3 ms·

Oh, maybe this article won't be another questionable attempt at reporting something related to science... > The EPA noted that the National Academies of Scienc

Oh, maybe this article won't be another questionable attempt at reporting something related to science... > The EPA noted that the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, which the agency paid to review its report, agreed with its decision not to include myeloid leukemia in its cancer risk. But four former government scientists with experience doing statistical analyses of health harms told ProPublica that the myeloid leukemia risk calculation was sound. Sigh. > A 2003 study showed that factory workers exposed to high levels of formaldehyde were 3 1/2 times more likely to develop myeloid leukemia than workers exposed to low levels of the chemical. Well maybe this study they linked to will be a slam dun... | Conclusions: Exposure to formaldehyde may cause leukemia, particularly myeloid leukemia, in humans. However, results from other investigations are mixed, suggesting caution in drawing definitive conclusions. Scanning a recent review article seems to say the same thing - epidemiology studies appear mixed. Maybe formaldehyde causes cancer at rates the EPA had previously estimated, maybe it doesn't. I don't know. What I do know is this article is a disappointment.

readthenotes1 2y ago
There's no real data in it, it's just scare mongering. 3.5x the risk of what?? 3.5x of 1 in a billion is quite different than 3.5x of 1 in 5.
- coldtea 2y ago
  >3.5x the risk of what?? 3.5x of 1 in a billion is quite different than 3.5x of 1 in 5 I'm pretty sure the baseline is included in the relevant research. And people should be scared of formaldehyde.
tootie 2y ago
I think that's the wrong line of reasoning. Even if the science isn't 100% settled, you're in a scenario where it's possible if not probably that formaldehyde is major carcinogen. Maybe futures studies say it's not quite as bad as they think, maybe it's worse. The question is how much certainty does the EPA need before it takes action? Should they let people continue to breath in toxic chemicals because it's possible they're not as toxic as we think? Surely they have to be prepared to act on incomplete information sometimes.
- hnfong 2y ago
  It depends on what the objective is. Is the objective to ensure people are safe from potential dangers? Sure. Is the objective to maximize profits for capitalist society and minimize costs? Then banning every useful but potentially harmful substance that isn't proven to kill people is a drag on society. I'm not even joking. It sounds horrible but policy makers are always making such trade offs. The "scientific", "evidence based" language is just used to placate the masses from realizing this fact.
  - tootie 2y ago
    Isn't this what actuarial science is? Surely the boffins at the EPA can model potential outcomes and weigh potential environmental downside against the economic downside. Including factors like how replaceable is formaldehyde and are the known substitutes even worse.
    - hnfong 2y ago
      Statistics doesn't work so well on things with unknown unknowns. Actuarial science works super well on predicting life expectancy of an average person, because we have a lot of data on when people die. We might not know when a particular person dies, but over a large number of persons the numbers are known and computable. But we don't know how toxic a substance is, and we really have no idea, and the result hinges on the toxicity of a single substance. In theory we could reduce chances of adverse outcomes by using a mix of unproven chemicals and hope that the bad ones are dilute enough not to cause problems, but I think in practice it would just lead to the worst of all posibilities...
  - troyvit 2y ago
    > Every government will do as much harm as it can and as much good as it must. [1] Claude Cockburn [1] https://jacobin.com/2024/12/claud-cockburn-guerrilla-journalism-left/ https://jacobin.com/2024/12/claud-cockburn-guerrilla-journal...
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    If it was only that simple. Unfortunately, increased economic costs can end up harming people as much as any toxin.

readthenotes1 2y ago

There's no real data in it, it's just scare mongering. 3.5x the risk of what?? 3.5x of 1 in a billion is quite different than 3.5x of 1 in 5.

coldtea 2y ago
>3.5x the risk of what?? 3.5x of 1 in a billion is quite different than 3.5x of 1 in 5 I'm pretty sure the baseline is included in the relevant research. And people should be scared of formaldehyde.

tootie 2y ago

I think that's the wrong line of reasoning. Even if the science isn't 100% settled, you're in a scenario where it's possible if not probably that formaldehyde is major carcinogen. Maybe futures studies say it's not quite as bad as they think, maybe it's worse. The question is how much certainty does the EPA need before it takes action? Should they let people continue to breath in toxic chemicals because it's possible they're not as toxic as we think? Surely they have to be prepared to act on incomplete information sometimes.

hnfong 2y ago
It depends on what the objective is. Is the objective to ensure people are safe from potential dangers? Sure. Is the objective to maximize profits for capitalist society and minimize costs? Then banning every useful but potentially harmful substance that isn't proven to kill people is a drag on society. I'm not even joking. It sounds horrible but policy makers are always making such trade offs. The "scientific", "evidence based" language is just used to placate the masses from realizing this fact.
- tootie 2y ago
  Isn't this what actuarial science is? Surely the boffins at the EPA can model potential outcomes and weigh potential environmental downside against the economic downside. Including factors like how replaceable is formaldehyde and are the known substitutes even worse.
  - hnfong 2y ago
    Statistics doesn't work so well on things with unknown unknowns. Actuarial science works super well on predicting life expectancy of an average person, because we have a lot of data on when people die. We might not know when a particular person dies, but over a large number of persons the numbers are known and computable. But we don't know how toxic a substance is, and we really have no idea, and the result hinges on the toxicity of a single substance. In theory we could reduce chances of adverse outcomes by using a mix of unproven chemicals and hope that the bad ones are dilute enough not to cause problems, but I think in practice it would just lead to the worst of all posibilities...
- troyvit 2y ago
  > Every government will do as much harm as it can and as much good as it must. [1] Claude Cockburn [1] https://jacobin.com/2024/12/claud-cockburn-guerrilla-journalism-left/ https://jacobin.com/2024/12/claud-cockburn-guerrilla-journal...
- Aloisius 2y ago
  If it was only that simple. Unfortunately, increased economic costs can end up harming people as much as any toxin.