20 ms·
Given that these compounds are mass produced and spread all over the globe at an industrial scale, I think the plausibility of a problem should be sufficient fo
by mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
Given that these compounds are mass produced and spread all over the globe at an industrial scale, I think the plausibility of a problem should be sufficient for holding back. Especially when the compound is known to be non-degradable. Then we know, if there is a problem, we're gonna be stuck with it for a long time. Even more reason for extreme caution.
- skybrian 4y agoIt's reason for concern but not enough to make a convincing case. This is still trying to take a logical shortcut to avoid actually learning specifics about the problem. But if you don't learn anything then you're just another person saying their opinion on the Internet, like the rest of us.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y agoMy point is, I don't like this defeatist attitude of "well there's no way to know, so we should just do more of the same". Just because it's a very hard problem doesn't mean there isn't a lot more we could do. And a lot of the chemicals causing problems today could have been ruled out with far less effort than haphazardly testing it on the whole world population. I don't see why so many people these days need to reduce everything to this type of false dichotomy. And it's also a question of how much concern is enough? I would argue that currently the threshold is set far, far too high.
- skybrian 4y agoI never said there's no way to know. What I'm saying is that those of us who haven't studied should be humble about how much we know. It's a choice we make all the time. For anything you read about, are you curious enough to investigate it further, or are you going to let it go by?
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y agoRight. I'm a pretty bad example because I obsessively investigate further. I can't help it. I see something, I need to understand it. It's my curse in life.