3 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoHow 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?
- wizofaus 4y agoI'd agree on such a ban. But how expensive is it to determine that a small molecule is bio accumulating? And how much time/money do we need to spend on testing? It's not the pure economic harm I'm worried about. Such a molecule might well be a key part of a genuine solution to reducing GHG emissions.