3 ms·
My point was more that if there was really significant damage being done, then you’d be able to provide a better example than lightbulbs. For instance, a hurric
by zibby8 4y ago
My point was more that if there was really significant damage being done, then you’d be able to provide a better example than lightbulbs. For instance, a hurricane taking down a street light also destroys the bulb, and a whole lot more. Even if it’s true that lightbulbs burn out faster due to heat waves, it seems like it’d be hard to generate a lot of sympathy with a statement like “heatwaves are as bad as hurricanes because heatwaves cause light bulbs to burn out faster.”
Also, society generally designs things with the knowledge that light bulbs go bad, exposed metal rusts, etc. Unless a heatwave were to shorten the lifespan of things by an order of magnitude, it’s likely that a slightly shorter lifespan is within the designed limits of many things.
- Retric 4y agoWhy would you assume significant damage must be obvious at the time? You don’t notice the specific genetic damage that actually caused cancer, and it’s killed vastly more people than bullets. Hurricanes are infrequent and don’t inflict devastation over nearly as much area as heat waves can. Hurricanes are obvious like bullets, but add up the numbers globally and average over a decade and they’re not that big a deal.
- zibby8 4y ago> You don’t notice the specific genetic damage that actually caused cancer Actually we do notice stuff like that. Which is why it is advised that you don't inhale asbestos particles, wear sunscreen, avoid smoking, etc. My point still stands: it's understandable that heatwaves aren't considered as serious as hurricanes if the only impact of a heatwave you can point to is that lightbulbs theoretically burn out more quickly during a heat wave.
- desmosxxx 4y agoIf there are enough lightbulbs impacted then why not. We should measure these things and then compare them.
- Retric 4y agoI also mentioned paint and everything that rusts, not just lightbulbs. Let’s add all electronics exposed to the elements, tires, and just about every structure outside. > Actually we do notice stuff like that. Which is why it is advised that you don't inhale asbestos particles, wear sunscreen, avoid smoking, etc. No we don’t. Asbestos and others became such an issue because people didn’t notice the damage they inferred it after the fact based on exposure. It’s easy to correlate unusual symptoms with workplace hazards after the fact, but by then it’s too late: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls
- zibby8 4y ago> No we don’t. Asbestos and others became such an issue because people didn’t notice the damage they inferred it after the fact based on exposure. Isn’t every observation just a causal inference after the fact? Look, you’re free to attempt to quantify the impact. Either via direct measurement or a theoretical calculation. However, a baseless opination without any data backing it up isn’t that convincing or interesting.
- Retric 4y ago> Isn’t every observation just a causal inference after the fact? No, instinctive reflex for example is a response to a stimulus without inference. If uranium had a horrific taste the radium girls wouldn’t have licked their uranium paint brushes thus avoiding Radium jaw. Horrific taste doesn’t always mean something is harmful, but it generally causes people to limit ingestion.
- zibby8 4y agoHow is “I licked my paint brush and then my mouth tasted bad” not causal inference?
- Retric 4y agoBad taste is simply a perception, you’re making an inference that the bad taste was caused by something but the perception precedes the inference. Further the perception and response to that taste isn’t a inference that something is physically harmful. You can dislike perfectly healthy food. That said, if uranium had a bad taste people wouldn’t have been as harmed demonstrating the lack of perception of the initial minute harm resulted in greater long term harm.