3 ms·

The common-sense defition would be something like "only transitory or easily correctable negative consequences after consumption of quantities encountered under

by samus 4y ago

The common-sense defition would be something like "only transitory or easily correctable negative consequences after consumption of quantities encountered under everyday circumstances". Water is unlikely to be consumed in the toxic doses. The few cases where water overdoses happened were drinking competitions where participants forced themselves to drink many liters of water as fast as possible, leading to fatal electrolyte imbalances.

refurb 4y ago
How do you define "easily correctable"? What are "everyday circumstances"? You're basically describing the challenge itself - how do you balance risk vs. benefit? The FDA does it every day, all day and still makes the wrong call sometimes.
- samus 4y ago
  I added "easily correctable" to account for things that are clearly not good for us in any sense, but also don't cause lasting damage if taken in moderation. Coffeine, alcohol and sugars for example. Everyday circumstances describe normal consumption outside of addictions, accidents, competitions, medical conditions that make us more vulnerable, and other things. And chemicals that accumulate in our bodies (forever chemicals, microplastics, dioxins and other fat-soluble goodies, heavy metals) or cause permanent changes deserve increased scrutiny and bias for safety. Right now, I'd argue to be wary of _any_ novel polymers and substances (yes, it already happens for medicine and food), and to critically re-examine whatever was introduced before. The issue of microplastics and their impact on the ecosystem is clearly something we didn't think about before (more likely, we straightaway dismissed it).
  - refurb 4y ago
    Here is an example - birth control pills. Hormones excreted in the urine are measurable in waterways. Hormones have an impact on all sorts of organisms, even at low concentrations. Would it have been better to ban birth control pills until we figured out a way to avoid contaminating waterways? What if we never figured it out? Would the world be a better place without birth control pills but hormone-free waterways?
    - samus 4y ago
      It's a good example, I admit. I guess it depends on what hormones are excreted. It's probably fine if they are naturally occurring hormones, since women and females of other species excrete them anyways. It would be a consideration, but I guess more problematic for such an approval process would be other side effects. Edit: the point is quite valid for other drugs though.
    - telotortium 4y ago
      > Would it have been better to ban birth control pills until we figured out a way to avoid contaminating waterways? What if we never figured it out? Honestly, yes. The copper IUD was invented in the 1960s, not long after birth-control pills; besides, condoms had existed for a long time by that point. As far as contraception goes, the pill shouldn't be the first choice - many women experience significant mood changes from the hormones, and it's quite possible that the hormones circulating in the water have deleterious effects on both male and female fertility. I'm aware that the pill was a significant contributor to the sexual revolution, but the effects of that, 60 years later, are not uniformly positive.

by samus 4y ago

refurb 4y ago

How do you define "easily correctable"? What are "everyday circumstances"? You're basically describing the challenge itself - how do you balance risk vs. benefit? The FDA does it every day, all day and still makes the wrong call sometimes.

samus 4y ago
I added "easily correctable" to account for things that are clearly not good for us in any sense, but also don't cause lasting damage if taken in moderation. Coffeine, alcohol and sugars for example. Everyday circumstances describe normal consumption outside of addictions, accidents, competitions, medical conditions that make us more vulnerable, and other things. And chemicals that accumulate in our bodies (forever chemicals, microplastics, dioxins and other fat-soluble goodies, heavy metals) or cause permanent changes deserve increased scrutiny and bias for safety. Right now, I'd argue to be wary of _any_ novel polymers and substances (yes, it already happens for medicine and food), and to critically re-examine whatever was introduced before. The issue of microplastics and their impact on the ecosystem is clearly something we didn't think about before (more likely, we straightaway dismissed it).
- refurb 4y ago
  Here is an example - birth control pills. Hormones excreted in the urine are measurable in waterways. Hormones have an impact on all sorts of organisms, even at low concentrations. Would it have been better to ban birth control pills until we figured out a way to avoid contaminating waterways? What if we never figured it out? Would the world be a better place without birth control pills but hormone-free waterways?
  - samus 4y ago
    It's a good example, I admit. I guess it depends on what hormones are excreted. It's probably fine if they are naturally occurring hormones, since women and females of other species excrete them anyways. It would be a consideration, but I guess more problematic for such an approval process would be other side effects. Edit: the point is quite valid for other drugs though.
  - telotortium 4y ago
    > Would it have been better to ban birth control pills until we figured out a way to avoid contaminating waterways? What if we never figured it out? Honestly, yes. The copper IUD was invented in the 1960s, not long after birth-control pills; besides, condoms had existed for a long time by that point. As far as contraception goes, the pill shouldn't be the first choice - many women experience significant mood changes from the hormones, and it's quite possible that the hormones circulating in the water have deleterious effects on both male and female fertility. I'm aware that the pill was a significant contributor to the sexual revolution, but the effects of that, 60 years later, are not uniformly positive.