no surprise, tobacco), and also down since the 1990s. You can find cancer sites that break that trend, like bladder cancer, but (for instance) that's down in the period between the introduction of aspartame and the mid-2000s.
Moreover, if you specialize on GI cancers, it looks like you see the opposite of what you'd expect if aspartame was a potent carcinogen: the rates are lower in places where Diet Coke is more prevalent.
Maybe I'm looking at the wrong numbers, but I really think this is a result some people on message boards just want to see.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#426Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#427It's always surprising to me how quick we are to go from discovering a chemical to mass-producing it. We're only just figuring out all of the negative externalities of things like PFAS, and they're in absolutely everything (packaging, clothes, pizza box linings, food cans, cookware...)
Worrying about aspartame is bikeshedding about minutia. The arbitrary grandfathering of thousands of chemicals under TSCA and lack of precautionary principle are far bigger risks to public health in America.
Multiple companies knew about the health dangers of certain "forever chemicals" including PFAS and intentionally did nothing because money. It's a repeat of the cigarette debacle.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#428Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I'd also say that as society continues to get more complex we're exposed to more and more previously-unknown substances, chemicals, and compounds. Kids used to play in the DDT mist sprayed by trucks. How many DDTs are there right now that we don't know about? I'd guess a whole lot.
Ultra and highly processed foods are terrible for us. Consuming so much more sugar than in nature seems to be bad for glucose intolerance. I love bacon but I try to resist ever having any. Don't buy meats with nitrates. We do have way more cancers, a big reason we know about is our food choices. We don't even know the impact of hard things to measure yet, like the impact of all these things on our gut biology. It's n…
It is not increasingly obvious that artificial sugar drinks are bad for you, and the cancers linked to nitrates are also down significantly in the US over the last 40 years. That's certainly not because people are eating less bacon, or because grocery store bacon has less nitrates in it ("nitrate-free bacon" is a fraud).
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#429Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Untrue. G100UL is a drop-in replacement for 100LL. TEL should be banned because 70% of all airborne lead is a result of piston-driven general aviation.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#430Earlier 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
The problems are a lack of leadership to subsidize it at the pump and a timeline to ban it. G100UL currently costs 70% more than 100LL. A certification process is required to fuel with G100UL (no engine changes are required, but it's the aviation industry and it creates an orderly transition process with more paperwork) and it's currently difficult to find. If you want to get G100UL now, look for general aviation flight schools.