4 ms·

Whenever I read about things like decreasing sperm counts or increases in cancer I always think of the same phrase, "Everything is chemicals." It just really do

Whenever I read about things like decreasing sperm counts or increases in cancer I always think of the same phrase, "Everything is chemicals." It just really doesn't surprise me knowing how little evaluation is done on chemicals and materials throughout the supply chain. I believe the period from 1900 to around 2100 will be looked at as this horrible era where we filled our own ecosystem with an almost unimaginable amount of "toxic" chemicals. Truth is, particularly the US, the only thing we really test consumer products for is lead and mercury. These are the two things we test basically everything for. Other than that it's pretty much don't ask don't tell (and don't test), unless there is a specific piece of legislation that forces such a test. It's starting to change. But the US model is basically, "Do whatever you want. We'll let liability shape policy." So you create a product, put it out and have it do unimaginable damage, then pay for the health and environmental damage you did, and then create legislation around what others should do going forward. I get the economic reasons for this. But I think we went too far, too fast, and too hard.

autoexec 4y ago
> Truth is, particularly the US, the only thing we really test consumer products for is lead and mercury. We don't even do that very well, for example see all the heavy metals that have been allowed (and are still allowed) in baby food.
lemming 4y ago
So you create a product, put it out and have it do unimaginable damage, then pay for the health and environmental damage you did Or not. How often have companies actually had to pay for anything like the actual cost of the damage they have caused to the environment? Are there any cases when they have had to? They sometimes have to compensate a few of the humans involved, but never anything more general than that, and usually nothing approaching the real cost to society or the environment.
- themagician 4y ago
  Oh, I know. Compensation is the best case scenario. Much more likely is that the entity ultimately responsible doesn't even exist by the time the issue is discovered. I don't know what the answer is here either. The EU is getting much more aggressive about this, but it's already getting to the point that to bring a new product to market strictly within the law essentially costs infinite dollars. Aviation still uses leaded fuel and we KNOW how bad it is. But the economic consequence of fully eliminating it is still too great. Literally the one chemical that we know with certainty that there is no safe level of exposure to, is still getting distributed through the air all day every day. It's funny to me the way Prop65 turned out in some ways. When people were told just how bad absolutely everything is, people actually care less. And now the same thing is happening across the EU in a broad range of categories. Everything has at least 3 or 4 warnings on it. Most people just ignore them completely or look for a product with no warnings—which is probably just lying.
  - lemming 4y ago
    it's already getting to the point that to bring a new product to market strictly within the law essentially costs infinite dollars Of course, cleaning up various of these messes (forever chemicals, fossil fuels, etc) also costs infinite dollars, and in the meantime they also fuck up the health of the entire planet for both humans and other animals. It still seems a no-brainer to me to take the economic hit and accept slightly slower (but safer) progress. At least then we'd have a better chance of not accidentally ending the world.
  - novok 4y ago
    People become despondent because they effectively can't do anything practical, so to live their life they ignore it. It's the same thing with privacy.
bigbillheck 4y ago
> pay for the health and environmental damage you did, Or do some trickery with shell companies, like Johnson&Johnson did, and not have to pay a dime.
- RunningDroid 4y ago
  Or make the profits disappear then declare bankruptcy, like Purdue Pharma tried to do
tenpies 4y ago
> So you create a product, put it out and have it do unimaginable damage, then pay for the health and environmental damage you did, and then create legislation around what others should do going forward. The very scary part is how many of these chemicals cannot be "put back in the bottle" so to speak. This generation will be long gone, but these chemicals will not just exist on the planet, but exist virtually everywhere in some measurable amount. And we're not even using these chemicals carefully or wisely, we're just carpet absolutely bombing everyday objects with them because they make life fractionally more convenient. Nat Geo had a good write up last year: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/pfas-contamination-safe-drinking-water-study https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/pfas-cont...
jhanschoo 4y ago
It's like lead in ancient Rome all over again
refurb 4y ago
Truth is, particularly the US, the only thing we really test consumer products for is lead and mercury. That’s not true in the least at least for consumer products like cosmetics or anything ingested or rubbed on the body. Go to FDA.gov and read what it takes to get a consumer product approved. There is a list of GRAS “generally regarded as safe”. Outside that you can’t use it.
_5uxp 4y ago
It's funny how fast and well life expectancy improved in that era. Sure sperms are getting less in numbers but at least people don't follow sceptics with narrow mind for centuries so we actually see improvements. Sorry but, people with this mindset would still make us live in caves, literally.

autoexec 4y ago

> Truth is, particularly the US, the only thing we really test consumer products for is lead and mercury. We don't even do that very well, for example see all the heavy metals that have been allowed (and are still allowed) in baby food.

lemming 4y ago

So you create a product, put it out and have it do unimaginable damage, then pay for the health and environmental damage you did Or not. How often have companies actually had to pay for anything like the actual cost of the damage they have caused to the environment? Are there any cases when they have had to? They sometimes have to compensate a few of the humans involved, but never anything more general than that, and usually nothing approaching the real cost to society or the environment.

themagician 4y ago
Oh, I know. Compensation is the best case scenario. Much more likely is that the entity ultimately responsible doesn't even exist by the time the issue is discovered. I don't know what the answer is here either. The EU is getting much more aggressive about this, but it's already getting to the point that to bring a new product to market strictly within the law essentially costs infinite dollars. Aviation still uses leaded fuel and we KNOW how bad it is. But the economic consequence of fully eliminating it is still too great. Literally the one chemical that we know with certainty that there is no safe level of exposure to, is still getting distributed through the air all day every day. It's funny to me the way Prop65 turned out in some ways. When people were told just how bad absolutely everything is, people actually care less. And now the same thing is happening across the EU in a broad range of categories. Everything has at least 3 or 4 warnings on it. Most people just ignore them completely or look for a product with no warnings—which is probably just lying.
- lemming 4y ago
  it's already getting to the point that to bring a new product to market strictly within the law essentially costs infinite dollars Of course, cleaning up various of these messes (forever chemicals, fossil fuels, etc) also costs infinite dollars, and in the meantime they also fuck up the health of the entire planet for both humans and other animals. It still seems a no-brainer to me to take the economic hit and accept slightly slower (but safer) progress. At least then we'd have a better chance of not accidentally ending the world.
- novok 4y ago
  People become despondent because they effectively can't do anything practical, so to live their life they ignore it. It's the same thing with privacy.

bigbillheck 4y ago

> pay for the health and environmental damage you did, Or do some trickery with shell companies, like Johnson&Johnson did, and not have to pay a dime.

RunningDroid 4y ago
Or make the profits disappear then declare bankruptcy, like Purdue Pharma tried to do

tenpies 4y ago

> So you create a product, put it out and have it do unimaginable damage, then pay for the health and environmental damage you did, and then create legislation around what others should do going forward. The very scary part is how many of these chemicals cannot be "put back in the bottle" so to speak. This generation will be long gone, but these chemicals will not just exist on the planet, but exist virtually everywhere in some measurable amount. And we're not even using these chemicals carefully or wisely, we're just carpet absolutely bombing everyday objects with them because they make life fractionally more convenient. Nat Geo had a good write up last year: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/pfas-contamination-safe-drinking-water-study https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/pfas-cont...

jhanschoo 4y ago

It's like lead in ancient Rome all over again

refurb 4y ago

Truth is, particularly the US, the only thing we really test consumer products for is lead and mercury. That’s not true in the least at least for consumer products like cosmetics or anything ingested or rubbed on the body. Go to FDA.gov and read what it takes to get a consumer product approved. There is a list of GRAS “generally regarded as safe”. Outside that you can’t use it.

_5uxp 4y ago

It's funny how fast and well life expectancy improved in that era. Sure sperms are getting less in numbers but at least people don't follow sceptics with narrow mind for centuries so we actually see improvements. Sorry but, people with this mindset would still make us live in caves, literally.