3 ms·

> We literally don't know how to sustain modern society without some deaths from industrial processes. Of course we do. It would just reduce profits. Individ

> We literally don't know how to sustain modern society without some deaths from industrial processes. Of course we do. It would just reduce profits. Individual workers accept these risks under the hope that they can eventually improve their or their families lot in life.

elcritch 2y ago
No, we can't. Not every material or chemical has an entirely safe replacement. PPE isn't perfect. Let's say all industrial workers wore air-tight safety suits, then the suits themselves would still be somewhat toxic.
- akira2501 2y ago
  I think you're moving the goalposts. You invoked deaths directly attributable to industrial process. Are there recorded deaths from long term wearing of a positive pressure suit? And why exactly would that be "somewhat" toxic? Is it "somewhat" lethal then? Ultimately, though, probably just going to end up using robots. These typically aren't highly skilled labor positions.
  - elcritch 2y ago
    > I think you're moving the goalposts. You invoked deaths directly attributable to industrial process. Directly or indirectly, industrial processes are always going to be somewhat dangerous. TFA is discussing indirect deaths due to formaldehyde. > Are there recorded deaths from long term wearing of a positive pressure suit? Not that I know about, but then again I wouldn't be surprised if there were deaths due to equipment failure and suffocation. The materials used in them certainly contain various low level carcinogens. > And why exactly would that be "somewhat" toxic? Is it "somewhat" lethal then? Point is it's balancing risks. It isn't lethal directly at levels used in many industrial processes, but exposure over a long time does increase cancer risk and fatality risk. Then again so do many other common materials.
    - akira2501 2y ago
      > It isn't lethal directly at levels used in many industrial processes Other than production itself. I was assuming that was our starting point. The TFA mentions some sources but does not limit exposure to only these indirect sources, nor does the EPA study. > but exposure over a long time does increase cancer risk and fatality risk Which is relative to the actual industry. The plants where formaldehyde is produced is likely highest in danger. It's also somewhere that you can easily see some changes in production process could actually measurably save whole numbers of lives within the next decade. Likewise since it's produced and added intentionally to glues and finishes it's entirely possible it could be eliminated from the supply chain particularly in products that diffuse it out poorly before reaching the customer. Where not possible the products could be held and treated in such a way to extract and filter out the compound. It's just weird to go "well.. the first world apparently requires human sacrifice" especially in the face of so many options. Anyways.
Dylan16807 2y ago
You think we can reach zero industrial deaths worldwide? I think that's a "hell no", not an "of course we could".

elcritch 2y ago

No, we can't. Not every material or chemical has an entirely safe replacement. PPE isn't perfect. Let's say all industrial workers wore air-tight safety suits, then the suits themselves would still be somewhat toxic.

akira2501 2y ago
I think you're moving the goalposts. You invoked deaths directly attributable to industrial process. Are there recorded deaths from long term wearing of a positive pressure suit? And why exactly would that be "somewhat" toxic? Is it "somewhat" lethal then? Ultimately, though, probably just going to end up using robots. These typically aren't highly skilled labor positions.
- elcritch 2y ago
  > I think you're moving the goalposts. You invoked deaths directly attributable to industrial process. Directly or indirectly, industrial processes are always going to be somewhat dangerous. TFA is discussing indirect deaths due to formaldehyde. > Are there recorded deaths from long term wearing of a positive pressure suit? Not that I know about, but then again I wouldn't be surprised if there were deaths due to equipment failure and suffocation. The materials used in them certainly contain various low level carcinogens. > And why exactly would that be "somewhat" toxic? Is it "somewhat" lethal then? Point is it's balancing risks. It isn't lethal directly at levels used in many industrial processes, but exposure over a long time does increase cancer risk and fatality risk. Then again so do many other common materials.
  - akira2501 2y ago
    > It isn't lethal directly at levels used in many industrial processes Other than production itself. I was assuming that was our starting point. The TFA mentions some sources but does not limit exposure to only these indirect sources, nor does the EPA study. > but exposure over a long time does increase cancer risk and fatality risk Which is relative to the actual industry. The plants where formaldehyde is produced is likely highest in danger. It's also somewhere that you can easily see some changes in production process could actually measurably save whole numbers of lives within the next decade. Likewise since it's produced and added intentionally to glues and finishes it's entirely possible it could be eliminated from the supply chain particularly in products that diffuse it out poorly before reaching the customer. Where not possible the products could be held and treated in such a way to extract and filter out the compound. It's just weird to go "well.. the first world apparently requires human sacrifice" especially in the face of so many options. Anyways.

Dylan16807 2y ago

You think we can reach zero industrial deaths worldwide? I think that's a "hell no", not an "of course we could".