Slashdot Mirror

No, it doesn't break down in the stomach. It breaks down in the small intestine. Very, very rapidly, leaving no detectable levels in the blood,.

The most recent study I read was in 2008 or so (and yes, I read the entire thing)

You read one study among the hundreds on one of the most highly studied food additives in history? Great, let me know when you're done with the others. ;) And I'm sure there was zero selection bias in your choice of which of the many studies to read ;)

Wikipedia covers the "cancer" thing well enough for a primer:

Reviews have found no association between aspartame and cancer. These reviews have looked at numerous carcinogenicity studies in animals, epidemiologic studies in humans, as well as in vitro genotoxicity studies. These studies have found no significant evidence that aspartame causes cancer in animals, damages the genome, or causes cancer in humans at doses currently used.[8][38][41] This position is supported by multiple regulatory agencies like the FDA[58] and EFSA as well as scientific bodies such as the National Cancer Institute.[47]

Concern about possible carcinogenic properties of aspartame was originally raised and popularized in the mainstream media by John Olney in the 1970s and again in 1996 by suggesting that aspartame may be related to brain tumors. Reviews have found that these concerns were flawed, due to reliance on the ecological fallacy[59] and the purported mechanism of causing tumors being unlikely to actually cause cancer. Independent agencies such as the FDA and National Cancer Institute have reanalyzed multiple studies based on these worries and found no association between aspartame and brain cancer.[41]

As discussed in the article on controversies around aspartame, the Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center of the European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences released several studies which claimed that aspartame can increase several malignancies in rodents, concluding that aspartame is a potential carcinogen at normal dietary doses.[60][61] The EFSA[62] and the FDA[58] discounted the study results due to lack of transparency and numerous flaws in the study, finding no reason to revise their previously established acceptable daily intake levels for aspartame.

There are two major reasons why people incorrectly think aspartame causes cancer:

1. In 1975 a bad study was released saying aspartame caused brain and other cancers. This study became “legend”, and is what everyone thinks about aspartame, but it is not true. There is even an article on Wikipedia specifically about this controversy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy
2. In 1998, a hoax was released saying aspartame caused all sorts of serious diseases, and people believed it: http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blasp.htm. It’s also on snopes http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp

Due to the 1975 study, studies were launched and FDA officials describing aspartame as "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved" and its safety as "clear cut" (http://web.archive.org/web/20071214170430/www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1999/699_sugar.html)

1. The European Food Safety Authority concluded in its 2013 re-evaluation that aspartame and its breakdown products are safe for human consumption at current levels of exposure (http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3496.htm)
2. As do other independent studies (http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10408440701516184)
3. The national cancer institute has cleared aspartame as having no links to cancer (http://web.archive.org/web/20090212130028/http://cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/AspartameQandA)

There are many more scientific studies on it by national governments showing it’s safe as well:

• UK https://www.food.gov.uk/science/additives/aspartame/
• Canada http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/addit/sweeten-edulcor/aspartame-eng.php
• Australia / New Zealand http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/additives/aspartame/pages/default.aspx

Ahh some one else aware.
Check out the research done on manipulating rats emotional state via EM at the same freqs as cellphones.

You can find the less "conspiratorial" view at "scholar.google.com

Here's a starter:
http://informahealthcare.com/d...

Abstract

Introduction. The interaction of mobile phone radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) with the brain is a serious concern of our society.

Objective. We evaluated the effect of RF-EMR from mobile phones on passive avoidance behaviour and hippocampal morphology in rats.

Materials and methods. Healthy male albino Wistar rats were exposed to RF-EMR by giving 50 missed calls (within 1 hour) per day for 4 weeks, keeping a GSM (0.9 GHz/1.8 GHz) mobile phone in vibratory mode (no ring tone) in the cage. After the experimental period, passive avoidance behaviour and hippocampal morphology were studied.

Results. Passive avoidance behaviour was significantly affected in mobile phone RF-EMR-exposed rats demonstrated as shorter entrance latency to the dark compartment when compared to the control rats. Marked morphological changes were also observed in the CA3 region of the hippocampus of the mobile phone-exposed rats in comparison to the control rats.

Conclusion. Mobile phone RF-EMR exposure significantly altered the passive avoidance behaviour and hippocampal morphology in rats.

Read More: http://informahealthcare.com/d...

Ahh some one else aware.
Check out the research done on manipulating rats emotional state via EM at the same freqs as cellphones.

You can find the less "conspiratorial" view at "scholar.google.com

Here's a starter:
http://informahealthcare.com/d...

Abstract

Introduction. The interaction of mobile phone radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) with the brain is a serious concern of our society.

Objective. We evaluated the effect of RF-EMR from mobile phones on passive avoidance behaviour and hippocampal morphology in rats.

Materials and methods. Healthy male albino Wistar rats were exposed to RF-EMR by giving 50 missed calls (within 1 hour) per day for 4 weeks, keeping a GSM (0.9 GHz/1.8 GHz) mobile phone in vibratory mode (no ring tone) in the cage. After the experimental period, passive avoidance behaviour and hippocampal morphology were studied.

Results. Passive avoidance behaviour was significantly affected in mobile phone RF-EMR-exposed rats demonstrated as shorter entrance latency to the dark compartment when compared to the control rats. Marked morphological changes were also observed in the CA3 region of the hippocampus of the mobile phone-exposed rats in comparison to the control rats.

Conclusion. Mobile phone RF-EMR exposure significantly altered the passive avoidance behaviour and hippocampal morphology in rats.

Read More: http://informahealthcare.com/d...

The cost of said odyssey is around 300 million dollars, and is a one-time cost, with dividends for your leisure society. Specifically, biologically synthesized aramid fibers on the cheap would enable the construction of better buildings for humans to live in, better clothing for humans to wear in hazardous situations, and possible medical applications as suture material. It's something you can get almost for free, when you consider that the scientific trajectory of your leisure society objective also encompasses many of the same goals. The question is not "Why do this", it is 'Why overlook doing this?"

So far, the reason you have given amounts to "because it makes my butt hurt to see other people's dreams come true and not mine!"

Your florid language points to something on the schizophrenic spectrum.

Your own language suggests somebody that is borderline sociopathic. Does everything other people choose to do have to result in your getting something to be considered of value to you?

Care to provide some citations of these mass-extinctions so I can have a TV? (I don't even have a TV BTW).

Sure. The industrialization of china has resulted in the destruction of many species in the yantze river due to overfishing and poorly managed industrial effluent discharging. Further inland, the processing of rare earth metals required to sustain many modern high tech industrial products being manufactured there has caused tremendous loss of biodiversity, and terrible problems for human inhabitants. That's not even counting the consequences of the petro-chemical processing needed to turn crude oil into the plastics necessary to produce the TV, which is having profound and measurable consequences on many animal forms globally. And of course, there's the highly critically acclaimed and "Controversial" issue with fossil fuel use, and the entering of the "anthropocene era", which I dont think really needs a citation, since slashdot covers it basically 5 times a day now.

"Be careful there kettle. It's not wise to call the pot black bottomed."

Your grasp of English idiom is lacking.

Care to elaborate on how I used it incorrectly? That particular epithet is used to discourage people from engaging in hypocrisy. The kettle is being a hypocrite by calling the pot "Black bottomed".

As I have just demonstrated, your "Leisure society" is just as guilty of mass ecosystem tampering for poorly justified reasons as my purposeful creation of a biosphere on a world that currently has none is. I was pointing out that I have just as much "Right" to do so, as you do here on earth.

But please, elaborate on how I misused the idiom.

When one is immunized, one can handle the real thing quickly. That means the sickness cannot take hold, or not for long.

Unfortunately that appears to be no longer be as true for whooping cough as it used to be: the currently circulating strains have diverged from the strains that were used to develop the vaccine, so protection is worse than it used to be.

These things worry me. I am an not a biologist, but I am an engineer. Please don't accuse me of being a "science denier" and coming up with "crap."

Well, since you're not "anti-science" why have you not read the literature? Reductions in mycotoxins and pesticide application seem like a verygoodthing to me. Just two articles of general nature, but there's plenty of others out there...

http://www.ask-force.org/web/Benefits/Phipps-Park-Benefits-2002.pdf http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1081/TXR-200027872

Good thing you don't get any second hand smoke from ecigs.

Conclusions: For all byproducts measured, electronic cigarettes produce very small exposures relative to tobacco cigarettes. The study indicates no apparent risk to human health from e-cigarette emissions based on the compounds analyzed.

It's easy to find a bunch of "what if" that says it's harmful second hand. People that bother to test find levels so low (if at all) that it's not a problem.

I'll agree to your controls. They can't be used where scientific evidence shows they will harm others. Better get used to the smell.

“For more than 25 years Smokefree Pennsylvania has been advocating indoor smoking bans. Based on the results of this study I see no reason for e-cigarettes to be included in smoking bans.” - Bill Godshall of Smokefree Pennsylvania.

“Most vapers believe e-cigarette vapor is not harmful to those around them, but it is reassuring to finally have scientific evidence confirming those beliefs.”- Spike Babaian, President of National Vapers Club

This is the first study to cover such a wide range of toxins, however previous studies, which have evaluated a smaller number of toxins, have shown similar results.

“The results of this study confirm the findings of my last 4 years of research. E-cigarettes pose no discernible risk to public health." - Dr. Murray Laugesen - Public Health Medicine Specialist, Health New Zealand

source

Interesting. I'll do some googling, but do you have any bibliographic info?

quote>

Sure, here is a starter: Biochemical aspects in autism spectrum disorders: updating the opioid-excess theory and presenting new opportunities for biomedical intervention

I have been on a high protein diet since 18 as I noticed though experimentation and copious note taking that I was vastly more productive on a high-protein diet.

Note that there could be non proteine-related reasons to that: a high protein diet means you eat less carbohydrates, and there are many reasons why too much carbohydrates can destroy your productivity. You also mention exercise, and exercise is well known to be good for your health

http://bjr.birjournals.org/content/78/925/3.short
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/20014091111956
etc.

There is evidence. Please don't get your science from crazies like Coulter or reactions to them. The SBM article you link to is quite rightly addressing refuting Coulter's claims, but there is reasonable evidence that radiation exposure at levels quite a bit less than what Coulter and the SBM article are talking about, and similar to what we're talking about here, may be beneficial.

Yes, I should have said "may be beneficial." The evidence is stronger that normal background-level radiation has a beneficial effect than that it has a clinically significant detrimental effect. Your statement that "radiation is bad in any amount" is unfounded. You also didn't distinguish the type of radiation - the vast majority of radiation people encounter in their daily lives has a variety of very beneficial effects.

There are proven benefits to drinking alcohol

No,
  no
and no.

The only truth is, there's a shitload of money made from getting people to drink overpriced alcohol-in-water solutions.

Well the "aimed at" part might actually produce a bunch of hooey considering that some researchers somehow figured out that duck spoof has antibiotic properties. And if that makes you squeamish at the thought, the Scandinavians have figured out that human spoof does too! Now to convince your girlfriend/wife that you are really trying to help her when she gets strep throat.

The article is not in print yet. You can get the abstract online here:
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/00207454.2011.608139

payment required for the full article.

TL;DR: subject had no conscious knowledge/recognition of the field, but showed 100 s latency physiological reaction to a 60hz field with strength 300 V/m.

You are pretty ignorant. GOOD coffee, properly made, will have zero to almost zero bitterness in it. Almost no oil, and should NEVER be burnt.

Starbucks BURNS their beans.

Also, contrary to popular belief, caffeine is NOT ADDICTIVE.
a review of the literature:
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00952990600918965

You have been sold a hill of beans. Look for good coffee, learn how to make it. 7:1 ratio is a good start.
This is science, not opinion. I go to a place the uses a spectrometer to get there coffee right. It's the only place I have been going to where I can taste the difference between beans.
I'm 46 and only been drinking coffee regularly for a few years. Because the place I go to make s tasty coffee.

Public Domain, Portland Oregon.

Analyzing what you deposit in a public restroom is also likely to work. A single hair that you shed from your head in a public place may be clearly visible and identifiable, depending on your hair style.

Where I come from, we flush after using public restrooms. Any trace left behind is mixed with traces from dozens, or even hundreds (it's not like standard cleaning removes every last trace of biological material) of other people. And if you're following me closely enough to find a shed hair, you're stalking. The expectation of DNA privacy remains.

And you have to understand that identification is not at the core of the issue.

It is in fact the core of the issue. I don't care about statistical statements about a large social group, provided that they are accurate and based on data collected in an ethical manner. (Which would not be the case in the Havasupai incident.) To say "African Americans have a higher rate of sickle cell anemia than the general population" or "Irish Americans have higher rates of alcoholism" is fine. Discrimination on the basis of those statements is another matter, but is not limited to DNA information, or even to medical information. I care about privacy: about information about individuals.

the simple fact is that it is silly to expect something to be private if you drop millions of copies of it everywhere you go.

No more silly than to expect a conversation to be private when your sound waves radiate in all directions. Sure, I might need a super-amplifier to hear your pillow talk from across the street, but too bad, it is silly to expect your words to be private if you let sound waves out of your house, right?

There's a huge difference between a public conversation, and a conversation that can be overheard given enough ingenuity on the part of the eavesdropper. And there's a huge difference between giving a DNA sample, and having one's DNA collected by a stalker.

The expectation of privacy is not negated by the theoretical possibility of surveillance.