4 ms·

> Agency scientists say management silences and harasses them to appease chemical industry > 'Managers seem to think their job is to get as many new chemicals o

> Agency scientists say management silences and harasses them to appease chemical industry > 'Managers seem to think their job is to get as many new chemicals on the market as fast as possible,’ Kyla Bennett said. > It’s money, it’s greed, but it doesn’t make sense. Don’t these people have any children or grandchildren? Don’t they care? You get what you pay for. If you pay your regulators to approve as many things as possible, you end with planes crashing into the ground. EPA is not different. Give them the right incentives and you will solve the problem.

treeman79 5y ago
Or everything will be banned, and it no longer becomes possible to get anything done. Ideally you want chemical level toxicity to kill you in around 90-100 years. Or yes toxic sludge is bad, but you will die of old age first. Now if it’s this will kill you in 0- 10 years. That’s an okay we need to set the EPA attack dogs loose.
- riedel 5y ago
  I personally would want factor 10 margin here. First I would assume that it is a distribution and if you are unlucky it still could be 10 years for a small quantile. If you think like this you will easily gets hundreds of those chemicals in your environment, so you will want that quantile to be really tiny. Additional I would assume that in reality even not all toxicity is independent. So effects might even add up. So better be safe than sorry. Also regulation is a driver for innovation. Without pressure, you will less likely get better products. It is better if companies put their dollars in research rather than lobbying.
- webmaven 5y ago
  > Ideally you want chemical level toxicity to kill you in around 90-100 years. Or yes toxic sludge is bad, but you will die of old age first. > Now if it’s this will kill you in 0- 10 years. That’s an okay we need to set the EPA attack dogs loose. There are plenty of non-lethal effects on humans that you wouldn't be happy with, and a lot of stuff that kills wildlife but humans tend not to encounter lethal concentrations.
  - atatatat 5y ago
    Like endocrine//nervous disruption, and other such fun diseases.
cyanydeez 5y ago
eh, they aere given the trump administration..

treeman79 5y ago

Or everything will be banned, and it no longer becomes possible to get anything done. Ideally you want chemical level toxicity to kill you in around 90-100 years. Or yes toxic sludge is bad, but you will die of old age first. Now if it’s this will kill you in 0- 10 years. That’s an okay we need to set the EPA attack dogs loose.

riedel 5y ago
I personally would want factor 10 margin here. First I would assume that it is a distribution and if you are unlucky it still could be 10 years for a small quantile. If you think like this you will easily gets hundreds of those chemicals in your environment, so you will want that quantile to be really tiny. Additional I would assume that in reality even not all toxicity is independent. So effects might even add up. So better be safe than sorry. Also regulation is a driver for innovation. Without pressure, you will less likely get better products. It is better if companies put their dollars in research rather than lobbying.
webmaven 5y ago
> Ideally you want chemical level toxicity to kill you in around 90-100 years. Or yes toxic sludge is bad, but you will die of old age first. > Now if it’s this will kill you in 0- 10 years. That’s an okay we need to set the EPA attack dogs loose. There are plenty of non-lethal effects on humans that you wouldn't be happy with, and a lot of stuff that kills wildlife but humans tend not to encounter lethal concentrations.
- atatatat 5y ago
  Like endocrine//nervous disruption, and other such fun diseases.

cyanydeez 5y ago

eh, they aere given the trump administration..