3 ms·

The FDA's process would be much better if learned which substances are unsafe faster and responded to the knowledge that a substance is unsafe faster. PFAS wer

by hx8 3y ago

The FDA's process would be much better if learned which substances are unsafe faster and responded to the knowledge that a substance is unsafe faster. PFAS were introduced in the 1940s. We started getting an idea that they were harmful in the 2000s. Six years ago the term "forever chemical" was coined and it entered mainstream discourse. It took us ~60 years to start to realize they are harmful, another ~15 to be certain, and another ~5 to ban them.

dylan604 3y ago
It may have taken the public ~60 years, but the companies making them knew much much earlier.
BizarroLand 3y ago
It is kind of strange that because we cannot test products on individual people because that would be inhumane, we end up testing products on animals, deciding they're ok, and then dumping these chemicals on billions of people only to find out 50 years later that there are unexpected side effects. I have vague memories of how people were so concerned about deforestation and trash that they pushed to get rid of paper bags and replace them with safer, clean, recyclable plastic, and now we still have deforestation and trash but also now plastic rains from the skies and lodges in the clogs in our arteries and has polluted distant islands where no human has ever touched foot on and created an island sized patch of garbage in the ocean that needs billions of dollars of cleanup to fix. Oh well, I guess that is "someone else's problem". Yay.
- dylan604 3y ago
  I can't tell, but are you advocating for human test subjects?
  - BizarroLand 3y ago
    No. I am pointing out the irony of the situation that if we were cruel enough to test the effects of these chemicals on a select few humans that it would have prevented humans worldwide from suffering under the cruelty of an untold multitude of side effects, but our own sense of ethics and justice prevented us from doing the thing that created the least total amount of suffering and cruelty. That being said, I would still not advocate for human testing of chemicals and products, not even for death row inmates because there are too many things people would want to test and there is no bottom once we start going down that slide. However, I would advocate for digital human simulacra that we could test the effects of chemicals on rather than any living creature. I hope that in the near future we could make a virtual human that we can carry out these tests on at many times normal speed so we can solve these things once and for all.
    - hx8 3y ago
      Yes, there is a dilemma that human test subjects could potentially save more lives than it cost. This is largely a utilitarian argument at its core. The current social more -- largely established post WW2 -- is that we should greatly regulate human test subjects and do a lot to mitigate the risks associated with it.

by hx8 3y ago

dylan604 3y ago

It may have taken the public ~60 years, but the companies making them knew much much earlier.

BizarroLand 3y ago

It is kind of strange that because we cannot test products on individual people because that would be inhumane, we end up testing products on animals, deciding they're ok, and then dumping these chemicals on billions of people only to find out 50 years later that there are unexpected side effects. I have vague memories of how people were so concerned about deforestation and trash that they pushed to get rid of paper bags and replace them with safer, clean, recyclable plastic, and now we still have deforestation and trash but also now plastic rains from the skies and lodges in the clogs in our arteries and has polluted distant islands where no human has ever touched foot on and created an island sized patch of garbage in the ocean that needs billions of dollars of cleanup to fix. Oh well, I guess that is "someone else's problem". Yay.

dylan604 3y ago
I can't tell, but are you advocating for human test subjects?
- BizarroLand 3y ago
  No. I am pointing out the irony of the situation that if we were cruel enough to test the effects of these chemicals on a select few humans that it would have prevented humans worldwide from suffering under the cruelty of an untold multitude of side effects, but our own sense of ethics and justice prevented us from doing the thing that created the least total amount of suffering and cruelty. That being said, I would still not advocate for human testing of chemicals and products, not even for death row inmates because there are too many things people would want to test and there is no bottom once we start going down that slide. However, I would advocate for digital human simulacra that we could test the effects of chemicals on rather than any living creature. I hope that in the near future we could make a virtual human that we can carry out these tests on at many times normal speed so we can solve these things once and for all.
  - hx8 3y ago
    Yes, there is a dilemma that human test subjects could potentially save more lives than it cost. This is largely a utilitarian argument at its core. The current social more -- largely established post WW2 -- is that we should greatly regulate human test subjects and do a lot to mitigate the risks associated with it.