5 ms·

> The deleterious effects of PFAS on the body are well established. Which PFAS? At what concentrations? What's the effect size? QALY loss per person affected?

• saiya-jin 3y ago
  [flagged]
• vkou 3y ago
  > Which PFAS? At what concentrations? What's the effect size? QALY loss per person affected? These are great questions, and maybe they should have all gotten conclusive answers before they are introduced to the market. Prove that your crap is safe, before you sell it.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • refurb 3y ago
    You can't prove a negative. Technology progresses and finds new things we didn't know 10 years ago. What you're suggesting is impossible.
    • tankenmate 3y ago
      That's not strictly true; for example new drugs are tested on animals and humans all the time.
      • ironSkillet 3y ago
        Negative effects can manifest themselves over timescales beyond any scientific test.
        • californical 3y ago
          Does that mean that you shouldn’t try just because it’s imperfect?
    • user_7832 3y ago
      > You can't prove a negative. Technology progresses and finds new things we didn't know 10 years ago. What you're suggesting is impossible. From the first Google result I found (https://biorius.com/biorius-group/comparison-between-the-us-and-eu-cosmetics-regulations/ https://biorius.com/biorius-group/comparison-between-the-us-...) > In Europe before selling anything, you must indeed make sure and confirm it will not harm anyone! So I guess that’s why cosmetics and consumer goods don’t exist in the EU, eh?
    • AbrahamParangi 3y ago
      To be honest it’s very unclear to me why we hold medicine to the standard of “demonstrably more helpful than harmful” but we hold the material your pill bottle is made out of to the standards of “innocent until proven guilty”. I can’t help but think that’s an oversight from lack of imagination and lack of intuitive understanding of how much leaching and abrading goes on.
      • refurb 3y ago
        but we hold the material your pill bottle is made out of to the standards of “innocent until proven guilty” No they don't. Drug packaging is regulated too. It's tested for leeching, stability, etc. I'm starting to get the feeling that many people are upset in this thread because they don't actually know what the current regulations are.
        • AbrahamParangi 3y ago
          There are regulations on quite a number of things but the evidentiary standards are not equal because a treatment has to demonstrate a health benefit whereas a packaging additive just has to "demonstrate an absence of harm" which is actually a lax criteria because proving a negative is inherently "impossible". The practical implication is that your bloodstream is filled with relatively few small-molecule drugs and relatively many synthetic chemicals.
          • refurb 3y ago
            There are regulations on quite a number of things but the evidentiary standards are not equal because a treatment has to demonstrate a health benefit whereas a packaging additive just has to "demonstrate an absence of harm" which is actually a lax criteria because proving a negative is inherently "impossible". That makes no sense. Of course a "packaging additive" only has to prove a lack of harm. What else would you prove?
    • peteradio 3y ago
      And I'm mandated to take a novel vaccine?
  • concordDance 3y ago
    This would have prevented every single technology from being made and used. We have never proved that modern selectively bread bananas[1] aren't harmful to health, we have never proved that wearing clothes or being near fire isn't harmful to our health. [1] https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d9/9e/63/d99e637a2aa93a9b4c88de6ab10d25b4.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d9/9e/63/d99e637a2aa93a9b4c88...