2 ms·

> The whole idea we allow “safe levels” of anything toxic is a concession to industry at the expense of the environment and consumers You are conflating hazard

> The whole idea we allow “safe levels” of anything toxic is a concession to industry at the expense of the environment and consumers You are conflating hazard and risk. A thing can be hazardous without being a risk. If you eliminated everything hazardous, regardless of its level of risk, we would not have cars or airplanes or electronics or plastics or most food products. That is an extreme position to take. The correct thing to do is decide on an acceptable level of risk, and enforce that (either personally, or through the gov't; there are pros & cons to each). I wrote about this a while back in the context of the black plastic brouhaha: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42471665 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42471665

no_wizard 2y ago
I'm not, I think folks are generally passing over the term artificial here. I am aware there is some sources of toxins that occur naturally and really aren't avoidable in any reasonable manner. However, there is a ton of exposure that constitutes inappropriate risk because it can be mitigated reasonably. There's no reason you have to have lead in toothpaste, for example. We know it can be manufactured lead free and work just as well. We do this through out the food chain and with manufactured goods and even when science changes and clearly suggests that we need to lower exposure levels of a previously allowable amount of a toxin industry fights tooth and nail. It becomes political rather than a strictly health and scientific assessment.
- coldpie 2y ago
  Yeah, you're on the right track now. What you need to do next is provide evidence for your arguments: > there is a ton of exposure that constitutes inappropriate risk Like what? What are the harms that are caused by the too high level of risk? > it can be mitigated reasonably Can they? What would the cost to introduce the mitigations be? Are the harms solved worth the increased costs? These are interesting questions and I 100% believe that there are good changes to be made here. But, a study showing that current products are already below a set risk threshold is not evidence that the risk threshold is too high. That requires a different kind of study & evidence.

no_wizard 2y ago

I'm not, I think folks are generally passing over the term artificial here. I am aware there is some sources of toxins that occur naturally and really aren't avoidable in any reasonable manner. However, there is a ton of exposure that constitutes inappropriate risk because it can be mitigated reasonably. There's no reason you have to have lead in toothpaste, for example. We know it can be manufactured lead free and work just as well. We do this through out the food chain and with manufactured goods and even when science changes and clearly suggests that we need to lower exposure levels of a previously allowable amount of a toxin industry fights tooth and nail. It becomes political rather than a strictly health and scientific assessment.

coldpie 2y ago
Yeah, you're on the right track now. What you need to do next is provide evidence for your arguments: > there is a ton of exposure that constitutes inappropriate risk Like what? What are the harms that are caused by the too high level of risk? > it can be mitigated reasonably Can they? What would the cost to introduce the mitigations be? Are the harms solved worth the increased costs? These are interesting questions and I 100% believe that there are good changes to be made here. But, a study showing that current products are already below a set risk threshold is not evidence that the risk threshold is too high. That requires a different kind of study & evidence.