From the responses I've seen so far, my reflection is as follows:<p>You can moderate your behavior to reasonably mitigate the possible risks of certain substances as much as you feel is prudent give the relative certainty and severity of the risks;<p>Or you can develop an ill-informed, hyperbolic, almost knee-jerk reaction to the risks and cast aspersions toward the people who shrug and either suggest all things in moderation, or suggest the risks aren't <i>that</i> high. It is not obvious to me that these people are either irresponsible or brain-damaged. It is just as possible they performed a rational risk assessment and arrived at a different conclusion. It's something to be discussed, not to be worked up into a religious fervor over.<p>For example, from the comments herein, diet colas do not promote tooth decay, nor do they promote diabetes. In fact, they are considered safe for diabetic people to drink. They contain no sucrose, nor any HFCS. They contain aspartame, an alternative sweetener with entirely different properties. They contain carbonated water, but as I cited elsewhere, carbonated water is not <i>that</i> conducive to tooth decay.<p>The study isn't even conclusive yet, and the article hedges this by saying it <i>can</i> cause muscle weakness, not that it <i>will</i>. The article mentions two people, and declare that the results can be generalized, because the investigators believe they can. They present this along with some scary statistics to assure us that, if the results can be generalized, we're all in peril.<p>2-3 liters sounds like a lot, but it is only because we've assumed <i>a priori</i> the certain risk of ingesting these substances, and declare the only proper amount for assuring ones health is 0 liters per day, with no variance. If the average were half that, aspersions would likely still be cast.<p>Can we please be more reasonable about this?