9 ms·

No we overcomplicate it with overly complex regulations. It’s pretty simple, don’t dump chemicals in water or on land period. Assuming chemicals are totally f

No we overcomplicate it with overly complex regulations. It’s pretty simple, don’t dump chemicals in water or on land period. Assuming chemicals are totally fine until proven otherwise is backwards as hell and clearly corrupt.

amarant 3y ago
Do you know what the word "chemical" means? We do need to be a bit more specific than that, or we're not gonna get anywhere. Also, once we've specified which chemicals shouldn't be dumped, I'd like to include the atmosphere in the list of places where one shouldn't dump them. Seems to be a very popular place to dump really harmful stuff, we should stop that.
- naremu 3y ago
  > Do you know what the word "chemical" means? This intentional nitpicking of the colloquial usage of the word chemicals is a favorite of both, disingenuous conversationalists who like to take a chance to feel correct rather than participate earnestly, and lobbyists. At least one of them gets paid for it though.
  - bawolff 3y ago
    Its hardly a nitpick, you're being so vauge that its impossible to understand what you are actually proposing. Why not just use more specific language? If indeed everyone is acting in bad faith, using clear language would shut them up. If instead they are being ernest and cannot understand you because of the "colloquial" language, then being rigorous would further your stated goal of ernest participation. Either way seems like a win-win for you.
    - naremu 3y ago
      I didn't propose anything, I'm just nitpicking HN's nitpicking of attempts to have a real conversation. Which, since HN is a place for technically minded people, has resulted in people arguing that chemical contamination of PFAS is categorically the same as watering my lawn. You are technically correct, but this is called a "gotcha": it's not about continuing the conversation in earnest, if anything, it shuts down conversation about the important details by, in the writing of mike judge, "playing lawyerball" instead. In reality we all know that none of us are writing the technical legislation, so any of us becoming enamored with defending for profit entities against hazardous chemical classification through technical usage of language is...basically the core spirit of corporate lobbyism.
      - krisoft 3y ago
        > has resulted in people arguing that chemical contamination of PFAS is categorically the same as watering my lawn. I don't recognise anyone here arguing this. Let me recap the conversation: tankaiji said it is good to ban these, but expressed concern that companies will find other dangerous chemicals to replace them with. mensetmanusman responded something along the lines of this being an inevitable consequence of human technology. edgyquant responded that the problem is overly complex regulation and seemingly proposed a simpler solution. People rightfully pointed out that his simpler solution can't distinguish between the chemical contamination of PFAS and watering ones lawn. Which is ridiculous. So clearly the problem is not that simple. In fact the problem is complex and therefore the regulations around it are complex too.
  - kccqzy 3y ago
    This intentional nitpicking is necessary for anyone who has taken a first course in chemistry. You do not appear to have done that. That's why you are arguing with the colloquial usage of the word. Because you can't offer a useful and precise definition.
krisoft 3y ago
> It’s pretty simple, don’t dump chemicals in water or on land period. Everything is chemicals. You just described 2/3 of all industrial activity and proposed we should stop them. Are you willing to take the consequences which follow from that proposal? (And somehow forgot the 1/3 “dump chemicals in air”)
- edgyquant 3y ago
  No you’re being pedantic and proving my point. Everyone, every single person, knows when you’re doing something that could potentially devastate an environment and if you have to ask if it could don’t be dumping. Why should anyone be allowed to dump anything at all into the local environment?
- sitkack 3y ago
  > Everything is chemicals. This is a thought terminating cliche and pedantically destroys the conversation.
  - lazide 3y ago
    What is the difference between lye (dangerous), sand (not dangerous unless it suffocates things or gets crushed and inhaled), water (can cause flooding or drowning, otherwise harmless), and sodium bicarbonate (quite basic, generally harmless), and hydrazine (mutagenic, highly toxic, highly flammable)? All of these have hazards in specific circumstances, and huge benefits in others. All are chemicals. All are well known and characterized. Many other compounds are too new for that level of knowledge and characterization. They are chemicals too. If we allow someone to make new chemicals (it’s hard to stop, frankly!), either we say ‘no, not until they are fully understood and characterized’, or ‘yes, unless we learn it’s too hazardous’. Saying no first is a bit of a catch-22 since how are you going learn anything and characterize the dangers if you don’t make and use it a bunch? If you say ‘yes, unless we learn it’s too dangerous’ then we learn a huge amount quite quickly - but inevitably have something too dangerous causing problems. It’s a fundamentally conservative vs liberal development strategy debate.
    - 3y ago
callalex 3y ago
Do you wash your dishes and clothes? Do you shower with soap?

amarant 3y ago

Do you know what the word "chemical" means? We do need to be a bit more specific than that, or we're not gonna get anywhere. Also, once we've specified which chemicals shouldn't be dumped, I'd like to include the atmosphere in the list of places where one shouldn't dump them. Seems to be a very popular place to dump really harmful stuff, we should stop that.

naremu 3y ago
> Do you know what the word "chemical" means? This intentional nitpicking of the colloquial usage of the word chemicals is a favorite of both, disingenuous conversationalists who like to take a chance to feel correct rather than participate earnestly, and lobbyists. At least one of them gets paid for it though.
- bawolff 3y ago
  Its hardly a nitpick, you're being so vauge that its impossible to understand what you are actually proposing. Why not just use more specific language? If indeed everyone is acting in bad faith, using clear language would shut them up. If instead they are being ernest and cannot understand you because of the "colloquial" language, then being rigorous would further your stated goal of ernest participation. Either way seems like a win-win for you.
  - naremu 3y ago
    I didn't propose anything, I'm just nitpicking HN's nitpicking of attempts to have a real conversation. Which, since HN is a place for technically minded people, has resulted in people arguing that chemical contamination of PFAS is categorically the same as watering my lawn. You are technically correct, but this is called a "gotcha": it's not about continuing the conversation in earnest, if anything, it shuts down conversation about the important details by, in the writing of mike judge, "playing lawyerball" instead. In reality we all know that none of us are writing the technical legislation, so any of us becoming enamored with defending for profit entities against hazardous chemical classification through technical usage of language is...basically the core spirit of corporate lobbyism.
    - krisoft 3y ago
      > has resulted in people arguing that chemical contamination of PFAS is categorically the same as watering my lawn. I don't recognise anyone here arguing this. Let me recap the conversation: tankaiji said it is good to ban these, but expressed concern that companies will find other dangerous chemicals to replace them with. mensetmanusman responded something along the lines of this being an inevitable consequence of human technology. edgyquant responded that the problem is overly complex regulation and seemingly proposed a simpler solution. People rightfully pointed out that his simpler solution can't distinguish between the chemical contamination of PFAS and watering ones lawn. Which is ridiculous. So clearly the problem is not that simple. In fact the problem is complex and therefore the regulations around it are complex too.
- kccqzy 3y ago
  This intentional nitpicking is necessary for anyone who has taken a first course in chemistry. You do not appear to have done that. That's why you are arguing with the colloquial usage of the word. Because you can't offer a useful and precise definition.

krisoft 3y ago

> It’s pretty simple, don’t dump chemicals in water or on land period. Everything is chemicals. You just described 2/3 of all industrial activity and proposed we should stop them. Are you willing to take the consequences which follow from that proposal? (And somehow forgot the 1/3 “dump chemicals in air”)

edgyquant 3y ago
No you’re being pedantic and proving my point. Everyone, every single person, knows when you’re doing something that could potentially devastate an environment and if you have to ask if it could don’t be dumping. Why should anyone be allowed to dump anything at all into the local environment?
sitkack 3y ago
> Everything is chemicals. This is a thought terminating cliche and pedantically destroys the conversation.
- lazide 3y ago
  What is the difference between lye (dangerous), sand (not dangerous unless it suffocates things or gets crushed and inhaled), water (can cause flooding or drowning, otherwise harmless), and sodium bicarbonate (quite basic, generally harmless), and hydrazine (mutagenic, highly toxic, highly flammable)? All of these have hazards in specific circumstances, and huge benefits in others. All are chemicals. All are well known and characterized. Many other compounds are too new for that level of knowledge and characterization. They are chemicals too. If we allow someone to make new chemicals (it’s hard to stop, frankly!), either we say ‘no, not until they are fully understood and characterized’, or ‘yes, unless we learn it’s too hazardous’. Saying no first is a bit of a catch-22 since how are you going learn anything and characterize the dangers if you don’t make and use it a bunch? If you say ‘yes, unless we learn it’s too dangerous’ then we learn a huge amount quite quickly - but inevitably have something too dangerous causing problems. It’s a fundamentally conservative vs liberal development strategy debate.
  - 3y ago

callalex 3y ago

Do you wash your dishes and clothes? Do you shower with soap?