2 ms·
Not that I don’t disagree with the idea of being skeptical about agency motivations and transparency, but this seems like a literal conspiracy theory. There ar
by dangus 3y ago
Not that I don’t disagree with the idea of being skeptical about agency motivations and transparency, but this seems like a literal conspiracy theory.
There are all kinds of things that cause or are linked cancer that pretty much have to be legal. Can the government entirely ban motor vehicles or delivery trucks? Would you have the government ban ice cream because obesity causes cancer?
Government agencies like the FDA have to deal with the complexities of the real world. Risk of death is involved with daily life, so they are often tasked with the analysis of risk.
The layperson doesn’t really like to hear that they’re just a number in a statistics database but it’s true.
40% of people get cancer in their lifetime. So if you have a chemical that increases cancer risk by an insignificant enough percentage, there’s a pretty understandable debate on whether banning something like that is an overreach or not. What are the benefits of the chemicals? What are the risks?
- interactivecode 3y agoActually banning fossil fuel cars from dense city centers has been proven to be healthier for the people living there. So yeah would be great if they could ban them everywhere.
- dangus 3y agoI agree, but there's a reason that I specifically didn't add those qualifiers. I was talking about a complete ban on vehicles – delivery trucks, school buses, semi trucks, cars in rural areas, etc. They all have negative externalities and verifiably kill people, but they provide obvious benefits that we rely on. The FDA is there to evaluate risks and decide when benefits outweigh risks.