5 ms·

New chemicals save lives as well, they may be safer than existing alternatives or enable safer processes to be used or they may enable some new technology that

New chemicals save lives as well, they may be safer than existing alternatives or enable safer processes to be used or they may enable some new technology that saves lives (there is almost unlimited potential here, few areas of technological advancement are as wide impacting as improvements to materials). It sounds like you are advocating for the precautionary principle, but what do you think about the counterargument that by blocking technological improvements before actually investigating their risk you could be doing more harm than you prevent. > Strong formulations of the precautionary principle... when applied to the principle itself as a policy decision, beats its own purpose of reducing risk. The reason suggested is that preventing innovation from coming to market means that only current technology may be used, and current technology itself may cause harm or leave needs unmet; there is a risk of causing harm by blocking innovation. As Michael Crichton wrote in his novel State of Fear: "The 'precautionary principle', properly applied, forbids the precautionary principle." > For example, forbidding nuclear power plants based on concerns about low-probability high-impact risks means continuing to rely on power plants that burn fossil fuels, which continue to release greenhouse gases and thousands of certain deaths from air pollution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#Internal_inconsistency:_applying_strong_PP_risks_causing_harm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#Intern...

OnlineGladiator 5y ago
I'd never heard of the precautionary principle before, but the way you explain it is just circular reasoning used to straw man it as nefarious. Arguing for validation is not arguing to ban innovation - we just need some actual accountability (and ideally transparency) included in the process. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, whereas the article points out we are straight-up falsifying documents in order to push sales for chemical corporations. What's the harm in actually knowing scientific data about the chemicals we're buying?
- ethbr0 5y ago
  The harm that parent alludes to is that in toxicity studies you only know it doesn't cause cancer after 30 years of exposure... after 30 years. Those studies are incredibly expensive, and are the reason so many chemical companies merged.
michaelmrose 5y ago
>by blocking technological improvements before actually investigating their risk How is not doing this not an obvious recipe for doom. The only ridiculous thing here is you have stated this as a binary instead of a continuum.
IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago
If you allow the sale & use of new chemicals before they are proven to be safe, you don’t just run the risk of them eventually turning out to be unsafe. You also remove all incentives to actually investigate their safety. We’ve also found most of the low-hanging fruits of material science. Can you think of a single new chemical that came out in the last decade or two that is worth the risk of something like, say, Teflon seeing widespread use and then being shown to be carcinogenic? …and Michael Crichton’s State of Fear is his pseudoscientific turn to the dark side, a wild recounting of dozens of superficial arguments trying to proof that climate change isn’t real, years after they had been disproven.
- specialist 5y ago
  Yes and: The Andromeda Strain [1969] predates State of Fear [2004]. Jill Lepore's sympathetic take is the Vietnam War, MKULTRA, and other US Govt scandals broke Crichton. https://www.thelastarchive.com/season-2/episode-6-it-came-from-outer-space https://www.thelastarchive.com/season-2/episode-6-it-came-fr... My opinion of Crichton is much harsher. Probably the nicest thing I could say about him is he made a lot of money sowing fear and mistrust.
specialist 5y ago
Do you release products without testing them? That's the precautionary principle.
revolvingocelot 5y ago
>New chemicals save lives as well [...] what do you think about the counterargument that by blocking technological improvements before actually investigating their risk you could be doing more harm than you prevent. What about chemicals that are relentlessly studied, but for some reason can't seem to be regulated at all? Try reading a little about PFAS, darling wonderchemical of DuPont, which is in everything from takeout containers to furniture to dental floss, will never break down in the environment, and causes everything from low birth weight to decreased penis size to cancer. [0] This is preventable harm, but note how this awful chemical is regulated by no one, and can barely be tested for. Oh, wait, they're going to regula-- "Amid growing public concern, the EPA announced in February it would begin the process of regulating PFOA and PFAS in the next two years (these regulations, if issued, would not apply to other PFAS chemicals)." [0] Look at how incredibly difficult it is to prevent the blanketing of the world with PFAS, and how toothless the too-late regulation of it -- and not its structural analogues -- will be. The only entities seemingly capable of new chemistry are utterly disinterested with the consequences, and the impotent regulators won't force them to care: it's insane to support new chemical development. It's going to be poison. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/23/pfas-everyday-products-toxics-guide https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/23/pfas-everyda...

OnlineGladiator 5y ago

I'd never heard of the precautionary principle before, but the way you explain it is just circular reasoning used to straw man it as nefarious. Arguing for validation is not arguing to ban innovation - we just need some actual accountability (and ideally transparency) included in the process. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, whereas the article points out we are straight-up falsifying documents in order to push sales for chemical corporations. What's the harm in actually knowing scientific data about the chemicals we're buying?

ethbr0 5y ago
The harm that parent alludes to is that in toxicity studies you only know it doesn't cause cancer after 30 years of exposure... after 30 years. Those studies are incredibly expensive, and are the reason so many chemical companies merged.

michaelmrose 5y ago

>by blocking technological improvements before actually investigating their risk How is not doing this not an obvious recipe for doom. The only ridiculous thing here is you have stated this as a binary instead of a continuum.

IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago

If you allow the sale & use of new chemicals before they are proven to be safe, you don’t just run the risk of them eventually turning out to be unsafe. You also remove all incentives to actually investigate their safety. We’ve also found most of the low-hanging fruits of material science. Can you think of a single new chemical that came out in the last decade or two that is worth the risk of something like, say, Teflon seeing widespread use and then being shown to be carcinogenic? …and Michael Crichton’s State of Fear is his pseudoscientific turn to the dark side, a wild recounting of dozens of superficial arguments trying to proof that climate change isn’t real, years after they had been disproven.

specialist 5y ago
Yes and: The Andromeda Strain [1969] predates State of Fear [2004]. Jill Lepore's sympathetic take is the Vietnam War, MKULTRA, and other US Govt scandals broke Crichton. https://www.thelastarchive.com/season-2/episode-6-it-came-from-outer-space https://www.thelastarchive.com/season-2/episode-6-it-came-fr... My opinion of Crichton is much harsher. Probably the nicest thing I could say about him is he made a lot of money sowing fear and mistrust.

specialist 5y ago

Do you release products without testing them? That's the precautionary principle.

revolvingocelot 5y ago

>New chemicals save lives as well [...] what do you think about the counterargument that by blocking technological improvements before actually investigating their risk you could be doing more harm than you prevent. What about chemicals that are relentlessly studied, but for some reason can't seem to be regulated at all? Try reading a little about PFAS, darling wonderchemical of DuPont, which is in everything from takeout containers to furniture to dental floss, will never break down in the environment, and causes everything from low birth weight to decreased penis size to cancer. [0] This is preventable harm, but note how this awful chemical is regulated by no one, and can barely be tested for. Oh, wait, they're going to regula-- "Amid growing public concern, the EPA announced in February it would begin the process of regulating PFOA and PFAS in the next two years (these regulations, if issued, would not apply to other PFAS chemicals)." [0] Look at how incredibly difficult it is to prevent the blanketing of the world with PFAS, and how toothless the too-late regulation of it -- and not its structural analogues -- will be. The only entities seemingly capable of new chemistry are utterly disinterested with the consequences, and the impotent regulators won't force them to care: it's insane to support new chemical development. It's going to be poison. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/23/pfas-everyday-products-toxics-guide https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/23/pfas-everyda...