3 ms·

That’s exactly why it’s bad, we don’t require businesses to prove X chemical/compound is safe before we start using it for whatever, no, we use it and just hope

That’s exactly why it’s bad, we don’t require businesses to prove X chemical/compound is safe before we start using it for whatever, no, we use it and just hope that it’s safe.

mattmaroon 3y ago
The problem is, there are very many chemicals, those chemicals in many ways power our modern world, and they can all end up in drinking water or ingested by some other means. If you took every chemical off of the market that didn’t go through a randomized controlled double blind study, billions of people would die. Literally. How many people are fed thanks to fertilizers and pesticides that we know would be actively harmful if you consume them in quantity? Or at least don’t know would be unharmful. It’s not practical to ban everything that we don’t know can be ingested safely. It’s just not even an intelligent idea. It’s merely a response to hysteria.
- esafak 3y ago
  These chemicals were suspected to be harmful but allowed to be used anyway. This is not an innocent mistake. Same playbook as the tobacco industry. Throw the book at them, they deserve it. https://theintercept.com/2018/07/31/3m-pfas-minnesota-pfoa-pfos/ https://theintercept.com/2018/07/31/3m-pfas-minnesota-pfoa-p...
- speedylight 3y ago
  I am not suggesting that we ban all chemicals not properly studied, but we can do a lot to at least get a sense of what X chemical may be capable of doing to us if ingested. I don’t think it would’ve been incredibly difficult or burdensome to think that a chemical that can with stand 900+ degrees celsius won’t be metabolized and broken down very well inside the body, the next obvious supposition would be well is the body going to be able to eliminate it in some way or will it just stay there? What happens if it stays there, that doesn’t sound very good? These are all basic questions 3M chemists could’ve asked themselves before they created this mess, or may be they did and no one paid attention.

That’s exactly why it’s bad, we don’t require businesses to prove X chemical/compound is safe before we start using it for whatever, no, we use it and just hope that it’s safe.

mattmaroon 3y ago

The problem is, there are very many chemicals, those chemicals in many ways power our modern world, and they can all end up in drinking water or ingested by some other means. If you took every chemical off of the market that didn’t go through a randomized controlled double blind study, billions of people would die. Literally. How many people are fed thanks to fertilizers and pesticides that we know would be actively harmful if you consume them in quantity? Or at least don’t know would be unharmful. It’s not practical to ban everything that we don’t know can be ingested safely. It’s just not even an intelligent idea. It’s merely a response to hysteria.

esafak 3y ago
These chemicals were suspected to be harmful but allowed to be used anyway. This is not an innocent mistake. Same playbook as the tobacco industry. Throw the book at them, they deserve it. https://theintercept.com/2018/07/31/3m-pfas-minnesota-pfoa-pfos/ https://theintercept.com/2018/07/31/3m-pfas-minnesota-pfoa-p...
speedylight 3y ago
I am not suggesting that we ban all chemicals not properly studied, but we can do a lot to at least get a sense of what X chemical may be capable of doing to us if ingested. I don’t think it would’ve been incredibly difficult or burdensome to think that a chemical that can with stand 900+ degrees celsius won’t be metabolized and broken down very well inside the body, the next obvious supposition would be well is the body going to be able to eliminate it in some way or will it just stay there? What happens if it stays there, that doesn’t sound very good? These are all basic questions 3M chemists could’ve asked themselves before they created this mess, or may be they did and no one paid attention.