Oh my fuck. I hate news stories like this. Aspartame falls into the same cancer risk category as eating red meat sometimes and being kinda lazy. A rigorous systematic review was conducted of dozens of studies of aspartame and they did not find a plausible biologic mechanism by which aspartame could cause cancer. Epidemiologically, it's vaguely correlated, not causative of cancer.
Also, in the Reuters article it notes that a 132-lbs adult would have to drink 12 to 36 cans of diet coke a day for the dose/exposure to become relevant to the risk they're talking about. This article is talking about one study that is at odds with the systematically reviewed data from 40 human observational studies, 12 experimental animal studies, and 1360 assay/experimental end points to look for the supposed link.
Being lazy is vaguely kinda sorta correlated with cancer... but that doesn't account for the fact that humans who are regularly active are also less likely to make other lifestyle choices that are more significantly tied to cancer like smoking and drinking.
This is the problem with a lot of population based studies. Obesity is linked with a lot of health problems like cardiovascular disease, but only some aspects of cardiovascular disease have causative links to obesity and others are sequelae of other factors that tend to be associated with obesity. For example, extra weight/adipose puts more stress on your heart by there just being more body mass to deliver blood to and more oxygen demand from muscles to just physically move the weight around (also a cause of joint problems)... but it's the poor diet full of cholesterol that clogs up the arteries (aka atherosclerosis) causing myocardial infarction (heart attack).
I think it's funny that you can't really prep for this. It's going to be a slow collapse, slowly churning and making it impossible for anyone to survive. As critical infrastructure fails, food, water sources dry up, and the only solution anyone is capable of giving: "Try biking to work". Realistically it should be "get ready for an apocalypse." No amount of prep will leave you untouched.
It's terrifying. I think one of the problems we face in getting people to demand change is that the collapse so terrifying and unthinkable that people don't allow their minds to dwell on it for long.
Alex Gleason, for anyone wondering he's said he's going to work full time on...
open-source technology for “decentralized” social media platforms that operate on independently-run servers and provide an alternative to Twitter and Facebook. ... developing technology for connecting multiple decentralized platforms
Reinventing the fediverse? Watch out for that, I guess.
Nice. We Czechs remember how it feels when Russia thinks your country should be theirs. This won't solve anything but I think it's a nice gesture of solidarity with our Ukrainian friends.
The solidarity with the Ukranian friends is to ban russian or belarussian athletes? Even if they are against the war, which is a pretty dangerous position to be taking if they plan to get back to their country?
I think they spend most of their time on traffic stops because tickets=money. IDK if it’s true on California, but other states legit have pull-over quotas so local governments can take in that fat ticket loot.
Ticket quotas are illegal in every state. So the police chiefs often avoid writing an official policy of ticket quotas, they just punish officers who don't write enough for something like slacking on the job, and then unofficially tell the officer how many tickets are enough to avoid punishment.
Not writing it down makes it harder to prove, which is great when there's an illegal policy that they're enforcing.
Good thing for Reuters, without them I wouldn't know the sky was blue too. For real, this is something that anyone not with the thin blue boot scraping their tracheas has been screaming for decades.
Remember the time Sony Music installed a rootkit on peoples' computers via commercially purchased CDs because hacking paying customers' computers seemed like a good way to combat piracy?
Love the intent, but this is just a really silly implementation. Make registering older vehicles with higher polution levels more expensive, and provide a tax credit or incentive for getting rid of them. There's tons of ways to do this with less overhead and without a surprise punative fine for people too poor to buy a new vehicle.
Not to mention, everyone's already fed up with the constant level of surveillance. Always being on camera in some way is something we need to put more thought into before we add to the problem.
You do realize there are tons of people who are literally forced to drive old gas cars because its all they can afford, and there is no public transportation right? Calling them murderers for trying to feed themselves is just disingenuous.
In a car? That's a very dumb idea. Even if you can't get by train for some reason, you'll most likely leave your car in a giant parking lot in a nearby town and then catch a train. Have you ever tried driving in London? You'll walk faster!
Part of the problem is that corporate greed is just so prevalent everywhere that when I see higher prices, my immediate first thought is that they're just shafting us because they can. It could cost $0.02 more per unit to produce, and they'd still charge $10 more, if they thought they could get away with it.
"There is a gap between what people say they want and what they actually do at the purchasing point -- this is a difficulty for us," Oriol Margo, EMEA sustainability transformation leader at Kimberly-Clark, said on Thursday at the Reuters IMPACT conference in London.
"It feels like our consumers are asking for sustainability but they are not looking to compromise on price or quality."
I'm willing to compromise - as in, if it costs them $4 more to produce, they charge $2 more for it, we're splitting the difference. Fine. I don't believe that's what's happening. Maybe it is, but the perception is what matters, and we've been taking it up the ass for so long, it's hard to believe they're going to pull out on this one point.
Uh... from an economic point you just can't split the additional cost in half if it costs 4 dollar more. If something costs 20 dollars to make and they sell it for 25 to price in the other costs and a slight profit margin and then it costs 30 to make when doing it sustainable they can't sell it for 20 + (10 / 2) +5 = 30. They would make a minus then. They could sell it for 35, with gaining the same profit as before.
This is all under the assumption that the original price was a fair price.
reuters.com
Oldest