5 ms·

So, there is a hypothesis that those levels "could" be unsafe, but no evidence?

• justin66 7y ago
  That's a true but especially obtuse way of looking at things, yes. It would be more intellectually honest to say that we're still measuring how much damage these substances are doing to human health.
  • JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    Again, that's speculation. With not a lot of evidence behind it. Folks have been using plastics for what? 100 years now? Where's the epidemiological evidence from that period? Where's the public health crisis? No, I think this is overblown.
    • deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  • jjeaff 7y ago
    What is obtuse would be to make incredibly painful, sweeping changes to our economy and food supply based on a possibility, unfounded in fact.
• hinkley 7y ago
  The harm doesn't start when the proof of harm is found. Every new thing that has never been seen before has no proof that it does harm until we catch it in the act. Once in a while someone invents nerve agents and kills themselves in the process giving us instant feedback, , but we had whole generations licking radium paint and putting lead in their wine to sweeten it. Cigarettes? No proof of harm even though the harm was obvious. How many times are we gonna go around this merry go round before we put our foot out?