Hacker News Reader

Comment by hankchinaski | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Aspartame is still fine, and it is one of the most researched substances. This type of reasoning, that you are using, is down right unscientific, conspiratorial, and dangerous.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/aspartame-and-cancer/

How is it "unscientific" when we know they are 99.99% unrelated, but you want at least 99.99999% to feel safe?

Aspartame, unlike sugar, are non-essential. If somebody don't want to take that 0.000000001% risk, I guess they should be free to make their choice?

The general issue I've found with people that take this mindset is that they focus so much on the 0.000000001% risks that they miss a lot of 1% risks. Which I would say is unscientific in terms of minimizing ones risks.

1. It's not just risk, it's also a risk/benefit balance.

2. We have 8 billion human on this earth. Is it bad to have 0.00001% of human alive (i.e. a few thousands) focus on 0.00001% risk?

This is a commonly (mis)-used argument, that misses the fact that if the statistics tell us the risk is less than some value (lets say 10^-6), the assumption is that the risk is 10^-6. Often, statistical tests have the power to detect very rare effects, but not effects that are even rarer. So less than 10^-6 does not mean the risk is one in a million, it means we do not know how low the risk is (could be 10^-23), but we know that it is no higher than 10^-6.

Someone who chooses not to do something over a 0.000000001% risk is either irrationally bad at math and statistics or needs to get some help with their anxiety. Experts would call things with a 0.000000001% risk "extremely safe" because in comparison to other daily risks inherent to existing as a human, that number is much much lower.

The risk of dying in a car in the US is 12,890,000 times higher.

The problem with academics and people that reason this way is that they put themselves on a pedestal and assume that their model represents reality 1:1 with a zero margin of error. You must trust the model otherwise you are labeled a conspiracy theorist. I don’t just distrust the study, I distrust the model and the risk assumptions put in place. I don’t need a nanny state to shove down my throat things I don’t want. For what it’s worth, I’d be happy for everything to be deregulated and everyone taking their own decision. Calling people conspiracy theorist or stupid because they don’t agree with you is just bizarre.

> I don’t just distrust the study, I distrust the model and the risk assumptions put in place.

We're talking about the most studied food additive in history. There isn't a single study or single model we're talking about here, it's a large body of evidence.

> I don’t need a nanny state to shove down my throat things I don’t want. For what it’s worth, I’d be happy for everything to be deregulated and everyone taking their own decision.

Then be comfortable making your decision that way. There's no need to misrepresent scientific consensus to justify a dislike for aspartame.

The fact of the matter is that "aspartame causes cancer" is a claim which is not supported by any rigorous science by anyone with any "model".

Sugar is non-essential as the body can synthesize carbohydrates through gluconeogenesis.

Darwinian law of self selection will take its course

Unlike aspartame, we understand the physics of electromagnetic radiation.

It's the same type of radiation as sunlight, but lower energy and lower intensity.

Aspartame was totally fine until Coca Cola decided to switch to stevia.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com