By the way, just in case Smashy or Kimmy decide to be intellectually honest and actually think things through instead of just spouting woo (ayieeeee! Mythbusters! Neckbeards! Dawkins! The state must be smashed!!!), here’s a set of little back-of-the-napkin calculations to try, and some suggested steps to take after you’re done.
-Figure out the average metabolized dose of methanol and formaldehyde from a can of diet soda.
-Figure out what the half life is for those metabolites in the average human body.
-Figure out how many cans of soda the average human would need in order to hit the LD50 on either methanol or formaldehyde.
-Figure out how quickly the average human would need to chug that number of cans of soda in order to hit the LD50.
-Figure out how many cubic litres of soda that would be, and how many pounds of liquid someone would have added to their gut in that span of time.
-Figure out if, along the way, the person would reach the LD50 for caffeine first.
-At this point, figure out if your claims are hysterical, shrieking ignorant blabbering, or if you really do have a leg to stand on as to the ‘danger’ of Nutra Sweet.
-Once you figure that out, ask yourself why you jumped to such a nonsensical, absurd conclusion without performing due dilligence.
-Then ask yourself why you attempted to spread such a fiction.
-Then ask yourself what remedy you should take to avoid making such egregious errors in the future.
-Then figure out whether or not you owe Jack further abuse or an apology and your thanks for his grandmotherly kindness.
-Ask yourself “is auto-sterilization via weedwhacker right for you and the human genepool?”
Methanol, when it occurs naturally as a breakdown product in fruit, is produced simultaneously with ethanol. According to the literature available, ethanol provides protection against the effects of methanol, and indeed, ethanol is used by hospitals in cases of methanol poisoning. On their own website, Monsanto admits that methanol is a breakdown product of aspartame, but says in their defence that there is more methanol in an apple than a can of diet cola. While this is true as far as it goes, (a) many people are consuming considerably more than one can of diet cola worth of aspartame on a daily basis, and (b) an apple contains methanol and its antagonist, ethanol, in equal parts.
Furthermore, there is considerable evidence that chronic consumption of methanol causes a whole host of ill effects, even when consumed in amounts too small to cause immediate damage. Probably the best known effect is damage to the optic nerve, which is both cumulative and irreversible.
Jackmannii will want a citation because despite supposedly being a medical professional, he appears completely oblivious to 20 years worth of growing concern about the long-term effects of aspartame by some decidedly un-“woo” scientists. Here’s an article entitled “ASPARTAME: METHANOL AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH” by Dr. Woodrow C. Montre, published in the Journal of Applied Nutrition (Volume 36, Number 1, 1984) which, according to the IAACN, is a peer-reviewed publication.
Oh, and FinnAgain? You’re painful to watch. Most people here are probably aware that you really don’t have any idea what you’re talking about. Regardless of whether I’m all full of “woo,” there is no way you’d ever know except by trying to pick what you think are the most popular people here and then aping whatever they say. It’s pathetic in the literal sense that it inspires pathos. I tried to ignore you in the hope a public spanking wouldn’t be required, but you are persistent enough to cause a measurable and significant drop in signal-to-noise ratio. Please either get your own opinions or stop.
Good lord you’re unbelievably stupid.
You link to a 25 year old position paper, not even a longitudinal study, in order to prove the “growing concern” over the last 20 years. The modern research shows that Nutra Sweet is safe. Try citing some of that, instead. Or as is your MO, act like a whiny bitch and get all upset that your shitty cite wasn’t simply accepted on faith. In any case, your cite’s conclusion is that we need more testing before greatly increased consumption. We’ve already greatly increased consumption of the (then) “new” chemical.So, engage your brain (briefly) and ask yourself how many cases of rather clearly identifiable methanol we tend to see in diet soda drinkers. Ask yourself what would be a more accurate cite to prove your claims, a 25 year old position paper or an actual, ya know, statistical study.
Then provide a cite for that, instead of a totally irrelevant cite that you’re too dumb to realize doesn’t even address your actual claim.
I know.
That pain you’re feeling, between your ears?
It’s neurons firing.
Just go with it, it gets easier after a while.
Soon, you may even get to like the sensation.
S’okay. I’ll let my reputation of being able to provide cites for my claims stand against your demonstrated behavior if people really wanted to compare the two of us. Also, you’re having delusions of multiplicity, idiot.
Again this aggressive, fanciful idiocy. You, Kimmy and ivn just like making shit up when you’re backed into a corner. You know nothing about me and understand even less. If this was a school you’d have to stay late after class just to fail. I “ape” the most popular people here? You are so pathetically stupid and full of shit that it’s truly remarkable.
Actually, my training in research methodology, critical thinking and biological science is how I recognized what bullshit you were peddling from the brief mention that Jack made.
Can’t I just think that Kimmy, Ivn and Smashy are all morons?
I mean, I thought I could, but then again, Ivn seemed to be pitting StS…so I don’t know whose side I’m supposed to be on.
