And let me guess that caloric intake, diet quality, physical activity and smoking where determined by people filling out forms. I.e the kind of input that is known to be fatally flawed (i.e there are ward studies where they fed people exactly the food and amounts that they filled in their forms that they ate and they all lost weight).
By the way - that is exactly correct. People lie. And who were they getting the dementia patient's information from?
The conclusions don't mesh with my personal worldview therefore it's "fake science"?!
Not remotely. Unless we have been living under a rock for the past decade, we know there has been a barroom brawl going on between the suppliers of sweetening agents. Some groups have studies that say that all sugar is bad an call it a poison - the artificial sweetener industry likes that . The Sucrose producers like the research that say that corn syrup is the unhealthy sugar, but not the "all sugar is poison" studies. In the end, a lot of money is at stake.
With all the conflicting studies the issues of unscientific methods, and the large sums of money at stake, it is not unreasonable to think that there is a credibility issue that might be dependent on who's cart is hitched to a star, and who's Ox is gored.
That's true. But does that mean that Stevia is in the set of sweetners that is not associated with their conclusion? From the paper:
Conclusions—Artificially sweetened soft drink consumption was associated with a higher risk of stroke and dementia.
All that does is point out another flaw in a paper filled with them.
And if you look at other papers, those Natural Sweetness (of which I haven't seen anything about Stevia) tell us of the dangers of natural sweeteners.
So I guess we must avoid all sugar, and anything that tastes sweet. Gonna get fat and have a stroke if we eat natural sugars, and just have a stroke if we eat artificial.
What is remarkable about this study is that apparently every single artificial sweetener has exactly the same association with stroke and dementia.
The study doesn't claim that!
But it doesn't not claim that either. The exact wording used - and you can look it up if you think I'm lying, is:
higher recent and higher cumulative intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks were associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke, all-cause dementia, and Alzheimer’s disease dementia.
They do not differentiate. "Articially sweetened" is the totality of non-sucrose and non corn syrup sweetening agents. There are many.
Now I don't think for a minute that they actually tested every artificial sweetener on the market. however, if you are going to conduct a survey, and present the results as meaningful you really need to present your results with what you did. You need to know exactly what sweeteners were ingested.
Dunno if you ever made a thesis defense, but an error of that magnitude would get you verbally crucified at best, would reflect terribly on your advisor, and might have adverse effects on getting your advanced degree
You make an attack against AGW "deniers". One of their claims is that AGW scientists are making pre-determined outcomes in hope of getting more research money, a statement that is laughed at frequently by AGW supporters. Because OBVIOUSLY a scientist would never skew their research to make a few bucks.
Then you quickly claim this research looks bad and the case you give for it is because the scientists are being paid to make a pre-determined outcome.
It sounds like you are just making willy-nilly claims based on nothing and calling anyone who disagrees with you stupid with no evidence to back it up. Why is it you are so hateful to people who have different opinions than you? Why is it you use the SAME argument you say is invalid to make your point and hope no one calls you on it?
Could you please clarify?
Here's the scoop. AGW deniers are arguing against the laws of physics. If the CO2 and methane released from sequestered sources by humans does not have any effect upon the proven effect that the so called greenhouse gases have of retaining energy from an outside source, which by the way, we would not exist here on earth if it didn't - the the laws of physics need rewritten, and teh deniers have to come up with a different mechanism that mimics teh energy retention effects exactly as the effect that theuy claim do not exist. Or the deniers must accept that the greenhouse effect actually exists, then produce the evidence that these gases, which were sequestered in the earth, are somehow different. than the gases already in the atmosphere, of which tehy are chemically identical.
Now here's the fun part. I havent torn deniers a new asshole in a while. Present your evidence, and we'll chat about it. Prove why the CO2 is different, or prove that there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect, and prove what the process is that mimics it.
To me it seems more likely that one particular artificial sweetener is problematic enough to push the average up across all consumers of artificially sweetened soft drinks.
Exactly. And yes, it is possible that there can be some problems. My problem is with the sweeping generalizations made by the authors. That isn't terribly scientific, and raises red flags.
Do we really need to see more garbage science on/.?
Yes. garbage science needs pointed out, and demolished at every possible juncture. The people who believe it need to be rhetorically and unmercifully hammered when they start to spout their nonsense.
This is how we root out the charlatans. By following the money trail and sponsors of anti- AGW "science", and exposing their cherry picking; by going after corrupt researchers and their anti-vaxxing message, and the "Eat this and be healthy" industry, and by pointing out egregious wrongs (hopefully errors) in bad science, we move forward.
Scientists and researchers - not always the same - are humans just like other people, occasionally a bad one slips into the mix on occasion, and they also make mistakes.
I always use the process of sending people to Retraction watch and getting their reactions. The non-scientist comes back with thinking that scientists are crooks. The scientist looks over it, and says "Good!"
Soda pop is poison. You don't need a study to prove that. There are only four safe drinks in this world. Water, milk, orange juice, and beer. Wait, there are only five safe drinks in this world. Water, milk, orange juice, wine and beer.
Actually, you have to cross milk off that list as well. Not only bad for you, but racist to drink milk.
And the researchers acknowledge that by saying they don't have a mechanism. Once again, a link has been found. Whether that link turns to be some sort of co-factor, and there is no direct link between diet pop and strokes and dementia, is something further research will determine.
But damage has been done. As the conclusion of the abstract notes:
Conclusions—Artificially sweetened soft drink consumption was associated with a higher risk of stroke and dementia.
That's all that 99.9 percent of people will look at, and accept as the truth.
As for further research, that really helped in counteracting the deliberate lie of the Anti-Vaxxer researcher and his lawyer buddy and their plan to fleece "Big Pharma" buy banking on sympathy for children, no?
Precisely how is this not science? A study suggests a link. This will lead to further studies to determine whether the link is causative, and if so, what possible mechanisms are involved?
If it is science, it is superlatively bad science. I already addressed this above, but the short version is no distinction is made between the different sweeteners, which have different chemical compositions, and if you look at the article, there is no reference to weight or obesity, which other studies have linked those to artificial sweeteners. in turn there are links between obesity and stroke. Apparently one of the biggest risk factors is ignored.
Now those studies that link artificial sweeteners to obesity, one might take a moment to consider that obese people just might try to use artificial sweeteners to help control their weight.
I'm quite skeptical. In the health market, accusations of a connection between something and something are taken as gospel by many. We still have people who believe that vaccines cause autism based on a completely disgraced researcher and his lawyer, and a woman whose talent is letting others take photographs of her without clothing. And they completely ignore all the real science that happened to prove the lie of the accusation.
It suggests a link. It will take further study to determine whether there is actual causation or whether other factors may be involved.
It's almost like you don't know how science works.
Agreed, but I'm even skeptical about the entire study. Remember - we live in an age where cane sugar is considered healthy. Micro, non angry rant follows.
What is remarkable about this study is that apparently every single artificial sweetener has exactly the same association with stroke and dementia.
This is truly groundbreaking, because different artificial sweeteners have wildly different compositions.
Stevia, aspartame, sucralose, neotame, acesulfame potassium, saccharin, and advantame, Cyclamates, allulose, monk fruit, Sorbitol and xylitol. All artificial, and every single one is associated with stroke and dementia. I left out lead acetate because not many people think that is safe at all - although in the anti science age, perhaps the deniers want to try it.
Back to the study, and lest I be accused of being sarcastic, the researchers are very, very clear about this. To wit:
After adjustments for age, sex, education (for analysis of dementia), caloric intake, diet quality, physical activity, and smoking, higher recent and higher cumulative intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks were associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke, all-cause dementia, and Alzheimer’s disease dementia. When comparing daily cumulative intake to 0 per week (reference), the hazard ratios were 2.96 (95% confidence interval, 1.26–6.97) for ischemic stroke and 2.89 (95% confidence interval, 1.18–7.07) for Alzheimer’s disease. Sugar-sweetened beverages were not associated with stroke or dementia.
There is no distinction between the different types of artificial sweeteners, therefore they tested all of them. And sugar sweetened beverages ha no association. Which apparently means both sucrose and corn syrup.
This sounds like a study where we might want to look into the money path, because the abstract is so remarkably bad that it is difficult to put much credence into any of it, and the skeptic in me finds some groups with a financial interest in the "results" might have a profit motive.
There was a report from somewhere last year that when the new iphone models are announced that the number of accidentally broken or lost phones increased. It was surmised that perhaps this occured subconsciously so that there would be an excuse to get a new one. Possibly this applies to Android?
http://brobible.com/life/artic...
Very possibly could be related. People are strange.
It is the fact that Apple tries to present themselves as environmentally friendly and behind the scenes does things in direct contrast to their image.
Is there something environmentally unfriendly about recycling the phones?
Here's the interesting thing sparky. Android users like to brag about how Android is the master of the universe, the best phone ever made and use by so many more people thn Apple.
What is their recycling policy. Apple, who demands recycling- is only a drop in the bucket. Android manufacturers need to show how tht are more environmentally responsible.
Of course, the real answer that you have tried to turn ecycling into not recycling is that you hate Apple. Hatred gets people to go into newspeak mode
On the other hand, I know several iPhone users who wait in line for hours on end in front of an Apple store for a new iPhone. I also see a lot of old Android phones, old enough to the point they don't get security updates old. So, what's your point?
My point is that the original assertion that Apple Customers who want a new phone every year are to blame for phone recycling is simply incorrect.
If there is a world war 3, it will be caused by baby boomers. None of which will be victims(the baby boomer creed, do terrible things but make sure we are insulated)
All those retired boomers are more mysterious and powerful than even the Illuminati, eh?
Just to put your solution into real world perspective, where real people live.
Recently a certain auto maker was the front page occupant of many newspapers for a huge diesel scandal (I bet you can't guess who!)
You know something? I haven't seen so many goddamned Golfs and Jettas on the road since
Why blame Apple when you can blame Apple customers who feel they need a new model every year?
Your meme is pretty lame. I still see a lot of iPhone 5's in use, and even some 4's. On the other hand, I know several Android phone users who get new phones whenever they read what the hot new model is.
i know apple is easy to blame but it wasn't too long ago when they were at the bottom of the totem pole and IBM, Dell, HP, Nokia all made a ton more hardware and yet were people bitching then?
You bet they were. Extending the usable life-cycle of electronics has been an issue since at least the early 1990s.
Of course. But the reason they are bitching now is because Apple.
I have my own lifecycle extension program. Installing Linux on older machines that are too slow for modern Windows, or when MacOS has bypassed them.
I mean, why do you think Apple has fanatical users?
Since I have to use Apple because of software that only they have, I gotta say that the integration of the iPhone and MacOS is pretty sweet. It doesn't take a fanboi to appreciate seamless integration.
I also use Android, Linux and Windows. No solutions on those that are as seamless.
Yeah, holding people accountable for their actions is SOOOOO 1950s amirite
Right, all but the millennials, they don't need to be accountable at all. All they have to do is whine about how no generation ever has had it so bad.
The best thing about the coming World War Three is that these folks will look back to the time when they were so abused rather fondly as they scrape through landfills in hope of some food.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe artificial sweeteners make you live longer. At an advanced age, stroke and dementia are more common.
Hah! That would be an interesting experiment.
Is there something environmentally unfriendly about recycling the phones?
That would be the ideal situation. It will be years if and until we see that happen, I fear.
And let me guess that caloric intake, diet quality, physical activity and smoking where determined by people filling out forms. I.e the kind of input that is known to be fatally flawed (i.e there are ward studies where they fed people exactly the food and amounts that they filled in their forms that they ate and they all lost weight).
By the way - that is exactly correct. People lie. And who were they getting the dementia patient's information from?
The conclusions don't mesh with my personal worldview therefore it's "fake science"?!
Not remotely. Unless we have been living under a rock for the past decade, we know there has been a barroom brawl going on between the suppliers of sweetening agents. Some groups have studies that say that all sugar is bad an call it a poison - the artificial sweetener industry likes that . The Sucrose producers like the research that say that corn syrup is the unhealthy sugar, but not the "all sugar is poison" studies. In the end, a lot of money is at stake.
With all the conflicting studies the issues of unscientific methods, and the large sums of money at stake, it is not unreasonable to think that there is a credibility issue that might be dependent on who's cart is hitched to a star, and who's Ox is gored.
Stevia is not artificial.
That's true. But does that mean that Stevia is in the set of sweetners that is not associated with their conclusion? From the paper:
Conclusions—Artificially sweetened soft drink consumption was associated with a higher risk of stroke and dementia. All that does is point out another flaw in a paper filled with them.
And if you look at other papers, those Natural Sweetness (of which I haven't seen anything about Stevia) tell us of the dangers of natural sweeteners.
So I guess we must avoid all sugar, and anything that tastes sweet. Gonna get fat and have a stroke if we eat natural sugars, and just have a stroke if we eat artificial.
What is remarkable about this study is that apparently every single artificial sweetener has exactly the same association with stroke and dementia.
The study doesn't claim that!
But it doesn't not claim that either. The exact wording used - and you can look it up if you think I'm lying, is: higher recent and higher cumulative intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks were associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke, all-cause dementia, and Alzheimer’s disease dementia.
They do not differentiate. "Articially sweetened" is the totality of non-sucrose and non corn syrup sweetening agents. There are many.
Now I don't think for a minute that they actually tested every artificial sweetener on the market. however, if you are going to conduct a survey, and present the results as meaningful you really need to present your results with what you did. You need to know exactly what sweeteners were ingested.
Dunno if you ever made a thesis defense, but an error of that magnitude would get you verbally crucified at best, would reflect terribly on your advisor, and might have adverse effects on getting your advanced degree
You make an attack against AGW "deniers". One of their claims is that AGW scientists are making pre-determined outcomes in hope of getting more research money, a statement that is laughed at frequently by AGW supporters. Because OBVIOUSLY a scientist would never skew their research to make a few bucks.
Then you quickly claim this research looks bad and the case you give for it is because the scientists are being paid to make a pre-determined outcome.
It sounds like you are just making willy-nilly claims based on nothing and calling anyone who disagrees with you stupid with no evidence to back it up. Why is it you are so hateful to people who have different opinions than you? Why is it you use the SAME argument you say is invalid to make your point and hope no one calls you on it?
Could you please clarify?
Here's the scoop. AGW deniers are arguing against the laws of physics. If the CO2 and methane released from sequestered sources by humans does not have any effect upon the proven effect that the so called greenhouse gases have of retaining energy from an outside source, which by the way, we would not exist here on earth if it didn't - the the laws of physics need rewritten, and teh deniers have to come up with a different mechanism that mimics teh energy retention effects exactly as the effect that theuy claim do not exist. Or the deniers must accept that the greenhouse effect actually exists, then produce the evidence that these gases, which were sequestered in the earth, are somehow different. than the gases already in the atmosphere, of which tehy are chemically identical.
Now here's the fun part. I havent torn deniers a new asshole in a while. Present your evidence, and we'll chat about it. Prove why the CO2 is different, or prove that there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect, and prove what the process is that mimics it.
To me it seems more likely that one particular artificial sweetener is problematic enough to push the average up across all consumers of artificially sweetened soft drinks.
Exactly. And yes, it is possible that there can be some problems. My problem is with the sweeping generalizations made by the authors. That isn't terribly scientific, and raises red flags.
Do we really need to see more garbage science on /.?
Yes. garbage science needs pointed out, and demolished at every possible juncture. The people who believe it need to be rhetorically and unmercifully hammered when they start to spout their nonsense.
This is how we root out the charlatans. By following the money trail and sponsors of anti- AGW "science", and exposing their cherry picking; by going after corrupt researchers and their anti-vaxxing message, and the "Eat this and be healthy" industry, and by pointing out egregious wrongs (hopefully errors) in bad science, we move forward.
Scientists and researchers - not always the same - are humans just like other people, occasionally a bad one slips into the mix on occasion, and they also make mistakes.
I always use the process of sending people to Retraction watch and getting their reactions. The non-scientist comes back with thinking that scientists are crooks. The scientist looks over it, and says "Good!"
Soda pop is poison. You don't need a study to prove that. There are only four safe drinks in this world. Water, milk, orange juice, and beer. Wait, there are only five safe drinks in this world. Water, milk, orange juice, wine and beer.
Actually, you have to cross milk off that list as well. Not only bad for you, but racist to drink milk.
Don't imply they implied it.
Did he really imply that implicative implication?
And the researchers acknowledge that by saying they don't have a mechanism. Once again, a link has been found. Whether that link turns to be some sort of co-factor, and there is no direct link between diet pop and strokes and dementia, is something further research will determine.
But damage has been done. As the conclusion of the abstract notes:
Conclusions—Artificially sweetened soft drink consumption was associated with a higher risk of stroke and dementia.
That's all that 99.9 percent of people will look at, and accept as the truth.
As for further research, that really helped in counteracting the deliberate lie of the Anti-Vaxxer researcher and his lawyer buddy and their plan to fleece "Big Pharma" buy banking on sympathy for children, no?
Precisely how is this not science? A study suggests a link. This will lead to further studies to determine whether the link is causative, and if so, what possible mechanisms are involved?
If it is science, it is superlatively bad science. I already addressed this above, but the short version is no distinction is made between the different sweeteners, which have different chemical compositions, and if you look at the article, there is no reference to weight or obesity, which other studies have linked those to artificial sweeteners. in turn there are links between obesity and stroke. Apparently one of the biggest risk factors is ignored.
Now those studies that link artificial sweeteners to obesity, one might take a moment to consider that obese people just might try to use artificial sweeteners to help control their weight.
I'm quite skeptical. In the health market, accusations of a connection between something and something are taken as gospel by many. We still have people who believe that vaccines cause autism based on a completely disgraced researcher and his lawyer, and a woman whose talent is letting others take photographs of her without clothing. And they completely ignore all the real science that happened to prove the lie of the accusation.
It suggests a link. It will take further study to determine whether there is actual causation or whether other factors may be involved.
It's almost like you don't know how science works.
Agreed, but I'm even skeptical about the entire study. Remember - we live in an age where cane sugar is considered healthy. Micro, non angry rant follows.
What is remarkable about this study is that apparently every single artificial sweetener has exactly the same association with stroke and dementia.
This is truly groundbreaking, because different artificial sweeteners have wildly different compositions.
Stevia, aspartame, sucralose, neotame, acesulfame potassium, saccharin, and advantame, Cyclamates, allulose, monk fruit, Sorbitol and xylitol. All artificial, and every single one is associated with stroke and dementia. I left out lead acetate because not many people think that is safe at all - although in the anti science age, perhaps the deniers want to try it.
Back to the study, and lest I be accused of being sarcastic, the researchers are very, very clear about this. To wit:
After adjustments for age, sex, education (for analysis of dementia), caloric intake, diet quality, physical activity, and smoking, higher recent and higher cumulative intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks were associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke, all-cause dementia, and Alzheimer’s disease dementia. When comparing daily cumulative intake to 0 per week (reference), the hazard ratios were 2.96 (95% confidence interval, 1.26–6.97) for ischemic stroke and 2.89 (95% confidence interval, 1.18–7.07) for Alzheimer’s disease. Sugar-sweetened beverages were not associated with stroke or dementia.
There is no distinction between the different types of artificial sweeteners, therefore they tested all of them. And sugar sweetened beverages ha no association. Which apparently means both sucrose and corn syrup.
This sounds like a study where we might want to look into the money path, because the abstract is so remarkably bad that it is difficult to put much credence into any of it, and the skeptic in me finds some groups with a financial interest in the "results" might have a profit motive.
There was a report from somewhere last year that when the new iphone models are announced that the number of accidentally broken or lost phones increased. It was surmised that perhaps this occured subconsciously so that there would be an excuse to get a new one. Possibly this applies to Android? http://brobible.com/life/artic...
Very possibly could be related. People are strange.
It is not just "Apple".
It is the fact that Apple tries to present themselves as environmentally friendly and behind the scenes does things in direct contrast to their image.
Is there something environmentally unfriendly about recycling the phones?
Here's the interesting thing sparky. Android users like to brag about how Android is the master of the universe, the best phone ever made and use by so many more people thn Apple.
What is their recycling policy. Apple, who demands recycling- is only a drop in the bucket. Android manufacturers need to show how tht are more environmentally responsible.
Of course, the real answer that you have tried to turn ecycling into not recycling is that you hate Apple. Hatred gets people to go into newspeak mode
On the other hand, I know several iPhone users who wait in line for hours on end in front of an Apple store for a new iPhone. I also see a lot of old Android phones, old enough to the point they don't get security updates old. So, what's your point?
My point is that the original assertion that Apple Customers who want a new phone every year are to blame for phone recycling is simply incorrect.
If there is a world war 3, it will be caused by baby boomers. None of which will be victims(the baby boomer creed, do terrible things but make sure we are insulated)
All those retired boomers are more mysterious and powerful than even the Illuminati, eh?
Just to put your solution into real world perspective, where real people live.
Recently a certain auto maker was the front page occupant of many newspapers for a huge diesel scandal (I bet you can't guess who!) You know something? I haven't seen so many goddamned Golfs and Jettas on the road since
So the coalroller crowd has checked in.
Why blame Apple when you can blame Apple customers who feel they need a new model every year?
Your meme is pretty lame. I still see a lot of iPhone 5's in use, and even some 4's. On the other hand, I know several Android phone users who get new phones whenever they read what the hot new model is.
You bet they were. Extending the usable life-cycle of electronics has been an issue since at least the early 1990s.
Of course. But the reason they are bitching now is because Apple.
I have my own lifecycle extension program. Installing Linux on older machines that are too slow for modern Windows, or when MacOS has bypassed them.
I mean, why do you think Apple has fanatical users?
Since I have to use Apple because of software that only they have, I gotta say that the integration of the iPhone and MacOS is pretty sweet. It doesn't take a fanboi to appreciate seamless integration.
I also use Android, Linux and Windows. No solutions on those that are as seamless.
Apple shreds theirs, while Samsung prefers to burn theirs.
Funny how this freedom for the businesses leads to homogeneity.
Yeah, holding people accountable for their actions is SOOOOO 1950s amirite
Right, all but the millennials, they don't need to be accountable at all. All they have to do is whine about how no generation ever has had it so bad.
The best thing about the coming World War Three is that these folks will look back to the time when they were so abused rather fondly as they scrape through landfills in hope of some food.