4 ms·

That's a pretty shitty response to an actual problem. Companies don't need to prove the safety of things like this. Look at bpa free. Most people don't even

That's a pretty shitty response to an actual problem. Companies don't need to prove the safety of things like this. Look at bpa free. Most people don't even know that bpa free plastic tends to be just as bad, or potentially worse than bpa. The press doesn't give a shit I guess. Society went through its giant bpa panic and now it's tired of dealing with this so let's just ignore it and move onto the next thing. Ignorance is bliss.

bravoetch 3y ago
You're okay with companies not being responsible, but you want the press to help you out here? I feel the opposite. Companies should be responsible for poisoning us, and the press has zero to do with it.
- pizlonator 3y ago
  I don’t think that the problem some posters are alluding to is the kind where we should be placing blame. The problem is: - Humans invent something useful and cool. - Humans discover that the cool and useful thing is toxic as fuck, but only after years go by. It takes years for the awareness of the toxicity to become widespread enough for everyone to concur it’s a problem. Often, we only find out about the toxicity as a result of the cool chemical becoming hella widespread. - Humans invent alternatives that are different enough to obviously not have the same exact problem. But: what toxic nonsense or buttcancer risks will we discover about the alternatives? No way to know immediately since it takes years to find out. And it’s only when the alternatives become widespread that we can even do the science to figure out what’s up. And by the time they become widespread, some folks got buttcancer. That’s the problem: just because there’s an alternative that is different from the thing we found out to be toxic doesn’t meant that the alternative isn’t toxic. And we find out it’s toxic because people get hurt. It’s not that the press is bad… it’s just a fundamental problem in science and engineering. You need scale to discover the really bad issues.
  - FollowingTheDao 3y ago
    > it’s just a fundamental problem in science and engineering. In my opinion is is a problem not of science and engineering, but of human greed. We do not need these products, we want them. As a species we did fine without them but suddenly in the last 100 years we need the so desperately? Adding, no one can give me a response, just downvotes. Why is the aversion to speaking about greed so strong here on hacker news?
    - pizlonator 3y ago
      Greed is always part of it. It’s a part of everything. Thats why I don’t usually use greed as an explanation for stuff. Of course greed is part of the system and sometimes it causes bad things to happen. Sometimes it also causes good things to happen. So, if you want to prevent the bad, it’s useful to look for some explanation that isn’t just “greed”.
      - FollowingTheDao 3y ago
        > Greed is always part of it. It’s a part of everything. That statement is doing allot of heavy lifting. Greed: excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions. That definition of greed is certainly not a part of everything in my life. Can you name something that that greed leads to something good happening?
  - NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
    Case in point: new refrigerants with lower global-warming-potential were adopted after the hue-and-cry about CFCs. Many of the new refrigerants are now also source of concern due to PFAS. The CFC refrigerants themselves were introduced as superior and safer alternatives to things like ammonia and chloromethane.
  - Miraste 3y ago
    The problem is the point between 2 and 3: - Humans who discovered the toxicity lie, bribe, bully, and cheat to stop anyone else from finding out. The solution is delayed by decades and deaths go through the roof.

bravoetch 3y ago

You're okay with companies not being responsible, but you want the press to help you out here? I feel the opposite. Companies should be responsible for poisoning us, and the press has zero to do with it.

pizlonator 3y ago
I don’t think that the problem some posters are alluding to is the kind where we should be placing blame. The problem is: - Humans invent something useful and cool. - Humans discover that the cool and useful thing is toxic as fuck, but only after years go by. It takes years for the awareness of the toxicity to become widespread enough for everyone to concur it’s a problem. Often, we only find out about the toxicity as a result of the cool chemical becoming hella widespread. - Humans invent alternatives that are different enough to obviously not have the same exact problem. But: what toxic nonsense or buttcancer risks will we discover about the alternatives? No way to know immediately since it takes years to find out. And it’s only when the alternatives become widespread that we can even do the science to figure out what’s up. And by the time they become widespread, some folks got buttcancer. That’s the problem: just because there’s an alternative that is different from the thing we found out to be toxic doesn’t meant that the alternative isn’t toxic. And we find out it’s toxic because people get hurt. It’s not that the press is bad… it’s just a fundamental problem in science and engineering. You need scale to discover the really bad issues.
- FollowingTheDao 3y ago
  > it’s just a fundamental problem in science and engineering. In my opinion is is a problem not of science and engineering, but of human greed. We do not need these products, we want them. As a species we did fine without them but suddenly in the last 100 years we need the so desperately? Adding, no one can give me a response, just downvotes. Why is the aversion to speaking about greed so strong here on hacker news?
  - pizlonator 3y ago
    Greed is always part of it. It’s a part of everything. Thats why I don’t usually use greed as an explanation for stuff. Of course greed is part of the system and sometimes it causes bad things to happen. Sometimes it also causes good things to happen. So, if you want to prevent the bad, it’s useful to look for some explanation that isn’t just “greed”.
    - FollowingTheDao 3y ago
      > Greed is always part of it. It’s a part of everything. That statement is doing allot of heavy lifting. Greed: excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions. That definition of greed is certainly not a part of everything in my life. Can you name something that that greed leads to something good happening?
- NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
  Case in point: new refrigerants with lower global-warming-potential were adopted after the hue-and-cry about CFCs. Many of the new refrigerants are now also source of concern due to PFAS. The CFC refrigerants themselves were introduced as superior and safer alternatives to things like ammonia and chloromethane.
- Miraste 3y ago
  The problem is the point between 2 and 3: - Humans who discovered the toxicity lie, bribe, bully, and cheat to stop anyone else from finding out. The solution is delayed by decades and deaths go through the roof.