Saccharin, an artificial sweetener dubbed a potential cancer-causing agent in the 1980s, has now been officially declared safe.Without any fanfare, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said Tuesday it was dropping the crystalline powder -- widely used in diet soft drinks, chewing gum, juice and toothpaste -- from its list of hazardous substances.
"Saccharin is no longer considered a potential hazard to human health," the EPA says.
You can read the rest of the story HERE.
Are any of you old enough to remember the hoopla over this?
I am.
I continued to use saccharin because, in spite of the government's insistence to the contrary, the amounts fed to the rats "proving" its danger was way out of proportion to their weight and the comparison to the amount humans would have to consume to produce a similar result was extraordinary.
I'm not a scientist...I don't even play one on TV.
But I am a clear thinker, and like Judge Judy says, "If something doesn't make sense, it's probably not true."
What the "scientists" were saying did not make sense.
Turns out, it wasn't true.
A lot like "global warming."
12 comments:
You just made the case FOR science.
Science is dynamic and self-correcting. It is eternally skeptical and questioning of the status quo. Nothing is assumed or taken for granted. There is no scientific dogma. Everything is subject to scrutiny and reexamination.
If new evidence comes to light that that contradicts the old evidence, so be it. That's how science works.
I'm sure people who take comfort and solace in the illusion of never-changing, eternal truths find the scientific method to be unsettling.
Twas always thus.
XO: You certainly are demonstrating the depth of your wisdom.
True wisdom comes from observing the world around you, accepting it for what it is and learning from it what you can.
Making that wisdom available to the masses has often involved cloaking it in socially acceptable myths and fairy tales that are more easily understood by those who lack the intellectual rigor to objectively analyze the world around them and reach independent conclusions.
Jews did it with the Torah. Jesus did it with parables in his sermons. Muslims did it through The Word of Allah as revealed to Mohammed in the Quran.
All of them try to convey an easily verifiable objective truth like "you shouldn't kill people" or "don't steal other people's stuff".
Because objective observation of the negative consequenses of these actions clearly indicate that people shouldn't do these things to each other.
If one man tells another man not to do these things, it doesn't carry much weight.
But making up a Supremely Powerful and Wrathful Supernatural Being who says the same thing tends to strike fear into the intellectually feeble masses.
True wisdom is the medicine you you need to give to your dog so he can get better.
Religion is the bread and peanut butter you have to wrap it in to get him to swallow it.
Rational people just take the medicine and accept the bitter taste without the distracting wrapping.
"All of them try to convey an easily verifiable objective truth like 'you shouldn't kill people' or 'don't steal other people's stuff'.
"Because objective observation of the negative consequenses of these actions clearly indicate that people shouldn't do these things to each other."
Tell me, oh Wise One, why shouldn't we kill people or take what we want when we want it?
Other animals do it. What makes us so special that we shouldn't?
Some male animals eat their young. Is there some reason we shouldn't?
Animals defecate wherever they happen to be. Why shouldn't we?
What is the logic against cannibalism? If one of us is dead, wouldn't the protein serve others well?
If you have something I want, what logic says that if I'm strong enough to take it from you I shouldn't?
Why shouldn't Muslims beat their women if they want to?
Why shouldn't drug cartels kill the police who are trying to stop them from selling their product?
Give me some concrete answers, please.
:: sigh ::
Picture a group of Australopithecus afarensis primates 3 million years ago.
These are your ancestors, Joe. You carry their DNA in your body today. Doesn't matter if you believe it or not. It's true. It's a fact.
In order to survive, they go out, as a group, every day and gather a bunch of nuts, berries and meat to bring back to their shared habitat.
But imagine that there is this one Australopithecus afarensis who doesn't want to be a hunter gatherer.
He would rather chill in the cave all day and wait for the other Australopithecus afarensis hunter gatherers to return to the cave with lots of food and just steal their stuff.
What's going to happen is, the hunter gatherers are going to grab the nearest rocks and bones and kill the thieving Australopithecus afarensis, thus solving the problem.
This will create a "Thou Shall Not Steal" prohibition into the minds and culture of these primitive primates without the need to invoke some supernatural scripture.
Not killing people, not stealing from people, not mating with someone elses mate, can all be established as cultural rules and norms through purely practical and empirically verifiably actions and consequences.
No supernatural dieties required.
What you would think of as a "moral code" predates language and cognition, let alone scripture.
XO: You certainly are afraid of the possibility of God. It must be tough to live in such fear.
I have absolutely no problem with real science.
Real science involves absolutes.
For instance, if hydrogen atoms combine in right proportions with oxygen you get water.
That is absolute. It happens every time...no exceptions.
If you are working in base 10, you add 2 plus 2 and you get 4, every time...no exceptions.
When you speak of other things we refer to as "science," they are not really science at all.
Evolution is an example.
It is not a science, it is a faith system.
With quadrillions to the x power of bacteria, you would think one or two would turn into something else, non-bacteria in form, if evolution were fact-based.
Although they DO mutate, they never become anything other than bacteria.
But let's say one did, somewhere in the stew of microbial existence.
Let's say one turned into some life form that required sexual reproduction in order to propogate.
Tough luck.
There would have to be TWO that did so, one male and one female.
AND they would have to have changed into that form in proximity to one another to actually get together for sexual reproduction.
Yet we have never observed a bacteria change from a bacteria into something else.
The best they can do is to change one or two properties of themselves to "resist" some antibiotic. They are still bacteria.
So evolution is neither observable or reproducable, two necessities for science, and the fact that two things have similar DNA stuctures doe NOT make them related in the sense that we normally understand the idea of "relationship."
Since same is same and different is different, the differences between the DNA of Australopithecus afarensis and modern humans is not proof of relationship, but of difference.
Chevrolets and Fords have many more similarities than they do differences. But only a fool would argue that they descended from, or are related to, Yugos. Or vice versa.
They are similar, but different, not related.
If science is "eternally skeptical and questioning of the status quo," then it is undependable.
Math, chemistry and physics are real sciences.
Others may be disciplines, practices and/or observables, but they are not science and they bear a closer relationship to faith than they are willing to accept.
I did my BS work in physiological psychology, but I would NEVER consider it a science (although some psychologists would like to think that it is). It is a discipline wrapped mostly in theory.
"If new evidence comes to light that that contradicts the old evidence, so be it."
So if evidence comes out that climate change is NOT caused by man, you are ready to change your mind and accept the new evidence?
Won't happen in your lifetime. Your mind is made up.
So much for open mindedness.
Oh, Joe.
I'm not afraid of your god or any other god.
I fear no man and no supernatural entities. I am completely at peace with the world around me and accept as I find it.
But you clearly have no grasp of the scientific mathod for unerstanding the world.
Real science does NOT involve absolutes.
Real science is all about observing, hypothysizing, testing, analyzing and deducing.
You said "...if hydrogen atoms combine in right proportions with oxygen you get water.
That is absolute. It happens every time...no exceptions".
That's true based upon what we know so far. But we may discover something in the future that grant exceptions to that rule. If we do, science will adapt.
There are no absolutes in the universe. There is only what we know based on what we can see.
As for your argument against evolution, I don't even know where to start except to refer you to Carl Sagan's "The Dragons of Eden" or Stephen Jay Gould's "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory". Or for that matter, any other book by Gould.
You are just wrong, Joe. Completely, totally and fundamentally wrong. Educate yourself.
Bacteria are quite possibly the most evolved and perfect life form in the universe.
They can survive and reproduce in the most extreme environments nature can subject them to. They can even go dormant and survive the hostile conditions of space only to revive themselves when conditions improve.
I'll make you a bet. We will eventually find bacteria on Enceledus, Titan, Europa, Mars, Venus, Io, and virtually every other place in this universe. It is the perfect life form and there are no environmental pressures for it to be anything else.
There is ample evidence in the fossil record and the genetic history of species that absolutely reinforces the theory of evolution.
You are just wrong, Joe. There is no scientific basis for your denial of evolution. None!
And I am getting so bored poking you and your followers with sticks looking for signs life and thought.
XO: "You are just wrong, Joe. There is no scientific basis for your denial of evolution. None!"
No, it is you who are wrong.
Besides, I am not denying evolution, I'm simply stating the fact that there is no evidence for it.
"And I am getting so bored poking you and your followers with sticks looking for signs life and thought."
So, stop. I really care that you are bored.
"I'll make you a bet. We will eventually find bacteria on Enceledus, Titan, Europa, Mars, Venus, Io, and virtually every other place in this universe."
So what?
You have never heard from me that God is required to have placed life on earth and nowhere else in the universe.
"There is ample evidence in the fossil record and the genetic history of species that absolutely reinforces the theory of evolution.
"
Actually, there is absolutely none.
There are no fossils with a little bit of a foot...then one from the same life-form with just a little bit more of a foot...then one with a little bit more of a foot...and then one with a little bit more of a foot... and then one with even a little bit more of a foot and finally one with a whole foot that all had their origins in one predecessor. Such a thing does not exist in the fossil record.
What is your degree in paleontology, any way?
Why you continue to make claims that are so easily proven to be wrong is beyond me. You saying something is so don't make it so.
Allow me to educate you so you can stop misinforming your readers.
http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/examplesofevolution.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/FossilRecordEvolution.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
http://txtwriter.com/backgrounders/evolution/evcontents.html
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
http://www.brighthub.com/science/genetics/articles/42293.aspx
http://www.carnegiemuseums.org/cmag/bk_issue/2000/marapr/feat7.html
XO: http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/examplesofevolution.html - Nothing to contradict my contention in that one.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional
bad link...Nothing to contradict my contention in that one.
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/FossilRecordEvolution
A series of assertions...nothing here proving anything at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
"...usually requiring hard body parts and death near a site where sediments are being deposited, the fossil record only provides sparse and intermittent information about the evolution of life." - At BEST inconlusive and generally general...proves nothing at all.
http://txtwriter.com/backgrounders/evolution/EVpage01.html
"The most direct evidence that evolution has occured is found in the fossil record" - a contradiction to the statement above.
Typical evo-speak.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
"It is a theory in the same sense as the propositions that the earth is round rather than flat or that our bodies are made of atoms are theories." - That's patently not true...that the earth is round and that our bodies are made of atoms is empirically verifiable.
http://www.brighthub.com/science/genetics/articles/42293 -
This goest ot what I said about DNA. Things that are different are not the same, they are different.
http://www.carnegiemuseums.org/cmag/bk_issue/2000
Incomplete link...could not access this site.
Thanks for the "education." There is nothing new in these sites and nothing to contradict my earlier contention.
In Fact, they each support my earlier contention.
I especially liked the jump made in the so-called "ear development."
Well, there you go again!
In fact, everyone of those links DID contradict your assertions and proved you wrong.
The evidence is crystal clear for those with eyes to see.
I must once again quote Daniel Patrick Moynihan who said "You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts."
However there is another quote from down in Texas that seems to be even more applicable here.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It just wastes your time and it annoys the pig."
This singing lesson is over.
XO: Funny how insulting the left gets when you disagree with them.
You gave no facts, only the standard, nonsensical, irrational evolutionary line.
You take two things that look alike and conclude that they must BE alike (read:related), which is not the case.
Post a Comment