5 ms·
Cover up aside. As I understand it, currently the way these chemicals are regulated is: manufacture and use first, worry about safety issues later. More or less
by chiefalchemist 3y ago
Cover up aside. As I understand it, currently the way these chemicals are regulated is: manufacture and use first, worry about safety issues later. More or less the opposite of how medical chemicals (i.e., drugs) are overseen.
As a result, a buffet of chemicals have been put in use and we know very little about their solo effects or what happens when they interact with other chemicals in the wild.
These companies not disclosing their awareness is criminal. But that doesn't explain why the government refuses to update regulations to be proactive in preventing such substances from being "use first, ask questions later."
- throwaway290 3y agoProbably the idea is to trust that people are inherently good and not malicious jerks willing to endanger everything around for personal gain. I think maybe it's the way to go indeed but then when it does go wrong the punishment should be proportionate to that trust.
- Ekaros 3y agoFunny thing is that we have been proven wrong with that for centuries now... Maybe the powers just don't want to learn.
- throwaway290 3y agoSo you think it's better to live under a regime where anything not explicitly sanctioned is forbidden?
- indigochill 3y agoEven under that assumption, the interaction of chemistry and biology is tricky (even drugs that have a well-established track record of being safe still have negative side effects for some people). Even moreso when you just let the chemical loose into the world rather than administering it in a controlled scenario like prescription pharmaceuticals.
- scns 3y agoMedication is tested on men only. So consequences for (pregnant) women will surface when prescribed to them.
- chiefalchemist 3y agoGood people make perfectly good mistakes. We have safety requirements for medical chemical (i.e., drugs). Why can't we do the same for industrials chemicals when we all know those chemicals end up in the environment, in our bodies, etc.? It's silly (read: insulting) to hear, "...incidents of Cancer X, Cancer Y and behavior Z are increasing and we have no idea why that might be..." Good people want to know. Not so good people turn a blind eye and feign ignorance. History is littered with good people, with good intentions, creating things with not-so-good consequences.
- throwaway290 3y agoThe topic is people with clearly bad intentions intentionally covering up or obstructing research...
- lotsofpulp 3y ago> But that doesn't explain why the government refuses to update regulations to be proactive in preventing such substances from being "use first, ask questions later." Because people, by and large, like the convenience of these substances. It is not a politically popular position to go around banning things that people find increases their quality of life, even if just in the short term. See fossil fuels and carbon emissions. It would be trivial to slap a 10,000% tax on them to limit its use and bring down carbon emissions, but it would come at the cost of people not being able to do things they want to do.
- ceejayoz 3y ago> manufacture and use first, worry about safety issues later And at that point, use something similar that probably has the same safety issues. Like the switch from BPA to BPS and BPF.