More evidence one may want to think twice before picking up that Gatorade or Mountain Dew
http://wakeupcallnews.blogspot.com/2013 ... n.html?m=1
Different type of "banned" substances
Different type of "banned" substances
training is the opposite of hoping
Re: Different type of "banned" substances
A similar article was published on BuzzFeed and elicited this rebuttal:
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/20 ... cation.php
Science easily scares people when they misunderstand it...
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/20 ... cation.php
Science easily scares people when they misunderstand it...
Re: Different type of "banned" substances
Thanks for sharing the rebuttal.
Hearing BOTH sides of any sort of argument is always important.
And I think anyone with any sort of common sense would read both and find a middle ground.
Bottom line is even if something doesn't kill you(or immediately at least)
there's quite a chasm between not being toxic & actually being healthy or nutritious.
And let's face it, while nothing may be 100% founded yet regarding such studies on children, hyperactivity and food dyes &/or additives...
the fact that there are so many studies underway suggests that there may be some sort of correlation or they wouldn't be under investigation to begin with?
The guy made a great point though; chemicals are EVERYWHERE,
but IMHO that means expand your consciousness rather than disregard them all together.
(ie you'd probably be better off heating your kid's milk from hormone injected cows by putting it in a glass bottle & sitting it in just boiled hot water than sticking GMO free organic milk in a nonBPA-free plastic bottle & nuking it)
Who knows?
Also if I had to pick the lesser of 2 evils...
I'd rather have a population overly conscious about what they are putting into their system than one completely ignorant.
Even if these chemicals aren't as toxic as the 1st article suggested...
is that justification that they should be in our food???
And do they actually possess any nutritive benefits???
If the answer is NO & there is currently "unfounded" concern regarding them...
why not just do away with them anyway?
Strawberry ice cream is going to taste the same whether it's pink or not.
Hearing BOTH sides of any sort of argument is always important.
And I think anyone with any sort of common sense would read both and find a middle ground.
Bottom line is even if something doesn't kill you(or immediately at least)
there's quite a chasm between not being toxic & actually being healthy or nutritious.
And let's face it, while nothing may be 100% founded yet regarding such studies on children, hyperactivity and food dyes &/or additives...
the fact that there are so many studies underway suggests that there may be some sort of correlation or they wouldn't be under investigation to begin with?
The guy made a great point though; chemicals are EVERYWHERE,
but IMHO that means expand your consciousness rather than disregard them all together.
(ie you'd probably be better off heating your kid's milk from hormone injected cows by putting it in a glass bottle & sitting it in just boiled hot water than sticking GMO free organic milk in a nonBPA-free plastic bottle & nuking it)
Who knows?
Also if I had to pick the lesser of 2 evils...
I'd rather have a population overly conscious about what they are putting into their system than one completely ignorant.
Even if these chemicals aren't as toxic as the 1st article suggested...
is that justification that they should be in our food???
And do they actually possess any nutritive benefits???
If the answer is NO & there is currently "unfounded" concern regarding them...
why not just do away with them anyway?
Strawberry ice cream is going to taste the same whether it's pink or not.
training is the opposite of hoping
Re: Different type of "banned" substances
Careful, smiles. Just because studies are happening doesn't mean that there's a conclusion that they're trying to prove. The studies are happening to find out what actually happens, yes or no - before conclusions are made.
While I normally agree with listening to both sides of any coin, you *have* to pick a side once evidence is uncovered. you can't consider both points to be valid once the data points the way. If there's not enough data to clearly show any specific point, then more studies and more research is done until enough evidence is discovered to solidly establish a working model or theory. And, at the end of the day, *nothing* is rock-solid, but there are degrees of certainty. However, any scientist who stops looking at the data and is no longer willing to be convinced by solid research on a contrarian point of view cannot call their position a scientific one. There have been many times in history where the scientific consensus has been swayed on a topic because of good research showing evidence of a working theory that ran counter to previously established ideas.
If there's no data, there can be no conclusion. Research happens not to prove or disprove a point, but to uncover evidence, and with that evidence, THEN more reasonable statements can be made. At the end of the day, no honest scientists will say that they are 100% sure about anything. What they DO say, and what often leads people to think there's a controversy (when there isn't), is "The evidence currently supports the statement X" or "There exists no evidence to support the position of Y".
With that said, regardless of the outcome(s), I do agree that these studies are helping make people aware of what's in their food. I think that the issue is less in how bad the chemicals are (or how good, or how harmless), and more about how serpentine and complicated our food chain has become.
While I normally agree with listening to both sides of any coin, you *have* to pick a side once evidence is uncovered. you can't consider both points to be valid once the data points the way. If there's not enough data to clearly show any specific point, then more studies and more research is done until enough evidence is discovered to solidly establish a working model or theory. And, at the end of the day, *nothing* is rock-solid, but there are degrees of certainty. However, any scientist who stops looking at the data and is no longer willing to be convinced by solid research on a contrarian point of view cannot call their position a scientific one. There have been many times in history where the scientific consensus has been swayed on a topic because of good research showing evidence of a working theory that ran counter to previously established ideas.
If there's no data, there can be no conclusion. Research happens not to prove or disprove a point, but to uncover evidence, and with that evidence, THEN more reasonable statements can be made. At the end of the day, no honest scientists will say that they are 100% sure about anything. What they DO say, and what often leads people to think there's a controversy (when there isn't), is "The evidence currently supports the statement X" or "There exists no evidence to support the position of Y".
With that said, regardless of the outcome(s), I do agree that these studies are helping make people aware of what's in their food. I think that the issue is less in how bad the chemicals are (or how good, or how harmless), and more about how serpentine and complicated our food chain has become.