4 ms·

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 capital

by 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.
- cogman10 2y ago
  Can, but do they? What are the economic costs of getting cancer to society? Especially if we start talking about public health funding to treat said cancers (medicare, medicaid). And what are those costs? Particularly in the mining industry we've seen how mine owners just love skimping on PPE or clearing out methane [1]. It's just cheaper to roll the dice with worker lives. [1] https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/msha/msha20240729 https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/msha/msha20240729
  - pas 2y ago
    Of course they do. And then usually said miners then elect pro-this and pro-that folks that mostly turn out to be pro-fuck-you-miners.

by hnfong 2y ago

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.

cogman10 2y ago
Can, but do they? What are the economic costs of getting cancer to society? Especially if we start talking about public health funding to treat said cancers (medicare, medicaid). And what are those costs? Particularly in the mining industry we've seen how mine owners just love skimping on PPE or clearing out methane [1]. It's just cheaper to roll the dice with worker lives. [1] https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/msha/msha20240729 https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/msha/msha20240729
- pas 2y ago
  Of course they do. And then usually said miners then elect pro-this and pro-that folks that mostly turn out to be pro-fuck-you-miners.