1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We have moved software to xenforo please leave feedback here:

    Thank you!

Aspartame....The silent killer.

Discussion in 'Sensible Chat' started by wishfix, Jan 9, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. wishfix

    wishfix New Member

    I'm new here.
    Just wanted to make sure everyone is aware of Aspartame E951.
    It's a food additive found in many products especially fizzy diet drinks.
    Get informed with a little research on the net, don't give this to your kids, do not consume.
  2. trevortron

    trevortron VIP Member

    Refined sugar, HFCS, saccharin and other sweeteners are pretty nasty too. The trouble with researching on the 'net is knowing which articles to believe. Many are quietly sponsored by companies with a vested interest and may therefore not be entirely truthful.
  3. nara

    nara VIP Member

    Don't touch artificial sweetners myself, because I hate the taste of them, However I'd add a note of caution here.

    Unfortunately the web is awash with 'health' advice with absolutely no regulation of any sort. Anyone without a scientific background can easily be led astray. Most of the anti-aspartame E951 stuff that you'll find quoted on the web is based on obsevational studies which can't demonstrate causation. Properly conducted conrolled trials, which provide much higher quality evidence, don't support the scare stories.

    Fizzy diet drinks are unhealthy enough anyway, no matter what sweetners they contain. They should be avoided like the plague.
  4. little_pob

    little_pob Jr Admin Staff Member

    When launched there was little in the way of human in vivo studies. Since then, both the FDA and EFSA have run several meta analyses on studies and Cochrane reviews. All have said that levels within artificially sweetened food and drink are safe.

    The EFSA has set a safe level of consumption of 40mg per kilogram of body weight per day. The mythical, "average" person would have to drink 18 cans (nearly 6 liters) of diet coke to reach this level. Even the level that's "safe" for human consumption. The toxic level is some 4000mg/kg.

    As nara alludes to, it's other chemicals in fizzy drinks that people should worry about. For example; in vitro studies shows phosphoric acid, which is used as a preservative, can leach calcium from teeth and bones.
  5. cactikid

    cactikid VIP Member

    only if you had teeth,better stop sucking them tabs as if they were mints lol,hmm how many coffee and tea drunk per day to add to .
  6. Leonatlarge

    Leonatlarge New Member

    There are many toxic chemicals in our food they even put chlorine and flouride in our tap water.
    Flouride used to be used as Rat poison.
    I wonder why the cancer rate is going up ?
  7. nara

    nara VIP Member

    I don't mind seriously argued objections to tap water or food additives, but you should really do some research before posting simplistic internet b*llocks.
  8. Leonatlarge

    Leonatlarge New Member

    Can you please explain why my post is Internet b#llocks ?
    Are you saying there are no toxins in our food ?
    Are you saying that chlorine and flouride are not added to our tap water ?
    Are you saying that chlorine and flouride are not poisonous and are beneficial for health ?
    Are you saying the cancer rate hasn't gone up ?
    As I have told you before calling people simple or conspiracy theorists or communists or crazy doesn't work any more if you want people to take you seriously you must explain or prove why my statement is b#llocks.
  9. nara

    nara VIP Member

    Have you? :err: Can't find that, though while looking I did find a reply I made to a previous post of yours...

    Pretty prophetic really.
  10. little_pob

    little_pob Jr Admin Staff Member

    Put simply; correlation ≠ causality.

    Also, you made the extraordinary claim. It's for you to prove it correct, not for us to prove it wrong.
  11. Leonatlarge

    Leonatlarge New Member

    Yes yes very good; You and your colleague have still not addressed why my post is Internet b#llocks.
    It is common knowledge that there are toxins in our foods.
    It is common knowledge that chlorine and flouride are poisonous.
    It is common knowledge that chlorine and flouride are added to our tap water.
    So I have not made an extraordinary claim and do not need to prove what I have said as it is common knowledge. Are you saying that isn't true ?
    Are you and your colleague going to come back with a constructive argument or are you going to come back with more Internet b#llocks ?
  12. little_pob

    little_pob Jr Admin Staff Member

    Colleague? I can assure you, this website has no paid staff. Also we are primarily a tech site. Threads like these are tolerated at best, and are often closed or deleted as they end up running counter to our rules: Digital World Rules: (specifically rule 9, occasionally rule 10)

    Back to your points...

    Your extraordinary claim stems from your first post in this thread. Specifically, your implication that toxins in food, and fluoride and chlorine in the water supply is directly attributable to increases in cancer rates.

    There are several reasons why cancer rates have gone up. One of the biggest is the earlier detection rate; and this inevitably includes people that would not have died from their cancer diagnosis.

    Yes, there are toxins in food. For example; apples, plums and cherries all naturally contain cyanide. It's also common knowledge that anything taken in excess can be toxic; and that some people are more susceptible at low doses than others.

    For what it's worth, the chlorine is for antibacterial purposes and is removed. You have not provided any proof that the chemicals you've mentioned, at the levels found in our food and water are harmful to public health.

    I'm all for people being aware of what is in the stuff they shove down their gullet, but scaremongering is not best way.
  13. nara

    nara VIP Member

    I presume you mean Chlorine and Flourine, and indeed they are. However the concentration of chlorine in tap water (4 parts per million parts water) is added to prevent bacterial contamination. You'd have to drink a helluva lot more chlorinated water, than unchlorinated water before doing yourself any harm.

    Let's talk about salts now. NaCl (sodium chloride/common salt), is not poisonous.(unless you're daft enough to consume large quantities of it)

    Calcium Chloride CaCl, is the fifth most abundant compound in the human body and is used in pharmacological preparations. Poisonous?

    The two examples above are what are known chemically as salts of chlorine, they are nothing like their constituent elements.

    In your previous posts you seem to be confusing Flourine, a poisonous element, with Flouride, a blanket term used for any salt of Flourine.

    Sodium Flouride (NAF) and Sodium Flourosilicate (NA2 SiF6) the most common water additives, are salts. Added to water at 0.7 parts per million parts water you'd have to drink a helluva... etc. etc.

    Here endeth the rather long-winded chemistry lesson. Happy browsing!
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2017
  14. nara

    nara VIP Member

    Sorry, but I've just noticed this nugget.

    Common knowledge? Maybe it is to those who can't sort the wheat from the chaff.
  15. Leonatlarge

    Leonatlarge New Member

    Well done ! this is a bit better.
    Thank you but I do not need any lessons from you or your colleague and I'm not confused but thank you again for your concern.
    Information which is common knowledge to me is obviously not common knowledge to you and your colleague, so here is some help.


    Fluoride water 'causes cancer' | Society | The Guardian

    Harvard Study Confirms Fluoride Reduces Children's IQ | The Huffington Post

    Fluoride Action Network | Tooth Decay Trends in Fluoridated vs. Unfluoridated Countries

    Chlorinated water - Canadian Cancer Society




    The nations above banned the fluoridation of water as it is bad for the health of there citizens and the dental health benefits have not been proven the proof is above.

    Chlorine in our water has been linked to cancer many times the proof is above.

    Toxins in our food have been linked to cancer many times the proof is above.

    The use of Chlorine dioxide is a much safer and healthier way to purify water.

    I have answered your questions and also provided the proof you asked for from reputable web sites as I don't want to be called a conspiracy theorist or communist or crazy.

    Can you or your colleague now answer my question's please.

    1. Why was my post internet b#llocks ?
    2. In what respect where the claims in my post extraordinary ?

    Thank you in advance

    #shutdown ?
  16. nara

    nara VIP Member

    Sorry, but quoting dodgy 'health' and 'Daily Fail' articles doesn't do it for me, I'm afraid I prefer better quality in my sources.

    ...but if you want to play the links quoting game for some the other stuff in your post:

    Chlorine and cancer-cancer myth - Cancer Council Western Australia

    Water Fluoridation Reduces IQ? : snopes.com

    Fluoride Lowers Your IQ: B.S. Headline of the Week | Cracked.com

    Repeating bad science on fluoride | Open Parachute

    Fluoride & Cancer Quackery | Skeptical Vegan

    Fluoride and cancer-cancer myth - Cancer Council Western Australia


    I think you also need to read that Canadian link you quoted more closely, have a look at this one also:


    Neither is advocating the removal of chlorine from drinking water.
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2017
  17. Leonatlarge

    Leonatlarge New Member

    I agree the internet quoting game is boring but most of the articles you quoted come from countries that have fluoridated water so take from that what you will which in your case from what I have seen so far will not be very much.

    I personally do not class a study done by Harvard
    (which is one of the best universities in the world) which concluded fluoride lowers IQ as a dodgy quote, or for that matter the research done by EWG from the guardian article which concluded that fluoridation of water causes cancer.
    but I suppose it takes allsorts to make the world.

    The stone cold undeniable fact is that many countries have banned or stopped fluoridating their water so can you explain why they would do this if fluoridated water is as you say harmless ?

    As I have said in previous posts I have answered your questions but you and your colleague have still failed to answer mine so here we go again;

    1. Why was my post internet b#llocks ?

    2. In what respect where the claims in my post extraordinary ?

    Thank you in advance.
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2017
  18. nara

    nara VIP Member

    Sorry Leon, but this little section that I've quoted indicates that you haven't even read your own quotes critically, let alone mine. The twelve-year old Guardian article refers to a study which hadn't even completed the peer review stage yet and was subsequently found wanting.

    The Harvard meta analysis (not a study btw, just an analysis of previously published studies) does not actually refer to controlled water flouridation, but to unflouridated water in India and China which has been contaminated by mega-doses of naturally occuring flourides leaking into wells from the surrounding soil. Even then, there are no definite conclusions they only talk about "The possibility of adverse affects".

    Although this paper is often quoted on the internet, it is regarded in scientific circles as being of poor quality. The American Council of Science and Health questioned the authors credibility in toxicology and suggested that they were instead “experts in the subject of trying to scare parents and the media about remote or hypothetical chemical threats. In this case, they wave the skull-and-crossbones banner of a “pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity.” If they hoped to garner media attention
    and they surely did — they succeeded beyond expectations: fright is in the air."

    I don't suppose any of this will be of any use to be honest. I'm afraid that your concept of what constitutes evidence and mine are worlds apart, but, just out of interest, where did the "colleague" notion come from?
  19. Leonatlarge

    Leonatlarge New Member

    You are right none of this Internet quoting is of any use to most normal people.
    The stone cold facts are that study's have been done and have linked flouridation of water to low IQ and cancer and after that many Nations have banned and stopped flouridating their water , again take from that what you will.
    I know that most normal people would conclude that this would prove that there is some substance to these studys.
    You and your colleague have still failed to answer my questions so here we go again:

    1. Why was my post Internet b#llocks

    2.In what respect was my post extra ordinary.

    3. If flouridation of water is harmless and beneficial to health why have many developed nations banned it or stopped using it ?

    When you or your colleague can answer my questions and not Continue to keep spouting Internet b#llocks I will answer yours.

    Thanks in advance.
  20. little_pob

    little_pob Jr Admin Staff Member

    @Leonatlarge, your questions have been answered already; some of them several times.

    This thread is going nowhere, and is now closed. As you were warned it would be back in post 12.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page