this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
231 points (94.6% liked)

World News

39005 readers
1474 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

So maybe the huge worry people had after the news that WHO would classify it as cancerous was a little too much. I think the media could have reported on it in a bit more responsible way.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Something being carcinogenic is not the same as it being likely to cause cancer. I wish this was a better understood distinction in the public. It comes down to how carcinogenic it is and how much you're exposed to/consume. It is technically true that aspartame is carcinogenic -- it's a scientific fact. But like they say here, normal human consumption amounts makes the likelihood of getting cancer from it negligible.

It's important though to recognize that carcinogens come in varying levels of strength. I'm fine with drinking two cans of diet soda, but I would never wash my hands in benzene. Benzene and aspartame are both carcinogenic, but benzene is WAY more potent. We've limited the amount of benzene that can be in gasoline for this reason -- but again note, it's limited, not eliminated.

I took an environmental engineering class in college, and our professor had a very cute but apt tagline. Dilution is the solution to pollution. You'll never get rid of 100% of something. But reducing its concentration can make it safe regardless. Same idea goes here.

Thanks for coming to my completely unsolicited Ted Talk.

[–] crypticthree@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

At the same time a lot of people are constantly main lining diet coke

[–] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Bois be drinking that shit up

[–] havokdj@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I remember an independent study being done a few years back that basically came to the conclusion that to actually have a chance of getting cancer from aspertame, you'd have to drink like 52 cans of diet coke a day for 50 years.