21–30 of 237 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the inevitable process of humanity's understanding of technology.
My understanding is that in a lot of countries, the perspective is backwards from what we have in the US. We have, "prove it's harmful." They have "prove it's safe". You can still progress technologically without being reckless.
Which countries do it that way?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the inevitable process of humanity's understanding of technology.
My understanding is that in a lot of countries, the perspective is backwards from what we have in the US. We have, "prove it's harmful." They have "prove it's safe". You can still progress technologically without being reckless.
Until you get into pharmaceuticals, then the world standard is a step beyond "prove it's harmful" to "no evidence of harm is proof that it is safe".
Original EPA proposal here: https://www.epa.gov/hw/proposal-list-nine-and-polyfluoroalky... Where they outline the nine PFAS are: - Perfluorooctanoic acid. - Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid - Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid. - Hexafluoropropylene oxide-dimer acid. - Perfluorononanoic acid. - Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid. - Perfluorodecanoic acid. - Perfluorohexanoic acid. - Perfluorobutanoic acid.
I remember dealing with these substances in tiny quantities in the lab, and they were treated as carefully as cholorosifonic super acids. A lot of care goes into their disposal or recycle. One problem is making methods that can detect waste streams at under ppt levels, which is pretty difficult, but that's the best effort for dealing with these substances at the moment.
As a society we're going to have to have a come to Jesus moment about all of these estrogenic chemicals that make up the plastics we consume.
This is one thing I’m hopeful about for EVs. Plastic is cheap because of massive demand scaling the oil industry, collapse the demand for oil and plastic becomes more expensive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is that in a lot of countries, the perspective is backwards from what we have in the US. We have, "prove it's harmful." They have "prove it's safe". You can still progress technologically without being reckless.
> in the US. We have, "prove it's harmful." They have "prove it's safe Until you get into pharmaceuticals, then the world standard is a step beyond "prove it's harmful" to "no evidence of harm is proof that it is safe".
Good step, but companies will find untested alternatives. “9 out of 12,000”
This is the inevitable process of humanity's understanding of technology.
Think of it like an engineer. We try to test products before deploying them to production (e.g. make all of humanity ingest it). If our tests are wrong some significant portion of the time, or if being wrong is much more damaging than we realized, then absolutely it's time to start the conversation of "How do we get better test coverage?"
I bet if you put some paltry amount of money, say 100B (compare this to a bailout) into devising tests around the long-term safety of various chemicals some creative solutions would come up. For example, off the top of my head, if reproductive health is a concern, perhaps do a study where some animal that reproduces frequently is exposed to it for 10+ generations. We can validate if this is a viable way of testing by taking some known endocrine-disruptors and validating this test catches them effectively.
For whatever reason, some people don't seem to see engineering chemicals that are safe for humanity to be a worthy enterprise, but I think it's as important as any tech company and we should make the financial incentives to reflect that and get the right minds on this problem.
Original EPA proposal here: https://www.epa.gov/hw/proposal-list-nine-and-polyfluoroalky... Where they outline the nine PFAS are: - Perfluorooctanoic acid. - Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid - Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid. - Hexafluoropropylene oxide-dimer acid. - Perfluorononanoic acid. - Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid. - Perfluorodecanoic acid. - Perfluorohexanoic acid. - Perfluorobutanoic acid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't follow. Are you saying we should hold off laws that deem e.g. teflon toxic, until there's teflon everywhere? The government: There's almost no teflon in the ground, so that's good. The market: Hold my beer.
Teflon (PTFE) is not toxic. It is approved by the FDA for use in implantable medical devices. At normal working temperatures, it is one of the most chemically and biologically inert materials known to exist. PTFE has a number of unique properties that make it an irreplaceable material in a wide variety of applications. Some of the feedstock chemicals used to produce PTFE are likely toxic. The most concerning of these…
Original EPA proposal here: https://www.epa.gov/hw/proposal-list-nine-and-polyfluoroalky... Where they outline the nine PFAS are: - Perfluorooctanoic acid. - Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid - Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid. - Hexafluoropropylene oxide-dimer acid. - Perfluorononanoic acid. - Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid. - Perfluorodecanoic acid. - Perfluorohexanoic acid. - Perfluorobutanoic acid.
Original EPA proposal here: https://www.epa.gov/hw/proposal-list-nine-and-polyfluoroalky... Where they outline the nine PFAS are: - Perfluorooctanoic acid. - Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid - Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid. - Hexafluoropropylene oxide-dimer acid. - Perfluorononanoic acid. - Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid. - Perfluorodecanoic acid. - Perfluorohexanoic acid. - Perfluorobutanoic acid.
I'm a bit confused here. These are recognized as being harmful. It's written all over the msds for these. What is the real change that is going to occur? I remember dealing with these substances in tiny quantities in the lab, and they were treated as carefully as cholorosifonic super acids. A lot of care goes into their disposal or recycle. One problem is making methods that can detect waste streams at under ppt leve…
What is the real change that is going to occur?