5 ms·

Although surely not serious, lots of naivete here. This assumes everyone values personal health over financial health. This prevents anyone from wanting to get

Although surely not serious, lots of naivete here. This assumes everyone values personal health over financial health. This prevents anyone from wanting to get elected to fix an existing problem. This places guilt even on the innocent if they are subjected to upstream or state-level pollution. On and on and on. You either have a problem with existing laws not being enforced or there not being laws to enforce concerning the issue. This happens in many other areas of concern too. It's going to require a citizenry that cares, though PR stunts always feel good on paper.

rsync 8y ago
"Although surely not serious ..." Not your parent but I took it seriously and I think "skin in the game" structures like this should be taken very seriously - they are likely the best mechanisms for aligning interests. "This assumes everyone values personal health over financial health." Very easy to solve this one - the elected official doesn't eat the fish and drink the water, their children do. "This prevents anyone from wanting to get elected to fix an existing problem." This is a good and important point - you would scare away potential candidates for office if existing systems are already broken/unsafe. I don't know how to arrange a neat solution to this.
- resters 8y ago
  Very well put. Newly elected officials could be given a six month grace period to get any remediation efforts underway before their first tasting. Incumbents would not be eligible for a grace period. One other point to add to rsync's comment: One other point to mention is that rational choices cannot be made about things like pollution when measurement methods can be fudged and the health effects of specific pollutants are not necessarily well studied. Bottom line, putting it in one's own body is the best way to determine whether a sensible person would feel comfortable with the environmental exposure being forced upon citizens due to lax or imperfect regulation, or even imperfect science. Do I want to drink this discolored, foul smelling water just because it does not test positive for known carcinogens? Common sense is actually a surprisingly helpful guide here. All that would happen is that regulations would begin to be enforced or modified to match the improved perception of reality informed by the tasting. Think about it this way, climate change is a fairly abstract concept that is much easier to ignore than the fish dinner sitting in front of you that was caught in water your administration declared safe.
  - woolvalley 8y ago
    Thats not really fair if you have a superfund lake from the 1950s that nobody uses water from, eats fish in it or has the budget to fix. And is in the middle of nowhere at some desert.
    - resters 8y ago
      The notion of an appropriate budget to fix these kinds of things usually omits the full cost of neglect. The article linked above describes a massive plume of cancer-causing pollution spreading through underground waterways. All we need to do to find and justify the budget is accurately quantify the human cost.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- icebraining 8y ago
  Joke's on you, I'm childless.
- avar 8y ago
  > Very easy to solve this one - the elected official doesn't eat the fish and drink the water, their children do. Are you trying to setup some breeding program for building a better psychopath? :) "Here's this high-status high-paying job, that people with a sense of ethics aren't taking because of the Flint-like water that can't be fixed on budget in any reasonable amount of time. No problem, just adopt a few orphans, score political brownie points in the process by seeming caring, and have them drink all the pollution!"
- graphememes 8y ago
  I wonder what would happen should private schools be forced to use the same food that public schools have.
- UnFleshedOne 8y ago
  This is easy to fix for motivated parties though. Imagine that pro wrestling circus but with fish and water and better staged.
- geomark 8y ago
  ""This assumes everyone values personal health over financial health." Very easy to solve this one - the elected official doesn't eat the fish and drink the water, their children do." Even that doesn't seem to work in a very large number of cases. Look at how many people choose to locate their families in polluted cities for the financial benefits when the deleterious effects on health are so well studied and documented. There's just not enough immediacy of the effects of breathing polluted air or eating a fish contaminated with carcinogens.
bobbygoodlatte 8y ago
More people value personal health over financial health than would admit in a survey. They just often don't realize it until they've lost their health.
- sooheon 8y ago
  Case in point: people pay for health services.
wonderwonder 8y ago
The root of the problem is that many value their financial health over the personal health of others. I would argue that no government office should be able to have water filters, bottled water or 5 gallon jugs etc. Obviously individual employees are free to bring in whatever they want to work but the office should only provide the same tap water used by citizens. Any company whether private or partially county/municipality owned such as power plants that gets a license to dump into nearby bodies of water should be forced to follow the same rules. I personally find it unlikely that flint would not have happened if local and state level officials had been forced to drink the water. The outbreak of legionaries disease after the fact was especially egregious. I live in a decent middle class suburb and still pay $100 per month to have spring water delivered because known carcinogens have been found in the water supply for years now. I spoke to the city commissionaire about it and his brief response was well they keep raising the requirements so its not really his fault. They have been out of compliance for at least the 4+ years I have been here, likely far longer. What are the consequences for the families that cannot afford $100 per month extra or don't take the time to read the water reports?
- mobilefriendly 8y ago
  You're probably getting other exposures like BPA from the plastic water bottles.
  - wonderwonder 8y ago
    BPA free, but you are right in that I am probably getting something from the plastics.
    - wool_gather 8y ago
      FYI, the replacement for BPA might not be any better. One writeup: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bpa-free-plastic-containers-may-be-just-as-hazardous/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bpa-free-plastic-...
resters 8y ago
> This happens in many other areas of concern too. Yes, elected officials should also be required to spend 24 consecutive hours each month in the inmate population of the local jail, prison, etc. to ensure that it offers safe and humane conditions.
- wonderwonder 8y ago
  I would support this. The fact that the government can seize you, force you to live among people who are known to be violent and then not take responsibility when someone is assaulted or killed is insane. Criminal or not, if your person is under government control, your safety and health should be absolutely guaranteed. On a side note the concept of private prisons is also insane. That a private company can hold you for profit is not right.
- vkou 8y ago
  Not just elected officials, I'll also include in police officers, judges, juries, and, really, pretty much all members of the public in the list of people who would greatly benefit from such an experience.
  - justtopost 8y ago
    I see a clear pattern here, and it is the loss of once common coming-of-age ritual. You might add other modern suggestions in that spirit: No Meat until you slaughter an animal yourself. No pepper spray unless you try it yourself. Spend a week living in the 'retirement community' before dumping those you claim to love there. Etc. Basically dogfooding as gatekeeping.
- Johnny555 8y ago
  I'd be happy if they were just forced to use public transit for all transportation 3 days a month.
  - obulpathi 8y ago
    Wow! For country like India, this can solve traffic problem.

rsync 8y ago

"Although surely not serious ..." Not your parent but I took it seriously and I think "skin in the game" structures like this should be taken very seriously - they are likely the best mechanisms for aligning interests. "This assumes everyone values personal health over financial health." Very easy to solve this one - the elected official doesn't eat the fish and drink the water, their children do. "This prevents anyone from wanting to get elected to fix an existing problem." This is a good and important point - you would scare away potential candidates for office if existing systems are already broken/unsafe. I don't know how to arrange a neat solution to this.

resters 8y ago
Very well put. Newly elected officials could be given a six month grace period to get any remediation efforts underway before their first tasting. Incumbents would not be eligible for a grace period. One other point to add to rsync's comment: One other point to mention is that rational choices cannot be made about things like pollution when measurement methods can be fudged and the health effects of specific pollutants are not necessarily well studied. Bottom line, putting it in one's own body is the best way to determine whether a sensible person would feel comfortable with the environmental exposure being forced upon citizens due to lax or imperfect regulation, or even imperfect science. Do I want to drink this discolored, foul smelling water just because it does not test positive for known carcinogens? Common sense is actually a surprisingly helpful guide here. All that would happen is that regulations would begin to be enforced or modified to match the improved perception of reality informed by the tasting. Think about it this way, climate change is a fairly abstract concept that is much easier to ignore than the fish dinner sitting in front of you that was caught in water your administration declared safe.
- woolvalley 8y ago
  Thats not really fair if you have a superfund lake from the 1950s that nobody uses water from, eats fish in it or has the budget to fix. And is in the middle of nowhere at some desert.
  - resters 8y ago
    The notion of an appropriate budget to fix these kinds of things usually omits the full cost of neglect. The article linked above describes a massive plume of cancer-causing pollution spreading through underground waterways. All we need to do to find and justify the budget is accurately quantify the human cost.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
icebraining 8y ago
Joke's on you, I'm childless.
avar 8y ago
> Very easy to solve this one - the elected official doesn't eat the fish and drink the water, their children do. Are you trying to setup some breeding program for building a better psychopath? :) "Here's this high-status high-paying job, that people with a sense of ethics aren't taking because of the Flint-like water that can't be fixed on budget in any reasonable amount of time. No problem, just adopt a few orphans, score political brownie points in the process by seeming caring, and have them drink all the pollution!"
graphememes 8y ago
I wonder what would happen should private schools be forced to use the same food that public schools have.
UnFleshedOne 8y ago
This is easy to fix for motivated parties though. Imagine that pro wrestling circus but with fish and water and better staged.
geomark 8y ago
""This assumes everyone values personal health over financial health." Very easy to solve this one - the elected official doesn't eat the fish and drink the water, their children do." Even that doesn't seem to work in a very large number of cases. Look at how many people choose to locate their families in polluted cities for the financial benefits when the deleterious effects on health are so well studied and documented. There's just not enough immediacy of the effects of breathing polluted air or eating a fish contaminated with carcinogens.

bobbygoodlatte 8y ago

More people value personal health over financial health than would admit in a survey. They just often don't realize it until they've lost their health.

sooheon 8y ago
Case in point: people pay for health services.

wonderwonder 8y ago

The root of the problem is that many value their financial health over the personal health of others. I would argue that no government office should be able to have water filters, bottled water or 5 gallon jugs etc. Obviously individual employees are free to bring in whatever they want to work but the office should only provide the same tap water used by citizens. Any company whether private or partially county/municipality owned such as power plants that gets a license to dump into nearby bodies of water should be forced to follow the same rules. I personally find it unlikely that flint would not have happened if local and state level officials had been forced to drink the water. The outbreak of legionaries disease after the fact was especially egregious. I live in a decent middle class suburb and still pay $100 per month to have spring water delivered because known carcinogens have been found in the water supply for years now. I spoke to the city commissionaire about it and his brief response was well they keep raising the requirements so its not really his fault. They have been out of compliance for at least the 4+ years I have been here, likely far longer. What are the consequences for the families that cannot afford $100 per month extra or don't take the time to read the water reports?

mobilefriendly 8y ago
You're probably getting other exposures like BPA from the plastic water bottles.
- wonderwonder 8y ago
  BPA free, but you are right in that I am probably getting something from the plastics.
  - wool_gather 8y ago
    FYI, the replacement for BPA might not be any better. One writeup: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bpa-free-plastic-containers-may-be-just-as-hazardous/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bpa-free-plastic-...

resters 8y ago

> This happens in many other areas of concern too. Yes, elected officials should also be required to spend 24 consecutive hours each month in the inmate population of the local jail, prison, etc. to ensure that it offers safe and humane conditions.

wonderwonder 8y ago
I would support this. The fact that the government can seize you, force you to live among people who are known to be violent and then not take responsibility when someone is assaulted or killed is insane. Criminal or not, if your person is under government control, your safety and health should be absolutely guaranteed. On a side note the concept of private prisons is also insane. That a private company can hold you for profit is not right.
vkou 8y ago
Not just elected officials, I'll also include in police officers, judges, juries, and, really, pretty much all members of the public in the list of people who would greatly benefit from such an experience.
- justtopost 8y ago
  I see a clear pattern here, and it is the loss of once common coming-of-age ritual. You might add other modern suggestions in that spirit: No Meat until you slaughter an animal yourself. No pepper spray unless you try it yourself. Spend a week living in the 'retirement community' before dumping those you claim to love there. Etc. Basically dogfooding as gatekeeping.
Johnny555 8y ago
I'd be happy if they were just forced to use public transit for all transportation 3 days a month.
- obulpathi 8y ago
  Wow! For country like India, this can solve traffic problem.