3 ms·

Your premise is flawed -- these chemicals can of course be broken down. It may or may not happen in nature and may or may not be economical (yet), but there's

by loeg 3y ago

Your premise is flawed -- these chemicals can of course be broken down. It may or may not happen in nature and may or may not be economical (yet), but there's nothing magic here. Your prescribed solution is also flawed. It is impossible to prove a negative, so you are arguing we should stop inventing new things. These kinds of (Neo-)Luddist arguments always fail to take into account the huge upside of materials science over the past 100 years.

brutusborn 3y ago
Just because we can’t prove a negative doesn’t mean safety testing is pointless. Doing a couple animal studies to check for obvious problems is likely better than pure anarchism.
- loeg 3y ago
  GP appears to be calling for a total ban on use of new substances. For example, we've studied PFAS extensively (not "pure anarchism") and still do not have convincing evidence of harm, yet commentators in this thread and others repeatedly argue for PFAS bans.
  - brutusborn 3y ago
    The critical point is whether we studied PFAS _before_ it was used extensively. I may be wrong but to my knowledge of historical chemical production is that we generally use a chemical for a long time before we do extensive research into safety. PFAS is kind of unique because it is politicised: there are lots of groups who claim harm and therefore don’t want to look at the science skeptically. And if harm actually exists, governments want to reduce liability so are happy to ignore any signs of harm before a cheap solution becomes available.
DonaldPShimoda 3y ago
Their argument isn't "neo-luddist". > these chemicals can of course be broken down The parent comment didn't claim they couldn't be broken down, but that they "never [break] down". The (obvious) intended meaning is that the chemicals will not break down with regular use or normal exposure to common environments. > It is impossible to prove a negative, so you are arguing we should stop inventing new things. This is such a disingenuous line of reasoning that I almost wondered if you were intending to be comedic. The parent comment was clearly advocating for policies that require companies to actually put forth effort to demonstrate safety over time. The longer a compound is expected to remain intact under regular conditions, the greater the guarantee of safety demanded. What you are advocating for is essentially what we already have: companies should not need to go to great efforts to demonstrate long-term safety because "innovation" and "progress", though of course when the companies say this they really mean "profit". It is unclear what stake you have in advocating for such a position, but a good argument it is not.
- loeg 3y ago
  You're reading generously into GP's very short statements and mine relatively uncharitably. That's fine, but I don't think we're ready to have an interesting discussion.
  - DonaldPShimoda 3y ago
    The original comment was quite clear in its intent. The only interpretation of your response was that you wanted to play devil's advocate --- something we could really use less of these days.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
TimPC 3y ago
I don't think arguing for some safety standards proportional to the life of the thing being used is arguing for stopping all invention. I think the most charitable reading of your critique is that you are using the Slippery Slope Fallacy to argue that any restrictions on invention means no invention at all. I do agree it's impossible to prove a negative which is why I qualified it, but you can demonstrate a few negative results like "Doesn't substantially increase the risk of Cancer X" for various types of cancer. Etc. I'd leave it to the experts to choose which risks should be tested for and shown to not be an issue. On the other hand you're arguing for a very unfair world where people are unfairly exposed to hugely damaging chemicals and don't get any remediation for those damages because we don't ensure the profits from those chemicals actually offset their long term consequences and we don't require companies taking on such risks to adequately fund future lawsuits. I agree that's kind of been the norm in US-style capitalism, but I think there is a strong case it shouldn't be.

by loeg 3y ago

brutusborn 3y ago

Just because we can’t prove a negative doesn’t mean safety testing is pointless. Doing a couple animal studies to check for obvious problems is likely better than pure anarchism.

loeg 3y ago
GP appears to be calling for a total ban on use of new substances. For example, we've studied PFAS extensively (not "pure anarchism") and still do not have convincing evidence of harm, yet commentators in this thread and others repeatedly argue for PFAS bans.
- brutusborn 3y ago
  The critical point is whether we studied PFAS _before_ it was used extensively. I may be wrong but to my knowledge of historical chemical production is that we generally use a chemical for a long time before we do extensive research into safety. PFAS is kind of unique because it is politicised: there are lots of groups who claim harm and therefore don’t want to look at the science skeptically. And if harm actually exists, governments want to reduce liability so are happy to ignore any signs of harm before a cheap solution becomes available.

DonaldPShimoda 3y ago

Their argument isn't "neo-luddist". > these chemicals can of course be broken down The parent comment didn't claim they couldn't be broken down, but that they "never [break] down". The (obvious) intended meaning is that the chemicals will not break down with regular use or normal exposure to common environments. > It is impossible to prove a negative, so you are arguing we should stop inventing new things. This is such a disingenuous line of reasoning that I almost wondered if you were intending to be comedic. The parent comment was clearly advocating for policies that require companies to actually put forth effort to demonstrate safety over time. The longer a compound is expected to remain intact under regular conditions, the greater the guarantee of safety demanded. What you are advocating for is essentially what we already have: companies should not need to go to great efforts to demonstrate long-term safety because "innovation" and "progress", though of course when the companies say this they really mean "profit". It is unclear what stake you have in advocating for such a position, but a good argument it is not.

loeg 3y ago
You're reading generously into GP's very short statements and mine relatively uncharitably. That's fine, but I don't think we're ready to have an interesting discussion.
- DonaldPShimoda 3y ago
  The original comment was quite clear in its intent. The only interpretation of your response was that you wanted to play devil's advocate --- something we could really use less of these days.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

TimPC 3y ago

I don't think arguing for some safety standards proportional to the life of the thing being used is arguing for stopping all invention. I think the most charitable reading of your critique is that you are using the Slippery Slope Fallacy to argue that any restrictions on invention means no invention at all. I do agree it's impossible to prove a negative which is why I qualified it, but you can demonstrate a few negative results like "Doesn't substantially increase the risk of Cancer X" for various types of cancer. Etc. I'd leave it to the experts to choose which risks should be tested for and shown to not be an issue. On the other hand you're arguing for a very unfair world where people are unfairly exposed to hugely damaging chemicals and don't get any remediation for those damages because we don't ensure the profits from those chemicals actually offset their long term consequences and we don't require companies taking on such risks to adequately fund future lawsuits. I agree that's kind of been the norm in US-style capitalism, but I think there is a strong case it shouldn't be.