4 ms·
For water you test for known contaminants like these forever chemicals and a host of others. Your question is insinuating that we don't know how to test for wat
by t_mann 4y ago
For water you test for known contaminants like these forever chemicals and a host of others. Your question is insinuating that we don't know how to test for water safety, which is dishonest - in fact, public water (drinking water, rivers, lakes,...) is being tested very regularly, whether it's safe for drinking, swimming,...
The point isn't that you have to provide a comprehensive proof of safety, which is arguably a philosophical impossibility, the point is that if you have a cool product idea like putting lead into fuel, you have to apply before you're allowed to market it. What exact tests they are going to run then will be subject to scientific debate and changes over time (so your product might get pulled if it's found to be toxic later). Some posters informed me that that's how it actually works already, in the EU at least. But in that case I guess we have to demand that they apply stricter standards if they miss chemicals that poison our rain water or kill the bee population.
- eurasiantiger 4y agoMost of the mentioned tested public waters either don’t test for these forever chemicals, do so unreliably, or fail the tests miserably.
- t_mann 4y agoAnd you think that's good the way it is? I'm saying we should change that.
- spywaregorilla 4y agoYou literally just asserted > For water you test for known contaminants like these forever chemicals and a host of others. Your question is insinuating that we don't know how to test for water safety, which is dishonest
- spywaregorilla 4y ago> The point isn't that you have to provide a comprehensive proof of safety, which is arguably a philosophical impossibility, Then don't call it 'unsafe until proven otherwise'. Safety standards are a great idea. They're not this and calling it this is just a recipe for failure when new information makes it look like the original research was insufficient and that its a policy failure.
- t_mann 4y agoIt's about the mindset, I called it similar to how we talk about the burden of proof in criminal law. The burden should be with producers to defend their products' safety, and in doubt we should err on the side of caution.
- spywaregorilla 4y agoIn law you assume something is innocent until proven guilty. You are suggesting guilty until proven innocent. That's the opposite of how criminal law works (in reasonable places).