121–130 of 263 posts
I've never understood the gravity of Teflon pans. I can never seem to keep them non-stick, whether it be because of using too high of heat or somehow scratch the damn thing. So, I got cast irons. It's trivial to keep them seasoned and thus non-stick, and they can take the beating of very high heat -- searing meats -- and any metal utensils or rough substances.
What struck me most about this article is how much rationalization occurred. I'm amazed that a (presumably licensed) doctor can in one breath say they have a moral responsibility to safeguard the public, their workers and the environment, then in the next breath describe why the results of their own study didn't apply. But looking inward, I wonder if our industry doesn't do the same thing in many cases - what about:…
In the various recent threads about open office plans, some people have pointed out that extended use of headphones, at the volume required to shut out conversation, causes permanent hearing loss over the long term. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a tech company that takes that concern seriously.
At ~300$ there not cheap, but not only do they help save your hearing they are also less distracting for those around you.
All that teflon is going somewhere when it falls off the pan. Its going in the food and into your body. I'd rather not run that experiment. So many years ago I started using a glass frying pan.
Teflon itself is pretty much inert. That's the whole point - nothing reacts with it, nothing sticks to it. The worry is about the chemicals used to manufacture it.
And even if Teflon was totally safe, it's well-known to release toxic gases when overheated, which is an easy mistake to make in kitchens.
Horrible. This is what's so scary about the free market and our current chemical regulations of innocent until proved guilty. People cover up, even the biggest most "professional" here (DuPont), and the public gets decades of abuse. Why is it that medication requires FDA approval with lots of animal/human tests before you can sell it, but chemicals do not? Here the tests internally done showed prove of issue year aft…
Free markets when supported by strong property rights can have strong protections to prevent harm or pollution. Non free markets, although regulated, don't necessarily perform better and can even perform worse in this regard. The FDA is a great example of an agency which often can be seen to work harder to protect the industry than the individual. For example, look up the story of Vioxx. A drug which killed 50k peopl…
This seems to imply that such markets aren't actually "free" since they're regulated via the enforcement of property rights.
Horrible. This is what's so scary about the free market and our current chemical regulations of innocent until proved guilty. People cover up, even the biggest most "professional" here (DuPont), and the public gets decades of abuse. Why is it that medication requires FDA approval with lots of animal/human tests before you can sell it, but chemicals do not? Here the tests internally done showed prove of issue year aft…
Free markets when supported by strong property rights can have strong protections to prevent harm or pollution. Non free markets, although regulated, don't necessarily perform better and can even perform worse in this regard. The FDA is a great example of an agency which often can be seen to work harder to protect the industry than the individual. For example, look up the story of Vioxx. A drug which killed 50k peopl…
The one I saw said it raised the death rate in the US by 100k per year for 5 years, after which there was an equal drop in the death rate. The rise was also in the age range of people most likely to take it.
And the settlement reached was around 0.0086 DuPont's yearly revenue to be provided for education, water treatment facilities and medical expenses of the class action members. Is that really going to deter them from doing it again? Where is the real penalty? http://www.hpcbd.com/Personal-Injury/DuPont-C8/C8-Class-Acti...
It's a settlement, not a fine. The value is a function of damages, discounted by litigation risk and time. Revenues has nothing to do with it. If I negligently burn down your shed, what I owe you in a tort action has nothing to do with how much money I make.
Granted, the more just and commensurate judgement that lumberjack rightly seeks must be paid to the world as a whole, with the workers' share being a function of their damages, as you said. My point is you are focusing on the technical and completely ignoring the moral cry for justice expressed by lumberjack.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a settlement, not a fine. The value is a function of damages, discounted by litigation risk and time. Revenues has nothing to do with it. If I negligently burn down your shed, what I owe you in a tort action has nothing to do with how much money I make.
And what if you made all of that money precisely because you were burning down sheds? Granted, the more just and commensurate judgement that lumberjack rightly seeks must be paid to the world as a whole, with the workers' share being a function of their damages, as you said. My point is you are focusing on the technical and completely ignoring the moral cry for justice expressed by lumberjack .
I've never understood the gravity of Teflon pans. I can never seem to keep them non-stick, whether it be because of using too high of heat or somehow scratch the damn thing. So, I got cast irons. It's trivial to keep them seasoned and thus non-stick, and they can take the beating of very high heat -- searing meats -- and any metal utensils or rough substances.
Teflon pans are cheap, and you don't have to care for them at all. Just throw it in the dishwasher and after a year or so get a new one. Having said that, I'm really liking the two nonstick ceramic pans I bought a few months ago, and I'm not sure if I'll need to toss them next year, yet.
Dupont and 3M love you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what if you made all of that money precisely because you were burning down sheds? Granted, the more just and commensurate judgement that lumberjack rightly seeks must be paid to the world as a whole, with the workers' share being a function of their damages, as you said. My point is you are focusing on the technical and completely ignoring the moral cry for justice expressed by lumberjack .
I'm focusing on the technical and ignoring the "moral cry for justice" because I'm making a technical point, not a moral one. The primary purpose of the tort system is compensation, and only indirectly deterrence. There are more appropriate avenues for punishment and deterrence, such as criminal actions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Free markets when supported by strong property rights can have strong protections to prevent harm or pollution. Can someone explain how this is supposed to work? I don't mean to sound rude/biased but this sounds like one of those cases where the theory is sound but when it meets with reality we get unpredictable(and sometimes disastrous) results.
In Economics, the Coase Theorem[1] predicts close to this outcome, although it speaks to efficient outcomes and not necessarily harm reducing outcomes. When strong property rights exist (and it is feasible for all parties to negotiate), then parties may reach an efficient allocation of resources regardless of how the resources were initially allocated. To use a typical example, imagine a train track runs through a fa…