4 ms·

And yet really, isn’t that the most important one? If the whitelist vs blacklist attitude were really as important as everyone in this thread is claiming, woul

And yet really, isn’t that the most important one? If the whitelist vs blacklist attitude were really as important as everyone in this thread is claiming, wouldn’t there be some mass catastrophic extinction-level event in the US? There’s not.....

MegaButts 7y ago
By that logic we should just ignore <problem> until we're too dead to do anything about it.
- Digit-Al 7y ago
  That's basically what you are doing isn't it?
  - MegaButts 7y ago
    I try to solve problems when I can, rather than ignore them. Especially when I believe those problems might kill me.
rcxdude 7y ago
Not really. There's a large difference between catastrophe and hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths distributed across the country and across years from many different issues. One is very visible and the other can be hard to see but is still very significant. Just because it's not killing everyone doesn't mean it's not killing a lot of people or making their health and happiness worse.
- repolfx 7y ago
  But there's no significance. There's no evidence the precautionary principle works at all. As observed in a comment above, when you remove car deaths and murders (things unrelated to chemical regulation) US life expectancy is the same. Just because it's not killing everyone doesn't mean it's not killing a lot of people or making their health and happiness worse That logic is faulty. Allowing things until proven dangerous can be both not killing everyone and not killing a lot of people or making anyone's health or happiness worse. For the precautionary principle to make a detectable difference to people's health, dangerous cosmetics would have to be staggeringly common, and cosmetics firms would have to be staggeringly willing to repeatedly sell cosmetics known to be dangerous. But that doesn't seem to be the case: are there any cases in recent times of Americans being seriously harmed by unexpectedly dangerous cosmetics? I mean, even just one?
pjc50 7y ago
Most of these things don't result in a cleanly attributable death, just increased risk of already common end of life diseases. Or a reduction in quality of life. HFCS won't kill you even if you drink it in bulk. Spend 40 years eating it and you get a 10% higher chance of, say, dying before 70.
- mdpopescu 7y ago
  So you're saying that [grin] it's absolutely irrelevant?
  - pjc50 7y ago
    ?
deogeo 7y ago
And 'everyone is still alive' in New Delhi too, where you can chew the air: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution_in_Delhi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution_in_Delhi

MegaButts 7y ago

By that logic we should just ignore <problem> until we're too dead to do anything about it.

Digit-Al 7y ago
That's basically what you are doing isn't it?
- MegaButts 7y ago
  I try to solve problems when I can, rather than ignore them. Especially when I believe those problems might kill me.

rcxdude 7y ago

Not really. There's a large difference between catastrophe and hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths distributed across the country and across years from many different issues. One is very visible and the other can be hard to see but is still very significant. Just because it's not killing everyone doesn't mean it's not killing a lot of people or making their health and happiness worse.

repolfx 7y ago
But there's no significance. There's no evidence the precautionary principle works at all. As observed in a comment above, when you remove car deaths and murders (things unrelated to chemical regulation) US life expectancy is the same. Just because it's not killing everyone doesn't mean it's not killing a lot of people or making their health and happiness worse That logic is faulty. Allowing things until proven dangerous can be both not killing everyone and not killing a lot of people or making anyone's health or happiness worse. For the precautionary principle to make a detectable difference to people's health, dangerous cosmetics would have to be staggeringly common, and cosmetics firms would have to be staggeringly willing to repeatedly sell cosmetics known to be dangerous. But that doesn't seem to be the case: are there any cases in recent times of Americans being seriously harmed by unexpectedly dangerous cosmetics? I mean, even just one?

pjc50 7y ago

Most of these things don't result in a cleanly attributable death, just increased risk of already common end of life diseases. Or a reduction in quality of life. HFCS won't kill you even if you drink it in bulk. Spend 40 years eating it and you get a 10% higher chance of, say, dying before 70.

mdpopescu 7y ago
So you're saying that [grin] it's absolutely irrelevant?
- pjc50 7y ago
  ?

deogeo 7y ago

And 'everyone is still alive' in New Delhi too, where you can chew the air: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution_in_Delhi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution_in_Delhi