2 ms·

> We have had very similar scenarios before (lead, asbestos,... ) and they had horrible consequences. This is the time to get ahead of this cycle. It's an ass

by lysace 2y ago

> We have had very similar scenarios before (lead, asbestos,... ) and they had horrible consequences. This is the time to get ahead of this cycle. It's an assumption that this will be similar, but sure.

ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
Surely the far more dangerous assumption is to assume that an untested substance won't be harmful to life.
- lysace 2y ago
  There are many "untested" substances.
  - ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
    > There are many "untested" substances. I don't see your point. Lots of substances may not need to be tested if they occur frequently in nature as we can assume that life has already mitigated the problems that they may or not cause. If we start to widely distribute these naturally occurring substances, then we need to re-examine what effects they may have (e.g. lead occurs naturally, but putting it into the air produced a very harmful effect on human development). If it's a new substance that doesn't already occur in meaningful quantities, then we need to be very careful before we start putting it into water supplies as that has the potential to disrupt a wide variety of life and habitats. To merely consider it not harmful due to lack of testing is really foolish.
mglz 2y ago
If it's bad and we avoid it = win If it's bad and we don't avoid it = potential disaster If it's no problem and we avoid it = Some unnecessary losses If it's no problem and we avoid it = No problem Currently, considering past patterns, it looks like PFAS are problematic and the potential cost of failing to mitigate could be very high. So being more cautious is the rational solution, even in the face of uncertainty.
- lysace 2y ago
  > If it's no problem and we avoid it = No problem This is incorrect. I think that you also understand why.
  - Happily2020 2y ago
    Going by the pattern of the comment, I would assume this was a typo. Maybe they intended to say: "If it's no problem and we DON'T avoid it = No problem"

by lysace 2y ago

ndsipa_pomu 2y ago

Surely the far more dangerous assumption is to assume that an untested substance won't be harmful to life.

lysace 2y ago
There are many "untested" substances.
- ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
  > There are many "untested" substances. I don't see your point. Lots of substances may not need to be tested if they occur frequently in nature as we can assume that life has already mitigated the problems that they may or not cause. If we start to widely distribute these naturally occurring substances, then we need to re-examine what effects they may have (e.g. lead occurs naturally, but putting it into the air produced a very harmful effect on human development). If it's a new substance that doesn't already occur in meaningful quantities, then we need to be very careful before we start putting it into water supplies as that has the potential to disrupt a wide variety of life and habitats. To merely consider it not harmful due to lack of testing is really foolish.

mglz 2y ago

If it's bad and we avoid it = win If it's bad and we don't avoid it = potential disaster If it's no problem and we avoid it = Some unnecessary losses If it's no problem and we avoid it = No problem Currently, considering past patterns, it looks like PFAS are problematic and the potential cost of failing to mitigate could be very high. So being more cautious is the rational solution, even in the face of uncertainty.

lysace 2y ago
> If it's no problem and we avoid it = No problem This is incorrect. I think that you also understand why.
- Happily2020 2y ago
  Going by the pattern of the comment, I would assume this was a typo. Maybe they intended to say: "If it's no problem and we DON'T avoid it = No problem"