3 ms·
That would pretty much mean no new chemicals could be used for anything ever.
by thfuran 4y ago
That would pretty much mean no new chemicals could be used for anything ever.
- thatguy0900 4y agoSome would consider that a good tradeoff for stopping cancerous forever chemicals from being in 80% of pee. And it will be less, not no.
- JamesBarney 4y agoThey probably haven't thought through all the good chemicals have done. If we stopped all progress in chemicals 100 years ago our world would like a very different place. A less wealthy place where more people died of starvation.
- timcash 4y agoyup
- its_bbq 4y agoWell that's a feature if we can't come up with chemicals that aren't harmful at industrial scale
- thfuran 4y ago"Not proven harmless" and "harmful" are very different things.
- elcomet 4y agoOf course they could, you just have to prove that they are harmless (at least in their expected usage and dosage)
- edflsafoiewq 4y agoHow do you do that?
- thfuran 4y agoGreat, so we're just going to need a few long term clinical trials assessing the impacts of each of ingestion, skin contact, inhalation, eye exposure, etc. separately for childhood exposure, adult exposure, exposure during pregnancy, acute exposure, chronic exposure, and so on. 100 billion dollars and thirty years later, maybe you can start provisionally selling your slightly better scotch tape.
- jmole 4y agoThat’s a little disingenuous. Something like an herbicide that’s broadly applied to fruits and vegetables that millions of people are eating should be under far higher scrutiny than a niche product that has limited human contact.
- thfuran 4y agoThings that don't have much human contact in the general population can have significant human contact during the manufacturing process of products containing or processed with them.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle