Don't consume NutraSweet/Aspartame/Equal/Spoonful !!!

[amobea]

FDA commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes overruled the final scientic review panel

What the hell is scientic????

Paradroid is obviously quoting articles from uneducated hippies who smell like cabbage, this is apparent by the fact that they don't know that Scientific is a real word and Scientic isn't

 

[Paradroid]

What the hell is scientic????

Paradroid is obviously quoting articles from uneducated hippies who smell like cabbage, this is apparent by the fact that they don't know that Scientific is a real word and Scientic isn't

Well, for one, I'm glad someone actually read the post - but I believe it's American in origin, and we know they can't speel anyway! Or maybe that's why he overruled the review panel! It had nothing to do with the science! Maybe he too didn't know what a "scientic review" was and dissmissed it out of hand, or he's a bastard when it comes to reviewing papers with bad spelling!

PS Do you have a scratch'n'sniff monitor? It must add new depth to those pron sites I've heard so much about!





PPS It's a web page typo...it's not from an official paper.

 

[leggy]

The thing is, the temperature of the human body doesn't ever reach anywhere near 80C. Or you'd be dead.

Really? I hadn't thought of that. What I meant was the coke itself was exposed to temperatures exceeding 80C frequently. Viola, formaldehyde flavoured diet coke.

 

[Tom]

Yes, but the drink doesn't actually break down until its in the Human body. What I mean is, if you boil a can of diet coke, you're not going to be drinking formaldehyde. The breakdown only occurs once the drink is in the digestive tract AFAIK. The digestive tract never reaches those temperatures, so its a moot point.

 

[leggy]

Free methanol is created from aspartame when it is heated to above 86 Fahrenheit (30 Centigrade). This would occur when aspartame-containing product is improperly stored or when it is heated (e.g., as part of a "food" product such as Jelly). Methanol breaks down into formic acid and formaldehyde in the body.

Clearly not a moot point.

 

[leggy]

Another little snippet for the uninformed ones who insist on spouting shit.

Methanol breaks down into formic acid and formaldehyde in the body. Formaldehyde is a deadly neurotoxin. An EPA assessment of methanol states that methanol "is considered a cumulative poison due to the low rate of excretion once it is absorbed. In the body, methanol is oxidized to formaldehyde and formic acid; both of these metabolites are toxic." The recommend a limit of consumption of 7.8 mg/day. A one-liter (approx. 1 quart) aspartame-sweetened beverage contains about 56 mg of methanol. Heavy users of aspartame-containing products consume as much as 250 mg of methanol daily or 32 times the EPA limit.

The most well known problems from methanol poisoning are vision problems. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen, causes retinal damage, interferes with DNA replication, and causes birth defects. Due to the lack of a couple of key enzymes, humans are many times more sensitive to the toxic effects of methanol than animals. Therefore, tests of aspartame or methanol on animals do not accurately reflect the danger for humans. As pointed out by Dr Woodrow C. Monte, Director of the Food Science and Nutrition Laboratory at Arizona State University, "There are no human or mammalian studies to evaluate the possible mutagenic, teratogenic, or carcinogenic effects of chronic administration of methyl alcohol."

It has been pointed out that fruit juices and alcoholic beverages contain small amounts of methanol. It is important to remember, that the methanol in natural products never appears alone. In every case, ethanol is present, usually in much higher amounts. Ethanol is an antidote for methanol toxicity in humans. The troops of Desert Storm were "treated" to large amounts of aspartame-sweetened beverages which had been heated to over 86 degrees F. in the Saudi Arabian sun. Many of them returned home with numerous disorders similar to what has been seen in persons who have been chemically poisoned by formaldehyde. The free methanol in the beverages may have been a contributing factor in these illnesses. Other breakdown products of aspartame such as DKP, may also have been a factor

 

[Tom]

Well this is going around and around, but still, nobody has presented proof that aspartame is harmful.

 

[Will]

Well this is going around and around, but still, nobody has presented proof that aspartame is harmful.

What did leggy just say? Reads to me that aspartame is bad.

 

[Tom]

Show me a double-blind scientific study that conclusively prooves that aspartame is harmful, and I'll believe it.

 

[sibanac]

Really? I hadn't thought of that. What I meant was the coke itself was exposed to temperatures exceeding 80C frequently. Viola, formaldehyde flavoured diet coke.

My bet would be that the cans or bottles would not survive beeing heated to 80C

 

[Paradroid]

Thanks leggy, it saves me reposting...again! heh

It's obvious that there are 2 distinct camps, both sides have an array of doctors/professors that publish papers supporting their cases. But, and I'm confused as to why any free thinking logical person would do this, some people prefer to only listen to one view. I've read papers supporting both views, and as I said ages ago, I'd err on the side of caution - as, unfortunately, it's seems that one of these views is backed-up with "bad science" and funded by industry money. Wouldn't touch it with a barge pole tbh.

Tom, you're looking for exclusive proof from a "double-blind" scientific study (I posted about this on the last page). Since we have two camps, we have two sets of resuts. Searle apparently have evidence from their study saying it's "ok", but the opposing camp have evidence from their study saying it "not ok" - again, who do you trust? But go ahead, keep taking this stuff - fingers crossed another independant double-blind study will show us it's safe, but what if it's not? I'm not willing to take that risk. I'm not diabetic or anything, so there's no need for me to take it (knowingly, anyway).

It's annoying when you find yourself repeating stuff (time and again?), I'm not a fekin preacher ffs!!! (I don't care what you do!) It just rubs me up the wrong way when people don't see obvious, glaring, discrepancies...there's a racketeering law suit ffs!!! Lawyers don't tend to just jump-blindly into these things!

heh

 

[Tom]

My bet would be that the cans or bottles would not survive beeing heated to 80C

I think 80C is a typo, leggy meant 80F.

I don't see discrepancies, what I see is another internet rumour being fuelled by a group of people who, with dodgy science and anecdotal evidence, have decided that a conspiracy is the cause of a supposed 'dangerous' foodstuff being released onto the market.

Its just another scare story IMO. Its the same bunch of gullible people who believe the Moon landings were faked, that JFK was assassinated, that 9-11 was staged, that fat Coke dissolves babies teeth, mobile phones, the MMR jab, aliens landing in Roswell, and a million other stories without foundation.

Myself, I prefer to believe that the simplest version of events is the truth. If you want to believe there are people who are so morally questionable that they would hush-hush a dangerous foodstuff, just to make money, at the expensive of millions of consumers, well, you really need to find something more worthwhile to focus your efforts on. I'm not saying its impossible, just that its incredibly unlikely. If there were truth to this (and its hardly difficult to prove), we would know about it (its nearly 40 years old now).

Let me ask you something. What is your typical daily diet? Because if its anything other than fresh vegetables, cooked meats, and dairy produce, then you're obviously not paranoid enough. Practise what you preach.

 

[Will]

Fat Coke does dissolve teeth, due to the high levels of phosphoric acid.

Though you'd have to hold it in your mouth for about a week to get the full effect. I'm a cynic about all the other theories though.

 

[leggy]

You cannot present proof on an internet forum and double blind proof doesn't exist. What I have posted is conclusions based on pure scientific evidence that explains what happens when you expose aspartame to temperatures exceeding 30C. This is not dodgy science. It is well published fact. It is clear that maybe aspartame itself in its stable form is not harmfull but we all know the effects of methanol in the body. This is what I was basing my argument on.

I find it amusing that you call it anecdotal evidence and dodgy science when you rarely ever support your own ill informed arguments with real proof. We all have to read between the lines at some point, why dont you try it someday?

 

[leggy]

If you want to believe there are people who are so morally questionable that they would hush-hush a dangerous foodstuff, just to make money, at the expensive of millions of consumers, well, you really need to find something more worthwhile to focus your efforts on. I'm not saying its impossible, just that its incredibly unlikely.

My god, do you not know the history of tabacco companies?

 

[Jonaldo]

Its just another scare story IMO. ... Its the same bunch of gullible people who believe ... that JFK was assassinated.. ...

It was natural causes then?

 

[Tom]

oops hehe

 

[Paradroid]

Tom, it's been in our UK newspapers too, from 2001:

The Government has ordered a top-level investigation into the safety of Britain's best-selling sweetener amid fears that the low calorie chemical is a health risk. Aspartame, used in thousands of diet food and drinks has been linked to more than 90 adverse reactions including brain tumours and blindness.

The Sunday Express has seen a leaked letter which reveals the Government's food watchdog - the Food Standards Agency - has sent more than 500 research papers on the chemical to the Brussels-based Scientific Committee on Food.

And now for something completely different!

...
Its just another scare story IMO. Its the same bunch of gullible people who believe the Moon landings were faked, that JFK was assassinated, that 9-11 was staged, that fat Coke dissolves babies teeth, mobile phones, the MMR jab, aliens landing in Roswell, and a million other stories without foundation.
...

The moon landing conspiracy theory is a good laugh imo, what does it really matter anyway? It did years ago, but today it's just an interesting sidenote in history. The most compelling evidence for proof they did do it is, there's a lab in the US which bouces a laser (everyday) off a relector on the lunar surface....but it could have been put there by an unmanned probe. heh

ROFL !!!! Tom, JFK was assissinated! Or did you think he's holed-up with Elvis in an Icelandic motel? Sorry mate, couldn't resist!

911? Well, I'd like to address this next month with another riveting thread dedicated to the US elections. I'll leave you with this "simple" question: Where was Dick Cheney on the morning of 911, and, what was he doing?

Coke does dissolve teeth (over a period). A quick "simple" test (which you can do at home) is drop a tooth into a glass of coke, next morning - ta da! It's gone.

Mobile phones (and more importantly the transmitters) are bad for you. Have you never heard of the very "simple" physical wave dynamic called constructive interference? Doubling the amplitude of said wave? Hot spots in complex-wave environments?

MMR is an interesting one, kind of linked to this Aspartame debate (in a round about way) - in that I said earlier that Aspartame isn't a neccessary vaccine etc, so it isn't needed. So I'd say, yes, have the MMR jab - it's a vaccine. Although, didn't Tony Blair refuse to tell us if his son Leo received the MMR jab?

Aliens landing in Roswell? Probably not! But it's a far more interesting yarn than believing they didn't! I could talk for days on this subject (quite well read in this field), not airy-fairy shit either. Arthur C Clarke (you know the guy who predicted the role of geosynchronous satellites decades before they existed and anticipated the internet decades before it happened?) wrote an excellent non-fiction book called "Greetings, Carbon-Based Bipeds!" - well worth a read for alien sceptics!

 

[nath]

Coke does dissolve teeth (over a period). A quick "simple" test (which you can do at home) is drop a tooth into a glass of coke, next morning - ta da! It's gone.

As far as I know it takes a lot longer than a day - if it works at all. I hear the 1 day thing is an urban myth. However I'm sure certain people here will take that like a politician and use it to disregard anything else you've said.

 

[Paradroid]

As far as I know it takes a lot longer than a day - if it works at all. I hear the 1 day thing is an urban myth. However I'm sure certain people here will take that like a politician and use it to disregard anything else you've said.

I did this experiment myself when I was a kid - easier when you have teeth regularly falling out! I've no idea if 1st or 2nd teeth makes a difference (or if coke has changed substantially since then). Cleans old coins a treat too. I suppose an important point would be that the tooth it dissolved wasn't exactly the healthiest of teeth to begin with (ie the bastard fell out!) - so maybe that makes a big difference? (ie riddled with cavities) I don't fancy pulling a healthy tooth to prove this one way or another! heh Any volunteers?

 

[Paradroid]

I suppose the moral here is don't gargle with sugary acidic drinks for days in a row! (Dammit, my mis-spent youth! heh) My dentist loved me! ch-ching! (Apparently, as a baby I refused milk, and my mum fed me with Ribena for the first few years of my life - full sugar, obviously, as this was 1970-1973).

 

[babs]

I soak my golf clubs in coke overnight when they've had a real grouting, it works a treat. Molten plastic from balls and mats, rubber, filth, anything. Coke cleans it good.

 

[Wij]

As regards EMF and mobile phone masts. There have been HUGE epidemiological studies on this since the 70s. Even some which have been packed with fairly pro-risk scientists (the NAS one in 1996 springs to mind) have concluded that there is no extra risk. These studies have been based on masses of individual studies. The only consistent themes are that the more accurate the data collection method used, the less correlation there is, and that there is a slight correlation between one type of childhood leukemia and the presence of power-lines. The first point is a sure sign in epidemiology that the supposed cause is just a confounding factor and something else is to blame. The second point probably relates to the fact that high EMF areas tend to be poor, polluted neighbourhoods, leading back to the first point.

Para: What method did your tutor suggest was the factor in EMF which causes cancer ? As far as I'm aware the photons involved do not have sufficient energy to knock an electron off DNA, you need to get to x-rays and gamma rays for that.

As far as I'm aware the NCI study in 1997 is regarded as the final nail in the coffin. It used the best evidence ever assembled and found no link. You'd have to have some good evidence to explain that amount of data away.

Seriously, I'm interested in the details. Not just trying to win an argument.

 

[Bodhi]

I'm sorry but the Coke dissolving teeth story is an old wives-tale invented to try and get kids to stop drinking it. I have drunk from 5-6 cans of Pepsi/Coke/Irn-Bru/Pepsi Max a day since I was 8 years old (ish). To this date I have 0 fillings. All the scientific proof I need to know it's all a load of old bollocks tbh.

But Coke is great for cleaning golf clubs though. Especially them Ping Beryllium Copper irons. When they start to go a bit dull, leave em in a bucket of Coke overnight. Next morning they look shiny and new again!

(I wouldn't dare put my Nike Blades in Coke tho. That would just be silly. Water alone will clean them up.)

 

[old.user4556]

Hmmm, maybe try that on my 56 and 64 degree wedges although i like the corrosion on them to give me better spin shots around the green.

You played the new ignite driver bod's? I've never hit a ball over 250 yards before, until i hit the ignite and put another 50 yards on it.

G

 

[Bodhi]

I also tried one earlier in the summer, the smaller 410+ model. I bought it 4 days later Easily as long as my old TaylorMade XR-05, but so much more accurate. Goes like a rocket off the deck aswell. Best driver on the market imo.

P.S Don't know if Coke works on rusty style wedges, I *think* its only the copper ones, but don't quote me on that.

 

[old.user4556]

yeah the niké kit is smashing, my mate works for niké golf and he gets a shed load of free kit - pro combo irons, ignite drivers, clothing etc..... bastard .....

I'll give the coke on rusty wedge a shot, might be good to clean it up a bit without stripping it totally - steel wool is a bit harsh.

 

[babs]

Careful with it on a rusty wedge, esp if it's got a nice finish. It takes rust off nicely too (I used it on old shafts that is). I too won't put my recent Mizunos in a bucket of it, no need yet, but it does work a treat. Coke overnight then warm water and a soft cloth in the morning. Get as much grip as you can on that wedge though, gotta love the sound as it fizzes up.

 

[Paradroid]

As regards EMF and mobile phone masts. There have been HUGE epidemiological studies on this since the 70s. Even some which have been packed with fairly pro-risk scientists (the NAS one in 1996 springs to mind) have concluded that there is no extra risk. These studies have been based on masses of individual studies. The only consistent themes are that the more accurate the data collection method used, the less correlation there is, and that there is a slight correlation between one type of childhood leukemia and the presence of power-lines. The first point is a sure sign in epidemiology that the supposed cause is just a confounding factor and something else is to blame. The second point probably relates to the fact that high EMF areas tend to be poor, polluted neighbourhoods, leading back to the first point.

Para: What method did your tutor suggest was the factor in EMF which causes cancer ? As far as I'm aware the photons involved do not have sufficient energy to knock an electron off DNA, you need to get to x-rays and gamma rays for that.

As far as I'm aware the NCI study in 1997 is regarded as the final nail in the coffin. It used the best evidence ever assembled and found no link. You'd have to have some good evidence to explain that amount of data away.

Seriously, I'm interested in the details. Not just trying to win an argument.

Need to take a run at this....like John Cleese running towards the fort in Monty Pythons The Holy Grail....

To first clarify my standing: When I originally mentioned pylons, sub-stations & microwave transmitters, I was citing an example of something which isn't "no risk". Then, later, I was responding to Toms assertion that any danger from these was: "...absolutely nothing unhealthy in the slightest respect about Microwave transmitters or electricity pylons.". I then referred to the (well documented) physical side-effect called "thermoelastic expansion of the brain", and a (relevant) dynamic known as hot-spots. If you look through the pages of this thread, you'll notice the only references to cancer are by Bodhi, yourself, and, a link that I posted by that (twice nobel prize nominated) doctor. The doctor was postulating that the magnetic field (ie not the electric field - no photons) was interfering with the (weak) natural communications systems of humans - which is something we don't know enough about (weak magnetic fields in general). I did mention pregnant woman limiting their usage of CRTs, because, again, we don't know enough about the possible dangers (lots of studies say it's fine), but we just don't know so the advice is to "err on the side of caution". We know electric fields ionise gases, so pylons and CRTs do present possible dangers from our consumption of these ionised gases (radon etc) - buy a de-ioniser for your house if you're worried. (he says with his face 8 inches from his monitor! heh)

A general overview from the American Institute of Electrical/Electronic Engineers (IEEE). And here's the equivalent from the UKs Institute of Electrical Engineers (IEE).

The official guidlines are all about exposure, and exposure rates (SARs). It's like getting an X-ray done at the hospital or dentists. If you're going in for a quick X-ray, then the exposure you get from this is within the acceptable limits. If you work with these day-to-day, then you have to protect yourself from over-exposure (ie stand behind the lead plate, or wear the lead apron etc). This is something we're all happy with - we easily understand this concept. When it comes to general EM fields the same applies. The SAR levels for humans are based on what they think are acceptable levels of exposure - broken down for full-body exposure, and for particular limbs (arms, legs, head etc).

Now I suppose that summarises the official view (from studies etc) - but lets look at you and I (not naked though - keep your clothes on!).

Now, what I'm getting at is this - with hot-spots (ie areas where multiple complex EM waves "come together" to create a wave of greater amplitude) it's entirely probable that you will be over-exposed to this energy. Whether it's entirely local (ie inside your body - like a tiny part of your brain...thermoelastic expansion - the skull acts like an egg, in that it can trap energy waves) or general (your house or neighbourhood could have a higher incidence of EM fields from pylons, sub stations, or, microwave transmitters). Coupled with the fact that lots of people use mobile phones for ridiculous lengths of time (I know peeps who use them for a couple of hours - while recharging!), and, sit in front of a CRT all day long...the chances are you are being over-exposed. And it's not "completely safe" (even by the cautious standards set by the IEE & IEEE).

The advice given is always the same "err on the side of caution". Limit your usage, at least until we know more and can say conclusively that "it's safe". Which brings us nicely back to the FDA, who seem to have forgotten about public health and have OK'd Aspartame for inclusion into thousands of foodstuffs without any warning on it's possible side-effects (limiting usage etc).

Jesus, that was a rant and a half!

So, sorry Wij, I can't shed any conclusive light onto the method by which EM fields harm DNA (or directly cause cancer) - but we don't (heh - we! look at me! blogger on freddys! heh) know enough about the magnetic fields effect or prolonged exposure to weak EM fields. Any volunteers? What am I saying, we're all unwitting volunteers!

If I, personally, really thought that it was that dangerous I wouldn't be here would I? I was just saying that it isn't "no risk". However, I don't use a mobile phone so...

 

[Paradroid]

Maybe next time I'll just say: "Magnetic fields & Hot-spots", or, "No, sorry Wij. I don't know."

heh