Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in US: disease burden and cost analysis

thelancet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 164 posts

Re: Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in US: disease burden and cost analysis

#151

Post by cwkoss »

ProAm wrote: post #146
cwkoss wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting educational information behind a paywall is unethical classism. Any business who depends on this should be put out of business.

It's business, what does this have to do with classism, the authors were paid [1] to do this research and published it. [1] Endocrine Society, Ralph S French Charitable Foundation, and Broad Reach Foundation.

By endorsing this business model, you are placing the profits of businesses above the right for children to learn regardless of their economic situation.

Re: Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in US: disease burden and cost analysis

#152

Post by DoreenMichele »

jnbiche wrote: post #150
DoreenMichele wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment you are replying to is not currently flagged to death. The GP is and probably because of framing. I post as openly female on HN. I appear to be the only woman to have spent time on the leaderboard. In my experience, you can successfully have good discussion about such issues here, but you really need to meet a high bar of etiquette to do so, basically.

I'm not sure why your response was downvoted, either. My opinion is that people are far too quick to flag and downvoted on HN at the present time. For the record, I upvoted your comment above.

It's a big forum. There is going to be a certain level of Eternal September going on.

Re: Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in US: disease burden and cost analysis

#153

Post by ProAm »

cwkoss wrote: post #151
ProAm wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's business, what does this have to do with classism, the authors were paid [1] to do this research and published it. [1] Endocrine Society, Ralph S French Charitable Foundation, and Broad Reach Foundation.

By endorsing this business model, you are placing the profits of businesses above the right for children to learn regardless of their economic situation.

Life isn't fair. Never was and never will be. Why is no one upset at the authors for publishing it via this method? They could have self published. It's business, it always will be business to ignore this would be to ignore reality.

Re: Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in US: disease burden and cost analysis

#154

Post by boringg »

Analemma_ wrote: post #39
boringg wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Farmer's markets aren't cheaper in sf. The quality is definitely better than whole foods - but some of the other retailers have great produce and lower costs than the farmers markets. I am not trying detract from farmer's markets as they are an important part of the ecosystem - but they are pretty bougie in town.

That's unfortunate. I suspect it's a supply-and-demand thing: SF probably has more residents per capita who want to buy from farmers' markets than anywhere else in the country, and so prices rise accordingly. That definitely isn't the case in most places though (not even Seattle), so I stand by my advice for everyone else.

Seems reasonable!

Re: Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in US: disease burden and cost analysis

#155

Post by boringg »

beatpanda wrote: post #37
boringg wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Farmer's markets aren't cheaper in sf. The quality is definitely better than whole foods - but some of the other retailers have great produce and lower costs than the farmers markets. I am not trying detract from farmer's markets as they are an important part of the ecosystem - but they are pretty bougie in town.

The Alemany farmer's market on Saturday morning is cheaper than anywhere else.

True but that's also all the way down in Alemany and only one farmer's market out of all the farmer's markets in the city.

Re: Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in US: disease burden and cost analysis

#156

Post by cwkoss »

ProAm wrote: post #153
cwkoss wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By endorsing this business model, you are placing the profits of businesses above the right for children to learn regardless of their economic situation.

Life isn't fair. Never was and never will be. Why is no one upset at the authors for publishing it via this method? They could have self published. It's business, it always will be business to ignore this would be to ignore reality.

Participating in unethical business models makes you complicit in the evils of their externalities. If you don't have an ethical objection to hiding academic information from the poor, then by all means engage in commerce with them. Acting morally is a choice - you can make your own.

Re: Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in US: disease burden and cost analysis

#157

Post by cwkoss »

majjam wrote: post #143
cwkoss wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like this would affect the flavor?

Apparently not, less so than using vinegar which is what I have been using. That being said, I'll let you know once I've eaten my lunch...

How was lunch?

Re: Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in US: disease burden and cost analysis

#158

Post by VMG »

ProAm wrote: post #145
VMG wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not advocating stealing. It's not the publishers property.

Sure it is, this is where the authors decided to publish. Straight business agreement.

That still doesn't make it their property. As you point out yourself, the authors will email it to you for free.

And I did not advocate stealing, I just pointed out that the price is absurd and nobody should pay for it.

Re: Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in US: disease burden and cost analysis

#159

Post by krageon »

majjam wrote: post #143
cwkoss wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like this would affect the flavor?

Apparently not, less so than using vinegar which is what I have been using. That being said, I'll let you know once I've eaten my lunch...

Vinegar has an incredibly strong taste you should be able to detect in anything, so it's not a super strong example in this case. It can be less strong than vinegar and still be overpowering.

Re: Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in US: disease burden and cost analysis

#160

Post by krageon »

h4b4n3r0 wrote: post #89
tathougies wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife and I buy most of our meats and vegetables directly from a farm. We have the farm owner's number on hand, and can call and ask. We can also ask to be there at the slaughter if we'd like or to visit the animals before hand. Surprisingly, it's not that much more expensive than whole foods for us. The farm is about a 20 mile drive from where we live. We like it. I found the program online. Didn't need any specia…

What's shocking is that buying from a farm is _more_ expensive than Whole Foods for you (or for anybody else for that matter). The price they charge wholesalers can be easily 1/10th of what you pay at a grocery store for a lot of common items, probably not beef, but vegetables for sure. To even consider the inconvenience of shopping at a farm, I'd have to see some serious cost advantages, of which there aren't any as…

It's inconvenient for the farm to sell directly to you, although I agree with you that if you buy in any kind of reasonable amount (eg a quarter / half of a cow) you should (and in my experience this has been the case) see incredible reductions in cost.
Post reply on HN