We knew it was dangerous because science said so. Now, science says otherwise.

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

We knew it was dangerous because science said so. Now, science says otherwise.

Written By : TrogloPundit

It was dangerous. Now it isn’t. Thanks, science, for clearing that up.

Saccharin was first listed as a hazardous waste in 1980 after studies in rats showed the sweetener caused higher rates of bladder cancer. The EPA subsequently determined it to be a “potential human carcinogen”. Yet two decades later, the National Toxicology Program and International Agency for Research on Cancer reversed that classification after scientists failed to link saccharin consumption to cancer in humans.

Saccharin was removed from their listings of hazardous substances. The EPA has now followed suit…

Saccharin doesn’t quite fall into the same “scare” category as acid rain, the ozone layer, global warming, shark attacks, etc. But this is another in a long list of examples of a scientific conclusion – and possible (probable) overreaction to that conclusion – that turns out to be…wrong, or at least not nearly as bad as we thought.

I am surely not the first person to notice how the liberal view of science differs from the liberal view of the Constitution. The Constitution is “a living, breathing document,” that has to be interpreted in the context of today. The Founding Fathers’ intent isn’t as important as what we want it to mean today.

One could make the same statement about the Bible. Not the Koran, perhaps, but the Bible.

But science…science is sacrosanct. Untouchable. The Word, but with proof! Didn’t you read the study? It’s scientific fact!

Or, well, it was. Sorry about that, all you malaria victims. Some actress asked us “what are we doing to our children?” and we kind of…well, you know. And those of you who were viciously attacked (verbally, that is) for your opposition to government action in the face of scientific fact…well, no, you won’t receive an apology. And yes, you’d better damn well roll over the next time we’ve got scientific fact on our side.

The words in the Constitution – malleable. The Word of God – subject to interpretation.

Saccharin was dangerous. Now it’s not. But don’t get in the way of the next scare, you child-hating flat-earther.

The TrogloPundit

Sweet Thang

This actually began happening in early 20 hundreds. And the reason for it is that aspertame/equal/the blue stuff is MUCH more dangerous to humans than saccharine could ever hope to be.
Calypso Jones

I never believed the hype in the first place. Saccharin has been around a long time and a lot longer than ‘the blue stuff’. Same with aspirin. In the late seventies, the obstetricians’ nurses were ordering patients not to use aspirin but to switch to tylenol. Fifteen/twenty years later we learn the dangers of tylenol. They change their minds every fifteen years to remain relevant to themselves.
Gayunemployedmexican

I thought conservatives also believed the Constitution is a living document. How else do you explain McDonald v Chicago and applying the 2nd Amendment against the states for the first time in history?

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

You’re just never gonna give that idiotic fiction up are you? One last time: courts do not define reality. People have been doing lots of things for a long time that courts do not official recognize or admit to. When the courts start to, that doesn’t suddenly make it happen.

You guys on the left just kill me, you think courts are the god emperors of the world. Until they make a decision you dislike, that is.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

You’re just never gonna give that idiotic fiction up are you? One last time: courts do not define reality. People have been doing lots of things for a long time that courts do not official recognize or admit to. When the courts start to, that doesn’t suddenly make it happen.

You guys on the left just kill me, you think courts are the god emperors of the world. Until they make a decision you dislike, that is.

Gayunemployedmexican

They are the god emperors of what the Constitution states, that was the entire point of Marbury v Madison.

And what fiction might I be talking about? The fiction that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states? Oh wait, that’s not a fiction, the 7th Amendment still doesn’t apply against the states.

The 2nd Amendment was routinely limited historically by the states in ways that would be unconstitutional if the federal government did it. That was the entire point of Presser and other decisions.
Gayunemployedmexican

They are the god emperors of what the Constitution states, that was the entire point of Marbury v Madison.

And what fiction might I be talking about? The fiction that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states? Oh wait, that’s not a fiction, the 7th Amendment still doesn’t apply against the states.

The 2nd Amendment was routinely limited historically by the states in ways that would be unconstitutional if the federal government did it. That was the entire point of Presser and other decisions.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

So what you’re saying is that courts decided they are the all powerful judges of what’s constitutional? That makes sense. Hey, look I just ruled that I’m the all powerful judge of what’s tasty and what’s not, you can’t disagree because now I define reality of tastiness!

Courts ruled incorrectly in the past, and you’re holding those false rulings up as the way things are supposed to be. Maybe you should step back from this whole law thing and get a bit of perspective.

Gayunemployedmexican

Regardless of whether you think their ruling is correct, at the time of their ruling, their ruling is law. It is the job of the Supreme Court to say what the Constitution means, you can disagree with them but that doesn’t mean their ruling isn’t law. It is no different than if you disagree with a bill passed by Congress, no matter what it is still law.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

So what you’re saying is that courts decided they are the all powerful judges of what’s constitutional? That makes sense. Hey, look I just ruled that I’m the all powerful judge of what’s tasty and what’s not, you can’t disagree because now I define reality of tastiness!

Courts ruled incorrectly in the past, and you’re holding those false rulings up as the way things are supposed to be. Maybe you should step back from this whole law thing and get a bit of perspective.

http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/ELCWV5ANDUEJ5D5PB35FL2LZ6Y Bildo

Still beating that dead horse, huh?
http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/OZBTYQK5MN5SKP6FA6KK4TJOQ4 MichaelAlan

If you are in school full time you are not unemployed, you are a student. CHANGE YOUR NAME!
Anonymous

Flagged for threadjacking. Hawkins, how about making this individual change his user name, as he is neither gay, unemployed, or mexican by his own admission and his user name is highly offensive.

Gayunemployedmexican

Why is the username offensive? Who am I offending? You really need to learn how to take a joke, the entire point is that some liberals mischaracterize conservatives as hating gays, the unemployed and mexicans.
Gayunemployedmexican

Why is the username offensive? Who am I offending? You really need to learn how to take a joke, the entire point is that some liberals mischaracterize conservatives as hating gays, the unemployed and mexicans.

Toastrider

So you don’t like the 2nd Amendment?

Guess that makes you a proponent of rape and murder.

Gayunemployedmexican

What did I say that would indicate that I don’t like the 2nd Amendment? I just said the Constitution is a living document, even according to conservatives.

And if you want to be hyperbolic then if you favor guns you favor children shooting themselves. Are you done being absurd?

Anonymous

Flagged for threadjacking.
Anonymous

Flagged for threadjacking.
AF_Vet

“I just said the Constitution is a living document, even according to conservatives.”

This is the sign of an extremely intellect. If you can’t win an argument, then assign motives and beliefs to the other side that you can ‘defeat.’

Idiot.

AF_Vet

“extremely ‘weak’ intellect,” that is.

Kinda like not previewing before hitting ‘submit.’
AF_Vet

“extremely ‘weak’ intellect,” that is.

Kinda like not previewing before hitting ‘submit.’
Gayunemployedmexican

I do just fine winning arguments. You are the one who has gone to insults rather than argue on the merits. Explain to me how endorsing incorporation and substantive due process isn’t endorsing a living constitution. The founders never intended the BOR to apply against the states.

Without using judicial activism to explain it, I don’t know how you take the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and say that the clause somehow goes beyond protecting process and protects actual outcomes.

Saying the 14th Amendment applies the 2nd Amendment against the States takes a good deal of judicial activism and interpreting the Constitution as a living document.

So unless you have an intelligent counterargument why don’t you just sit in a corner and keep the insults to yourself?
freeman

Explain to me how endorsing incorporation and substantive due process isn’t endorsing a living constitution. The founders never intended the BOR to apply against the states.

They never intended for the Supreme Court to have the power to decide what is constitutional either.

And what does this have to do with fake sugar?
Gayunemployedmexican

Freeman, John Marshall disagrees. Feel free to disagree but give some evidence
freeman

Freeman, John Marshall disagrees. Feel free to disagree but give some evidence

The Judicial section of the Constitution is only 4 paragraphs long. You are the wannabe lawyer, show me the sentence that gives the Court the right to decide what is constitutional.

Thomas Jefferson said it best, “The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please.”

The fact that the Supreme Court has said that the 14th amendment both allows and prohibits segregation has proven him right.

And you still haven’t said what any of this has to do with fake sugar.
Gayunemployedmexican

I do just fine winning arguments. You are the one who has gone to insults rather than argue on the merits. Explain to me how endorsing incorporation and substantive due process isn’t endorsing a living constitution. The founders never intended the BOR to apply against the states.

Without using judicial activism to explain it, I don’t know how you take the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and say that the clause somehow goes beyond protecting process and protects actual outcomes.

Saying the 14th Amendment applies the 2nd Amendment against the States takes a good deal of judicial activism and interpreting the Constitution as a living document.

So unless you have an intelligent counterargument why don’t you just sit in a corner and keep the insults to yourself?

AF_Vet

“I just said the Constitution is a living document, even according to conservatives.”

This is the sign of an extremely intellect. If you can’t win an argument, then assign motives and beliefs to the other side that you can ‘defeat.’

Idiot.

Toastrider

So you don’t like the 2nd Amendment?

Guess that makes you a proponent of rape and murder.
AF_Vet

“I thought conservatives also believed the Constitution is a living document.”

Well, you thought wrong, didn’t you?

And leave that chicken alone, freak.
AF_Vet

“I thought conservatives also believed the Constitution is a living document.”

Well, you thought wrong, didn’t you?

And leave that chicken alone, freak.

Gayunemployedmexican

Actually I didn’t think wrong. Where in the 14th Amendment does it say that it incorporates the Bill of Rights against the States? The Bill of Rights was not incorporated for over a hundred years, the second amendment for over 200 now all of a sudden the conservatives incorporate it in direct contradiction of the intent of the framers and the First Congress.

The fiction of substantive due process is also massive judicial activism. At least Thomas wanted to return to the PI clause but the rest of them are big judicial activists.

Anonymous

For these sorts of things I’d much rather we have some sort of grading scale.

Maybe label the back of any product with a 1-5 based on the toxicity of the most dangerous ingredient. So bottled water can be a 1 etc etc up to cigarettes and booze being a 5.

Still ban things that are outright poisons. But the ones that fall on the ‘meh, they might kill rats if that’s all they eat for a month’ can be given a warning label but not banned.

Let the consumers make up their own minds. The sensible folks won’t overreact and will be able to enjoy a wider variety of foods and drugs. Those who naturally panic can plan their shopping accordingly and leave everyone else alone. Win-win.

Interesting factoid: the LD50 for aspirin is lower than that of coumarin a potent rodenticide (meaning it would take less apsirin to kill you than an accepted rat poison). Likewise table salt can kill you in smaller doses than melamine.

Toastrider

Kind of like MSDS data sheets, Smith?

Anonymous

Basically but a dumbed down version and on foods rather than pure chemicals.

Wouldn’t need to mention flammability or radioactivity or anything. Just give the consumer some reasonable idea of the threat level present (obviously if it requires special equipment just to handle it shouldn’t be served as food).

And if they want to look in to it further they can easily find the full MSDS online.

http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

For me, this story highlights that the pace of modern life has outstripped the capacity of the scientific method to keep up. I don’t think many would argue with my observation that the pace of life in 2010 is significantly faster than it was in 1980, which in turn was significantly faster than 1950. Thanks to always-on instant communications, and access to geometrically escalating volumes of knowledge, people of today want immediate results – they want an answer now, dammit. Hell, most people today get antsy if a text inquiry they sent a friend isn’t responded to in 5 minutes.

But the pokey old scientific method relies on seemingly endless iterations of experimental designs which slowly poke and prod hypotheses into theories, theories into facts, facts into laws. But all that takes time, plus an important feature of the process is that earlier results become grist for the mill in later analyses – meaning that the scientific method is best characterised as an evolving work in progress – and the progress is far from smooth and linear – it’s a herky-jerky stop-start series of individual findings which need to be amalgamated and incorporated in order to produce meaningful conclusions.

The pace problem is compounded by two other problems: an understanding problem and a politics problem. The understanding problem is found at what I’ll call the news producer level and the news consumer level. Too many of our journalists, bloggers, and media-types, ever eager to scoop their peers, fail to comprehend that one experimental result is just a stepping stone on the path to understanding. It takes a preponderance of evidence gathered from many experimental results to form a clear picture of the actual science at work. But how many times have you read/heard breathless reports that “X” is absolutely true because of “Y” experiment and that’s the end of story? So the news producers get it wrong much of the time, and then to make matters worse, most news consumers don’t know enough about science and the scientific method to question what they read/hear. So confusion reigns.

The politics problem is really a money/power problem, and though it’s been around a good long while, as corporate interests and governments have upped the ante on the amount of research monies available over the past 50 years, the intrusion of politics in the outcome of scientific research has been inevitable. My very first research project in 1968 was a study which linked the outcome (for or against) of drugs (specifically LSD) research projects to the political stance of the funding body. The correlation wasn’t a perfect 1.00, but it was in the .95 range. My conclusion was that people with money and power get told what they want to hear by those dependent on them for their own money and power.
Erin

The courts do not make law. The simply interpret the law. Congress makes the law. For the courts to MAKE the law, which many try to do, is ironcally, unconstitutional.

Gayunemployedmexican

I said it was their job to decide what the law is, what it says. But anyway, they make law all the time, or rely on previously made judge made law.

http://merchant.auctivacommerce.com/s16220/Ohio-State-Buckeyes-27-Eddie-George-Jersey-Red-NCAA-Jersey-P1593600.aspx Eddie George Jersey

nice blog, very . I like it very much. I come acoss this site by baidu search engine. I could read your site weekly and forward it to my classmates. Please keep it fresh. Keep on the good work. – A friend from abroad
http://merchant.auctivacommerce.com/s16220/Chicago-Blackhawks-Jersey-2-Duncan-Keith-Third-Jersey-NHL-Jersey-P1549235.aspx Duncan Keith Jersey

nice site, very interesting. I like it very much. I come acoss this site by MSN search engine. I will visit your site oftenly and share it to my classmates. Please keep it fresh. Keep on the good work. – A football fun

Who Is Brett Kimberlin?

Premium Right Ads

Blogads Right

Previous Features

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”

Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth

Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers

The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation

The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans

Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders

User Info

Users Online

Features

Archives Best of RWN Humor John Hawkins Interviews Quotes Special to RWN