3 ms·
> Yes but it’s not a lie to say it was phased out in the 70s I don't understand why you would write that, particularly after having read my comments and throwa
by justin66 3y ago
> Yes but it’s not a lie to say it was phased out in the 70s
I don't understand why you would write that, particularly after having read my comments and throwaway2037's comment on this thread. "This is a chemical that is currently produced in various forms by companies and used by people in 2023" and "it was phased out in the 1970s" would seem to be mutually contradictory facts. There's no "nuance" involved. I get that we're not giving you essay-length analysis here, but... I give up.
edit: the LMGTFY for "who makes trichloroethylene": https://www.thomasnet.com/products/trichloroethylene-87673604-1.html https://www.thomasnet.com/products/trichloroethylene-8767360...
- dcow 3y agoMass, widespread, unchecked use and subsequent dumping of the chemical was phased out because that practice was understood to be harmful to people and the environment. The fact that it is now used in a controlled and regulated manner is entirely different. You either missed this nuance, or you are deliberately being obtuse to make a point that "it's technically still used" which, obviously, is true, and also doesn't contradict the fact that it was phased out in the 70s once found to be poisonous.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- sophacles 3y agoYou're ignoring the modifier - "generally phased out" is not the same statement as "completely phased out". For example: Generally people don't make their own clothes, is a true statement even though there's still plenty of people who make their own clothes.
- justin66 3y agoIndeed. Reading these replies I can see that the real issue is one of adverbs.