281–290 of 413 posts
Lets thank dupont for that
I'm a little confused at how this happens. Dupont is just made up of people. Those people need to live somewhere, drink water, and do normal people things. Do they not realize what they are doing as they are doing it, and only become aware it's a problem after the fact? Because if they knew it was problematic from the start, they would almost seem suicidal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's supposed to be a joke?
No, it's a legitimate question. Think of it this way. If we stop using Teflon coatings on pots and pans, will that, for example, increase the amount of cooking oil used in cooking? And if so, will that cause other health effects such as more oil being aerosolized and getting in people's lungs more? Will it cause more oil to clog up pipes (think London's "fatbergs" for example)? Will it cause more oil to go into landf…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You're forgetting the #1 cheapest and most effective way to reduce our environmental impact: efficiency of energy use and efficiency of resource use. How can that be cheaper and more effective than reducing consumption? >If we were to directly price in the costs of CO2 via a tax, the fall would be far faster. And as we come up with tech that doesn't emit, and is cheaper than fossil fuel extraction, we will stop usin…
After reading your last paragraph, I'm convinced that we are in full agreement, except for nomenclature choices. Efficiency is just that, consuming less. One can also consume less end services, too. But if you're saying that a carbon tax is infeasible, then far more in feasible is just taking away with no replacement. I am 100% in agreement with your plans to educate people to consume less, and have gotten active in…
Hopefully we see the externalities of energy usage priced in via a carbon tax or similar, but at the same time, unless we can alter the lifestyle of many to allow for far more density, I don't believe it will be enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think democracy was always problematic. Its original form, direct democracy, was vulnerable to the tyranny of the masses. Representative democracy, long described as the solution, really isn’t. Representatives are self-interested, just like everyone else, and so we cannot expect them to be purely faithful executors of their respective mandates. What we did not expect, and perhaps are now beginning to, is that human…
> tyranny of the masses Seeing California's proposition process, I agree. It also shows how disfunctional representative democracy is.
And that's a good thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's a legitimate question. Think of it this way. If we stop using Teflon coatings on pots and pans, will that, for example, increase the amount of cooking oil used in cooking? And if so, will that cause other health effects such as more oil being aerosolized and getting in people's lungs more? Will it cause more oil to clog up pipes (think London's "fatbergs" for example)? Will it cause more oil to go into landf…
I think oil concerns are much less problematic since you can decide what oil to use (or use no oil altogether) than ones that come from the chemicals you can't control because they are already in the water or your frying pan. You can simply cook, not fry if you worry about oil. On the other hand you can't avoid poisoned water unless you filter it. So it's a false argument here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But Teflon doesn't react with anything . That's its purpose. So even though it's a fluorocarbon, it's unlikely to cause health problem because it just won't react with your body. Or is there some other mechanism through which it causes damage, such as blocking something by physically being in the way?
Consider what happens to your immune system when it detects a foreign particle that it can't get rid of because there's no way to interact with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's supposed to be a joke?
No, it's a legitimate question. Think of it this way. If we stop using Teflon coatings on pots and pans, will that, for example, increase the amount of cooking oil used in cooking? And if so, will that cause other health effects such as more oil being aerosolized and getting in people's lungs more? Will it cause more oil to clog up pipes (think London's "fatbergs" for example)? Will it cause more oil to go into landf…
> and you may just be trading one poison for another one or a worse one.
What poison exactly? This almost is whataboutism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But Teflon doesn't react with anything . That's its purpose. So even though it's a fluorocarbon, it's unlikely to cause health problem because it just won't react with your body. Or is there some other mechanism through which it causes damage, such as blocking something by physically being in the way?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer_fume_fever https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene#Safety
As a rule, I try not to let my rain jacket reach 260C, but your local weather may differ?
Today's Edition of Fear Your Government > The White House and the EPA had tried to stop the report from being published.
Great. So the mind control fluoride crazies were (kind of) right all along.