3 ms·

Citation needed. On cato.org, I can find articles arguing against retroactive liability for lead paint manufacturers (since what they did was considered safe at

Citation needed. On cato.org, I can find articles arguing against retroactive liability for lead paint manufacturers (since what they did was considered safe at the time they did it), and articles arguing that the 1970s introduction of unleaded gas was handled poorly and did not reduce lead exposure quickly enough after the problems were recognized. Can you point me to anything from Cato Institute that questions in any way the toxicity of lead? Your phrase "toxicity of lead is actually a longstanding political argument" and you associate this with libertarianism. Please support or retract this claim.

DanBC 11y ago
Here's one: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/analysis-run-amok http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/analysis-run-amo... > However, research findings that remain controversial except in federal agencies suggest that very low lead levels can decrease children’s IQs. The FDA therefore estimates that 10 percent of all children aged 3 to 6 have “elevated” lead levels (even though exposure has dropped to a 50-year low). > In other words, anything above zero exposure is assumed to cause measurable lifetime damage, despite the lack of evidence.
ezy 11y ago
You aren't in a position to demand anything. And, admit it -- you didn't look that hard. In fact, your research was so weak, that you failed to point out additional Cato-published opinions re:lead -- literally in the top google search results for the appropriate terms. Failing to do research when being critical is not anyone else's problem but your own. If you want to apply your skepticism correctly, the point is to test your own beliefs, not ask everyone else to test theirs. Not just reading from the sources that make you comfortable or attacking easy marks, but reading sources you disagree with, with a generous attitude and thinking about the hard questions related to those. A lot of the time, you'll find you are correct! And then when someone says something you know is incorrect, you'll actually have something to say, rather than asking them to say it for you. Otherwise, one should not be happy with following a fixed ideology, and you should be happy when people point out flaws -- as no one is happy with a clock that is correct only half the time.

DanBC 11y ago

Here's one: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/analysis-run-amok http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/analysis-run-amo... > However, research findings that remain controversial except in federal agencies suggest that very low lead levels can decrease children’s IQs. The FDA therefore estimates that 10 percent of all children aged 3 to 6 have “elevated” lead levels (even though exposure has dropped to a 50-year low). > In other words, anything above zero exposure is assumed to cause measurable lifetime damage, despite the lack of evidence.

ezy 11y ago

You aren't in a position to demand anything. And, admit it -- you didn't look that hard. In fact, your research was so weak, that you failed to point out additional Cato-published opinions re:lead -- literally in the top google search results for the appropriate terms. Failing to do research when being critical is not anyone else's problem but your own. If you want to apply your skepticism correctly, the point is to test your own beliefs, not ask everyone else to test theirs. Not just reading from the sources that make you comfortable or attacking easy marks, but reading sources you disagree with, with a generous attitude and thinking about the hard questions related to those. A lot of the time, you'll find you are correct! And then when someone says something you know is incorrect, you'll actually have something to say, rather than asking them to say it for you. Otherwise, one should not be happy with following a fixed ideology, and you should be happy when people point out flaws -- as no one is happy with a clock that is correct only half the time.