4 ms·

How many cycles do we have to go through of "oh, recklessly dumping this substance into the ecosystem probably doesn't have any ill effects, and you should prov

by jrajav 3y ago

How many cycles do we have to go through of "oh, recklessly dumping this substance into the ecosystem probably doesn't have any ill effects, and you should prove it does before being such a negative nelly"? Just once, I'd like to sacrifice consumerism at the altar of my and my family's internal organs, versus the other way around. We're a few decades late to finally be putting full product lifecycle accountability in the laps of manufacturers everywhere.

ajross 3y ago
> How many cycles do we have to go through of "oh, recklessly dumping this substance into the ecosystem probably doesn't have any ill effects, and you should prove it does before being such a negative nelly"? Because to be blunt, and even to adopt your inflammatory frame, "recklessly dumping substances into the ecosystem" has been Generally Accepted As Safe for literally thousands of years. For everything particular you want to shout about, there are thousands or tens of thousands of human impacts that went just fine. We have 8 billion of us out there, demanding zero impact just isn't going to happen. So... do you freak out about watering your garden with a well? Ever use fertilizer or lime? Eat food at a restaurant with a grill? Buy a cut of meat wrapped in wax paper? Use anything made of smelted metal? Use a refrigerator? I mean, just think about the crazy alien cultures going on in that sourdough starter in that fridge! Everything impacts the environment. Everything leaks. You square this by measuring impacts and doing the science, not by shouting on the internet. I'm sure that's not as satifying, and tends frustratingly not to have the villains you clearly want to see. But it's the only way that actually works.
- Supermancho 3y ago
  > "recklessly dumping substances into the ecosystem" has been Generally Accepted As Safe for literally thousands of years. For hundreds of thousands, substances that have negative effects (eg human corpses) were disposed of far from populations, precisely because humans learned that consequences quickly. Humans have been cognizant of causation, when they could detect it, for longer than thousands of years. Yes the black plague took awhile to figure out. As we saw with cigarettes, society is always trending to keeping the status quo. Often, to society's own detriment over the short term, along the span of human existence. > We have 8 billion of us out there, demanding zero impact just isn't going to happen. That's not relevant.
  - ajross 3y ago
    > precisely because humans learned that consequences quickly Which is exactly my point. Things like corpse burial and fecal sewage management and plague isolation and smoking regulation were all done because the evidence of their effect was clear and measured! They did the science. All the freakouts in this subthread might be true, but right now they are sitting just above the noise floor. All I'm saying is that we should recognize that and not apply moral reasoning that ignores the distinction. It is almost certainly not true that the pthalate linings on your bean can or whatever is as bad as the black plague (we started with smoking, but sure, let's go where you took us). And arguing as if it were is hurting the discourse and making a solution less likely. To wit: please be serious about this stuff.
gshubert17 3y ago
If Congress were interested in policy changes, would a tax on plastic (to cover recycling, cleanup, and future medical costs) be a way to go?
AlexandrB 3y ago
Unfortunately, sometimes there are no perfect answers and it's instead a question of balancing different pros and cons. Flame retardants are a great example - asbestos does it really well, but creates potential for long-term harm. Modern furniture and home building moved onto other fire suppressants like PBDEs[1]. These are also not great for you, however, and the question of whether it's worth it or not depends on how much those few seconds of time are worth if there's a fire in your home. The answer to that question is extremely subjective, so it's easy to disagree with any decision that the industry makes. Remove all PBDEs: "Why are you putting my family in jeopardy?" Use PBDEs: "Why are you putting my family in jeopardy?" Finally, as with many other issues, the unseen element is cost. It's possible to use materials that don't require PBDEs to keep them from igniting rapidly, but will people be willing to pay that premium for their homes and their furniture? The rising popularity of "dollar stores"[2] and TEMU suggests that they won't. And making things more expensive through regulation has the side effect of empowering political forces that would gladly obliterate any kind of regulatory protection for consumers - making things worse, not better. [1] https://www.ecohome.net/guides/2223/flame-retardants-in-furnishings-an-unnecessary-and-serious-health-risk/ https://www.ecohome.net/guides/2223/flame-retardants-in-furn... [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/more-wealthy-people-shopping-at-dollar-stores-as-inflation-bites-2022-8?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/more-wealthy-people-shopping...

by jrajav 3y ago

ajross 3y ago

> How many cycles do we have to go through of "oh, recklessly dumping this substance into the ecosystem probably doesn't have any ill effects, and you should prove it does before being such a negative nelly"? Because to be blunt, and even to adopt your inflammatory frame, "recklessly dumping substances into the ecosystem" has been Generally Accepted As Safe for literally thousands of years. For everything particular you want to shout about, there are thousands or tens of thousands of human impacts that went just fine. We have 8 billion of us out there, demanding zero impact just isn't going to happen. So... do you freak out about watering your garden with a well? Ever use fertilizer or lime? Eat food at a restaurant with a grill? Buy a cut of meat wrapped in wax paper? Use anything made of smelted metal? Use a refrigerator? I mean, just think about the crazy alien cultures going on in that sourdough starter in that fridge! Everything impacts the environment. Everything leaks. You square this by measuring impacts and doing the science, not by shouting on the internet. I'm sure that's not as satifying, and tends frustratingly not to have the villains you clearly want to see. But it's the only way that actually works.

Supermancho 3y ago
> "recklessly dumping substances into the ecosystem" has been Generally Accepted As Safe for literally thousands of years. For hundreds of thousands, substances that have negative effects (eg human corpses) were disposed of far from populations, precisely because humans learned that consequences quickly. Humans have been cognizant of causation, when they could detect it, for longer than thousands of years. Yes the black plague took awhile to figure out. As we saw with cigarettes, society is always trending to keeping the status quo. Often, to society's own detriment over the short term, along the span of human existence. > We have 8 billion of us out there, demanding zero impact just isn't going to happen. That's not relevant.
- ajross 3y ago
  > precisely because humans learned that consequences quickly Which is exactly my point. Things like corpse burial and fecal sewage management and plague isolation and smoking regulation were all done because the evidence of their effect was clear and measured! They did the science. All the freakouts in this subthread might be true, but right now they are sitting just above the noise floor. All I'm saying is that we should recognize that and not apply moral reasoning that ignores the distinction. It is almost certainly not true that the pthalate linings on your bean can or whatever is as bad as the black plague (we started with smoking, but sure, let's go where you took us). And arguing as if it were is hurting the discourse and making a solution less likely. To wit: please be serious about this stuff.

gshubert17 3y ago

If Congress were interested in policy changes, would a tax on plastic (to cover recycling, cleanup, and future medical costs) be a way to go?

AlexandrB 3y ago

Unfortunately, sometimes there are no perfect answers and it's instead a question of balancing different pros and cons. Flame retardants are a great example - asbestos does it really well, but creates potential for long-term harm. Modern furniture and home building moved onto other fire suppressants like PBDEs[1]. These are also not great for you, however, and the question of whether it's worth it or not depends on how much those few seconds of time are worth if there's a fire in your home. The answer to that question is extremely subjective, so it's easy to disagree with any decision that the industry makes. Remove all PBDEs: "Why are you putting my family in jeopardy?" Use PBDEs: "Why are you putting my family in jeopardy?" Finally, as with many other issues, the unseen element is cost. It's possible to use materials that don't require PBDEs to keep them from igniting rapidly, but will people be willing to pay that premium for their homes and their furniture? The rising popularity of "dollar stores"[2] and TEMU suggests that they won't. And making things more expensive through regulation has the side effect of empowering political forces that would gladly obliterate any kind of regulatory protection for consumers - making things worse, not better. [1] https://www.ecohome.net/guides/2223/flame-retardants-in-furnishings-an-unnecessary-and-serious-health-risk/ https://www.ecohome.net/guides/2223/flame-retardants-in-furn... [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/more-wealthy-people-shopping-at-dollar-stores-as-inflation-bites-2022-8?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/more-wealthy-people-shopping...