12 ms·

I think the standard for using a chemical that never breaks down and exists forever is that you to the best of research ability have shown it to be safe. It's c

by TimPC 3y ago

I think the standard for using a chemical that never breaks down and exists forever is that you to the best of research ability have shown it to be safe. It's crazy that we allowed companies to just make this stuff and we are stuck with it forever. How do you realistically expect to compensate someone who gets some adverse health effect from these chemicals in 2000 years long after the life of whatever company made them? We make it far too easy for companies to create massive negative externalities and it should be harder.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
anonyfox 3y ago
> that we allowed companies to just make Isn’t this the default in America (and more countries, sure)? I prefer the opposite (European) stance the companies have to prove beyond doubt the harmlessness. (Or be strongarmed by the US or Fall to bribery like everywhere else… but at least there is trying)
- gottorf 3y ago
  > the companies have to prove beyond doubt the harmlessness. There must be a reasonable balance struck somewhere. One cannot prove a negative, after all, and if anything new must be proven beyond doubt that it has no short, medium, or long-term effects on human health, you are not going to have anything new, period. Acetaminophen, for example, has been in use for a century and a half, yet we still don't know how it really works[0]. If we don't know how it works, how are we to know that it won't harm us in some insidious way? [0]: https://medicine.tufts.edu/news-events/news/how-does-acetaminophen-work https://medicine.tufts.edu/news-events/news/how-does-acetami...
  - anonyfox 3y ago
    The counter point is that the vast majority of produced stuff is absolute useless garbage no one actually needs, or a gazillion of ripoffs from each other. Consumerism is a plague not only for people but also for the environment. I think we can see a „dry-run“ of some product launch, point out dangerous flaws, and repeat until something actually useful is proposed that is not some profit-extraction tradeoff that makes something else worse. This is rather extreme by intention, the truth probably is somewhere between, but I think most people can’t see how a more regulated system can actually thrive much better than putting people into poverty death loops and destroying the planet in the process.
  - callalex 3y ago
    It sounds to me like the reasonable balance has already been struck in the EU, as Acetaminophen is not banned in the EU.
sparrowInHand 3y ago
Generational guilt. All descendants of shareholders are auto indebted and participate in the guilt of the ancestor.
- ch4s3 3y ago
  So like anyone with a pension, 401k or index fund? Everyone in a nation with a sovereign wealth fund?
loeg 3y ago
Your premise is flawed -- these chemicals can of course be broken down. It may or may not happen in nature and may or may not be economical (yet), but there's nothing magic here. Your prescribed solution is also flawed. It is impossible to prove a negative, so you are arguing we should stop inventing new things. These kinds of (Neo-)Luddist arguments always fail to take into account the huge upside of materials science over the past 100 years.
- brutusborn 3y ago
  Just because we can’t prove a negative doesn’t mean safety testing is pointless. Doing a couple animal studies to check for obvious problems is likely better than pure anarchism.
  - loeg 3y ago
    GP appears to be calling for a total ban on use of new substances. For example, we've studied PFAS extensively (not "pure anarchism") and still do not have convincing evidence of harm, yet commentators in this thread and others repeatedly argue for PFAS bans.
    - brutusborn 3y ago
      The critical point is whether we studied PFAS _before_ it was used extensively. I may be wrong but to my knowledge of historical chemical production is that we generally use a chemical for a long time before we do extensive research into safety. PFAS is kind of unique because it is politicised: there are lots of groups who claim harm and therefore don’t want to look at the science skeptically. And if harm actually exists, governments want to reduce liability so are happy to ignore any signs of harm before a cheap solution becomes available.
- DonaldPShimoda 3y ago
  Their argument isn't "neo-luddist". > these chemicals can of course be broken down The parent comment didn't claim they couldn't be broken down, but that they "never [break] down". The (obvious) intended meaning is that the chemicals will not break down with regular use or normal exposure to common environments. > It is impossible to prove a negative, so you are arguing we should stop inventing new things. This is such a disingenuous line of reasoning that I almost wondered if you were intending to be comedic. The parent comment was clearly advocating for policies that require companies to actually put forth effort to demonstrate safety over time. The longer a compound is expected to remain intact under regular conditions, the greater the guarantee of safety demanded. What you are advocating for is essentially what we already have: companies should not need to go to great efforts to demonstrate long-term safety because "innovation" and "progress", though of course when the companies say this they really mean "profit". It is unclear what stake you have in advocating for such a position, but a good argument it is not.

by TimPC 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

anonyfox 3y ago

> that we allowed companies to just make Isn’t this the default in America (and more countries, sure)? I prefer the opposite (European) stance the companies have to prove beyond doubt the harmlessness. (Or be strongarmed by the US or Fall to bribery like everywhere else… but at least there is trying)

gottorf 3y ago
> the companies have to prove beyond doubt the harmlessness. There must be a reasonable balance struck somewhere. One cannot prove a negative, after all, and if anything new must be proven beyond doubt that it has no short, medium, or long-term effects on human health, you are not going to have anything new, period. Acetaminophen, for example, has been in use for a century and a half, yet we still don't know how it really works[0]. If we don't know how it works, how are we to know that it won't harm us in some insidious way? [0]: https://medicine.tufts.edu/news-events/news/how-does-acetaminophen-work https://medicine.tufts.edu/news-events/news/how-does-acetami...
- anonyfox 3y ago
  The counter point is that the vast majority of produced stuff is absolute useless garbage no one actually needs, or a gazillion of ripoffs from each other. Consumerism is a plague not only for people but also for the environment. I think we can see a „dry-run“ of some product launch, point out dangerous flaws, and repeat until something actually useful is proposed that is not some profit-extraction tradeoff that makes something else worse. This is rather extreme by intention, the truth probably is somewhere between, but I think most people can’t see how a more regulated system can actually thrive much better than putting people into poverty death loops and destroying the planet in the process.
- callalex 3y ago
  It sounds to me like the reasonable balance has already been struck in the EU, as Acetaminophen is not banned in the EU.

sparrowInHand 3y ago

Generational guilt. All descendants of shareholders are auto indebted and participate in the guilt of the ancestor.

ch4s3 3y ago
So like anyone with a pension, 401k or index fund? Everyone in a nation with a sovereign wealth fund?

loeg 3y ago

Your premise is flawed -- these chemicals can of course be broken down. It may or may not happen in nature and may or may not be economical (yet), but there's nothing magic here. Your prescribed solution is also flawed. It is impossible to prove a negative, so you are arguing we should stop inventing new things. These kinds of (Neo-)Luddist arguments always fail to take into account the huge upside of materials science over the past 100 years.

brutusborn 3y ago
Just because we can’t prove a negative doesn’t mean safety testing is pointless. Doing a couple animal studies to check for obvious problems is likely better than pure anarchism.
- loeg 3y ago
  GP appears to be calling for a total ban on use of new substances. For example, we've studied PFAS extensively (not "pure anarchism") and still do not have convincing evidence of harm, yet commentators in this thread and others repeatedly argue for PFAS bans.
  - brutusborn 3y ago
    The critical point is whether we studied PFAS _before_ it was used extensively. I may be wrong but to my knowledge of historical chemical production is that we generally use a chemical for a long time before we do extensive research into safety. PFAS is kind of unique because it is politicised: there are lots of groups who claim harm and therefore don’t want to look at the science skeptically. And if harm actually exists, governments want to reduce liability so are happy to ignore any signs of harm before a cheap solution becomes available.
DonaldPShimoda 3y ago
Their argument isn't "neo-luddist". > these chemicals can of course be broken down The parent comment didn't claim they couldn't be broken down, but that they "never [break] down". The (obvious) intended meaning is that the chemicals will not break down with regular use or normal exposure to common environments. > It is impossible to prove a negative, so you are arguing we should stop inventing new things. This is such a disingenuous line of reasoning that I almost wondered if you were intending to be comedic. The parent comment was clearly advocating for policies that require companies to actually put forth effort to demonstrate safety over time. The longer a compound is expected to remain intact under regular conditions, the greater the guarantee of safety demanded. What you are advocating for is essentially what we already have: companies should not need to go to great efforts to demonstrate long-term safety because "innovation" and "progress", though of course when the companies say this they really mean "profit". It is unclear what stake you have in advocating for such a position, but a good argument it is not.