3 ms·
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 th
by 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 agoGP 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 agoThe 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.