4 ms·

Not right, but influential on EU regulators. Hopefully EU citizens find such results as a mark of shame rather than pride and move towards fact-based policy.

Not right, but influential on EU regulators. Hopefully EU citizens find such results as a mark of shame rather than pride and move towards fact-based policy. Emotion-based policy is dangerous.

hankchinaski 3y ago
[flagged]
- JacobSeated 3y ago
  Aspartame is still fine, and it is one of the most researched substances. This type of reasoning, that you are using, is down right unscientific, conspiratorial, and dangerous. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/aspartame-and-cancer/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/aspartame-and-cancer/
  - hankchinaski 3y ago
    Darwinian law of self selection will take its course
  - j16sdiz 3y ago
    How is it "unscientific" when we know they are 99.99% unrelated, but you want at least 99.99999% to feel safe? Aspartame, unlike sugar, are non-essential. If somebody don't want to take that 0.000000001% risk, I guess they should be free to make their choice?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - sva_ 3y ago
      Sugar is non-essential as the body can synthesize carbohydrates through gluconeogenesis.
    - marcinzm 3y ago
      The general issue I've found with people that take this mindset is that they focus so much on the 0.000000001% risks that they miss a lot of 1% risks. Which I would say is unscientific in terms of minimizing ones risks.
      - j16sdiz 3y ago
        1. It's not just risk, it's also a risk/benefit balance. 2. We have 8 billion human on this earth. Is it bad to have 0.00001% of human alive (i.e. a few thousands) focus on 0.00001% risk?
        fastaguy88 3y ago
        This is a commonly (mis)-used argument, that misses the fact that if the statistics tell us the risk is less than some value (lets say 10^-6), the assumption is that the risk is 10^-6. Often, statistical tests have the power to detect very rare effects, but not effects that are even rarer. So less than 10^-6 does not mean the risk is one in a million, it means we do not know how low the risk is (could be 10^-23), but we know that it is no higher than 10^-6.
    - kube-system 3y ago
      Someone who chooses not to do something over a 0.000000001% risk is either irrationally bad at math and statistics or needs to get some help with their anxiety. Experts would call things with a 0.000000001% risk "extremely safe" because in comparison to other daily risks inherent to existing as a human, that number is much much lower. The risk of dying in a car in the US is 12,890,000 times higher.
      - hankchinaski 3y ago
        The problem with academics and people that reason this way is that they put themselves on a pedestal and assume that their model represents reality 1:1 with a zero margin of error. You must trust the model otherwise you are labeled a conspiracy theorist. I don’t just distrust the study, I distrust the model and the risk assumptions put in place. I don’t need a nanny state to shove down my throat things I don’t want. For what it’s worth, I’d be happy for everything to be deregulated and everyone taking their own decision. Calling people conspiracy theorist or stupid because they don’t agree with you is just bizarre.
        kube-system 3y ago
        > I don’t just distrust the study, I distrust the model and the risk assumptions put in place. We're talking about the most studied food additive in history. There isn't a single study or single model we're talking about here, it's a large body of evidence. > I don’t need a nanny state to shove down my throat things I don’t want. For what it’s worth, I’d be happy for everything to be deregulated and everyone taking their own decision. Then be comfortable making your decision that way. There's no need to misrepresent scientific consensus to justify a dislike for aspartame. The fact of the matter is that "aspartame causes cancer" is a claim which is not supported by any rigorous science by anyone with any "model".
- amelius 3y ago
  Aspartame was totally fine until Coca Cola decided to switch to stevia.
- ori_b 3y ago
  Unlike aspartame, we understand the physics of electromagnetic radiation. It's the same type of radiation as sunlight, but lower energy and lower intensity.
mort96 3y ago
The EU has more lax regulations on SAR than the FCC does (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_absorption_rate#Mobile_phone_SAR_testing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_absorption_rate#Mobil...). It may be unnecessarily low, but it's certainly not a mark of shame for EU citizens specifically.
- willis936 3y ago
  Then why is the iPhone 12 not in violation of US regulations?
  - mort96 3y ago
    According to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37496859 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37496859, it seems like the article is wrong and the iPhone 12 isn't actually in violation of EU regulations. It's just in violation of France's regulations because France is weird.
tick_tock_tick 3y ago
Dude it's the EU more then half their shit is feels based then facts. Still waiting for them to find any actual issue with GMO crops.

Not right, but influential on EU regulators. Hopefully EU citizens find such results as a mark of shame rather than pride and move towards fact-based policy. Emotion-based policy is dangerous.

hankchinaski 3y ago

[flagged]

JacobSeated 3y ago
Aspartame is still fine, and it is one of the most researched substances. This type of reasoning, that you are using, is down right unscientific, conspiratorial, and dangerous. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/aspartame-and-cancer/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/aspartame-and-cancer/
- hankchinaski 3y ago
  Darwinian law of self selection will take its course
- j16sdiz 3y ago
  How is it "unscientific" when we know they are 99.99% unrelated, but you want at least 99.99999% to feel safe? Aspartame, unlike sugar, are non-essential. If somebody don't want to take that 0.000000001% risk, I guess they should be free to make their choice?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - sva_ 3y ago
    Sugar is non-essential as the body can synthesize carbohydrates through gluconeogenesis.
  - marcinzm 3y ago
    The general issue I've found with people that take this mindset is that they focus so much on the 0.000000001% risks that they miss a lot of 1% risks. Which I would say is unscientific in terms of minimizing ones risks.
    - j16sdiz 3y ago
      1. It's not just risk, it's also a risk/benefit balance. 2. We have 8 billion human on this earth. Is it bad to have 0.00001% of human alive (i.e. a few thousands) focus on 0.00001% risk?
      - fastaguy88 3y ago
        This is a commonly (mis)-used argument, that misses the fact that if the statistics tell us the risk is less than some value (lets say 10^-6), the assumption is that the risk is 10^-6. Often, statistical tests have the power to detect very rare effects, but not effects that are even rarer. So less than 10^-6 does not mean the risk is one in a million, it means we do not know how low the risk is (could be 10^-23), but we know that it is no higher than 10^-6.
  - kube-system 3y ago
    Someone who chooses not to do something over a 0.000000001% risk is either irrationally bad at math and statistics or needs to get some help with their anxiety. Experts would call things with a 0.000000001% risk "extremely safe" because in comparison to other daily risks inherent to existing as a human, that number is much much lower. The risk of dying in a car in the US is 12,890,000 times higher.
    - hankchinaski 3y ago
      The problem with academics and people that reason this way is that they put themselves on a pedestal and assume that their model represents reality 1:1 with a zero margin of error. You must trust the model otherwise you are labeled a conspiracy theorist. I don’t just distrust the study, I distrust the model and the risk assumptions put in place. I don’t need a nanny state to shove down my throat things I don’t want. For what it’s worth, I’d be happy for everything to be deregulated and everyone taking their own decision. Calling people conspiracy theorist or stupid because they don’t agree with you is just bizarre.
      - kube-system 3y ago
        > I don’t just distrust the study, I distrust the model and the risk assumptions put in place. We're talking about the most studied food additive in history. There isn't a single study or single model we're talking about here, it's a large body of evidence. > I don’t need a nanny state to shove down my throat things I don’t want. For what it’s worth, I’d be happy for everything to be deregulated and everyone taking their own decision. Then be comfortable making your decision that way. There's no need to misrepresent scientific consensus to justify a dislike for aspartame. The fact of the matter is that "aspartame causes cancer" is a claim which is not supported by any rigorous science by anyone with any "model".
amelius 3y ago
Aspartame was totally fine until Coca Cola decided to switch to stevia.
ori_b 3y ago
Unlike aspartame, we understand the physics of electromagnetic radiation. It's the same type of radiation as sunlight, but lower energy and lower intensity.

mort96 3y ago

The EU has more lax regulations on SAR than the FCC does (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_absorption_rate#Mobile_phone_SAR_testing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_absorption_rate#Mobil...). It may be unnecessarily low, but it's certainly not a mark of shame for EU citizens specifically.

willis936 3y ago
Then why is the iPhone 12 not in violation of US regulations?
- mort96 3y ago
  According to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37496859 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37496859, it seems like the article is wrong and the iPhone 12 isn't actually in violation of EU regulations. It's just in violation of France's regulations because France is weird.

tick_tock_tick 3y ago

Dude it's the EU more then half their shit is feels based then facts. Still waiting for them to find any actual issue with GMO crops.