5 ms·
I'd rather not have my life shortened, or have to live with weird sicknesses, or have wildlife / ecosystems harmed due to us blacklisting when we could be white
by suby 3y ago
I'd rather not have my life shortened, or have to live with weird sicknesses, or have wildlife / ecosystems harmed due to us blacklisting when we could be whitelisting substances. I'm sure some of these chemicals let us do very cool things, but when the innovation in question is something like water-resistant clothing, can we please just fucking prove the chemicals are safe first.
There's no way to opt out of any of this, and the potential for harm extends well beyond what we've seen so far.
- jtbayly 3y agoHow do you prove a chemical safe?
- hutzlibu 3y agoYou test it for various common and uncommon cases. Like how does it influence fruit fly fertility if the concentration is above x%. But nothing is 100% sure in the real world, if that was your point, but for practical matters we can get close enough, if we want to. But I know that quite some tests are not being done, because the results would not be welcome.
- mensetmanusman 3y agoThere is no ethical way to do control tests on humans. Proof is not in the realm of biology, risk management is.
- wkat4242 3y agoHumans don't seem to mind considering how many people buy these jackets either way. I'm sure enough volunteers could be found.