5 ms·

There are lists available, e.g. https://edlists.org/ https://edlists.org/ When the EU was debating the REACH regulations there was a big push to move to a "don

There are lists available, e.g. https://edlists.org/ https://edlists.org/ When the EU was debating the REACH regulations there was a big push to move to a "don't sell or produce it until you can prove it's safe" stance, but AFAIK it was significantly watered down before an agreement was reached. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_en.htm https://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_en.ht... Then there's the problem of "chemical cocktails", where combinations of chemicals are more dangerous than each chemical by itself; this gets a lot of media space, but is even harder to research than individual chemicals since just about everything gets mixed up in various concentrations in nature.

MattGaiser 6y ago
Is there a reason we can't just dump tons of mice into different sets and combos of chemicals and see what happens?
- sdenton4 6y ago
  I think that's basically the current system. Unfortunately, we're worried about bioaccumulation over decades, and lab mice only live a year or so... It's also worth considering the number of Giant Breakthroughs that happen with mice which fail to translate to humans. They're quite different, it turns out.
- hetspookjee 6y ago
  I'd wager ethical considerations would hamper such ambition.
- adrianN 6y ago
  The search space is pretty big and research costs money.
- petertodd 6y ago
  One problem is mice aren't humans. In many cases research done on mice ends up being overly pessimistic, because the short lifespans of mice compared to humans means there is less evolutionary pressure to be resilient to cancers and other diseases of aging. Equally, in other circumstances they'll be more resilient, because they don't live long enough to see the effects of longer term toxins. And of course, there can be differences in specific metabolic pathways. So yes, it certainly would be good to do more of that research. But there's limits to what it can tell us.
- numpad0 6y ago
  It’s astounding how automated and reproducible software testing is.
  - amelius 6y ago
    And yet software crashes all the time ...
hilbert42 6y ago
Right, synergistic effects are prevalent everywhere in with chemicals, drugs etc. One of the biggest factors is that we're exposed to so many trace chemicals that figuring out the combination of effects and whether their concentrations are relevant is extremely difficult even with the best science. I reckon we will all be interested to see what the EU evaluation brings. What worries me though is that the EU is known for its hair-trigger response in such matters. If the evidence isn't really solid then we'll end up with a long protracted (and unnecessary) war with the plastics/chemical industry. As I see it, the chemical industry is the most vital of industries as it underpins just about everything that's manufactured nowadays, without it we'd be in deep you-know-what. The fact that it's had a lot to answer for in the past, pollution etc., cannot be ignored but demonizing it unnecessarily won't help either. From my perspective as one who doesn't work in the industry but who's had training in chemistry, there are two major problems that need solving. The first is that the chemical industry, especially in recent decades, is essentially closed to outsiders. There are many reasons for this, regulations, worry about access to dangerous chemicals, industrial accidents such as Bhopal being bad PR, and the fact that the industry is afraid to say anything for fear the public doesn't understand or takes what it says the wrong way - not to mention that its own PR is terrible to nonexistent. The second is that the public is grossely under-trained in chemistry and thus it's easily spooked or frightened whenever the word 'chemical' turns up. This leads to situations where minor incidents get concatenated with serious ones and they all take on equal seriousness. (I'll refrain from muddying the waters here with examples but there are many.) I haven't the time to go into the reasons why the public is so sensitive and twitchy nowadays - given that chemistry is taught in schools - but nevertheless it's a serious problem. The secrecy surrounding the industry only makes matters worse. It's why I'm always worried about inquiries into such matters. Of recent times we see engineers and scientists being so noncommittal about so many things that regulators and politicians ban things by default before the science is set. I acknowledge that's a sweeping statement because there are obvious exceptions where both commonsense and incomplete science indicate that we should act immediately. That, I stess again, is why the public needs to be better educated in the subject - then more correct decisions would be made more often and without unnecessary drama.

MattGaiser 6y ago

Is there a reason we can't just dump tons of mice into different sets and combos of chemicals and see what happens?

sdenton4 6y ago
I think that's basically the current system. Unfortunately, we're worried about bioaccumulation over decades, and lab mice only live a year or so... It's also worth considering the number of Giant Breakthroughs that happen with mice which fail to translate to humans. They're quite different, it turns out.
hetspookjee 6y ago
I'd wager ethical considerations would hamper such ambition.
adrianN 6y ago
The search space is pretty big and research costs money.
petertodd 6y ago
One problem is mice aren't humans. In many cases research done on mice ends up being overly pessimistic, because the short lifespans of mice compared to humans means there is less evolutionary pressure to be resilient to cancers and other diseases of aging. Equally, in other circumstances they'll be more resilient, because they don't live long enough to see the effects of longer term toxins. And of course, there can be differences in specific metabolic pathways. So yes, it certainly would be good to do more of that research. But there's limits to what it can tell us.
numpad0 6y ago
It’s astounding how automated and reproducible software testing is.
- amelius 6y ago
  And yet software crashes all the time ...

hilbert42 6y ago

Right, synergistic effects are prevalent everywhere in with chemicals, drugs etc. One of the biggest factors is that we're exposed to so many trace chemicals that figuring out the combination of effects and whether their concentrations are relevant is extremely difficult even with the best science. I reckon we will all be interested to see what the EU evaluation brings. What worries me though is that the EU is known for its hair-trigger response in such matters. If the evidence isn't really solid then we'll end up with a long protracted (and unnecessary) war with the plastics/chemical industry. As I see it, the chemical industry is the most vital of industries as it underpins just about everything that's manufactured nowadays, without it we'd be in deep you-know-what. The fact that it's had a lot to answer for in the past, pollution etc., cannot be ignored but demonizing it unnecessarily won't help either. From my perspective as one who doesn't work in the industry but who's had training in chemistry, there are two major problems that need solving. The first is that the chemical industry, especially in recent decades, is essentially closed to outsiders. There are many reasons for this, regulations, worry about access to dangerous chemicals, industrial accidents such as Bhopal being bad PR, and the fact that the industry is afraid to say anything for fear the public doesn't understand or takes what it says the wrong way - not to mention that its own PR is terrible to nonexistent. The second is that the public is grossely under-trained in chemistry and thus it's easily spooked or frightened whenever the word 'chemical' turns up. This leads to situations where minor incidents get concatenated with serious ones and they all take on equal seriousness. (I'll refrain from muddying the waters here with examples but there are many.) I haven't the time to go into the reasons why the public is so sensitive and twitchy nowadays - given that chemistry is taught in schools - but nevertheless it's a serious problem. The secrecy surrounding the industry only makes matters worse. It's why I'm always worried about inquiries into such matters. Of recent times we see engineers and scientists being so noncommittal about so many things that regulators and politicians ban things by default before the science is set. I acknowledge that's a sweeping statement because there are obvious exceptions where both commonsense and incomplete science indicate that we should act immediately. That, I stess again, is why the public needs to be better educated in the subject - then more correct decisions would be made more often and without unnecessary drama.