4 ms·
‘Forever chemicals’ deserve more EPA scrutiny
- darkteflon 4y agohttps://archive.md/zBZsS https://archive.md/zBZsS
- sclarisse 4y agoI sure hope there’s a reasonable middle ground between nothing and requiring a manufacturer to prove a new chemical is safe like you prove a drug is safe (as in the opening an aloft). The regulatory process around new drugs is incredible. It’s almost a marvel that drugs are still approved at all. We still can’t even get the good European-approved sunscreens in the US.
- decremental 4y ago"Stuff that goes into your body and can kill you" isn't an area where we need looser regulations.
- mhardcastle 4y agoIs this not a statement fully generalizable to tighter regulations on food and medicine, no matter how tight current regulations are?
- pzone 4y agoToday we lose immeasurably more lives through unnecessary delays of important new medicines. There is no cost benefit calculation whatsoever.
- franga2000 4y agoSounds quite measurable actually, so forgive me if I don't take your word for it. A promising new drug with a hidden side effect that is, for example, only observable 10-20 years later, could conceivably kill far more people than all the good drugs waiting to be approved could save. I agree things could be sped up for things that treat terminal conditions, but that's not the majority of pharmaceuticals and even there, the situation isn't that simple.
- richbell 4y agoIt seems to me that the EPA has been totally captured by corporate interests. It's hard to listen to stories about decisions they've made, for example approving Atrazine[0] despite the protests of the scientific advisors, and have any confidence that they'll actually make a meaningful impact. [0] https://youtu.be/i5uSbp0YDhc https://youtu.be/i5uSbp0YDhc
- TylerE 4y agoSeems to me the body doing the science and the body doing the regulating and enforcement shouldn’t be the same.
- atoav 4y agoWhat does that help in an political environment where anonymous lobbying is more or less legal? The incredibly lax lobbying and campaign financing law in the US leads to the expected levels of corruption and the greatest democracy in the world is completely powerless to rid itself from this obvious problem.
- sneak 4y agoScratch the surface in the USA and you'll see it in all major regulatory bodies: FDA, FCC, EPA, FAA just as top of mind examples. I don't understand why more people don't regard the US as a country riddled with corruption. They literally won't let Boeing or AT&T or Comcast or Dow or ADM fail no matter how criminal they become.
- foolfoolz 4y agoforever chemicals is another step in horrible messaging by the scientific community about the environment. first we had global warming, then we have yearly “point of no return 2C” targets, now we have “forever” chemicals why does it have to be so polarizing? plastic was just about a “forever” chemical until we did any work breaking it down and now have many solutions to degrading it. i’m sure these new chemicals will be similar in 10-20 years. the fear mongering does nothing to help the real problem
- tonmoy 4y agoWhat economical solution do we have of breaking down plastic?
- amanaplanacanal 4y agoHigh heat and oxygen.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y agoDo you know what that releases into the atmosphere?
- polygamous_bat 4y agoWell, you _are_ responding in a thread to someone who does not believe climate change is a real issue, so... At least they are self consistent?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- amanaplanacanal 4y agoIf well done, co2 and water. Or, if you want to do carbon capture instead, you can bury it.
- majormajor 4y ago