Good step, but companies will find untested alternatives. “9 out of 12,000”
[flagged]
No reprocussions if you don't do anything about it and promote a culture of helplessness - probably exactly what they hope you will do.
The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances
61–70 of 237 posts
Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I dunno man lead was pretty great at a bunch of stuff so by your logic we should use it again, just like asbestos
I said cost be benefits - it’s now clear that the costs of many usages of lead and asbestos outweighed the benefits. I’m suggesting we look at both sides before we make a decision. Doesn’t seem like an extreme position.
Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances
#63The EPA appears toothless and ineffective.
And why do you say that?
Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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".
You have to prove that the benefits is worth the potential harm. Vaccines are known to be harmful to very few persons, yet we vaccine because the benefits outweigh the very small potential of harm.
No, especially with vaccines in the US (and some other places) science doesn’t have to meet that burden because they are indemnified for product liability by the government by law.
Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then what is the alternative? Going back to metal and wood consumer goods at the scale western consumerism exists today versus the pre 1960s would probably be impossible and really throw gasoline on the entire climate crisis.
Some of those plastics would be well-replaced by metals. How many plastic spatulas fill landfills? An adult probably goes through a dozen or more in their lifetimes if they're careful with them, and far more if they burn them leaving them in pans. A single stainless steel one has to be better, unless I'm just off on the math. We make so many things that, even if they're not disposable they are "disposable" when they…
Packaging makes up, by far, the largest share of plastic waste. And in regards to food, the only packaging without plastic is basically just glass. Cans are lined with plastic to avoid chemically reacting with food. And paper is coated with plastic to stay waterproof. Glass is great but it is energy intensive and has its own waste issues.
Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances
#66What are the benefits these chemicals have provided, and do the benefits outweigh the negative effects? Are these chemicals dangerous in the forms that they're found in the environment, e.g. there are unlikely to be many pools of acid. Are they chemically bonded to something that reduces bio-interactivity? I don't agree with the approach "you can't do anything new until you prove it's safe". I also am very skeptical…
Who says otherwise?
Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances
#67As 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.
It's not just synthetic chemicals. Humanity already can't undo the nuke test fallout layer and the lead from gasoline layer future archeologists will marvel at: "What arrogant dopes, leaving a mark on the entire planet out of negligence."
Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s pretty simple, don’t dump chemicals in water or on land period. Everything is chemicals. You just described 2/3 of all industrial activity and proposed we should stop them. Are you willing to take the consequences which follow from that proposal? (And somehow forgot the 1/3 “dump chemicals in air”)
> Everything is chemicals. This is a thought terminating cliche and pedantically destroys the conversation.
No, it's pretty much the only appropriate response to edgyquant's demand that we do the impossible.
Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances
#69What are the benefits these chemicals have provided, and do the benefits outweigh the negative effects? Are these chemicals dangerous in the forms that they're found in the environment, e.g. there are unlikely to be many pools of acid. Are they chemically bonded to something that reduces bio-interactivity? I don't agree with the approach "you can't do anything new until you prove it's safe". I also am very skeptical…
> sorry, my exhalations are not "pollution"
Try breathing in a bag.
Air is 21% oxygen. On average, a resting adult breathes in about 250ml of oxygen per minute.
Air is about about 0.04%. The average adult expels approximately 200ml to 250ml of carbon dioxide per minute. Roughly the same as the o then they intake.
So the relative percentage of C02 increases extremely rapidly in any small volume of air, compared to relative reduction in oxygen.
Up to 0.5% (5,000 parts per million): Considered safe for prolonged exposure, this level is typically used as an occupational exposure limit.
1% to 2%: Can cause drowsiness and poor air quality perception.
3%: May lead to impaired hearing, headache, and increased blood pressure and pulse rate.
5% and above: Can lead to shortness of breath, dizziness, confusion, and even loss of consciousness. Exposure at this concentration for several hours can be dangerous to human health.
Above 8%: Can be fatal.
More? Once someone expires, the percentages reach an unwanted steady state!
Even in a tightly closed building, CO2 buildup can impact cognition.
And build up in the atmosphere impacts the heat balance of the planet.
Your exhalations are only pollution when they destabilize healthy levels. So that’s a bit of a straw man concern.
Breathing (outside of plastic bags, and unventilated buildings): fits within normal planetary balance of C02. Not a concern as a pollutant.
Continuously burning billions of tons C02 generating chemicals for decades, another matter.
Re: The EPA is proposing that 'forever chemicals' be considered hazardous substances
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the inevitable process of humanity's understanding of technology.
I don't think it's remotely inevitable. I think that's an outrageous mindset. 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…
Those tests exist already, but no ethical tests can determine the full truth.
Also, tests where minute traces of anything, like coffee, are purified to extreme amounts and injected into animals to cause cancer only add confusion, especially when California considers adding cancer warnings to coffee.