Truth Media: Plastic

I remember when it became common to see people walking around with plastic water bottles in the mid 1990’s. I didn’t understand it, there was a water bubbler every ten fucking metres, however it appeared carrying plastic water bottles around had become fashionable (so of course I missed that memo). This, on top of our love of covering all types of foods in plastic, meant virtually nobody could avoid being exposed to this petroleum derivative in some form or another.

Human nature.

We are drinking from it, eating out of it, covering our food in it and plastic is the basis for most of the sex toys we use as well. We are simply the worst as a species so obviously it was only later we stopped and asked ourselves, is this healthy for me? And then much later, is it healthy for our babies and children?

This Truth media exposé will put to bed the myths, isolate the dangers and put you in an informed position to make healthy decisions for you and your family. Unlike earlier Truth Media articles there wasn’t sufficient time to research appropriate source material or include links to peer reviewed studies on the subject. I did however briefly scan a Choice article, something from the Dailymail and also got some really good information from the person sitting beside me who knows all sorts of stuff sourced entirely from Facebook. So ‘informed’ may be a poor choice of words but at least this won’t be long.

Becky aint going to be

happy about this.

The answer as to whether plastic has any negative health related consequences on humans is a categorical “No”. But in some circumstances, “Yes”, but far less categorically. Also that “Yes” is sort of trailed off, the person raises an eyebrow, shrugs and follows up with, “Under certain conditions and depending on a lot of circumstances”. Both the Dailymail and Choice agreed that plastic likely isn’t the issue, it’s the additives used in construction of certain types of plastics that are the concern. The sole voice of dissent was my Facebook using colleague as her niece, Becky, had posted a picture about plastic being deadly.

Now that is pretty fucked up in my opinion and obviously Becky isn’t happy with the situation either. But without a Chemistry Degree (or a Degree in Applied Science which, despite assertions to the contrary, isn’t the equivalent of a Bachelor of Arts) how would the common man or lady on the street know the difference between plastics? It’s not like they are named or anything.

Applied Scientist.

Sciencing.

Well, yes, they are named. Choice even has put together a table that separates out the respective plastic groups. However, it is really long and a deep into the article so anyone would be forgiven for not getting that far. On the other hand, Dailymail had a far more succinct commentary and then put up pictures of scantily clad people. My colleague, resolute in her stance, just reiterated that it makes you sick. Then like 15 minutes later, when I had almost forgotten having the conversation, told me it also causes cancer. So that isn’t good either. Or probably at all accurate.

So assuming you are a common man or woman on the street, possibly struggling your way through an Applied Science Degree, here are a list of ways you can ensure you live a healthier life in a world of plastic:

• Don’t have children. They take up so much time, vomit on you repeatedly and at some point you will get shit on your hands. In addition, almost everything we do in the world causes them to catch cancer or get sick in some way.

• 

  Thanks, Becky.

  I won't be.

  Before buying something made out of plastic, and assuming you were going to use it in some way connected with food, or connected with sexual gratification, or a combination, make sure you check the label and crosscheck against that Choice table
• When you have finished using plastic, for fuck’s sake do not re-use it. Burn it. The black smoke is a symbolic representation of a healthy cleansing
• Alternatively, just add Becky on Facebook and let her guide you through life

Read More

Truth Media: Aspartame (REDUX)

Further to the initial Truth Media: Aspartame post there was still some concern that I had missed several important studies that would dramatically change my stance on the issue. In short, and after a lot of reading, the answer was I still can’t find a credible study that points in that direction.

Whatever.

You know, I have nothing vested in this. I don’t own shares in any connected entity and I don’t have an opinion one way or the other as to whether the shit causes cancer in humans. I’m also not a scientist and don’t have any medical training whatsoever. Science to me is where some guys in white lab coats ask a question then do lots of terribly inhumane things to rats to see what the answer is. Then other people in lab coats look at the study and if it follows whatever rules these people have they give it an approval. I imagine they have a red stamp that says “Totally-Fucking-Science” which they slam down on the study while giving their pet lab chimp devil-fingas.

I haven’t been able to track any specific study that demonises aspartame apart from the Ramazzini Foundation one and this is a problem for me. That study sure looks sciency but my issue is that while it was reviewed and published by EHP it was reviewed and discarded by the FDA. So we come down to bias and trust. At this point I’m willing to admit that everything is biased to some extent. I’m definitely willing to admit that I am biased to trust some crusty old person who makes judgements from a position of experience and intellect over some idealistic Health Ranger who makes judgements based on the will of the earth mother.

My point is that the support and advocacy for the Ramazzini Foundation study is from those in the natural/alternate/environmental side of science. The FDA (a bunch of crusty old person science) disregarded the study because the underlying data didn’t support the conclusion. If the aspartame-UNCLEAN lobby was to produce a similar group of crusty old person science and gave the study the thumbs up, now I would see two competing credible and trustworthy sources of information. But they don’t. We have Betty Martini who may or may not be a doctor slobbering all over it with stupid.

Credible.

In a deadlocked situation of equally trustworthy sources competing for my belief, I’d be hard pressed to choose. I suppose, like horse racing, I’d have to choose the group with a logo that is the most pleasing shade of blue. Or if their logo was a snooty French duck. So my answer when presented with the question of whether aspartame causes cancer is not “yes”, or “no”, or even “fuck off I’m eating a hot dog”. It’s “I don’t fucking know, but there are a bunch of people who put the science in scientific and there is another bunch made up of environmental dreamers and idealistic whackjobs”. If you still looked confused about my answer at that point I would say your god damn problem isn’t aspartame.

Read More

Truth Media: Aspartame

It has come to my attention that there is a high level of concern regarding the artificial sweetener aspartame. This concern is believed to have originated following a widely circulated email credited to a “Nancy Markle”. This email demonstrated three key points: 

1. People are idiots and will believe anything at face value without any supporting information;
2. The internet makes people stupid; and
3. Fucktardery is not a word, but it should be.

Numerous world food authorities have completed their own studies on the additive and found there to be no causal link between -any- of the claims made in Nancy Markle’s email and in fact no link between aspartame and adverse health conditions at all. Advocates of Ms Markle’s claims believe this can be attributed to a vast conspiracy because this is the internet and why the hell not. Again, fucktardery is not a word.

Furthermore, after a little bit of digging it turns out that Nancy Markle is a pseudonym for the real author, Betty Martini. Ms Martini has her own website (http://www.dorway.com/) which is titled as a ‘Dorway to Discrovery’. Let’s get something straight: Betty Martini is batshit crazy and in the opening article I was treated to a nonsensical diatribe from one of the friends of the site about the evils of sugar. That’s right, Betty doesn’t just hate aspartame, she hates ALL sugar. With a passion. I don’t think I have mentioned how truly crazy this person, her views and her website really are.

My mind is both literally and figuratively BOGGLED that the ravings of sugar lunatic can achieve such a mainstream level, even on the internet. To reiterate again, there is no evidence of any dangers and there is no evidence of a vast conspiracy and cover-up. The belief in this hoax is held together by the collective minds of internet users who would rather jump at shadows than use google to look at grainy pictures of naked celebrities.

Brought to you by the Monsanto Corporation

Read More