12 ms·

'Possibly' is a weasel word. They need absolute definitions of carcinogens or people can't take their claims seriously.

by vmoore 3y ago

Zetice 3y ago
For "absolute" anything, try religion. For everything else, there's science.
- xeromal 3y ago
  Absolutes are much easier to follow for humans hence why religion has them. Drink in moderation is a much harder sell than don't drink at all. We suck at moderating anything without going cold turkey.
spiderfarmer 3y ago
Good luck coming up with absolute definitions: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/understanding-cancer-risk/determining-if-something-is-a-carcinogen.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/understanding-... Absolute definitions are hardly ever useful. Even for mundane things. How do you determine if something is ‘wet’?
- Bakersfield 3y ago
  Roll her around in flour.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  That's only hard because "wet" has a bunch of meanings. For whether something is a carcinogen it's like asking if it's "humid", and we have very clear and precise ways to communicate that.
lotsofpulp 3y ago
The WHO is not asking anyone to change their actions due to this new research. It seems expected for the WHO to have a list of things that experiments might indicate are carcinogens. They never recommended to stop consuming aspartame, or claimed it was definitely dangerous in the current consumed quantities.
- pavon 3y ago
  WHO did recommend to stop consuming non-sugar sweeters (all types not just aspartame, and based on multiple factors, not just this research)[1][2] [1] https://www.who.int/news/item/15-05-2023-who-advises-not-to-use-non-sugar-sweeteners-for-weight-control-in-newly-released-guideline https://www.who.int/news/item/15-05-2023-who-advises-not-to-... [2] https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240073616 https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240073616
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    I did not know about that. Interestingly, they specify their advice is conditional on using it for a specific purpose? >the use of non-sugar sweeteners to reduce the risk of unhealthy weight gain and diet-related noncommunicable diseases in adults and children. As in it does not sound like they are writing stay away from it period.
tremon 3y ago
"climate change" is a weasel term. They need absolute definitions of the changes coming or people can't take their claims seriously. [edit to explain myself: the above was meant to critize the parent for using the same non-logic that the climate denier movement uses: requiring an impossily high standard of evidence)
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  The evidence presented by scientists to demonstrate climate change is much stronger than "possibly."

'Possibly' is a weasel word. They need absolute definitions of carcinogens or people can't take their claims seriously.

by vmoore 3y ago

'Possibly' is a weasel word. They need absolute definitions of carcinogens or people can't take their claims seriously.

Zetice 3y ago

For "absolute" anything, try religion. For everything else, there's science.

xeromal 3y ago
Absolutes are much easier to follow for humans hence why religion has them. Drink in moderation is a much harder sell than don't drink at all. We suck at moderating anything without going cold turkey.

spiderfarmer 3y ago

Good luck coming up with absolute definitions: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/understanding-cancer-risk/determining-if-something-is-a-carcinogen.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/understanding-... Absolute definitions are hardly ever useful. Even for mundane things. How do you determine if something is ‘wet’?

Bakersfield 3y ago
Roll her around in flour.
Dylan16807 3y ago
That's only hard because "wet" has a bunch of meanings. For whether something is a carcinogen it's like asking if it's "humid", and we have very clear and precise ways to communicate that.

lotsofpulp 3y ago

The WHO is not asking anyone to change their actions due to this new research. It seems expected for the WHO to have a list of things that experiments might indicate are carcinogens. They never recommended to stop consuming aspartame, or claimed it was definitely dangerous in the current consumed quantities.

pavon 3y ago
WHO did recommend to stop consuming non-sugar sweeters (all types not just aspartame, and based on multiple factors, not just this research)[1][2] [1] https://www.who.int/news/item/15-05-2023-who-advises-not-to-use-non-sugar-sweeteners-for-weight-control-in-newly-released-guideline https://www.who.int/news/item/15-05-2023-who-advises-not-to-... [2] https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240073616 https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240073616
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  I did not know about that. Interestingly, they specify their advice is conditional on using it for a specific purpose? >the use of non-sugar sweeteners to reduce the risk of unhealthy weight gain and diet-related noncommunicable diseases in adults and children. As in it does not sound like they are writing stay away from it period.

tremon 3y ago

"climate change" is a weasel term. They need absolute definitions of the changes coming or people can't take their claims seriously. [edit to explain myself: the above was meant to critize the parent for using the same non-logic that the climate denier movement uses: requiring an impossily high standard of evidence)

rootusrootus 3y ago
The evidence presented by scientists to demonstrate climate change is much stronger than "possibly."