3 ms·

"Chemicals" is far too ill- defined a term. Even if you define it as a substance that doesn't occur in significant amounts in nature (therefore our bodies have

"Chemicals" is far too ill- defined a term. Even if you define it as a substance that doesn't occur in significant amounts in nature (therefore our bodies have had no chance to adapt to) arguably most chemicals produced (esp. medications) have benefits that easily make the risks/downsides worth it, particularly as there are usually ways of mitigating those risks (which we absolutely need to do more of). It'd be great if we could use ML and super sophisticated simulators to determine ahead of time whether a particular chemical might have unexpected negative side effects were they to reach a certain level of saturation in our environment, and once such technology is available I'd be fully in support of it being mandatory.

ifyoubuildit 4y ago
> arguably most chemicals produced (esp. medications) have benefits that easily make the risks/downsides worth it Without some heavy qualification, this seems unlikely to be true. Maybe if you restrict it to things that have successfully gone through some sort of heavy trials, but even then there are plenty of things that get through with a tiny upside (like the recent alzheimers drug that made headlines). And most things don't make it through trials. If you open it up to any concoction that humans have discovered or whipped up in a lab, hoo boy. Edit: my running definition here would be any kind of compound that we've isolated and attempted to sell.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
amluto 4y ago
There are some basic tests that could be done: Does it fully degrade in soil and/or seawater in a reasonable time. If it does not, are the components that remain high-molecular-weight polymers or are they small molecules? What happens to it in a mammal body? Does it accumulate or is it excreted or otherwise eliminated? Does it contain harmful elements (which inherently cannot degrade)? Does aging or UV exposure change the answer to #1? Does it contain contaminants that are problematic as above? By these standards, PFOA would massively fail. PTFE might pass by itself but might fail the contaminant test. Historical industrial discharges from fluorochemical plants would fail.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  If those tests can be done within a reasonable timeframe and cost then sure, they should be mandatory. But there's still a question of whether the benefits outweigh any downsides. There's been a number of hypotheses floating about that many of the industrial chemicals permeating our environment might be partly responsible for declining fertility - if true, how do you judge whether that's necessarily a bad thing in a world where we're already overstretching our planet's ability to sustain our lifestyles?
  - npunt 4y ago
    You’re scope creeping unnecessarily - even if we’re beyond carrying capacity for the planet the answer is not let ‘er rip with industrial chemicals. Better to address the issues separately, so you can make sure there are fewer unintended consequences. Also, if industrial chemicals are causing declining birth rates in humans don’t you think they’re doing that to other animals too? And that may be contributing to making the whole planet less livable?
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      Absolutely, but the research to determine these things is slow and expensive. We still don't have a clear picture around fertility after decades of study, and that's just one example. Banning things until we have conclusive evidence they're 100% safe isn't feasible, that's my only point. And just to be clear I'm not the least bit in the laissez-faire camp of "allow anything and let the market decide what's safe" either. Regulation is critical, but it has limits and we (as in taxpayer-funded research facilities etc.) should be regularly reexamining whether the benefits outweigh the downsides for all industrially produced chemical substances.
      - amluto 4y ago
        How much economic harm would a ban on untested bioaccumulating persistent small molecules cause? Suppose that there was no evidence that PFOA was harmful. Should we allow unlimited use of it?

ifyoubuildit 4y ago

> arguably most chemicals produced (esp. medications) have benefits that easily make the risks/downsides worth it Without some heavy qualification, this seems unlikely to be true. Maybe if you restrict it to things that have successfully gone through some sort of heavy trials, but even then there are plenty of things that get through with a tiny upside (like the recent alzheimers drug that made headlines). And most things don't make it through trials. If you open it up to any concoction that humans have discovered or whipped up in a lab, hoo boy. Edit: my running definition here would be any kind of compound that we've isolated and attempted to sell.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

amluto 4y ago

There are some basic tests that could be done: Does it fully degrade in soil and/or seawater in a reasonable time. If it does not, are the components that remain high-molecular-weight polymers or are they small molecules? What happens to it in a mammal body? Does it accumulate or is it excreted or otherwise eliminated? Does it contain harmful elements (which inherently cannot degrade)? Does aging or UV exposure change the answer to #1? Does it contain contaminants that are problematic as above? By these standards, PFOA would massively fail. PTFE might pass by itself but might fail the contaminant test. Historical industrial discharges from fluorochemical plants would fail.

wizofaus 4y ago
If those tests can be done within a reasonable timeframe and cost then sure, they should be mandatory. But there's still a question of whether the benefits outweigh any downsides. There's been a number of hypotheses floating about that many of the industrial chemicals permeating our environment might be partly responsible for declining fertility - if true, how do you judge whether that's necessarily a bad thing in a world where we're already overstretching our planet's ability to sustain our lifestyles?
- npunt 4y ago
  You’re scope creeping unnecessarily - even if we’re beyond carrying capacity for the planet the answer is not let ‘er rip with industrial chemicals. Better to address the issues separately, so you can make sure there are fewer unintended consequences. Also, if industrial chemicals are causing declining birth rates in humans don’t you think they’re doing that to other animals too? And that may be contributing to making the whole planet less livable?
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    Absolutely, but the research to determine these things is slow and expensive. We still don't have a clear picture around fertility after decades of study, and that's just one example. Banning things until we have conclusive evidence they're 100% safe isn't feasible, that's my only point. And just to be clear I'm not the least bit in the laissez-faire camp of "allow anything and let the market decide what's safe" either. Regulation is critical, but it has limits and we (as in taxpayer-funded research facilities etc.) should be regularly reexamining whether the benefits outweigh the downsides for all industrially produced chemical substances.
    - amluto 4y ago
      How much economic harm would a ban on untested bioaccumulating persistent small molecules cause? Suppose that there was no evidence that PFOA was harmful. Should we allow unlimited use of it?