271–280 of 300 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sounds like living in a Third World country.
It is. People who have to resort to drinking bottled water because the tap water is unsafe do live in a third world country. Draw whatever conclusion from that that you like.
Isn't this good anyway? Because of overpopulation?
No. Birthrates have been dropping, but this makes getting pregnant less predictable. There are other forces at work reducing the birthrate, and I think those would be enough without complicating people's lives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The scientific process has also led to chemicals such as Thalidomide to be given to pregnant women, resulting in 10000 babies born with phocomelia. The point is not to be overly confident with what you think a chemical can do to your body, even if it is approved by the FDA.
Note that thalidomide is still given as a drug, because it is phenomenally effective. I don't think that the medical testing system when thalidomide was approved necessarily had the sophistication to make the right determination.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kefauver_Harris_Amendment
This is after the FDA blocked approval of thalidomide, pointing to insufficient testing:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do people actually put laptops in their laps? My 12" ultra-portable sits on my desk at home/office. When commuting if I'm using it, it will sit on my backpack on my lap. My 17" laptop that is heavier than my desktop, stays on the kitchen table.
You never take your laptop to the couch?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The burden of proof is on the one making unsupported claims, not on the one questioning the unsupported claims. When public health issues are concerned, the burden of proof is on the ones saying exposure does not present any risks worth worrying about. The FDA doesn't usually come in with the approach that we should just try everything out and see how it goes.
the FDA is actually very permissive when it comes to food - generally, things are allowed to be in it unless there is strong evidence it's harmful. It's the opposite with drugs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Environmental pollutants? Endocrine disruptors? Internet porn?! Most of us are probably eating healthier than 40 years ago (Heart disease is way down), so not sure it's diet. Unless of course its all the chemicals and contaminants that we're getting with our food...
You say eating healthier, but obesity and diabetes are at all time highs in most of the western world, I don't think it's that cut and dry.
Protein bars, granola, multigrain, fruit juice, don't have high fructose corn syrup, just have a bunch of sugar instead, it's more natural!, etc and having sugar and wheat and soy and other crap put into almost everything you buy at a supermarket has contributed to this mess.
My general rule of thumb is if you're not having at least 3-4 solid servings of vegetables (not fruits, just veggies), every day, excluding corn (corn should be stripped of its vegetable status), you're probably not eating anywhere near as healthy as you should be. Fruits don't need to be avoided, but you shouldn't think you're eating healthy if you're eating 5+ servings of them every day, since they do have sugar in them (offset a bit by the dietary fiber, but still sugar).
My belief is that the primary cause is environmental chemicals, specifically Phthalates and BPA (and related chemicals). The science on this is fairly conclusive. We can show that these chemicals bind to estrogen receptors, that they're present in everyone's body, and that if you're acutely exposed to a higher dose, your testosterone goes down. In my opinion, these chemicals are having social and cultural effects bey…
You stick some sample of air/ or a product into a vial, stick that vial into a drone, and that drone flies it to a fully automated labratory, providing with time wise close to consumption information on what your produce contains.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The linkage between consumption of these chemicals, and their exact nature of harm, is not well established- it's not "fairly conclusive" at all. What we have is a bunch of in vitro and in vivo studies, but not actual epidemiological evidence of the quality required to make rational policy decisions. If you believe otherwise, I'm happy to ready any high quality studies you can find. Pleaes don't just cherry pick a fe…
The burden of proof should obviously be reversed! Complex, synthetic chemicals in our water, food, packaging, or furniture should be assumed harmful and disallowed until it there is sufficient evidence that they are safe. Escalating trials basically. This is what we do for pharmaceutical drugs that we ingest or contact, why don't take this approach with other man-made chemicals we are adding to our immediate ecosyste…
---
As I get older, more grumpy: The single most disappointing, surprising thing to me has been the persistent, tenacious, aggressive, recurring amnesia, credulity, and willful ignorance.
Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me 1,000 more times, yes please, sir, may I have another. (h/t frat hazing scene in Animal House.)
I really thought people would get smarter over time. From operant conditioning, if nothing else.
Lead in gasoline, cigarettes, BPA, CO2, freon, etc, etc. With every new outrage, the peanut gallery pipes up with the same old dumb ass excuses. And inevitably, the perpetrators KNEW, for DECADES, they were doing harm and actively suppress the knowledge. Merchants of Doubt. Rinse, lather, repeat.
But, no, not this time. You can't just assume the same bad guys with the same incentives would LIE to us. Again.
I'm shocked, shocked you'd suggest anyone would put profits before people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The certification programs on the market are excellent. The problem is there is no certification program for the problem elucidated by the parent comment. This is an entrepreneurial opportunity. >We have already plenty of certification companies that take your money in exchange for a nice logo/label on the packaging. You still need an expert to tells if they do it right. I think you're underestimating how reputation…
I think I fear that marketing forces are stronger than consumer knowledge. I spend too much time debunking facts on Facebook posted by relatives to think that people in general want to spend time looking for the truth. Also we have studies that shows that doctors doesn't understand enough statistic to understand medical studies and make good choice. I also see that ordinary folk don't discern the difference in knowle…
I fear regulations for that reason. If political marketers convince voters to elect some puppet for special interests, who imposes regulations mandating I use some inferior product, by prohibiting all other options, I have no way to opt out.
I trust the ability of people to see through marketing lies when it's in the context of an organic market with multiple options, mediated my consumer interest, more than when it's relating to politics and proposed regulations to mandate one solution for the entirety of society.
There is a lot of propaganda out there to make people fear the market, and to believe that its advocates are the bad guys (unsuspecting dupes for corporate interests), and I believe that this is by design, and the originators of these memes are in fact projecting. They represent a powerful elite who stand to extract economic rent when the state eliminates choice from market in the name of consumer protection, and they have created an elaborate ideology to convince the population to support their policies. Don't fall for it.
>Monopoly, information asymmetry (You don't have the same resource as GS to understand the market condition ).
The government can address monopolies without prohibiting consumer choice. It can simply fund a public option. For example, it can provide publicly owned roads, so that people aren't stuck with a private road network. It doesn't need to prohibit private roads.
As for information asymmetry, this is effectively dealt with in the market. See my microprocessor example I brought up earlier.
>Most people would reject slavery, experimentation on human, kidnapping, extortion ... as normal behavior.
These are all qualitatively different than buying food with hormone disrupting chemicals. In fact, the law you're advocating is more like these things, as it reduces personal autonomy by restricting the right to engage in voluntary interactions. It is clear when a legal remedy is appropriate, and when it is not. This can be deciphered by considering the nature of the law:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforci...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Install a reverse osmosis system in your house. However, not sure what to do about the pex piping though... Maybe run copper? Maybe there is an inert plastic?
Reverse osmosis can be also problematic cause it removes chemicals from water that are also useful. Maybe a less aggressive filtering method will do.