Slashdot Mirror
Coca-Cola and Pepsi Change Recipe To Avoid Cancer Warning
jones_supa writes "California has added 4-methylimidazole (a caramel coloring) to the list of carcinogenic compounds that require an explicit warning when added to foodstuffs. Incidentally, this has entailed the big two cola producers to modify their recipe to decrease the amount of the substance — just enough to avoid the warning. The change to the recipe has already been introduced in California but will be rolled out across the U.S. to streamline manufacturing. The American Beverage Association noted that there is not enough evidence to show the coloring to cause cancer in humans."
Everybody knows that everything causes cancer in California.
California needs to just put out a warning saying that life has been linked to incidences of cancer.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
The American Beverage Association also noted that California added the coloring to its list of carcinogens with no studies showing that it causes cancer in humans. It noted that the listing was based on a single study in lab mice and rats.
Carcinogenesis is generally stochastic. That means the probability is directly proportional to the dose. When you lower the dose but increase the population you end up with the same risk. So if 1000 doses given to one mouse causes cancer, then it's likely that 1 dose given to each of 1000 people will cause one case of cancer.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The same 1000 cans argument can be made for aspartame as a sweetner, tail pipe exhaust, and smoking crack. What if you're that one person with a a genetic predisposition to get cancer from this substance? We should be doing what the EU has done for years- make manufacturers prove substances are safe for consumption before including them as ingredients.
Stay skeptical, my friends.
Yeah, stupid California. If only more states allowed public smoking and DDT use.
Is there any chemical California has not added to their list of carcinogenic compounds?
stochastic just means random. it doesn't imply any particular type of distribution.
Now all Coke/Pepsi has to do is remove the toxic sugar http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM and it'll be perfect. ;-)
Thats like saying 50cm2 of water will drown someone, so therefor if you give 1000 people 0.05cm2 of water then someone will drown...
As I said in the DUI story, quantity does actually have a valid position in all of this - the body can handle X as a safe dose, and that stands for pretty much everything going, its not a case of X is a safe probability...
If if takes 1000 doses to give a small creature such as a mouse cancer, then the only situation where 1/1000th of that dosage is going to give a human cancer is by coincidence or if the subject is pre-disposed to cancerous diseases in the first place.
When I visited a laboratory of Dow Chemical, the engineers had a great cartoon on the wall. I really wish I had a chance to get a copy of it. There's a rat with a big pipe going in its mouth and a big pipe coming out it's rear, with one lab technician examing a clipboard and stating to another, "Well, looks like drinking water causes cancer."
Considering how familiar these people were with the concept of ppm or ppb they could laugh.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Fuck CA.
I live in the People's Republic of California, and I couldn't possibly agree with you more. This state is run by liberals who get their rocks off by telling other people how to run their lives. Not only that, the only part of the state that's mostly Democrat is the Pacific Coast, with almost all of the inland parts strongly Republican. However, most of the population is on or near the coast, so the rest of us suffer under the Tyranny of the Majority.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Will Slurm be affected in any way, shape, or form? If so, and the New Slurm tastes horrible, can I hold out for a return of Slurm Classic?
"Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
So if I drink alot of soda and smoke I can sue Coke or Pepsi should I get cancer instead of big tobacco. Seeing how this is a recent change, it won't make up for the 30+ years prior to this I've been drinking it.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Um, what? Stochastic means random, with calculable probability. An example would be metal fatigue, given a probability density function for load stress - it's definitely stochastic, but it isn't proportional to the load to the first power, rather, something like to the power of four, never mind that below certain values, you don't get fatigue in steels at all.
So 1 case of cancer per 12,000 ounces consumed? (1,000 cans * 12 ounces) . US consumers averaged 45 gallons (5,760 oz) per person in 2010. Say 50% of that uses this coloring, that's 2,880 ounces per person per year of Cancer Cola (tm). So we should have in the ballpark of one in every four persons getting cancer from cola alone? Seems on the high side.
Thats like saying 50cm2 of water will drown someone, so therefor if you give 1000 people 0.05cm2 of water then someone will drown...
Yes, that's a very good illustration of just how unlike drowning carcinogenesis is. Drowning is deterministic, if you hold someone under water for 5 minutes they will die. If you expose someone to a carcinogenic treatment (say, gamma irradiation or inhalation of formaldehyde fumes) for a certain amount of time all you can predict is the probability that they will get cancer. See the difference?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Your argument would make sense, if all things in the world were exactly the same. But "assuming everything is like everything else" is a somewhat weak opening argument. Has it occurred to you that the mechanism behind cancer and the mechanism behind drowning might, I dunno, have some differences?
Thankfully, most states still do....
And they should, it is a perfectly legal activity....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
So if I drink alot of soda and smoke I can sue Coke or Pepsi should I get cancer instead of big tobacco. Seeing how this is a recent change, it won't make up for the 30+ years prior to this I've been drinking it.
You can always try, good luck enjoying anything you eventually win.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
threatened.
Did anyone else ever notice how much Ferengis look, sound and act like members of a certain real country on planet earth that is overflowing with and run by psychopaths?
Oy!
Yes, but stiff upper lip! Mustn't grumble! Cheers!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I recently purchased a corded airbed pump. On the electrical cord is a label:
"This product contains lead, a substance known to the state of California to cause birth defects. Wash hands after handling."
Yep. There's lead-based solder ENCASED IN PLASTIC, but you should still wash your hands after touching the plastic.
...it's Crystal Pepsi!!
I think there are people who wash their crystals in Pepsi, because they think it gives the vibrations a new generation.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
...is also present in dark beers and roasted foods. It is one of many substances, like acrylamide, formed during browning. So, even if they avoid it in cola drinks, we can expect California warning labels on more foods and beverages. (California OEHHA proposed slapping a warning label on everything containing acrylamide about five years ago, but they got a lot of pushback on that one).
I don't have a problem with clean air. I like that cars need to run clean. I have a large problem with the way California enforces the emission laws. I should be free to modify my car any way I want so long as what come out of tailpipe falls withing the acceptable range. California believes that anything that doesn't have prior approval is illegal to put on your car, even if it couldn't have any effect on the emissions.
But I'm not assuming all things are the same - I'm saying that assuming 1/1000th of a dose means 1/1000th of the probability, given that 1000/1000th (or 1) causes cancer is a stupid argument.
The human body doesn't work like that.
It's also interesting that California, cancer-paranoid as they are, still approved medical cannabis legislation, and famously so.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Have there ever been a study done to show how many people who have or had got cancer did so because this one compound? It seems every month another substance gets added to this list, in 10 years we wont be able to eat anything because everything will cause cancer. I would be surprised if this compound has caused over 0.00001% of all cancer.
So if 1000 doses given to one mouse causes cancer, then it's likely that 1 dose given to each of 1000 people will cause one case of cancer.
Even if that's true, keep in mind the lifetime risk for a male developing cancer is on the order of 40% already. 1/1000 is barely background noise.
I was quite the Diet Coke addict for a couple years before cutting way back earlier this year. Still, I wish there were some flavorful beverage that I could enjoy without worrying about whether it'll cause me diabetes or cancer or weight gain, as pretty much all soda/diet soda has been shown to do in high enough doses. I also can't stand coffee (too bitter) or tea (mashed leaves floating in lukewarm water.... mmmm), so it's mainly ice water for me these days.
20 minutes.
http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2010/02/16/world-record-127-the-record-for-holding-your-breath-is-shattered-and-now-stands-at-19-minutes/
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
I just got back from a trip to SF and noticed signs in the airport that said something totally vague, like "Some stuff here may cause cancer." Um, what stuff? How bad is the risk? Should I leave? Will I be exposed by breathing the air or touching surfaces? Would wearing shoes and gloves protect me? Should I be wearing Nomex, Kevlar, or a biohazard suit? Gas mask? Where else should I go? Should I assume that anywhere without those signs is 100% safe? What if I was in a cancer-causing area and some jackass took the signs down? Then I'd be screwed, right?
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
But I'm not assuming all things are the same - I'm saying that assuming 1/1000th of a dose means 1/1000th of the probability, given that 1000/1000th (or 1) causes cancer is a stupid argument. The human body doesn't work like that.
Consider a liquid where each milliliter of liquid has a 1% chance of exploding per day. In other words, a 99% chance of not exploding per day. If you have 2 ml of liquid, it's a 99%*99% = 98.01% chance of safety per day, in other words a 2% chance of death. Tada, a doubling of dose doubles your chance of death, QED. It has to do with how the SUBSTANCE works, not how the human body works.
Pepsi Throwback. My wife is allergic to HFCS. So that's what she drinks.
California's large Mexican population makes Mexican Coca-Cola readily available. The bottles are Spanish, with English stickers stuck on after import. Read the sticker carefully, they do make some HFCS soda in Mexico too; but most are real sugar. Also, the Mexican Coke comes in green 355 mL bottles. I just wish it came in the little 8 oz. bottles; but you can't have everything.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
It's an easy assumption to make. But wrong.
Look it up. Studies show either no increased cancer risk from cannabis use, or even a slightly protective (anti-cancer) effect.
Emphysema on the other hand...
I once worked in a retail store in Menlo Park, CA, and it seemed like every week we were being sent Prop 65 "this product contains a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer" warning stickers for some product we'd been carrying for years that had suddenly made the list. So one day I took the extra stickers and put them on bottles of Dasani water in the Coke cooler, just to point out how ridiculous the whole thing was. No one noticed. I knew I should have put them on the Coke!
Man...I'm so tired of something changing in CA, and the rest of the country gets fscking stuck with it.
Could be a big contributing factor as to why CA was ranked as the most hated state in a recent survey I saw some where. Heck, surveys probably cause cancer too.
no, no...
Clear Tab.
Clear Tab and Peeps.
--
BMO
Alot more "Un-Nerdy" stories being posted lately since 'Taco left. Is a shift in content what drove him to leave?
So if 1000 doses given to one mouse causes cancer, then it's likely that 1 dose given to each of 1000 people will cause one case of cancer.
Graduated from the Homeopathic School Of Medicine, did we?
No TFA stated that the amount of 4-MEI consumed by mice in the study would be equivalent to 12,000 ounces consumed *per day*.
They could have spun this to 'we care about our customers health' instead of ' we just want to avoid some stupid government label'.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
how many ounces in a full LoC?? I mean, thats a big building
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Wow, you've noticed it isn't linear except at small doses. Pat yourself on the back. The point is, at low doses it DOES behave linearly. Oddly enough, we're concerned about what happens at low doses, since we're more likely to be exposed at low doses than high doses.
the American Beverage Association is a trade organization that represents the beverage industry in the United States. Its members include producers and bottlers of soft drinks, bottled water, and other non-alcoholic beverages.
the American Beverage Association frankly has no idea at all if this chemical is hazardous, at what levels and under what conditions. they have published no known study. they have 25 lobbyists across seven firms and their purpose is to limit warning labels on their products regardless of the actual science.
to clarify, The Center For Science in the Public Interest (we like them. theyre good guys) concluded 4-methylimidazole is added as a caramel coloring in some dark beers and soy sauces. its bad. to further cut past the knee jerk spinjob article from OP, heres the release from CSPI:
http://www.cspinet.org/new/201102161.html
and a quote out of the article as to what precisely theyre targeting...
"Federal regulations distinguish among four types of caramel coloring, two of which are produced with ammonia and two without it. CSPI wants the Food and Drug Administration to prohibit the two made with ammonia. The type used in colas and other dark soft drinks is known as Caramel IV, or ammonia sulfite process caramel. Caramel III, which is produced with ammonia but not sulfites, is sometimes used in beer, soy sauce, and other foods. "
Good people go to bed earlier.
did coca-cola get rid of the BPA yet?
Is 1000 cans per day a "low" dose or a "high" dose?
Lets use a different water based argument shall we? 20 liters of pure water, if ingested in 10 minutes, will cause water intoxication, However, no doctor in their right mind would suggest that 1000 people each consuming 1/1000th of 20 liters in 10 minutes would result in 1 person suffering water intoxication just because of their consumption.
This is irrelevant because carcinogenesis is completely unlike water intoxication. Let me say this again, carcinogenesis is a stochastic process. If that's too hard for you, I'll rephrase it. Carcinogenesis is a random process.
It's like playing the lottery. If you buy 1000 tickets, you have X chance of winning. If 1000 people each buy 1 ticket, that group of 1000 has the same chance of containing a winner.
Does that make sense to you now? I'll go a little further.
In order for a carcinogen to damage DNA, that carcinogen has to come in contact with your DNA. The probability of two molecular species interacting is directly proportional to their concentration. Lowering the concentration of that carcinogen lowers the probability of that interaction, but as long as the concentration is non-zero, the probability of DNA damage is also going to be non-zero.
Now, that doesn't mean that every carcinogen is going to behave this way. Some carcinogens are metabolized by the body, which will lead to non-linear results. But as a first approximation, the low dose linear model is the standard for risk assessment. If you propose that there is a threshold effect, then it's up to you to demonstrate that it exists.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
It is exactly like saying that, if drowning was a similar process. Probability of drowning isn't linearly related to dose of water, though.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2366200/?tool=pubmed
note the PPM 1250 and 5000
from http://www.itwire.com/science-news/health/53314-coke-and-pepsi-new-formulas-have-less-cancer-causing-stuff?start=1
, “the FDA’s limit for 4-MEI in caramel coloring is 250 parts per million (ppm). That caramel would then be diluted when it is put in soda. The highest levels of 4-MEI found by CSPI were about 0.4 ppm,
So to even begin to enter the risk are, you would need to drink 1000 cans.
And they don't 'add it' tit comes naturally form the cooking of the caramel.
Just so people know, you get it in pretty much anything the browns.
As always, it's the dose that makes the poison;.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
it is a perfectly legal activity
Until a state passes a law that makes it illegal.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
That article is alarmist and misleading. .4ppm... Which is about what you would get from any browning process.
A) Coca-coal doesn't 'add it'. It is created when caramel is made. BTW, Coca-cola doesn't make caramel, they buy it from suppliers.
B) a serving has
FDA say 250ppm is where the issue might begin. However, the studies regarding 4-MI see an effect in rats over 1250 ppm:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2366200/?tool=pubmed
And anyone who had a parody of the item they are allegedly looking into cannot be trusted. Clearly they are biased.
And why, exactly, makes you think the CSPI are the good guys? Because everything I read from them is always misleading, it is always biased, and it is always full of logical fallacy's. They are either following an agenda that falls under naturalist fallacies, or they are just incompetent.
The 4-MI levels in soda aren't even worth noting, but hey6 they can't get funding by being honest and reasonable.
Fuck. Them.
Which is in NO WAY an endorsement of ABA.
I mean, look at this:
"But the levels of 4-MI in the tested colas still may be causing thousands of cancers in the U.S. population."
False. There is no evidence of that at all. Unless there are people drinking 100's of cans of soda everyday for weeks on end.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Sugar is WORSE for you.
Idiot.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
No, it doesn't. In the simplest case of a stochastic process (where each particle of the carcinogen had a fixed percentage chance of causing cancer in a given time window), the probability of getting cancer would increase with dose the same way that independent probabilities combine (since that's exactly what it would be), which isn't linearly. If one unit had a 50% chance of causing cancer, two would have a 75% chance, not a 100% chance.
(I'm not saying carcinogens actually work that way, I'm saying that your idea of what "stochastic" means is wacky.)
Even ignoring your misunderstanding of "stochastic", this is wrong, since it ignores that there is a difference between "mouse" and "person".
That means the probability is directly proportional to the dose. [...] So if 1000 doses given to one mouse causes cancer, then it's likely that 1 dose given to each of 1000 people will cause one case of cancer.
Your equation doesn't balance out. Shouldn't it be instead:
"So if 1000 doses given to one mouse causes cancer, then it's likely that 1 dose given to each of 1000 [mices] will cause one case of cancer [in one mouse]."
After all, "proportional" doesn't mean that a mouse has the same proportion as a man.
First off, lots of things that are "perfectly legal activities" when done in private where only consenting adults are exposed to them cease to be perfectly legal activities when they affect people other than adults voluntarily participating in the activity.
Secondly, California allows public smoking, it just prohibits most indoor workplaces (though there are some exceptions) from subjecting workers to tobacco smoke. In doing so, its rules are in line with those in the majority of US states. (There are some localities, notably Calabasas, in California with stronger smoking bans than the state has, but those are local rules, not state rules.)
When I visited a laboratory of Dow Chemical, the engineers had a great cartoon on the wall. I really wish I had a chance to get a copy of it. There's a rat with a big pipe going in its mouth and a big pipe coming out it's rear, with one lab technician examing a clipboard and stating to another, "Well, looks like drinking water causes cancer."
Considering how familiar these people were with the concept of ppm or ppb they could laugh.
Given some of the intermediate substances Dow uses in their plants, it's hard to understand why they would think it a laughing matter.
However, I've noticed a trend (small sample size) for engineers in the petrochemical industry to adopt the management line after working there for a few years.
And give up thinking for themselves in other areas, such as politics, too.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Liter of Cola?
horror vacui
ddt scare was frautlent and has been proven so. coca cola on the other hand should be outlawed. Soda cause more death and disease in this country every year than tobacco could ever hope to achieve.
Freutian slip, I'm sure.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Bad news, roasted coffee samples had 0.307 to 1.241 mg/kg of 4-MI
You need to look at the dose. It take 1000 cans to even get to the range where it would ahve a chance to casue canser igf you are predisposed.
Look at the numbers:
Studies in rats show effects at 1250 ppm, and fmakle rtas at 5000ppm had a higher risk.
Coca-Cola has .4 ppm
You can't even cross the point where its a risk at all.
So, no worries.
Of course, there is no evidence at all that this can, is, or has happened in humans..but the Rat/Mouse studies where pretty well done. I
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Great example.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I take liberal to mean progressive and I'm not seeing any significant progress in calif.
...since you think calif is *too* progressive?
Just because you conflate the terms "liberal" and "progressive" doesn't mean that it's correct. And, btw, the term "progressive" begs the question by assuming without evidence that their program will produce progress.
Why do I stay here? I like the climate, almost all of my friends and family are out here and the air is clean.
Don't put words in my mouth. Just because I dislike some of the policies the liberals here are forcing down our throats doesn't mean that I hate what you consider progress. Personally, I'd rather vote against politicians I dislike than leave the state and let them do what they want without opposition.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Probability is not directly proportional to dose. With dose response curves (increasing the concentrations of a chemical), the old dogma is that you can treat with a really high dose where it is easy to see a response (e.g., tumor formation), and then you can extrapolate using those high dose points and make basically a straight line to determine what low dose is "safe". Somewhat recent work has brought to light a concept known as hormesis, which essentially means that low doses can actually have opposite effects than high doses (e.g., an anti-cancer drug that kills cells at high doses can actually increase growth rates at low doses). It is speculated that this might occur due to moderate stimulation of biological stress responses, which can be beneficial. I'd note that scientists have seen hormesis for a while, but it was shied away from to some degree because of the taint caused by the pseudoscience of homeopathy. While hormesis does not necessarily apply to every chemical and response measured, it at least challenges the commonly accepted notion that what you do with the 1000 times concentrated dose is extrapolatable to the low dose.
Its not just Californians who are affected by the stupid crap California does. One good example is the California Air Resources Board. Because they insist on such strict emissions standards, especially on diesel engines (far stricter than is the norm in most of the world) and because car makers generally wont sell cars in the US that don't meet CARB rules (since they want to sell their cars in California), the US misses out on many of the cool cars that exist in Europe (especially the diesels)
Now I am not saying that if CARB disappeared, all these cars would magically come to the USA. But I bet if the CARB rules didn't exist, lots of car markers would be more inclined to re-consider bringing these cars stateside.
The only people who believe that drinking soda containing sugar is worse for you than drinking the same soda containing HFCS are those people who have some kind of tie to the corn industry.
Let me ask you this: given the choice, would you rather have cool cars or clean air? I grew up in LA during the '50s and '60s, and remember what the smog used to be like and I can assure you that it's much better now. Yes, cars cost more and so does gas, but the air is clean and people don't suffer from lung problems. If you'd like to see what things here would be like without the CARB, go down to Mexico City and try to take a deep breath.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
To put things in perspective, life style choices (poor diet, alcohol, smoking, overweight, lack of exercise, viruses etc.) & occupational exposures (e.g. hexavalent chromium, asbestos) cause 42% of cancers in the UK. However, the Center For Science In The Public Interest (CSPI) publication (that kicked all this off) claims 4-MeI might cause 0.008% of cancers (i.e. 8 times the Californian 1 in 100,000 action level) if everyone drank 12 fl oz of cola a day over 70 years.
If you take this seriously, you really should become an physically fit, teetotal, non-smoking, asexual vegetarian with an ideal BMI. Doing this could be as much as 5250 times more important that giving up cola.
Also, the predictions only work if the handful of very high dose animal experiments (that show carcinogenesis) are naively extrapolated to very low level human exposures... while assuming (without evidence) a strictly linear relationship between dose and cancer risk for 4-MeI i.e. a linear no-threshold response (LNT), ignoring other dose-risk relationships e.g. threshold (harmless) and hormesis (beneficial) responses at very low levels. Indeed, the CSPI admits that researchers are investigating if 4-MeI might reduce certain cancers by modifying hormones. Lastly, judging the toxicity of chemicals in humans from animal experiments is not straightforward, a massive dose of TCDD Dioxin kills lab rats stone dead but gives us humans a nasty case of acne (see Viktor Yushchenko). So all in all, just more evidence that people are rubbish at properly assessing risk when fear gets in the way.
Parkin et al., 2011. 16. The fraction of cancer attributable to lifestyle and environmental factors in the UK in 2010. Br J Cancer 105(S2), S77–S81.
Kaiser, J. 2003. HORMESIS: Sipping From a Poisoned Chalice. Science 302(5644), 376–379.
20 liters of pure water, if ingested in 10 minutes, will cause water intoxication.
Thank you for this. I just ran out of gin.
Except we KNOW there are thresholds within biological systems. For example, the liver can detoxify X amount/hour. As long as the exposure is less than X, the blood level will be tiny. More than X and the blood level jumps.
Think for a moment why colorings are added. Is it good public policy to allow this?
This is essentially false advertizing. We humans have evolved to associate various colors with some idea of "goodness", allowing us to get proper nutrition. These colors make us instinctively prefer manufactured products. This is bad for our health.
You might say "buyer beware", but that doesn't solve the problem. People suffer horrible health problems related to junkfood.
That's true but incomplete. The standard is linear and passes through the origin. (i.e. zero in implies zero out.)
Alas, the standard does not reflect reality. It ignores both "spontaneous" cancers at zero dose, and repair mechanisms. The linear-through-the-origin model is used for economic and political reasons: Testing low dose response when a million samples are required to achieve statistical significance is too expensive. And "no tolerance" laws possible with "extrapolate to epsilon" techniques are manna to fear mongers and political extortionists.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I'm pretty sure that drinking 1000 cans back to back will make sure you won't die from cancer. You'll die on the spot from overdosing something else.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Your example is completely defective, because 2ml of liquid has C(2n,n) different ways of making 1ml of liquid, where n is the number of molecules in 1 ml.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Sola dosis facit venenum
What is not harmful in minimal concentration, maybe even essential, can be harmful or even poisonous in large quantities. You can't tell from the fact that a high dose kills that a lower dose is less, but still, harmful.
Take retinol. A vitamin A complex. Essential for us, but overdosing it can be quite dangerous. And it's by far not the only stuff where a certain amount is essential, an overdose is harmful.
Now, I don't want to claim that this food coloring stuff is "good for you". By far not. Not having it in the soda will certainly not make it lack anything. But having it in there need not be harmful due to its amount. The simple connection "1 rat dies from 1000 times the dose, so one in 1000 will die from the dose" does not work out. Our body is quite able to repair damage up to some degree, it only gets dangerous if you overstep that threshold.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Unflavored "club soda" is just carbonated water, and if you don't trust the manufacturer, make your own. Add your own flavoring or fruit juice to suit your taste.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I don't suppose it occurred to you that people who think their job is unacceptably unsafe look for a job elsewhere?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
If it did actually accomplish that, I guess nobody would argue.
The beef I have with this labeling craze is the same I have with many others: Inflation leading to disregard. If EVERYTHING has the damn label, it's just as good as if nothing did.
For reference, see the "are you sure" confirmation dialogues. Since they pop up for every stupid thing you might want to do, people brush them aside as well when they should REALLY ask themselves whether they're really sure.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Wait... they can't cause cancer in Canada?
How difficult is it to immigrate?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
While I can see how someone smoking can affect you in a confined public space like a bar or restaurant, care to tell me how a smoker in an open air public space affects you?
Chances are that the negative impact from the car exhaust on the road next to your house is a billion times worse than from all the smokers in your city.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Most restaurants are private property. If you don't like their atmosphere, it is proper not to go there. It is not proper to have your state send in a trooper to arrest the owner when he refuses to buckle under to no-smoking laws.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Can't be. I doubt the Californians have 178 words for "rain".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"good for the Earth"
Would you be kind enough to take the actual meaning of the four words in that phrase, and tell me how you distort them to make your statement true, or even not silly?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
1000 cans per day is an imaginary dose, because no human could actually consume that. And nowhere have I implied that the effect of Coke is precisely like this, I am pointing out that for risk factors which have a constant risk per unit time, there is a proportional relationship between amount consumed and overall risk. I'm talking about math, okay?
Everything
Everything gives you cancer
Everything
Everything gives you cancer
There's no cure, there's no answer
Everything gives you cancer
Don't touch that dial
Don't try to smile
Just take this pill
It's in your file
Don't work hard
Don't play hard
Don't plan for the graveyard
Remember
(Refrain)
Don't work by night
Don't sleep by day
You'll feel all right
But you will pay
No caffeine
No protein
No booze or
Nicotine
Remember
(Refrain)
(Unfortunately, Joe Jackson's kind of a dick about cigarettes, inasmuch as he has a habit of going off on weird tinfoil-hat tangents about how their health dangers are imaginary and it's all a big scam. Otherwise a great singer and songwriter, though.)
Smoking in restaurants and other workplaces was not outlawed to protect consumers, or because of complaints by consumers.
In California, where smoking laws are relatively tough, the only workplaces that may permit smoking are those which are employee-owned.
.: Semper Absurda
Even if that were true, it is also much, much more delicious.
.: Semper Absurda
Actually, emissions from automotive exhausts are far cleaner than the effluent from a cigarette.
Mostly unrelated, as smell is a poor indicator of exhast, but I can tell when someone is smoking in another car, often several ahead of me, in slow traffic or at a stop light. The smell of exhaust from the cars doesn't even come close to covering it up.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
There's one danger in it: That they replace it with something that's worse.
Think of it that way, if sugar was found to be bad and they replaced it with lead acetate? I mean, it's not like it has never been used as a sweetener...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
In the carthesian system, waiting for the transformation. So get to work!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Doesn't surprise me at all. Your nose got used to the exhaust fumes from driving around (or even living in the city) and you don't smell it anymore, while the cigarette smoke is a new scent and hence your nose reacts to it.
It's also the reason why smokers don't even know how bad they smell.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
No, this is a basic half-life calculation. Te explosion is like the radioactive decay of an atom. Suc things are measured in terms of rate per particle-second.
Except that you aren't. If 1000 cans is a low dose, then we're talking linear. If 1000 cans is a high dose, we're talking a higher power (whether quadratic or other polynomial, or exponential). If the study is for a non-linear dosage and we try to extrapolate linearly to low dosage, we're gonna overestimate the effect. Well, that, and the body often has the ability to handle low doses of many toxins without any long-term effect (kidneys are wonderful things), which means there's a maximum "no-effect" amount. That's where the "safe dose" amounts of aceteminophen (sp) and other drugs out on the floor of your local drugstore come in to play.
Cool cars....easy choice.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
"this has entailed the big two cola producers to modify their recipe to decrease" They both use the same recipe? Or does nobody copy-edit anything anymore?