There's a newer one that links it to leukemia and lymphoma.
You're talking a lot of shit right now. Talking shit is okay, though, as long as you cite your sources.
Apparently the study in question (Soffritti M, Belpoggi F, Esposti DD, Lambertini L. Aspartame induces lymphomas and leukaemias in rats. European Journal of Oncology 2005; 10(2):107–116.) turned out to be incorrect.
There's a newer one that links it to leukemia and lymphoma.
You're talking a lot of shit right now. Talking shit is okay, though, as long as you cite your sources.
Apparently the study in question (Soffritti M, Belpoggi F, Esposti DD, Lambertini L. Aspartame induces lymphomas and leukaemias in rats. European Journal of Oncology 2005; 10(2):107–116.) turned out to be incorrect.
Boom.
Flaws in methodology always result in stupid public freakouts like this.
So getting money from industry means that that research methodology wasn't flawed? The "cleanliness" of your monetary sources do not determine the validity of your science, unfortunately for humanity. The problem with that study was the actual science. That's why people came out against it.
I've been reading up on biofuels since WUB pointed me in that direction months ago. This is very encouraging, partly from the idea that plastics can still exist without worrying as much about oil. I think the material science stuff is more important for the far future than transportation worries. Think of a world without deep water drilling and foreign policy shaped by energy production. However, I still want to promote very fuel efficient and clean automotive technologies. Being efficient is good, and I HATE smog and ozone days in the summer. Jack, you can go fuck yourself if you buy a Hummer, because it makes my biking time miserable in the heat. I like things that are well-designed and not wasteful, because just because you don't have to worry about a resource running out doesn't mean you shouldn't try to streamline and reduce emissions. Science will make us Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger. We shouldn't be lazy.
@Emily: If the process works right and we use some algae engineered to scrub nitrogenous compounds and sulfurous compounds, you can use this to turn smog into oil!
Plastics are still an environmental problem though
Yes, but I think that if we are smart about their use and disposal, plastics are a valuable tool for future invention. Think of how many things plastics help us do!
I like the idea of this algae tech too, and I would really like to see it work and be efficient (ie: a reasonable balance between barrels spent/barrels yielded). But, I'm kind of with gomidog here in that I'm concerned that if it works out to become a primary fuel technology, an abundant source of oil would give us an excuse to continue sustaining all of our wasteful living practices, without working on efficiency and better infrastructure. I'd be sad to see any genius development in fuel/energy go towards propping up suburban sprawl or give us an excuse to keep being inefficient just because we've got a new source of fuel to burn.
I like the idea of this algae tech too, and I would really like to see it work and be efficient (ie: a reasonable balance between barrels spent/barrels yielded). But, I'm kind of with gomidog here in that I'm concerned that if it works out to become a primary fuel technology, an abundant source of oil would give us an excuse to continue sustaining all of our wasteful living practices, without working on efficiency and better infrastructure. I'd be sad to see any genius development in fuel/energy go towards propping up suburban sprawl or give us an excuse to keep being inefficient just because we've got a new source of fuel to burn.
The only problem I've got with your reasoning is that suburban sprawl is not in and of itself a problem. The problems with suburban sprawl have primarily to do with scarcity issues. Without scarcity, there's no problem except for OCD sufferers.
Question for the purposes of fiction; how long ago could we have achieved this in terms of the technology of the infrastructure around this? Like, if we had known what to look for, could we have been doing this in the 30s, 50s, 70s?
The only problem I've got with your reasoning is that suburban sprawl is not in and of itself a problem. The problems with suburban sprawl have primarily to do with scarcity issues. Without scarcity, there's no problem except for OCD sufferers.
Don't be a dick. Making things efficient is not OCD, it is good design.
The only problem I've got with your reasoning is that suburban sprawl is not in and of itself a problem. The problems with suburban sprawl have primarily to do with scarcity issues. Without scarcity, there's no problem except for OCD sufferers.
Don't be a dick. Making things efficient is not OCD, it is good design.
I'm not being a dick. Making EVERYTHING as efficient as possible is OCD driven. Many things are not efficient by design. Humans are not efficient. Emotions are not efficient. Art is not efficient. Hell, good customer service isn't efficient. There is no reason to be efficient for the sake of efficiency. Efficiency either solves a problem or it doesn't need to exist. "This is not efficient" does not in and of itself constitute a problem.
No it is not! You have no idea what OCD means, do you? You are an asshole!
Also, being wasteful is gross. If something is both not harmful and also improves quality of life, I guess it is okay. So many times, though, waste is harmful.
Yeah, first: OCD is not the right term. My friend has OCD and powerfully believes she will die if she doesn't wash her hands ten times per day. Good engineering does not equal pathological obsessions and compulsions. Dick move.
Now, in terms of perhaps, let's say, anal-retentive perfectionist tendencies: Efficacy in terms of scalable systems like cities and their transport networks is essential. Our design of our living spaces should be ruthlessly space- and distance-efficient. This ensures that people spend more time living instead of travelling, and that we have affordable housing in high population density zones.
Ideally, supersprawls will replace suburbs as the dominant US housing paradigm. Suburbs are inefficient and boring.
No it is not! You have no idea what OCD means, do you? You are an asshole!
Also, being wasteful is gross. If something is both not harmful and also improves quality of life, I guess it is okay. So many times, though, waste is harmful.
OK, so I'm an asshole.
Obviously I'm not using a clinical definition of OCD. Why do so many arguments on this forum get reduced to semantics and dictionary quoting? It's seriously boring.
Because OCD isn't funny or a remotely appropriate comparison? Like, that's a serious disease. People with OCD can't control themselves, and it's really scary and difficult to watch someone you love go through that.
I have OCD. I also have a fucking sense of humor. The population of this forum is seriously uptight about their neuroses, and that's a hindrance, not a progressive victory like a lot of you seem to think it is. I'm over that. If that makes me a jerk, well, that ship has sailed. :-)
Obviously I'm not using a clinical definition of OCD. Why do so many arguments on this forum get reduced to semantics and dictionary quoting? It's seriously boring.
Because we tend to aim for good, robust arguments, in both senses of the word. Definition of terms and sticking to those terms is important in that kind of discussion.
Because it is like if I said that the auto-immune diseases that cause you to suffer in a very real way were somehow the reason for *insert random moral belief here* It just isn't true, it is a misrepresentation of a very real and frustrating thing, and it is, frankly, very stupid.
The population of this forum is seriously uptight about their neuroses
Gooby pls. I joke about suicide EVERY DAY. I probably think about suicide EVERY DAY.
Right so when I refer to OCD in a pretty blatantly sarcastic way, CHAOS ENSUES. Sorry I didn't green it, but come the fuck on.
Efficiency for efficiency's sake is not driven by morality. Efficiency is useful for some things and not others, just like any other best practice paradigm.
Many people really don't understand what OCD is, so what you are doing is not helping. Whether you have it or not is moot. You are just perpetuating stereotypes.
Overefficiency is one thing, muppet, and I agree with you on that, but I should be clearer: I'm talking about rampant, unreasonable waste.
Speaking only from anecdotal experience here as my mother rented a mcmansion, suburban style, stick-build house in South Carolina that was an absolute energy wasting nightmare, it seems to me that a lot of the suburban places in this country are way on the other end of the efficiency spectrum and there can be no excuse to waste important technological developments on propping that kind of living up.
Because it is like if I said that the auto-immune diseases that cause you to suffer in a very real way were somehow the reason for *insert random moral belief here* It just isn't true, it is a misrepresentation of a very real and frustrating thing, and it is, frankly, very stupid.
Efficiency for efficiency's sake is obsessive, and while it may not fit the DSM V definition of OCD, it's still within the lexicon of most Americans to assimilate the concept I was trying to convey.
My autoimmune disorder is responsible for a great deal of my behavior which by extension can influence many of my arguments, especially when medicated. I wouldn't be offended by that in general, but might be in specific arguments.
For example when I argue that people have every right to abort a pregnancy based on a positive screening for Down's Syndrome, I normally get a lot of blowback about how that's eugenics and I should have been aborted for having Crohn's. That's offensive to me, but I'll argue the point, I won't gasp and cover my mouth and complain I've got the vapors.
Comments
Flaws in methodology always result in stupid public freakouts like this.
Are you going to claim now that the source of study funding is never a conflict of interest?
However, I still want to promote very fuel efficient and clean automotive technologies. Being efficient is good, and I HATE smog and ozone days in the summer. Jack, you can go fuck yourself if you buy a Hummer, because it makes my biking time miserable in the heat. I like things that are well-designed and not wasteful, because just because you don't have to worry about a resource running out doesn't mean you shouldn't try to streamline and reduce emissions. Science will make us Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger. We shouldn't be lazy.
WUB I'm just returning some trolling.
Also, being wasteful is gross. If something is both not harmful and also improves quality of life, I guess it is okay. So many times, though, waste is harmful.
Now, in terms of perhaps, let's say, anal-retentive perfectionist tendencies: Efficacy in terms of scalable systems like cities and their transport networks is essential. Our design of our living spaces should be ruthlessly space- and distance-efficient. This ensures that people spend more time living instead of travelling, and that we have affordable housing in high population density zones.
Ideally, supersprawls will replace suburbs as the dominant US housing paradigm. Suburbs are inefficient and boring.
Obviously I'm not using a clinical definition of OCD. Why do so many arguments on this forum get reduced to semantics and dictionary quoting? It's seriously boring.
It just isn't true, it is a misrepresentation of a very real and frustrating thing, and it is, frankly, very stupid.
Efficiency for efficiency's sake is not driven by morality. Efficiency is useful for some things and not others, just like any other best practice paradigm.
Speaking only from anecdotal experience here as my mother rented a mcmansion, suburban style, stick-build house in South Carolina that was an absolute energy wasting nightmare, it seems to me that a lot of the suburban places in this country are way on the other end of the efficiency spectrum and there can be no excuse to waste important technological developments on propping that kind of living up.
My autoimmune disorder is responsible for a great deal of my behavior which by extension can influence many of my arguments, especially when medicated. I wouldn't be offended by that in general, but might be in specific arguments.
For example when I argue that people have every right to abort a pregnancy based on a positive screening for Down's Syndrome, I normally get a lot of blowback about how that's eugenics and I should have been aborted for having Crohn's. That's offensive to me, but I'll argue the point, I won't gasp and cover my mouth and complain I've got the vapors.