15 ms·
That is not the scientific consensus, although a position taken by some. Much more people agree that bio-accumilation is dangerous to health and nature, also be
by dtech 4y ago
That is not the scientific consensus, although a position taken by some. Much more people agree that bio-accumilation is dangerous to health and nature, also because that ends up in humans when they eat things.
- dataflow 4y agoThe lack of "scientific consensus" on proven dangers is borderline irrelevant to me. There've been enough indications of their likely dangers already. If science ever comes to the consensus that it's safe, then it might mean something to me. Not the other way around. The apparent effects on cattle are worth reading: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-b...
- aaomidi 4y agoAgreed. We need to assume negative rather than positive with new stuff that is going to be produced at such a large scale.
- chiefalchemist 4y agoUnfortunately, then it comes to these industrial chemicals it's "innocent until proven guilty", at least in the USA. Untested compounds are constantly being introduced with no awareness of their safety, with no awareness of how they might react with other compounds in the wild (and in the body).
- datavirtue 4y agoThen it gets a pat on the head and a pass.
- civeng 4y agoI highly recommend the documentary Dark Waters and more so Rob Bilot's well written book, Exposure. It might make the greatest skeptics a little less confident.
- datavirtue 4y agoSame here. Science takes too long and has a burden of proof that is far too high to establish fact. Corporations use "science" to cement their bad practices and pollution. If it looks like something is toxic...stop it. The people don't have to wait for science to regulate something.