4 ms·

This seems well into the realm of reactionary, and I'd love to avoid it on HN in particular. The physical and chemical worlds are absolutely chock full of thing

This seems well into the realm of reactionary, and I'd love to avoid it on HN in particular. The physical and chemical worlds are absolutely chock full of things that sound terrifying, but pose no practical harm in low quantities over a human lifetime and are virtually impossible to truly 100% avoid. When you combine these two facts, you get important real-world concepts like "acceptable levels" or "acceptable durations" or exposure type distinction (e.g. inhalation vs contact). This is the reason we don't let people who think in terms of "how many microscopic needles is it okay to have in my daughter's vagina" make legal decisions. It's the same reason we don't let victims decide the punishment for crimes.

TeeMassive 3y ago
This is not reactionary. This is what happens when you put talk on the butt of a baby girl each day until she's diaper free. If the quantity is detectable then it's far greater than the Avogadro number. These are physical needles that stay there over the years. How do you even study that?The safety studies have been done or financed by the same groups of companies that are getting sued. Chronic diseases are up in America since the rise of chemical industries in America.
ch4s3 3y ago
> This is the reason we don't let people who think in terms Well, in the world of civil lawsuits we do exactly this, which is sort of my overarching point here. Not much can be concluded from the settlement other than J&J being tired of litigation.