fuck artificial sweetener. my mom always thought it was bad for you so she never let me have it... i get nervous when i drink diet soda now, 'cause i keep thinking it'll cause cancer.
Aspartame has been renamed and is now being marketed as a "natural sweetener"
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
-
-
jaaaaake wrote:
Stop trying to be the devil's advocate, you're not being cool. Instead go research what chemicals aspartame breaks down to in the human body and how it even got into the market in the first place.
:rofl:
Stop trying to be desperately scandalous, you're not being cool. Instead, read my post and properly reply to it, lyk wot happns in deb8.[CENTER]
[RIGHT]Ta-ta
[/RIGHT]
[/CENTER] -
Esmo wrote:
Stop trying to be desperately scandalous, you're not being cool. Instead, read my post and properly reply to it, lyk wot happns in deb8.
When you drink a diet soda, your body breaks down the aspartame into aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol, one molecule of each.
* aspartic acid is harmless; it’s broken down into alanine, an amino acid, and oxaloacetate, an organic compound
* phenylalanine, an allergen to some people, is broken down into mostly tyrosine, an amino acid, and to a lesser extent into phenylethylamine, an alkaloid, and phenylpyruvate.
* methanol (wood alcohol) is broken down into formic acid (the toxin in ant bites) and formaldehyde which is a carcinogen.
Each diet soda with aspartame produces about 20 mg of methanol. The methanol breaks down further into 6 mg of formaldehyde which is three times the daily EPA limit. It’s 30 times the limit in New Jersey, 100 times the limit in California, and 300 times the limit in Maryland.
SOURCE: Diet Sodas and Cancer: Aspartame breaks down to methanol and formaldehyde. Yummy!Check out my website: http://freevideogames.tk -
The problem with your source is that it comes from an online journalism site with two meagre sources (a chat with a doctor and a local newspaper) whereas I have sources from hard, scientific studies. That's proof, not internet conjecture.
As for the content of the source itself, the essential point that it makes about methanol turning into formic acid and formaldehyde is a poor rendition of biochemical thinking. It's like saying that because lactic acid is used in detergents, anaerobic respiration will kill us when our body does it naturally. Likewise, just because formic acid is present in ant bites doesn't mean that it's going to behave like an ant bite would within our body.
ScienceDirect - Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology : Aspartame: Review of Safety
Within that study it was found that aspartame was safe, with specific reference to the methanol issue. Methanol can be found in greater quantities in natural fruit juices (so drop that orange!) and alcohols, but we've never seen cancers come from these.
It's also worth pointing out that the human body naturally produces methanol and formaldehyde, yet they obviously don't harm us. Chemistry is about how chemicals behave and interact to produce new chemicals that behave and interact in a different way to their chemical 'parents'. Formaldehyde, then, can interact with something different to not necessarily have a carcinogenic effect (which I do not doubt, given reasonable context)
Here's another source - another study - with a raft of scientists to it's name:
Aspartame: A Safety Evaluation Based on Current Use Levels, Regulations, and Toxicological and Epidemiological Studies; Critical Reviews in Toxicology - 37(8):Pages 629-727 - Informa Healthcare
and an article accompanying it:
New aspartame review claims no grounds for concern
Note that the study was funded by Ajinimoto, an aspartame producer, but that anonymity was maintained between the company and the scientists until the study was finished. Evil corporations funding a study does not necessarily render that study 'biased'.
Science is about the studies of scientists. Not about sensationalist new books about medical cover-ups or internet rumour. If you want to have a real scientific discussion, do it with real scientific evidence such as studies by scientists. I've looked around on the Internet and I can find studies that will support your cause, so they're out there, you just have to look for them. Of course, I have my reply ready for when you do ;).
(Don't get too excited in your search to forget to address my points, of course.)[CENTER]
[RIGHT]Ta-ta
[/RIGHT]
[/CENTER] -
Esmo wrote:
The problem with your source is that it comes from an online journalism site with two meagre sources (a chat with a doctor and a local newspaper) whereas I have sources from hard, scientific studies. That's proof, not internet conjecture.
As for the content of the source itself, the essential point that it makes about methanol turning into formic acid and formaldehyde is a poor rendition of biochemical thinking. It's like saying that because lactic acid is used in detergents, anaerobic respiration will kill us when our body does it naturally. Likewise, just because formic acid is present in ant bites doesn't mean that it's going to behave like an ant bite would within our body.
ScienceDirect - Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology : Aspartame: Review of Safety
Within that study it was found that aspartame was safe, with specific reference to the methanol issue. Methanol can be found in greater quantities in natural fruit juices (so drop that orange!) and alcohols, but we've never seen cancers come from these.
It's also worth pointing out that the human body naturally produces methanol and formaldehyde, yet they obviously don't harm us. Chemistry is about how chemicals behave and interact to produce new chemicals that behave and interact in a different way to their chemical 'parents'. Formaldehyde, then, can interact with something different to not necessarily have a carcinogenic effect (which I do not doubt, given reasonable context)
Here's another source - another study - with a raft of scientists to it's name:
Aspartame: A Safety Evaluation Based on Current Use Levels, Regulations, and Toxicological and Epidemiological Studies; Critical Reviews in Toxicology - 37(8):Pages 629-727 - Informa Healthcare
and an article accompanying it:
New aspartame review claims no grounds for concern
Note that the study was funded by Ajinimoto, an aspartame producer, but that anonymity was maintained between the company and the scientists until the study was finished. Evil corporations funding a study does not necessarily render that study 'biased'.
Science is about the studies of scientists. Not about sensationalist new books about medical cover-ups or internet rumour. If you want to have a real scientific discussion, do it with real scientific evidence such as studies by scientists. I've looked around on the Internet and I can find studies that will support your cause, so they're out there, you just have to look for them. Of course, I have my reply ready for when you do ;).
(Don't get too excited in your search to forget to address my points, of course.)
I see you won't read anything other than "official-source" propaganda and that's your problem. I just know I'm not eating anything that breaks down into methanol and then formaldehyde in my body. And I don't recommend anyone either. And again, stop playing the devil's advocate, you don't know what kind of people you are defending.Check out my website: http://freevideogames.tk -
jaaaaake wrote:
I see you won't read anything other than "official-source" propaganda and that's your problem. I just know I'm not eating anything that breaks down into methanol and then formaldehyde in my body. And I don't recommend anyone either. And again, stop playing the devil's advocate, you don't know what kind of people you are defending.
I've addressed why methanol and formaldehyde aren't problems in the aspartame context. Please take that on board or counter it, don't just reply back with the same old thoughtless mantra.
And I'm not playing devil's advocate. Devil's advocates are people who propose ideas that they disagree with in order to get interesting responses from others, usually in a teacher-to-student relationship where the teacher does so to stretch a student's thinking capacity. I honestly believe every word I've written in my posts - I always do.
With regards to the bias that you pin on my sources, I've already explained why they're not biased. But to pick the most squeaky clean from my selection, could you, for instance, tell me why my Hawaii University source is biased?
Now again, stop ignoring my points. Respond to them with hard scientific evidence, or I just won't bother with this debate any more (not that it would be the first time in my debates with you). Come on.[CENTER]
[RIGHT]Ta-ta
[/RIGHT]
[/CENTER] -
Esmo wrote:
I've addressed why methanol and formaldehyde aren't problems in the aspartame context. Please take that on board or counter it, don't just reply back with the same old thoughtless mantra.
And I'm not playing devil's advocate. Devil's advocates are people who propose ideas that they disagree with in order to get interesting responses from others, usually in a teacher-to-student relationship where the teacher does so to stretch a student's thinking capacity. I honestly believe every word I've written in my posts - I always do.
With regards to the bias that you pin on my sources, I've already explained why they're not biased. But to pick the most squeaky clean from my selection, could you, for instance, tell me why my Hawaii University source is biased?
Now again, stop ignoring my points. Respond to them with hard scientific evidence, or I just won't bother with this debate any more (not that it would be the first time in my debates with you). Come on.
First of all, I doubt you've read your sources yourself. Second, all I'm saying is "Hey, you know the aspartame in diet coke? It breaks down into formaldehyde and can cause cancer. It's bad for you and big business care more about their profits than about your health." That's it, and if you read the posts over 90% of the people agree with me.
---------- Post added at 06:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:00 AM ----------
You're also forgetting that the manufacturers of aspartame stand to lose big money if their product is rejected... and they're also powerful enough to "fund" or have the FDA fund studies of aspartame and other pharmaceuticals "proving" they're safe while they're really not.Check out my website: http://freevideogames.tk -
jaaaaake wrote:
First of all, I doubt you've read your sources yourself.
No, I've not. I'm not going to fork out to buy studies just to have an internet debate, nor spend such a prolonged length of time reading to do so. But nonetheless they're scientific studies, which as I've already said are the kind of sources a scientific discussion needs to be on, and which you've yet to put into this debate (I've already told you they're out there, why so reluctant?) The Wikipedia article I got them from also gives them weight (whilst not giving weight to certain others) and decry Wikipedia all you like with some half-baked conspiracy theory that I'm anticipating, it's neutral.
jaaaaake wrote:
Second, all I'm saying is "Hey, you know the aspartame in diet coke? It breaks down into formaldehyde and can cause cancer. It's bad for you and big business care more about their profits than about your health." That's it
Good. Then prepare to be disagreed with, and then to justify your position against said disagreement.
jaaaaake wrote:
and if you read the posts over 90% of the people agree with me.
I don't think you will. The vast majority of this thread is in fact off the original subject, and the miniscule amount of people who replied isn't nearly enough to bother with a percentage.
Besides, when did the belief of the majority equal truth?
jaaaaake wrote:
You're also forgetting that the manufacturers of aspartame stand to lose big money if their product is rejected... and they're also powerful enough to "fund" or have the FDA fund studies of aspartame and other pharmaceuticals "proving" they're safe while they're really not.
I know I can't convince you that they didn't fiddle the results, even though there's more evidence, and you won't convince me. So let's leave it - what the hey, I still have studies such as the Hawaii study that are neutral and evidence that makes anti-aspartame claims seem ludicrous, such as the levels of methanol higher than aspartame in natural fruit jucies.[CENTER]
[RIGHT]Ta-ta
[/RIGHT]
[/CENTER] -
jaaaaake wrote:
Let's get this straight: I showed you an article from cancer101 which stated that aspartame breaks down into formaldehyde in the human body, causes cancer, and is bad for you. You did nothing to debunk anything in that article; instead, you gave me a 93-page scientific study that you haven't even read??? And you expect anyone to buy it?????
I've already debunked that by saying why methanol in the human body breaking down into formaldehyde isn't harmful. I'm tired of repetition.
The way I found the studies was by going on Wikipedia and following up the footnotes to the points it made. So, whilst I haven't read the studies themselves, I know what points they make and have used them in this debate. Because Wikipedia facilitates information from all sources in order to maintain neutrality, I can be confident that if there's no critique of the sources from what is probably a much-visited page on Wikipedia, then obviously no one's been able to come up with anything against them.
Also, remember that by pointing out my not-total reading of the sources, you walk through a two-way door. If you want to slate my sources as wrong, then you need to read them and criticise them. The fact that I haven't read them explicitly does not make them wrong or scientifically unsound. Admittedly, it's not ideal debating technique and in other, less trivial and less expensive circumstances I'd prefer to have read them before using them, but I've done the best I can.[CENTER]
[RIGHT]Ta-ta
[/RIGHT]
[/CENTER] -
Esmo wrote:
I've already debunked that by saying why methanol in the human body breaking down into formaldehyde isn't harmful. I'm tired of repetition.
Where? Wait a minute, you just "proved" that formaldehyde, a well-known carcinogen, is harmless in the human body??? I think you may be going for the Nobel prize, you should publish your finding. And for the record, don't expect any of us to believe that methanol OR formaldehyde are harmless.Check out my website: http://freevideogames.tk -
jaaaaake wrote:
And for the record, don't expect any of us to believe that methanol OR formaldehyde are harmless.
There:
Esmo wrote:
ScienceDirect - Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology : Aspartame: Review of Safety
Within that study it was found that aspartame was safe, with specific reference to the methanol issue. Methanol can be found in greater quantities in natural fruit juices (so drop that orange!) and alcohols, but we've never seen cancers come from these.
It's also worth pointing out that the human body naturally produces methanol and formaldehyde, yet they obviously don't harm us. Chemistry is about how chemicals behave and interact to produce new chemicals that behave and interact in a different way to their chemical 'parents'. Formaldehyde, then, can interact with something different to not necessarily have a carcinogenic effect (which I do not doubt, given reasonable context)
jaaaaake wrote:
And for the record, don't expect any of us to believe that methanol OR formaldehyde are harmless.
Using the first person plural does not make your cause seem any more heroic.[CENTER]
[RIGHT]Ta-ta
[/RIGHT]
[/CENTER] -
jaaaaake wrote:
20mg methanol breaks down into 6mg formaldehyde, which is 3 times the daily EPA limit, 30 times the limit in New Jersey, 100 times the limit in California. How much methanol is in fruit juice????? Bottom line, consuming anything that breaks down into a toxic chemical in quantities exceeding the EPA safety limit is... not good. By the say, your source didn't prove anything.
I can't tell you how much is in fruit juice.
"Aha!" you say, "So your argument is to pot!"
Not quite.
That source is the footnote for the fruit juice point made on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an especially reliable source for this topic, as the topic is an active debate that has had plenty of scientific coverage, so if a study had proven that study (from 2002, off the top of my head) or point wrong, I can be sure to find it there. Lo and behold, I haven't. Plus, there's no aspartame bigwig behind the scenes making sure nothing gets onto Wikipedia because Wikipedia is a collaborative, neutral source.
jaaaaake wrote:
A side question Esmo, what are you trying to do? Are you trying to just troll me? Are you looking to disagree with someone? Playing the devil's advocate in this debate? Why are you defending evil? You want people to take your advice and think aspartame is safe? You want to take it on your conscience to mislead even one person into getting cancer?
As I've already said, I'm not playing devil's advocate and I genuinely believe the argument I'm fronting here. Without wanting to seem too grand, I pursue truth in this section. Maybe my conscience would be touched if I was arguing against aspartame knowing it's 'dangers', but because those dangers don't empirically exist, it's rather silly for my conscience to get that far.[CENTER]
[RIGHT]Ta-ta
[/RIGHT]
[/CENTER] -
Esmo wrote:
As I've already said, I'm not playing devil's advocate and I genuinely believe the argument I'm fronting here. Without wanting to seem too grand, I pursue truth in this section. Maybe my conscience would be touched if I was arguing against aspartame knowing it's 'dangers', but because those dangers don't empirically exist, it's rather silly for my conscience to get that far.
Then prepare to be shocked out of your mind. Before saying anything watch this: [ame=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6551291488524526735]Aspartame: Sweet Misery A Poisoned World[/ame]
Read this (don't worry, unlike your sources it's easy to read): Aspartame Side Effects
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErngurkB3J0]YouTube - Donald Rumsfeld & Aspartame Scandal[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELgW4KBY-o4]YouTube - Fox Nutrasweet Equal Aspartame[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv9pIUVdmpw]YouTube - Aspartame Danger[/ame]
---------- Post added at 04:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:05 AM ----------
Aspartame & Aspartame Poisoning Information SiteCheck out my website: http://freevideogames.tk -
jaaaaake wrote:
Before saying anything watch this: Aspartame: Sweet Misery A Poisoned World
Actually, I've already said quite a lot and I'm waiting for replies to those points. Why should this debate keep getting sidetracked onto a parallel tangent?
jaaaaake wrote:
Read this (don't worry, unlike your sources it's easy to read): Aspartame Side Effects
And unlike my sources, it has no referencing and appears to come from a biased website run by an alternative health practitioner who has provided such a long and wide-ranging list of symptoms that any easily-duped hyperchondriac could apply to themselves as a symptom of theirs.
Not videos again...
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and come to these at some point when I have time, but I fail to see how they stand up to my sourcing.
Not biased in the traditional sense, but certainly a website that clearly has an anti-aspartame agenda, which always clouds reason. Besides, I want argument, not websites.[CENTER]
[RIGHT]Ta-ta
[/RIGHT]
[/CENTER] -
Esmo wrote:
Actually, I've already said quite a lot and I'm waiting for replies to those points. Why should this debate keep getting sidetracked onto a parallel tangent?
All you did was site links to your sources so why can't I do the same thing? FYI, you're the first person to disagree with me, so there must be a reason why.
Esmo wrote:
And unlike my sources, it has no referencing and appears to come from a biased website run by an alternative health practitioner who has provided such a long and wide-ranging list of symptoms that any easily-duped hyperchondriac could apply to themselves as a symptom of theirs.
Esmo wrote:
Not videos again... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and come to these at some point when I have time, but I fail to see how they stand up to my sourcing.
So my sources aren't good enough for you? And your sources are beyond question, they're the holy sword, they smash through anything I say or post, simply because they bear some official logo? Stop insulting me.
Esmo wrote:
Not biased in the traditional sense, but certainly a website that clearly has an anti-aspartame agenda, which always clouds reason. Besides, I want argument, not websites.
And ya think yours don't have a pro-aspartame agenda?Check out my website: http://freevideogames.tk -
jaaaaake wrote:
All you did was site links to your sources so why can't I do the same thing?
I don't object to source links. I think they're an important, if not essential part of internet debate. But for them to be worthwhile they should be used in conjunction with argument in the debators own words. You just gave links and told me to go read.
jaaaaake wrote:
FYI, you're the first person to disagree with me, so there must be a reason why.
There's a first for everything. My mischievous side can think of some reasons why that first is me but they would be ad homs and presume to know more than I do about you. But being the first person who's disagreed with you on this doesn't automatically make your opinion that of the masses, which wouldn't make it right anyway.
jaaaaake wrote:
So my sources aren't good enough for you? And your sources are beyond question, they're the holy sword, they smash through anything I say or post, simply because they bear some official logo? Stop insulting me.
Science functions through the medium of scientific studies. This is a debate on science and I have provided scientific studies, backed by Wikipedian support (which I have already explained doesn't present difficulties) which are holy swords as long as you can't provide anything likewise up-to-scratch. Even the scientific studies cited on Wikipedia that have problems with aspartame are discredited.
Also bear in mind that attacking my sources doesn't actually get rid of my criticisms of your sources.
jaaaaake wrote:
And ya think yours don't have a pro-aspartame agenda?
They're scientific studies and Wikipedia. How can either of them have agendas?[CENTER]
[RIGHT]Ta-ta
[/RIGHT]
[/CENTER] -
Esmo wrote:
The vast majority of this thread is in fact off the original subject, and the miniscule amount of people who replied isn't nearly enough to bother with a percentage.
So I was insanely bored...
Only 10 out of the 89 posts in this thread even remotely touch the question of whether or not they agree with Jake. Of those 10 posts, 8 agreed.
*complex math formula*
80% agree with Jake.
However, from a sample of 10 people it's nowhere near conclusive. -
Steven wrote:
So I was insanely bored...
Only 10 out of the 89 posts in this thread even remotely touch the question of whether or not they agree with Jake. Of those 10 posts, 8 agreed.
*complex math formula*
80% agree with Jake.
However, from a sample of 10 people it's nowhere near conclusive.
Not enough sources :mad:"The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical no one will believe in it"-Bertrand Russell
-
Share