If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   Those BPA-Free products you've been using? Turns out they contain more Synthetic Estrogen than BPA, and the Plastics Industry has developed the testing methods the EPA uses that intentionally don't detect it because: Free Market   (motherjones.com) divider line 169
    More: Scary, BPA, EPA, free markets, idea, Environmental Health Perspectives, Michael Green, estrogens, big tobacco  
•       •       •

5924 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Mar 2014 at 1:59 PM (19 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



169 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-07 01:22:20 PM
Good thing I covered the inside of all my drink holders with a thin coating of delicious lead. At least I know what I'm doing to myself.
 
2014-03-07 01:24:35 PM
So that's where moobs come from.
 
2014-03-07 01:29:32 PM
That third ovary was starting to tickle, so this makes perfect sense.
 
2014-03-07 02:00:39 PM

Tr0mBoNe: Good thing I covered the inside of all my drink holders with a thin coating of delicious lead. At least I know what I'm doing to myself.


Party like you're a Roman emperor!
 
2014-03-07 02:03:37 PM
I'm upset because I've been lied to but thankful for my man-boobs and improved fashion sense.  I'll call it a wash.
 
2014-03-07 02:05:50 PM
Who drinks bottled water?
 
2014-03-07 02:07:38 PM
Metal water canisters have BPA?
 
2014-03-07 02:08:27 PM
 
2014-03-07 02:09:19 PM
I follow the Ethiopian model of never drinking more than what will fit in your two cupped hands. Coffee is a real biatch, though.
 
2014-03-07 02:10:37 PM
Too long.  Did we ever find out who was giving sippy cups to all those birds around the Great Lakes?
 
2014-03-07 02:10:37 PM

meat0918: Metal water canisters have BPA?


Plastic liner to prevent corrosion and/or funny metal after taste
 
2014-03-07 02:10:57 PM
Ridiculous headline.  This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter.  They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

/DNRTFA
 
2014-03-07 02:13:02 PM
Jesus, I don't understand what all of the fuss is about. My daughter had been drinking straight from the liquor bottle from the beginning, and since we only buy classy shiat in glass bottles, we only have to worry about the hourly bottle breakage and fights that happen after about 2 PM.

She's not the nicest drunk, it turns out... But, no BPA!
 
2014-03-07 02:13:05 PM

nexxus: We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter. They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

img.fark.net

You give the average person waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy too much credit.
 
2014-03-07 02:13:44 PM

nexxus: Ridiculous headline.  This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter.  They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

/DNRTFA


Not sure if trolling, or just stupid.
 
2014-03-07 02:13:54 PM

InterruptingQuirk: We knew this 3 years ago

[img.fark.net image 715x732]


Next thing you'll tell me is the new interesterified fat that some are replacing hydrogenated fats with are bad for me.
 
2014-03-07 02:14:46 PM
Products containing BPA never contained enough BPA to have an effect. The whole thing was alarmist rhetoric based on science that had equivocal results.
 
2014-03-07 02:14:50 PM
That's why I only use water bottles made from lead.
 
2014-03-07 02:14:58 PM

Dimensio: nexxus: Ridiculous headline.  This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter.  They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

/DNRTFA

Not sure if trolling, or just stupid.


Neither, just woefully misinfromed.
 
2014-03-07 02:15:26 PM
I just keep refilling the same empty 40oz beer bottle with water.  I do get funny looks from my coworkers, though.
 
2014-03-07 02:17:19 PM
Sure I'm passing the occasional tumors and menstrus through my urethra but on the upside, my tits are fuller and perkier than ever!
 
2014-03-07 02:19:30 PM
They should worry about what I put in my red Solo cup.
 
2014-03-07 02:19:59 PM
I have always expected future problems with BPA-Free products, but synthetic estrogen issues were sort of an unexpected result.
 
2014-03-07 02:21:26 PM

miss diminutive: That third ovary was starting to tickle, so this makes perfect sense.


Ditto, which is super awkward because I didn't know it was possible to spontaneously grow three new sex organs.
 
2014-03-07 02:22:09 PM

nexxus: Ridiculous headline.  This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter.  They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

/DNRTFA


Cool! A "Caveat Emptor" Libertarian! That approach is a totally winner in China, by the way. Sorry about your dog. And everything else.

amptoons.com
 
2014-03-07 02:22:26 PM

nexxus: We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter. They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.


Yes, because the average consumer has access to the tools to test to see if their water bottle is leaking a substance that might be harmful for them, or to check and verify every factory for every component in their new phone isn't dumping toxic waste into the local river.  And also has the money and time to take the vendor to court, hire expert witnesses, etc.  All to win nothing since they can't prove financial harm beyond the price tag of the item.
 
2014-03-07 02:23:59 PM

nexxus: Ridiculous headline.  This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.


Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter.  They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

/DNRTFA


i421.photobucket.com

yotamak.blogs.com


Totally.

 
2014-03-07 02:24:33 PM

Louisiana_Sitar_Club: You give the average person waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy too much credit.


That's possible, but if people continued to do stupid things over long periods of time (like using toxic products) they wouldn't live as long as those who didn't, and so.. natural selection.
 
2014-03-07 02:25:21 PM
This is why I have been quietly replacing my family's DNA with lab rat DNA. That way, I know all the products that are EPA tested will be safe for us.
 
2014-03-07 02:25:30 PM
meat0918:  Neither, just woefully misinfromed.

How so?  I don't think I am, but I'm always open to learning new things.
 
2014-03-07 02:25:54 PM

Dimensio: nexxus: Ridiculous headline.  This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter.  They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

/DNRTFA

Not sure if trolling, or just stupid.


whynotboth.jpg
 
2014-03-07 02:26:31 PM
Guess I'll stick to beer then.
 
2014-03-07 02:28:43 PM

nexxus: That's possible, but if people continued to do stupid things over long periods of time (like using toxic products) they wouldn't live as long as those who didn't, and so.. natural selection.


They'd live long enough to reproduce and that is all that is required.
 
2014-03-07 02:29:04 PM

Angela Lansbury's Merkin: Yes, because the average consumer has access to the tools to test to see if their water bottle is leaking a substance that might be harmful for them, or to check and verify every factory for every component in their new phone isn't dumping toxic waste into the local river.  And also has the money and time to take the vendor to court, hire expert witnesses, etc.  All to win nothing since they can't prove financial harm beyond the price tag of the item.


I understand what you're saying, and the way things are right now, you're right.

But if it weren't for government agencies involving themselves in this process, the entire 'system' would have evolved differently - would be different.  Surely you can see and accept that, even if we don't necessarily agree on *how* it would be different.
 
2014-03-07 02:29:46 PM

generallyso: They'd live long enough to reproduce and that is all that is required.


No it isn't.
 
2014-03-07 02:33:13 PM

nexxus: This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.


Your argument is silly. Just because Big Business has corrupted the government, doesn't mean that the government is bad. It's important to have some sort of "system", we just need to start executing CEOs that set out to manipulate our government into lying to us.

It's like Tea Party members being elected because they hate big government. They get to Washington DC and then break the government even more, and then go back home and get re-elected because big government doesn't work. It's not 'governments' fault, it's just the morons you keep electing. "Big business" spends a ton of time, effort and money making government look stupid so morons like you can rail against 'big government', instead of being mad at the companies that are actually hurting you.
 
2014-03-07 02:33:20 PM

Angela Lansbury's Merkin: nexxus: We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter. They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

Yes, because the average consumer has access to the tools to test to see if their water bottle is leaking a substance that might be harmful for them, or to check and verify every factory for every component in their new phone isn't dumping toxic waste into the local river.  And also has the money and time to take the vendor to court, hire expert witnesses, etc.  All to win nothing since they can't prove financial harm beyond the price tag of the item.


The non-stupid consumer would rely on private third party certification. Hey, but wouldn't the company just collude with the certifying agency to rig the tests? That might happen, but then people would stop trusting that particular certifying agency and they would either clean up their act or go out of business. That's after they've been sued. There are plenty of ambulance chasers out there willing to work on contingency. When it happens with the EPA, as in this case, you can't fire the EPA. I think you can sue them, but it's not nearly as easy to sue the government with all its various immunities.
 
2014-03-07 02:33:26 PM

nexxus: Louisiana_Sitar_Club: You give the average person waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy too much credit.

That's possible, but if people continued to do stupid things over long periods of time (like using toxic products) they wouldn't live as long as those who didn't, and so.. natural selection.


There's nothing "natural" about dying from (e.g.) a brain tumor caused by radiation leaking from an unshielded device meant to be held to the head for extended periods of time.

So it's just "selection".

// also, it's not just that these companies might MALICIOUSLY poison us, it's that they might do so ACCIDENTALLY
// granted, current law isn't perfect, but it's a damn sight better than "caveat emptor (because you have a scanning electron microscope and full chem lab in your house, right? And, because there's no standards in manufacturing, you've independently tested and calibrated all that equipment in advance of your rigorous testing regimen?)"
 
2014-03-07 02:35:19 PM

jigger: The non-stupid consumer would rely on private third party certification. Hey, but wouldn't the company just collude with the certifying agency to rig the tests? That might happen, but then people would stop trusting that particular certifying agency and they would either clean up their act or go out of business. That's after they've been sued. There are plenty of ambulance chasers out there willing to work on contingency. When it happens with the EPA, as in this case, you can't fire the EPA. I think you can sue them, but it's not nearly as easy to sue the government with all its various immunities.


Exactly.
 
2014-03-07 02:35:49 PM
The problem is not what's in the plastic.  It's using the plastic to begin with.  Beer in glass bottles, soda in glass bottles (I know you can't find it anymore), milk in glass bottles, ketchup, mustard, pickles, vinegar - everything came in glass bottles and jars.

We were told that plastic was safer because it didn't break and cut your small children to ribbons (a fate worst than losing an eye to a BB gun or running with scissors); it was more convenient because you didn't have to wash and return it, it was lighter so it was easier to carry and cheaper to ship - the benefits of plastic were manifest and abundant and were promoted by industry and government alike.

Now we have chronic oil shortages (the source of plastics) and are warned that we will  run out and need to find alternative energy sources.  We are also told that plastic is not going to save us - it's going to kill us.

So you're telling me I was lied to.  Imagine that.
 
2014-03-07 02:35:58 PM

FnkyTwn: Just because Big Business has corrupted the government, doesn't mean that the government is bad.


dgt1.net
 
2014-03-07 02:36:15 PM

nexxus: Ridiculous headline.  This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter.  They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

/DNRTFA


I'm going to market botulism tester home kits and then when those are proven to test precisely nothing, I'll reappear under a different pseudonym and market basically the same thing.  Repeated forever!  I'll be rich!

But no, probably nobody will have money to buy them because they're too busy learning the bio-chemistry involved in how to test for a thousand different products and then getting science degrees necessary to read the results.
 
2014-03-07 02:36:21 PM

nexxus: Angela Lansbury's Merkin: Yes, because the average consumer has access to the tools to test to see if their water bottle is leaking a substance that might be harmful for them, or to check and verify every factory for every component in their new phone isn't dumping toxic waste into the local river.  And also has the money and time to take the vendor to court, hire expert witnesses, etc.  All to win nothing since they can't prove financial harm beyond the price tag of the item.

I understand what you're saying, and the way things are right now, you're right.

But if it weren't for government agencies involving themselves in this process, the entire 'system' would have evolved differently - would be different.  Surely you can see and accept that, even if we don't necessarily agree on *how* it would be different.


www.duntemann.com
Totally.
 
2014-03-07 02:39:14 PM

jigger: Angela Lansbury's Merkin: nexxus: We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter. They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

Yes, because the average consumer has access to the tools to test to see if their water bottle is leaking a substance that might be harmful for them, or to check and verify every factory for every component in their new phone isn't dumping toxic waste into the local river.  And also has the money and time to take the vendor to court, hire expert witnesses, etc.  All to win nothing since they can't prove financial harm beyond the price tag of the item.

The non-stupid consumer would rely on private third party certification. Hey, but wouldn't the company just collude with the certifying agency to rig the tests? That might happen, but then people would stop trusting that particular certifying agency and they would either clean up their act or go out of business. That's after they've been sued. There are plenty of ambulance chasers out there willing to work on contingency. When it happens with the EPA, as in this case, you can't fire the EPA. I think you can sue them, but it's not nearly as easy to sue the government with all its various immunities.


What you'd get is the certifying agency crippling or buying out other certifying agencies and/or creating shells to hide the fact.

Or you'd get what you basically have now, with weakened regulatory agencies -- the producers performing certification duties under the radar, and obscuring the truth.

Libertarians believe that information is most free in their idealized, libertarian society, but actually the opposite is true.
 
2014-03-07 02:39:26 PM

brap: Sure I'm passing the occasional tumors and menstrus through my urethra but on the upside, my tits are fuller and perkier than ever!


How you doin'?
 
2014-03-07 02:39:31 PM
I wonder why nobody ever talks about the acetaldehyde that leaches out of plastic bottles. That's the only chemical they test for in a PET bottle plant. It's a pain in the ass, too, because it's a biatch to fine-tune your injection process to compensate for it.

/has made millions of PET bottles
//possibly more than a billion
 
2014-03-07 02:39:48 PM

nexxus: But if it weren't for government agencies involving themselves in this process, the entire 'system' would have evolved differently - would be different. Surely you can see and accept that, even if we don't necessarily agree on *how* it would be different.


Different doesn't mean better.  There are plenty of countries with minimal government regulation or intervention (from an actual implementation and enforcement standpoint), like Indonesia or China.  They aren't any safer or environmentally cleaner.
 
2014-03-07 02:40:33 PM

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: jigger: Angela Lansbury's Merkin: nexxus: We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter. They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

Yes, because the average consumer has access to the tools to test to see if their water bottle is leaking a substance that might be harmful for them, or to check and verify every factory for every component in their new phone isn't dumping toxic waste into the local river.  And also has the money and time to take the vendor to court, hire expert witnesses, etc.  All to win nothing since they can't prove financial harm beyond the price tag of the item.

The non-stupid consumer would rely on private third party certification. Hey, but wouldn't the company just collude with the certifying agency to rig the tests? That might happen, but then people would stop trusting that particular certifying agency and they would either clean up their act or go out of business. That's after they've been sued. There are plenty of ambulance chasers out there willing to work on contingency. When it happens with the EPA, as in this case, you can't fire the EPA. I think you can sue them, but it's not nearly as easy to sue the government with all its various immunities.

What you'd get is the certifying agency crippling or buying out other certifying agencies and/or creating shells to hide the fact.

Or you'd get what you basically have now, with weakened regulatory agencies -- the producers performing certification duties under the radar, and obscuring the truth.

Libertarians believe that information is most free in their idealized, libertarian society, but actually the opposite is true.


You'd have something very close to what you'd have now, except without so many involuntary interactions.
 
2014-03-07 02:40:39 PM

FnkyTwn: Your argument is silly. Just because Big Business has corrupted the government, doesn't mean that the government is bad. It's important to have some sort of "system", we just need to start executing CEOs that set out to manipulate our government into lying to us.

It's like Tea Party members being elected because they hate big government. They get to Washington DC and then break the government even more, and then go back home and get re-elected because big government doesn't work. It's not 'governments' fault, it's just the morons you keep electing. "Big business" spends a ton of time, effort and money making government look stupid so morons like you can rail against 'big government', instead of being mad at the companies that are actually hurting you.


The only part of this I disagree with is that we should execute CEOs (which seems silly to me).  If we're going to execute anyone, and I don't think we should, it should be those in government who were 'hired' by the people to protect them.  They're violating the trust we put in them by allowing themselves to be bribed/cowed/influenced by industry.

To have a system *is* better than not having a system.  It's just that the one we have - where the power is concentrated at the top in the hands of a small number of people who are, effectively, not liable for their actions - isn't working.  I think that's something we can all agree on.
 
2014-03-07 02:41:23 PM

Mr. Right: The problem is not what's in the plastic.  It's using the plastic to begin with.  Beer in glass bottles, soda in glass bottles (I know you can't find it anymore), milk in glass bottles, ketchup, mustard, pickles, vinegar - everything came in glass bottles and jars.

We were told that plastic was safer because it didn't break and cut your small children to ribbons (a fate worst than losing an eye to a BB gun or running with scissors); it was more convenient because you didn't have to wash and return it, it was lighter so it was easier to carry and cheaper to ship - the benefits of plastic were manifest and abundant and were promoted by industry and government alike.

Now we have chronic oil shortages (the source of plastics) and are warned that we will  run out and need to find alternative energy sources.  We are also told that plastic is not going to save us - it's going to kill us.

So you're telling me I was lied to.  Imagine that.


you left out the Pacific gyre

media.treehugger.com

I guess there's five major oceanic gyres now. Disposable isn't what it used to be.
 
2014-03-07 02:42:15 PM

nexxus: Ridiculous headline.  This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter.  They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

/DNRTFA


"And after we get rid of the EPA, we'll set caps on punitative damage awards! BWAHAHAHA!"
 
2014-03-07 02:44:38 PM

nexxus: We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter.  They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.


That's a fascinating color of sky you have there.
 
2014-03-07 02:44:52 PM

jigger: The non-stupid consumer would rely on private third party certification. Hey, but wouldn't the company just collude with the certifying agency to rig the tests? That might happen, but then people would stop trusting that particular certifying agency and they would either clean up their act or go out of business. That's after they've been sued. There are plenty of ambulance chasers out there willing to work on contingency.


How would you know the certification was bad?  Heck, how would you know what sort of certification each item you eat should have?   It could take years before the problems start to show, and years more to trace back the source of the illness.  And then who has the money to fight this through the courts?

There's nothing stopping people from doing what you describe now.  But the costs involved, time lines, and potential pay offs often aren't worth it.  I'd rather not get cancer, than know that heirs might get a $100,000 payout after years of litigation after my death.
 
2014-03-07 02:45:26 PM

nexxus: meat0918:  Neither, just woefully misinfromed.

How so?  I don't think I am, but I'm always open to learning new things.


If history is any guide, it is not instantaneous, and even more rarely is it successful.

A company worth billions can drag out a court fight for years, well beyond what a few people can afford to pay for.
 
2014-03-07 02:45:31 PM

FnkyTwn: nexxus: This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Your argument is silly. Just because Big Business has corrupted the government, doesn't mean that the government is bad. It's important to have some sort of "system", we just need to start executing CEOs that set out to manipulate our government into lying to us.

It's like Tea Party members being elected because they hate big government. They get to Washington DC and then break the government even more, and then go back home and get re-elected because big government doesn't work. It's not 'governments' fault, it's just the morons you keep electing. "Big business" spends a ton of time, effort and money making government look stupid so morons like you can rail against 'big government', instead of being mad at the companies that are actually hurting you.


surely you are for executing some of the government that's complicit in this too?
you know it takes both right?
/or if you were trolling, well done
 
2014-03-07 02:47:22 PM

nexxus: a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market


jigger: That's after they've been sued. There are plenty of ambulance chasers out there willing to work on contingency. When it happens with the EPA, as in this case, you can't fire the EPA.


Unless you live in Texas and you can't even go to court and instead get mandatory arbitration, but don't worry, because the agency hired to manage the arbitration is paid by the company you're trying to sue. Also, your damages are capped at $250k and then your lawyers fees come out of that.

Your system is flawless, that's why it works so well in all those Libertarian countries around the world.
 
2014-03-07 02:48:25 PM

Dr Dreidel: nexxus: Louisiana_Sitar_Club: You give the average person waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy too much credit.

That's possible, but if people continued to do stupid things over long periods of time (like using toxic products) they wouldn't live as long as those who didn't, and so.. natural selection.

There's nothing "natural" about dying from (e.g.) a brain tumor caused by radiation leaking from an unshielded device meant to be held to the head for extended periods of time.

So it's just "selection".

// also, it's not just that these companies might MALICIOUSLY poison us, it's that they might do so ACCIDENTALLY
// granted, current law isn't perfect, but it's a damn sight better than "caveat emptor (because you have a scanning electron microscope and full chem lab in your house, right? And, because there's no standards in manufacturing, you've independently tested and calibrated all that equipment in advance of your rigorous testing regimen?)"


Hey, we're on the same side here, mostly.  I just think that allowing governments to say what's safe and what isn't, and then letting 'bad companies' hide behind their decisions .. particularly when they've influenced those decisions .. is unwise.  When government is involved people believe they're safe, and the companies are protected .. *that's* the issue.  Put the risk on the companies, where it belongs..not on individuals who, as you've pointed out, don't often have access to test equipment and such (though I do think there would be reliable 3rd party testing companies out there if it weren't for gov't).

I actually do have quite a lot of equipment.  And I don't use products that emit significant amounts of EMFs in a way that can harm me.  I avoid as many plastics and synthetics as I can, generally.  &c.
 
2014-03-07 02:49:14 PM

nexxus: Dr Dreidel: nexxus: Louisiana_Sitar_Club: You give the average person waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy too much credit.

That's possible, but if people continued to do stupid things over long periods of time (like using toxic products) they wouldn't live as long as those who didn't, and so.. natural selection.

There's nothing "natural" about dying from (e.g.) a brain tumor caused by radiation leaking from an unshielded device meant to be held to the head for extended periods of time.

So it's just "selection".

// also, it's not just that these companies might MALICIOUSLY poison us, it's that they might do so ACCIDENTALLY
// granted, current law isn't perfect, but it's a damn sight better than "caveat emptor (because you have a scanning electron microscope and full chem lab in your house, right? And, because there's no standards in manufacturing, you've independently tested and calibrated all that equipment in advance of your rigorous testing regimen?)"

Hey, we're on the same side here, mostly.  I just think that allowing governments to say what's safe and what isn't, and then letting 'bad companies' hide behind their decisions .. particularly when they've influenced those decisions .. is unwise.  When government is involved people believe they're safe, and the companies are protected .. *that's* the issue.  Put the risk on the companies, where it belongs..not on individuals who, as you've pointed out, don't often have access to test equipment and such (though I do think there would be reliable 3rd party testing companies out there if it weren't for gov't).

I actually do have quite a lot of equipment.  And I don't use products that emit significant amounts of EMFs in a way that can harm me.  I avoid as many plastics and synthetics as I can, generally.  &c.


Which EMFs do you think can harm you?
 
2014-03-07 02:50:30 PM

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: I'm going to market botulism tester home kits and then when those are proven to test precisely nothing, I'll reappear under a different pseudonym and market basically the same thing.  Repeated forever!  I'll be rich!


That would be fraud.  We already have laws for that.

But no, probably nobody will have money to buy them because they're too busy learning the bio-chemistry involved in how to test for a thousand different products and then getting science degrees necessary to read the results.

I think that would be fantastic.  Though degrees aren't required to read results.  Most things aren't nearly as complicated as that.
 
2014-03-07 02:55:04 PM

Angela Lansbury's Merkin: jigger: The non-stupid consumer would rely on private third party certification. Hey, but wouldn't the company just collude with the certifying agency to rig the tests? That might happen, but then people would stop trusting that particular certifying agency and they would either clean up their act or go out of business. That's after they've been sued. There are plenty of ambulance chasers out there willing to work on contingency.

How would you know the certification was bad?  Heck, how would you know what sort of certification each item you eat should have?   It could take years before the problems start to show, and years more to trace back the source of the illness.  And then who has the money to fight this through the courts?

There's nothing stopping people from doing what you describe now.  But the costs involved, time lines, and potential pay offs often aren't worth it.  I'd rather not get cancer, than know that heirs might get a $100,000 payout after years of litigation after my death.


The problem, now, is that there's far less incentive for anyone to do this.  The government has effectively monopolized this function by protecting companies once they/their products pass 'standards'.  If they didn't do that, and 'caveat emptor' .. everyone would want to know what they were eating, drinking, breathing, etc. .. as it is now, it doesn't matter because there's no way to go after anyone or force change if the products/whatever meet with government approval.
 
2014-03-07 02:55:19 PM
Oh look, DDT all over again.
 
2014-03-07 02:55:54 PM

inner ted: surely you are for executing some of the government that's complicit in this too?
you know it takes both right?
/or if you were trolling, well done


Yeah fine. I just want people prosecuted, but with our current revolving door system between lobbyist and government, they're really just all the same people. And i'll give a little on the execution part of it too as long as they end up in jail for looooong sentences and get fined ALL the profit they made while selling us out.
 
2014-03-07 02:57:08 PM
Uh huh. So how much of that shiat is leaking, and what harmful effect would there be for the average person, and what other sources are there?

MJ's article is mostly "but they're just like tobacco companies"!
 
2014-03-07 02:57:50 PM

meat0918: nexxus: meat0918:  Neither, just woefully misinfromed.

How so?  I don't think I am, but I'm always open to learning new things.

If history is any guide, it is not instantaneous, and even more rarely is it successful.

A company worth billions can drag out a court fight for years, well beyond what a few people can afford to pay for.


I have first hand experience with this, so I get what you're saying (truly, I do) .. but most of these companies hide behind government rules and regulations.  If they couldn't do that, and liability could be established in those cases the same way it is generally (proximate cause .. 'but for' and such), that would stop.
 
2014-03-07 02:58:09 PM
no need to worry, the tin foil that mother jones readers have tightly wrapped around their heads will keep them from growing man-boobs from all of that extra estrogen.
 
2014-03-07 03:00:22 PM

nexxus: Ridiculous headline.  This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter.  They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

/DNRTFA


9/10
 
2014-03-07 03:01:11 PM

FnkyTwn: Unless you live in Texas and you can't even go to court and instead get mandatory arbitration, but don't worry, because the agency hired to manage the arbitration is paid by the company you're trying to sue. Also, your damages are capped at $250k and then your lawyers fees come out of that.

Your system is flawless, that's why it works so well in all those Libertarian countries around the world.


Statutory damage caps are *also* a result of government interference in free markets, often at the behest of those most likely to be held liable for bad behavior.

There's no such thing as a damage cap under the common law, only under statutory law.
 
2014-03-07 03:01:13 PM

nexxus: Ridiculous headline.  This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter.  They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

/DNRTFA


cdn.memestache.com
 
2014-03-07 03:01:56 PM
I do believe I have grown several new pineal glands and a large number of new cortical folds.

Fascinating sensation to have six or seven simultaneous trains of thought. The static, however is a bit unpleasant.

I consulted my cat on the matter of mitigating the static, but discovered I had interrupted her musings on corrected equations for the Alcubierre Drive.

Hmm.
 
2014-03-07 03:02:06 PM
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but most scientists can't even detect the low levels of BPA in serum of people, rats, or monkeys that are given CHRONIC  (ingesting) exposure to these products.  So yeah, not really the danger so many people believe  it to be.

I tried to give you a link to an actual scientific paper in addition to and easier to digest NPR article.
 
2014-03-07 03:03:04 PM

meat0918: Which EMFs do you think can harm you?


Most of them.  It's pretty much proven that EMFs create stress (at the cellular level) in the body, and stress is bad .. enough of it leads to disease.
 
2014-03-07 03:03:31 PM

FnkyTwn: inner ted: surely you are for executing some of the government that's complicit in this too?
you know it takes both right?
/or if you were trolling, well done

Yeah fine. I just want people prosecuted, but with our current revolving door system between lobbyist and government, they're really just all the same people. And i'll give a little on the execution part of it too as long as they end up in jail for looooong sentences and get fined ALL the profit they made while selling us out.


i would like that too & agree that the back and forth between corps & gov't is a HUGE problem - just want both sides of the turd to be seen
 
2014-03-07 03:04:55 PM

FnkyTwn: Yeah fine. I just want people prosecuted, but with our current revolving door system between lobbyist and government, they're really just all the same people. And i'll give a little on the execution part of it too as long as they end up in jail for looooong sentences and get fined ALL the profit they made while selling us out.


If we could show that they knowingly allowed harm to come to people, I'm all for it.  I think intent is important, here.  Mistakes do happen.
 
2014-03-07 03:05:14 PM

nexxus: The problem, now, is that there's far less incentive for anyone to do this. The government has effectively monopolized this function by protecting companies once they/their products pass 'standards'.


If a product harms you, you can sue.  Regardless of what "government certification" it has.  If a FDA approved medicine turns out to have long term side effects that don't turn up during the testing, you can sue.  If my USDA approved beef is tainted with e.coli, I can sue.  Just because a product has passed some sort of government inspection, doesn't mean the government is indemnifying the company or product.
 
2014-03-07 03:07:23 PM

nexxus: Dr Dreidel: nexxus: Louisiana_Sitar_Club: You give the average person waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy too much credit.

That's possible, but if people continued to do stupid things over long periods of time (like using toxic products) they wouldn't live as long as those who didn't, and so.. natural selection.

There's nothing "natural" about dying from (e.g.) a brain tumor caused by radiation leaking from an unshielded device meant to be held to the head for extended periods of time.

So it's just "selection".

// also, it's not just that these companies might MALICIOUSLY poison us, it's that they might do so ACCIDENTALLY
// granted, current law isn't perfect, but it's a damn sight better than "caveat emptor (because you have a scanning electron microscope and full chem lab in your house, right? And, because there's no standards in manufacturing, you've independently tested and calibrated all that equipment in advance of your rigorous testing regimen?)"

Hey, we're on the same side here, mostly.  I just think that allowing governments to say what's safe and what isn't, and then letting 'bad companies' hide behind their decisions .. particularly when they've influenced those decisions .. is unwise.  When government is involved people believe they're safe, and the companies are protected .. *that's* the issue.  Put the risk on the companies, where it belongs..not on individuals who, as you've pointed out, don't often have access to test equipment and such (though I do think there would be reliable 3rd party testing companies out there if it weren't for gov't).

I actually do have quite a lot of equipment.  And I don't use products that emit significant amounts of EMFs in a way that can harm me.  I avoid as many plastics and synthetics as I can, generally.  &c.



So then I would hours researching every single product before I buy and take the advise from a 3rd party with no legal responsibility to me? Sounds super duper efficient.

Your scenario does not work unless we eliminate the corporate shield and hold managers and stock holders personal responsible for damages.
 
2014-03-07 03:07:44 PM

TheShavingofOccam123: you left out the Pacific gyre

I guess there's five major oceanic gyres now. Disposable isn't what it used to be.



Can't we just nuke the gyres? It would vaporize all that crap so it would no longer be harmful to anything.
 
2014-03-07 03:10:56 PM
Yes, neXXus, we get your point. Government = automatically bad.

Evidently there are no such things as industry lobbyists.

And since government = business on your planet, it can have a monopoly.

Why do you hate business?
 
2014-03-07 03:11:27 PM

nexxus: I actually do have quite a lot of equipment. And I don't use products that emit significant amounts of EMFs in a way that can harm me. I avoid as many plastics and synthetics as I can, generally. &c.


Do you test that equipment yourself every time you use it, or do you generally rely on manufacturing standards and the randomized testing of components and completed products it requires to ensure that device you just plopped 6 grand on works as advertised?

You ASSUME you don't use products that release that much EMF...because it's been tested in accordance with government rules about manufacturing for such products and devices.

I work for a medical device company. You're telling me we shouldn't have the FDA test the hell out of these things, make DAMN sure we've documented every step of the process (including any deviation from the approved product description) along the way, and are eligible to be audited at any time by the Agency?

Do you really think we'd get half as good oversight and results if we shuttered the FDA and told millions of diabetics to "just trust" our device, the software and systems it uses, the test strips and lances we sell, and the support we offer?

Would YOU put that much trust in a company to manage your diabetes? (Bear in mind, a failure of ONE of those components might send you into insulin shock, which can cause permanent injury and death, which are also costly.)
 
2014-03-07 03:14:06 PM

Abuse Liability: I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but most scientists can't even detect the low levels of BPA in serum of people, rats, or monkeys that are given CHRONIC  (ingesting) exposure to these products.  So yeah, not really the danger so many people believe  it to be.

I tried to give you a link to an actual scientific paper in addition to and easier to digest NPR article.


Wait, so Mother Jones exploited the public fear of chemicals and scientific illiteracy to push a distorted and overblown view of the dangers of a compound?
 
2014-03-07 03:16:22 PM
No petroleum product is safe for humans
 
2014-03-07 03:16:48 PM
I knew those uppity Whole Foods hippies with the pretentious BPA-Free plastic bottles would get their comeuppance some day...
 
2014-03-07 03:16:59 PM

Angela Lansbury's Merkin: If a product harms you, you can sue.  Regardless of what "government certification" it has.  If a FDA approved medicine turns out to have long term side effects that don't turn up during the testing, you can sue.  If my USDA approved beef is tainted with e.coli, I can sue.  Just because a product has passed some sort of government inspection, doesn't mean the government is indemnifying the company or product.


Generally, if a product passes EPA/whoever certs/regs, it all gets a lot (orders of magnitude) harder.  "We followed public safety guidelines" .. "We did as we were told", &c.

For instance, the EPA actually issues pollution permits to power plants, refineries, and such allowing them pollute at certain levels.  They're more or less shielded from liability, effectively, as long as they stay within those limits, regardless of whether what they're putting out actually harms someone.

You might read the CWA (clean water act), CAA (clean air act), OPA (oil pollution act), and the like.  They all use language like '(un)approved releases' to qualify when the polluter may be held liable and such.  As far as I know, it works very similarly with food, medication, etc.  It's not impossible to sue, but it's much, much more difficult when the government approves of whatever it is.
 
Ant
2014-03-07 03:17:15 PM

nexxus: Louisiana_Sitar_Club: You give the average person waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy too much credit.

That's possible, but if people continued to do stupid things over long periods of time (like using toxic products) they wouldn't live as long as those who didn't, and so.. natural selection.


And as everyone knows, natural selection is a perfect model on which to base a society. Natural things are always good.

It's not like natural selection allowed us to evolve the ability to think and cooperate with other humans, thus giving us the ability to specialize our expertise so that everyone doesn't have to be an expert on everything.
 
2014-03-07 03:20:16 PM

nocturnal001: So then I would hours researching every single product before I buy and take the advise from a 3rd party with no legal responsibility to me? Sounds super duper efficient.

Your scenario does not work unless we eliminate the corporate shield and hold managers and stock holders personal responsible for damages.


I do spend hours researching nearly every product I use.  I would take advice from a third party if I trusted them and/or had some recourse if they willfully misrepresented something and I was harmed.

Who said anything about leaving corporate shields and such intact?  I think anyone who knowingly harms someone else should be held responsible.  Like using a chemical you know is toxic but not telling anyone.  Or actively preventing people from finding out that what you're doing is harmful.  That sort of thing.
 
Ant
2014-03-07 03:21:32 PM

StopLurkListen: nexxus: Ridiculous headline.  This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter.  They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

/DNRTFA

Cool! A "Caveat Emptor" Libertarian! That approach is a totally winner in China, by the way. Sorry about your dog. And everything else.

[amptoons.com image 500x750]


Might fit the "Naive" spot as well
 
Ant
2014-03-07 03:25:47 PM

generallyso: nexxus: That's possible, but if people continued to do stupid things over long periods of time (like using toxic products) they wouldn't live as long as those who didn't, and so.. natural selection.

They'd live long enough to reproduce and that is all that is required.


Not to mention that even the smartest people can't be an expert on everything. Also, smart people aren't immune to doing stupid things.
 
2014-03-07 03:27:29 PM

Kittypie070: I do believe I have grown several new pineal glands and a large number of new cortical folds.

Fascinating sensation to have six or seven simultaneous trains of thought. The static, however is a bit unpleasant.

I consulted my cat on the matter of mitigating the static, but discovered I had interrupted her musings on corrected equations for the Alcubierre Drive.

Hmm.


Have you ever heard of Discordianism?
 
Ant
2014-03-07 03:28:06 PM

nexxus: Angela Lansbury's Merkin: Yes, because the average consumer has access to the tools to test to see if their water bottle is leaking a substance that might be harmful for them, or to check and verify every factory for every component in their new phone isn't dumping toxic waste into the local river.  And also has the money and time to take the vendor to court, hire expert witnesses, etc.  All to win nothing since they can't prove financial harm beyond the price tag of the item.

I understand what you're saying, and the way things are right now, you're right.

But if it weren't for government agencies involving themselves in this process, the entire 'system' would have evolved differently - would be different.  Surely you can see and accept that, even if we don't necessarily agree on *how* it would be different.


How do you think it would be different?
 
2014-03-07 03:28:33 PM

nexxus:

I do spend hours researching nearly every product I use.


Now, seriously, honest question here, and I'm not making any of my silly japes...do you really think everyone else has that kind of spare time?
 
2014-03-07 03:30:22 PM

real_headhoncho: Have you ever heard of Discordianism?


Yup, got the book too. Hilarious.
 
2014-03-07 03:31:49 PM
Dr Dreidel:  Do you test that equipment yourself every time you use it, or do you generally rely on manufacturing standards and the randomized testing of components and completed products it requires to ensure that device you just plopped 6 grand on works as advertised?

I actually do test test equipment from time to time, but not every time.  No.  I generally rely on the reputations of the companies that manufacture said equipment.  I've learned the hard way that relying on government standards is unwise.

You ASSUME you don't use products that release that much EMF...because it's been tested in accordance with government rules about manufacturing for such products and devices.

No, I actually have an EMF meter and I know what the EMF emissions of the products I use are.

I work for a medical device company. You're telling me we shouldn't have the FDA test the hell out of these things, make DAMN sure we've documented every step of the process (including any deviation from the approved product description) along the way, and are eligible to be audited at any time by the Agency?

I'm not going to argue that less testing, documentation, etc. is better than more.  I don't agree and wouldn't win, anyway.  What I will argue over is whether it's best to allow a government that's thoroughly corrupt to oversee that process.  I think it would be better for a 3rd party(-ies) that could actually be held liable for failures in the process, without limit, to oversee it.  Right now, Government is immune.  And they *DON'T* always do their jobs the way you describe.  I have first hand experience.

Do you really think we'd get half as good oversight and results if we shuttered the FDA and told millions of diabetics to "just trust" our device, the software and systems it uses, the test strips and lances we sell, and the support we offer?

I think we'd be worse off without independent testing and such.

Would YOU put that much trust in a company to manage your diabetes? (Bear in mind, a failure of ONE of those components might send you into insulin shock, which can cause permanent injury and death, which are also costly.)

I don't put trust in doctors, or the health care system, generally, to manage my health.  But your point is well made.

Overall, you make good points here.  Really.  I don't think we're too far apart on the main point that it's best to test and such.  My biggest problem is that the government isn't reliable, is corrupt and easily corruptible, and that it also has soverign immunity.  Bad combination.
 
2014-03-07 03:34:20 PM

Kittypie070: real_headhoncho: Have you ever heard of Discordianism?

Yup, got the book too. Hilarious.


Which Cabal do you belong to?
 
2014-03-07 03:36:26 PM

Ant: generallyso: nexxus: That's possible, but if people continued to do stupid things over long periods of time (like using toxic products) they wouldn't live as long as those who didn't, and so.. natural selection.

They'd live long enough to reproduce and that is all that is required.

Not to mention that even the smartest people can't be an expert on everything. Also, smart people aren't immune to doing stupid things.


This is why we'd have reliable third party testing.  Who would want to research and test everything themselves?
 
2014-03-07 03:38:28 PM

real_headhoncho: Kittypie070: real_headhoncho: Have you ever heard of Discordianism?

Yup, got the book too. Hilarious.


Which Cabal do you belong to?


I don't.
 
2014-03-07 03:39:35 PM
No wonder my boss is so effeminate.
 
2014-03-07 03:42:42 PM
Kittypie070:   Now, seriously, honest question here, and I'm not making any of my silly japes...do you really think everyone else has that kind of spare time?

Not many people do, no.  I agree with you that that's a problem, but I can lay that at the feet of the government, as well.  ~50% of your time is stolen from you in the form of taxes to pay for shiat you probably don't agree with.  Whether it's money to fund the military or entitlements - whatever your political persuasion - they steal your money (and thus your time) and spend it on shiat you'd rather they not.  If they didn't rob you (and yes, it is theft, unless you freely give it - threatening you with fines, jail, etc. makes any 'contribution' you make coerced) you'd have plenty of time to do research on the things that mattered to you, and a lot of other things.  (And there are probably a dozen other arguments for how you have less time for yourself because of the government.  If you're really interested we can discuss.)

Really, though, research doesn't take up that much time on an ongoing basis once you get through a lot of the initial work.
 
2014-03-07 03:44:15 PM

Ant: How do you think it would be different?


I think systems would have developed and evolved to support that kind of society (a free one).  Necessity is the mother of invention, and all of that.

We can go into detail if you want, but I have to run to the grocery.
 
2014-03-07 03:47:20 PM

nexxus: Kittypie070:   Now, seriously, honest question here, and I'm not making any of my silly japes...do you really think everyone else has that kind of spare time?

Not many people do, no.  I agree with you that that's a problem, but I can lay that at the feet of the government, as well.  ~50% of your time is stolen from you in the form of taxes to pay for shiat you probably don't agree with.
[snip]

(And there are probably a dozen other arguments for how you have less time for yourself because of the government.  If you're really interested we can discuss.)

Really, though, research doesn't take up that much time on an ongoing basis once you get through a lot of the initial work.


So no one has things known as "jobs" that take up a quite substantial chunk of their time.

Got it.
 
2014-03-07 03:47:27 PM

nexxus: My biggest problem is that the government isn't reliable, is corrupt and easily corruptible, and that it also has soverign immunity. Bad combination.


That it is. (Though I'm OK with some kinds of sovereign immunity.)

But I think government is less susceptible to those problems than private industry is, with the added bonus that I at least retain some manner of choice in my elected officials.

// and while I would absolutely love more competition in my markets, it's not a panacea
// some markets - utilities and healthcare, to name two - SHOULD be public monopolies
 
2014-03-07 03:50:34 PM
HEY NEXXUS PICK ME UP A MEXICOKE WHILE YOU'RE OUT.
 
2014-03-07 03:54:00 PM
Has anyone pointed out that "the dose makes the poison" yet?
 
2014-03-07 03:54:39 PM

nexxus: Ridiculous headline.  This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter.  They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

/DNRTFA


100 posts in the thread

CTRL+F "nexxus" = 61 Results

11/10

Well done chap, well done.
 
2014-03-07 03:54:42 PM

Marcus Aurelius: So that's where moobs come from.


Tits up, America!
 
2014-03-07 03:56:11 PM

Dr Dreidel: nexxus: My biggest problem is that the government isn't reliable, is corrupt and easily corruptible, and that it also has soverign immunity. Bad combination.

That it is. (Though I'm OK with some kinds of sovereign immunity.)


I'm actually okay with some kinds of soverign immunity, also, but not when the lives and health of citizens are at stake.  Suing the government for knowingly spraying you with toxic chemicals should be allowed, for instance.

But I think government is less susceptible to those problems than private industry is, with the added bonus that I at least retain some manner of choice in my elected officials.

We disagree here, then, on a few points.  If 3rd parties that were adequately bonded/insured and could be sued out of existence for a failures, I'd feel more comfortable relying on them than I do on a government that largely can't be held responsible.  And you hardly have choices wrt elected officials.  How many citizens per congressman now?  I think I could probably effectively argue that we - as citizens - are no longer represented.

// and while I would absolutely love more competition in my markets, it's not a panacea
// some markets - utilities and healthcare, to name two - SHOULD be public monopolies

I might be convinced by some of this, particularly if you argued from an efficiency-in-rights-of-way angle, but I generally lean toward 'free markets', obviously.
 
2014-03-07 03:57:26 PM

Kittypie070: So no one has things known as "jobs" that take up a quite substantial chunk of their time.

Got it.


Sweetie, my point was that you wouldn't have to work as long or as hard - that our system would be different, entirely - if you weren't being robbed every hour of every day.
 
2014-03-07 03:59:06 PM

Kittypie070: HEY NEXXUS PICK ME UP A MEXICOKE WHILE YOU'RE OUT.


Yuck.  Sugar is poison.
 
2014-03-07 04:07:54 PM

Mr. Right: The problem is not what's in the plastic.  It's using the plastic to begin with.  Beer in glass bottles, soda in glass bottles (I know you can't find it anymore), milk in glass bottles, ketchup, mustard, pickles, vinegar - everything came in glass bottles and jars.

We were told that plastic was safer because it didn't break and cut your small children to ribbons (a fate worst than losing an eye to a BB gun or running with scissors); it was more convenient because you didn't have to wash and return it, it was lighter so it was easier to carry and cheaper to ship - the benefits of plastic were manifest and abundant and were promoted by industry and government alike.

Now we have chronic oil shortages (the source of plastics) and are warned that we will  run out and need to find alternative energy sources.  We are also told that plastic is not going to save us - it's going to kill us.

So you're telling me I was lied to.  Imagine that.


What oil shortages?
 
2014-03-07 04:10:15 PM

nexxus: And you hardly have choices wrt elected officials. How many citizens per congressman now? I think I could probably effectively argue that we - as citizens - are no longer represented.


You retain the choice, if only because you have the opportunity to run (assuming you're over 25/30/35, depending on office).

And again, I have my problems with the shaping of districts, campaign finance rules, choice in candidates (for example, why are Democrats in red Texan districts the craziest motherfarkers this side of Texas' Senate delegation?), and party machinery, but not deep enough that I favor scrapping the whole thing.

// but I do like that representation is an argument we've been having pretty much as long as we've had representatives
// makes me think we're never satisfied with what we've got
 
2014-03-07 04:17:58 PM

nexxus: Kittypie070: HEY NEXXUS PICK ME UP A MEXICOKE WHILE YOU'RE OUT.

Yuck.  Sugar is poison.


So is pure water if you drink too much. So is pure oxygen at too high a pressure.

Look, you got a decent set of wits on you and I always enjoy wit, but you also have a few blind spots.

I'm not playing kitty-smack-the-paperwad with you out of malice, I'm just trying to point out where you need to reflect a bit more.

K?
 
2014-03-07 04:22:08 PM

Kittypie070: nexxus: Kittypie070: HEY NEXXUS PICK ME UP A MEXICOKE WHILE YOU'RE OUT.

Yuck.  Sugar is poison.

So is pure water if you drink too much. So is pure oxygen at too high a pressure.

Look, you got a decent set of wits on you and I always enjoy wit, but you also have a few blind spots.

I'm not playing kitty-smack-the-paperwad with you out of malice, I'm just trying to point out where you need to reflect a bit more.

K?


Indeed, I study drugs for a living (neuropharmacologist, not crack addict... and yes I realize they're not mutually exclusive).  Pretty much anything becomes dangerous or produces adverse effects at some point/concentration/dose/probability.  Part of life is managing risk.  When everything can kill you, you have to prioritize what to worry about.  I do not worry about BPAs
 
2014-03-07 04:22:09 PM

nexxus: DNRTFA


The article's main story was how a private company ($80,000 startup) dedicated to provide the exact 3rd party testing you advocate was discredited and silenced by the company ($7 billion) making the products being tested.

Specifically, despite internal testing that showed otherwise, the plastics company lied to its customers about the hormonal impact, and then sued to have the testing party injoined from making claims about the hormonal impact of the plastic.
 
2014-03-07 04:22:38 PM

nexxus: meat0918: Which EMFs do you think can harm you?

Most of them.  It's pretty much proven that EMFs create stress (at the cellular level) in the body, and stress is bad .. enough of it leads to disease.


You should probably learn what other sources of EMF are. Because...no.

Just no. All encompassing, no.
 
2014-03-07 04:24:10 PM

nexxus: I think systems would have developed and evolved to support that kind of society (a free one). Necessity is the mother of invention, and all of that.


Systems were developed. They're called governments.
 
2014-03-07 04:27:04 PM

nexxus: Angela Lansbury's Merkin: Yes, because the average consumer has access to the tools to test to see if their water bottle is leaking a substance that might be harmful for them, or to check and verify every factory for every component in their new phone isn't dumping toxic waste into the local river.  And also has the money and time to take the vendor to court, hire expert witnesses, etc.  All to win nothing since they can't prove financial harm beyond the price tag of the item.

I understand what you're saying, and the way things are right now, you're right.

But if it weren't for government agencies involving themselves in this process, the entire 'system' would have evolved differently - would be different.  Surely you can see and accept that, even if we don't necessarily agree on *how* it would be different.


there would be no system. We'd be farked. These government agencies only exist because people demanded them because nobody knew what was in anything
 
Ant
2014-03-07 04:28:33 PM

Kittypie070: nexxus: Kittypie070:   Now, seriously, honest question here, and I'm not making any of my silly japes...do you really think everyone else has that kind of spare time?

Not many people do, no.  I agree with you that that's a problem, but I can lay that at the feet of the government, as well.  ~50% of your time is stolen from you in the form of taxes to pay for shiat you probably don't agree with.
[snip]

(And there are probably a dozen other arguments for how you have less time for yourself because of the government.  If you're really interested we can discuss.)

Really, though, research doesn't take up that much time on an ongoing basis once you get through a lot of the initial work.

So no one has things known as "jobs" that take up a quite substantial chunk of their time.

Got it.


Didn't you see? People would only need 50% of a job in his libertarian utopia, because there would be no taxes!
 
2014-03-07 04:31:20 PM
I still want that Mexicoke, bub.

:D
 
2014-03-07 04:33:57 PM
Has there ever, in the history of capitalism, been a self-regulating industry that didn't pull this kind of shiat?
 
2014-03-07 04:39:07 PM

nexxus: Kittypie070: HEY NEXXUS PICK ME UP A MEXICOKE WHILE YOU'RE OUT.

Yuck.  Sugar is poison.


img.fark.net
 
2014-03-07 04:41:02 PM

Ant: Kittypie070: nexxus: Kittypie070:   Now, seriously, honest question here, and I'm not making any of my silly japes...do you really think everyone else has that kind of spare time?

Not many people do, no.  I agree with you that that's a problem, but I can lay that at the feet of the government, as well.  ~50% of your time is stolen from you in the form of taxes to pay for shiat you probably don't agree with.
[snip]

(And there are probably a dozen other arguments for how you have less time for yourself because of the government.  If you're really interested we can discuss.)

Really, though, research doesn't take up that much time on an ongoing basis once you get through a lot of the initial work.

So no one has things known as "jobs" that take up a quite substantial chunk of their time.

Got it.

Didn't you see? People would only need 50% of a job in his libertarian utopia, because there would be no taxes!


People are only working 50% of the times in our current Utopia.  See, if you keep your hours under half, you still get federal assistance for being low income.  The way I see it, we win no matter which way the political compass swings.
 
2014-03-07 04:44:51 PM

trialpha: nexxus: I think systems would have developed and evolved to support that kind of society (a free one). Necessity is the mother of invention, and all of that.

Systems were developed. They're called governments.


"It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."
    -James Madison, Federalist #51
 
2014-03-07 04:50:27 PM
The only real solution is to send the military to kill the plastic container manufacturers, destroy their plants, kill their employees and their families.

It's the only way to be sure.

Meanwhile, you're just serfs and slaves and you'll do what you're damned well told to do.
 
2014-03-07 04:51:43 PM

kroonermanblack: nexxus: meat0918: Which EMFs do you think can harm you?

Most of them.  It's pretty much proven that EMFs create stress (at the cellular level) in the body, and stress is bad .. enough of it leads to disease.

You should probably learn what other sources of EMF are. Because...no.

Just no. All encompassing, no.


I've tried explaining a person is subjected to more high energy ionizing EMF standing outside at high noon for five minutes than they are from the same duration of talking on a cell phone inside of a building, but they were having none of it.

They started hyperventilating at the sight of my cell phone.
 
2014-03-07 04:52:44 PM

nexxus: nocturnal001: So then I would hours researching every single product before I buy and take the advise from a 3rd party with no legal responsibility to me? Sounds super duper efficient.

Your scenario does not work unless we eliminate the corporate shield and hold managers and stock holders personal responsible for damages.

I do spend hours researching nearly every product I use.  I would take advice from a third party if I trusted them and/or had some recourse if they willfully misrepresented something and I was harmed.

Who said anything about leaving corporate shields and such intact?  I think anyone who knowingly harms someone else should be held responsible.  Like using a chemical you know is toxic but not telling anyone.  Or actively preventing people from finding out that what you're doing is harmful.  That sort of thing.


You spend hours researching a bottle of water?

Not saying you are cool with the corporate veil thing but that is something suspiciously absent from most free market soap boxes.
 
2014-03-07 04:54:08 PM
I wonder when farkers are going to learn what a real free market is.
 
2014-03-07 04:57:21 PM
Mwelp, hot dog time.
 
2014-03-07 05:10:50 PM

nexxus: Ridiculous headline.  This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter.  They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

/DNRTFA


Except the average Farker has no idea about how government agencies operate and who they actually serve or the history. They were told by their grade school teachers that the FDA keeps them safe and thus that's all they know. Like american school children do, anyone with a greater understanding or intelligence will be mocked and ridiculed for not going along with the social illusions.
 
2014-03-07 05:32:12 PM

Kittypie070: nexxus: Kittypie070: HEY NEXXUS PICK ME UP A MEXICOKE WHILE YOU'RE OUT.

Yuck.  Sugar is poison.

So is pure water if you drink too much. So is pure oxygen at too high a pressure.

Look, you got a decent set of wits on you and I always enjoy wit, but you also have a few blind spots.

I'm not playing kitty-smack-the-paperwad with you out of malice, I'm just trying to point out where you need to reflect a bit more.

K?


Sugar is actually toxic - and not in a 'water-is-toxic-if-you-drink-12-gallons' kinda way, but in a 'this-cannot-possibly-help-you-in-any-way-unless-you're-a-diabetic-and -need-sugar-to-normalize-insulin-levels-right-this-second,-or-somethin g' kind of way.  There are books written about it.  And there's plenty in the literature.  There's virtually no good that can come from consuming the 'empty' (of micronutrients) calories of sugar, and it's more addictive than cocaine.. so.. why?  Anything that doesn't help you and can cause harm (let me count the ways...) is 'bad', pretty much by definition.  I mean is it just "Because I like it" ?  If so ....

For some background (at least):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/16/sugar-toxic-health-effects- su crose-fructose_n_3599864.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewa nt ed=all&_r=0

No offense intended.  Just trying to help you reflect, some, too.
 
2014-03-07 05:32:32 PM

nexxus: Ridiculous headline.  This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter.  They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

/DNRTFA


2/10.

You'll get bites from people who haven't read their Upton Sinclair, though.
 
2014-03-07 05:35:11 PM

Abuse Liability: Indeed, I study drugs for a living (neuropharmacologist, not crack addict... and yes I realize they're not mutually exclusive). Pretty much anything becomes dangerous or produces adverse effects at some point/concentration/dose/probability. Part of life is managing risk. When everything can kill you, you have to prioritize what to worry about. I do not worry about BPAs


Agreed.  I hardly worry about BPA, myself.

Sugar is worth worrying about, though -- not for me (I avoid it), but for the majority.

Approaching 70% of Americans are chronically ill in one way or another.  Sugar absolutely contributes.
 
2014-03-07 05:37:47 PM

Cubicle Jockey: The article's main story was how a private company ($80,000 startup) dedicated to provide the exact 3rd party testing you advocate was discredited and silenced by the company ($7 billion) making the products being tested.

Specifically, despite internal testing that showed otherwise, the plastics company lied to its customers about the hormonal impact, and then sued to have the testing party injoined from making claims about the hormonal impact of the plastic.


Thanks.  Not surprising... at all.

There was a really good article in the New Yorker recently about Atrazine and a researcher who determined it was harmful:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/02/10/140210fa_fact_aviv?cur re ntPage=all
 
2014-03-07 05:39:45 PM

kroonermanblack: You should probably learn what other sources of EMF are. Because...no.

Just no. All encompassing, no.


I'm talking about artificially generated EMFs (like from RF transmitters, computers, etc.), and I'd assumed everyone else was, too.  If you want to split hairs, fine.
 
2014-03-07 05:41:01 PM

charlesmartel11235: there would be no system. We'd be farked. These government agencies only exist because people demanded them because nobody knew what was in anything


You should make an effort to know the history of most of the government agencies.  People didn't demand shiat, in most cases.
 
2014-03-07 05:45:24 PM

meat0918: I've tried explaining a person is subjected to more high energy ionizing EMF standing outside at high noon for five minutes than they are from the same duration of talking on a cell phone inside of a building, but they were having none of it.

They started hyperventilating at the sight of my cell phone.


It sounds like you know people who are sensitive to EMF, then?  Have you done any blind tests?  Can they detect EMF from phones, WiFi, etc. ?  I have, and they can.

But it's not just me.. there are plenty of doctors who recognize EMFs as a cause of health issues.  Keep an open mind and do some research.

/I actually owned a wireless company about a decade ago and thought just like you back then ('nutbags!'), but now.. not so much.
 
2014-03-07 05:46:13 PM

Angela Lansbury's Merkin: jigger: The non-stupid consumer would rely on private third party certification. Hey, but wouldn't the company just collude with the certifying agency to rig the tests? That might happen, but then people would stop trusting that particular certifying agency and they would either clean up their act or go out of business. That's after they've been sued. There are plenty of ambulance chasers out there willing to work on contingency.

How would you know the certification was bad?  Heck, how would you know what sort of certification each item you eat should have?   It could take years before the problems start to show, and years more to trace back the source of the illness.  And then who has the money to fight this through the courts?


This is how it works now.

And how do people sue corporations now? Lawyers work on contingency and use class actions. Sure, they fark the defendants but the corp gets punished and that's all you care about.


There's nothing stopping people from doing what you describe now.

It's called crowding out. Why would anyone go looking for a certification label when they KNOW that the USDA, EPA, FDA, etc. has already determined that this product is "most definitely" safe?
 
2014-03-07 05:47:52 PM

FnkyTwn: nexxus: a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market

jigger: That's after they've been sued. There are plenty of ambulance chasers out there willing to work on contingency. When it happens with the EPA, as in this case, you can't fire the EPA.

Unless you live in Texas and you can't even go to court and instead get mandatory arbitration, but don't worry, because the agency hired to manage the arbitration is paid by the company you're trying to sue. Also, your damages are capped at $250k and then your lawyers fees come out of that.

Your system is flawless, that's why it works so well in all those Libertarian countries around the world.


Yeah, that system with mandatory things and caps on damages sounds pretty libertarian. Sorry for not seeing how stupid I was.
 
2014-03-07 05:48:40 PM

nocturnal001: You spend hours researching a bottle of water?

Not saying you are cool with the corporate veil thing but that is something suspiciously absent from most free market soap boxes.


I've spent a lot of time researching water, yes.  Not a bottle so much, but water in general.  Though I do test bottled waters.  The easiest way is to distill them and see what's left over.  You'd be surprised if you've never done that.  And try it with your muncipal water - that's great fun.  Talk about sludge (in many places) ...

I've actually been considering investing in a GC-MS to take it to the next level.
 
2014-03-07 05:49:12 PM

leadmetal: I wonder when farkers are going to learn what a real free market is.


When the term stops being troll bait.
 
2014-03-07 05:49:48 PM

Kittypie070: Mwelp, hot dog time.


Most hot dogs have sugar in them!  Be careful.
 
2014-03-07 05:51:51 PM

leadmetal: Except the average Farker has no idea about how government agencies operate and who they actually serve or the history. They were told by their grade school teachers that the FDA keeps them safe and thus that's all they know. Like american school children do, anyone with a greater understanding or intelligence will be mocked and ridiculed for not going along with the social illusions.


Exactly.  I have first hand experience working with regulators, regulatory agencies, and government, generally.  I know how shiat goes, and it ain't pretty.  It's nothing like what everyone here seems to think.
 
2014-03-07 05:54:38 PM

nexxus: meat0918: I've tried explaining a person is subjected to more high energy ionizing EMF standing outside at high noon for five minutes than they are from the same duration of talking on a cell phone inside of a building, but they were having none of it.

They started hyperventilating at the sight of my cell phone.

It sounds like you know people who are sensitive to EMF, then?  Have you done any blind tests?  Can they detect EMF from phones, WiFi, etc. ?  I have, and they can.

But it's not just me.. there are plenty of doctors who recognize EMFs as a cause of health issues.  Keep an open mind and do some research.

/I actually owned a wireless company about a decade ago and thought just like you back then ('nutbags!'), but now.. not so much.


Still no.

Just completely wrong in every possible way. But an A for effort.
 
2014-03-07 05:56:41 PM

kroonermanblack: Still no.

Just completely wrong in every possible way. But an A for effort.


I wasn't asking you to approve.  I was trying to help you.  Maybe you'll learn eventually.
 
2014-03-07 05:57:46 PM

nexxus: meat0918: I've tried explaining a person is subjected to more high energy ionizing EMF standing outside at high noon for five minutes than they are from the same duration of talking on a cell phone inside of a building, but they were having none of it.

They started hyperventilating at the sight of my cell phone.

It sounds like you know people who are sensitive to EMF, then?  Have you done any blind tests?  Can they detect EMF from phones, WiFi, etc. ?  I have, and they can.

But it's not just me.. there are plenty of doctors who recognize EMFs as a cause of health issues.  Keep an open mind and do some research.

/I actually owned a wireless company about a decade ago and thought just like you back then ('nutbags!'), but now.. not so much.


No, they cannot, at least not better than random chance.

Stop peddling this bullshiat.
 
2014-03-07 05:58:03 PM

Mr. Right: The problem is not what's in the plastic.  It's using the plastic to begin with.  Beer in glass bottles, soda in glass bottles (I know you can't find it anymore), milk in glass bottles, ketchup, mustard, pickles, vinegar - everything came in glass bottles and jars.

We were told that plastic was safer because it didn't break and cut your small children to ribbons (a fate worst than losing an eye to a BB gun or running with scissors); it was more convenient because you didn't have to wash and return it, it was lighter so it was easier to carry and cheaper to ship - the benefits of plastic were manifest and abundant and were promoted by industry and government alike.

Now we have chronic oil shortages (the source of plastics) and are warned that we will  run out and need to find alternative energy sources.  We are also told that plastic is not going to save us - it's going to kill us.

So you're telling me I was lied to.  Imagine that.


yeah and poisoned
 
2014-03-07 06:00:24 PM

meat0918: No, they cannot, at least not better than random chance.

Stop peddling this bullshiat.


I'm not peddling anything.  Why are you reacting so strongly/negatively?  Does that call into question your belief system, or something?
 
2014-03-07 06:09:06 PM

jaybeezey: What oil shortages?


The ones they've been telling us for 40 years are right around the corner.
 
2014-03-07 06:12:45 PM
Pick your topic:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=EMF

In case you can't, here are a few (from the first page of the results at the link above):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24595264
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24460416
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24584565
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24499289
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24488772
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24482293

If you need me to interpret them (or read them to you), let me know.

Question for you:  Have you ever actually done any research on this topic?  Or are you just spouting off?
 
2014-03-07 06:15:55 PM

nexxus: meat0918: No, they cannot, at least not better than random chance.

Stop peddling this bullshiat.

I'm not peddling anything.  Why are you reacting so strongly/negatively?  Does that call into question your belief system, or something?


Only in that I am tired of people spouting unproven and scientifically unsubstantiated garbage.  While I hold open the possibility some people are EMF sensitive, so far, they have found no substantiation of those claims.
 
2014-03-07 06:17:17 PM

nexxus: Pick your topic:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=EMF

In case you can't, here are a few (from the first page of the results at the link above):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24595264
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24460416
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24584565
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24499289
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24488772
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24482293

If you need me to interpret them (or read them to you), let me know.

Question for you:  Have you ever actually done any research on this topic?  Or are you just spouting off?


We're talking about two different things here.
 
2014-03-07 06:20:12 PM
endocrine disruptors

/that which does not kill you can steal your manhood, even at tiny, tiny doses


//sleep tight government regulation is bad and the free market will surely resolve this
 
2014-03-07 06:28:36 PM

meat0918: nexxus: Pick your topic:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=EMF

In case you can't, here are a few (from the first page of the results at the link above):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24595264
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24460416
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24584565
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24499289
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24488772
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24482293

If you need me to interpret them (or read them to you), let me know.

Question for you:  Have you ever actually done any research on this topic?  Or are you just spouting off?

We're talking about two different things here.


And just for clarification, I am talking about so called EMF sensitives that think wifi is killing them.

I was not speaking of the broader possibilities of interactions between various power levels, frequencies, intensities, etc.

I've watched someone handing out "orgone" pucks claiming it would do everything from protecting them from (the nonexistent in our water here) fluoride to the naphthalene fumes from the creosote plant that sits in the middle of our neighborhood as well as EMF.

As an aside, this woman was also poisoning herself with borax to counter act the fluoride that again, doesn't get added to our water, until someone called a local clinic that helps deal with people that cannot afford normal healthcare.
 
2014-03-07 06:37:06 PM

meat0918: We're talking about two different things here.


What are you talking about, then?  Certainly EMF is harmful, and if it's harmful it isn't much of a stretch to say that some people can tell when they're exposed and so harmed, is it?  And I'm not talking about a healthy person, or even the average person, but people who already have weak constitutions - that's where the problem is.  EMF creates more biological stress, and disease follows that stress.  Period.

Hell, I went through a period where I had extremely high levels of ONS (oxidative and nitrosative stress) .. and during that period I had a wireless mouse that I used all the time.  Sure..lower power.. bluetooth..2.4ghz.. but .. my hand ached whenever I used that mouse.  Switching to a corded mouse made it go away (no, it wasn't the shape or muscle strain).  Same thing with using a laptop keyboard (fingertips ached) vs. an external USB keyboard with no EMF from all the gadgets inside.  At the time I measured the EMF from the mouse and laptop.. both created ridiculously high levels of EMF.. well in excess of 100mG at the surface (continuously for the laptop, during use for the mouse) .. which is well beyond what anyone should be exposed to on an ongoing basis.  And for a while I stayed right underneath (<10m) a cluster of power lines (extended stay hotel).  ~15mG in bed, which is also well in excess of what people should be exposed to.  I felt like shiat there, couldn't sleep, etc.  When I realized, I moved and felt better immediately.  So unless you've experienced it .. and unless you've done the research, which it doesn't appear you have, you probably ought not comment.  How about that?
 
2014-03-07 06:53:18 PM

meat0918: And just for clarification, I am talking about so called EMF sensitives that think wifi is killing them.

I was not speaking of the broader possibilities of interactions between various power levels, frequencies, intensities, etc.

I've watched someone handing out "orgone" pucks claiming it would do everything from protecting them from (the nonexistent in our water here) fluoride to the naphthalene fumes from the creosote plant that sits in the middle of our neighborhood as well as EMF.

As an aside, this woman was also poisoning herself with borax to counter act the fluoride that again, doesn't get added to our water, until someone called a local clinic that helps deal with people that cannot afford normal healthcare.


WiFi is killing them, albeit very slowly and imperceptibly, for most.  There are no 'broader possibilities'.  That EMF affects our biophysiology is a proven fact.  There's no debate.  There's no discussion.  See above.

I've read about the orgone stuff and it's way out there.  While I don't understand it, there are people who swear it 'works'.  Maybe they're nuts, but until I see hard evidence that they actually *are* nuts I tend to reserve judgement.  I don't see much benefit in condemning someone, or someone's ideas, particularly when they harm no one.  As long as they aren't cramming it down my throat, I couldn't give a shiat less what they think/believe/do.  Why do you?

And people take Borax, too, because it's a source of boron (as far as I know), which is more-or-less an essential mineral.  And while I don't take it, myself, Borax's LD50 is roughly the same as that for table salt (~3g/kg), so to say she was poisoning herself at the dose she was likely taking (probably just a tiny, tiny fraction of the LD50, if she's following what she read online) is just flat wrong.  Most people eat far more sugar, which is far more toxic, than the people who use borax take.
 
2014-03-07 07:02:06 PM

nexxus: meat0918: And just for clarification, I am talking about so called EMF sensitives that think wifi is killing them.

I was not speaking of the broader possibilities of interactions between various power levels, frequencies, intensities, etc.

I've watched someone handing out "orgone" pucks claiming it would do everything from protecting them from (the nonexistent in our water here) fluoride to the naphthalene fumes from the creosote plant that sits in the middle of our neighborhood as well as EMF.

As an aside, this woman was also poisoning herself with borax to counter act the fluoride that again, doesn't get added to our water, until someone called a local clinic that helps deal with people that cannot afford normal healthcare.

WiFi is killing them, albeit very slowly and imperceptibly, for most.  There are no 'broader possibilities'.  That EMF affects our biophysiology is a proven fact.  There's no debate.  There's no discussion.  See above.

I've read about the orgone stuff and it's way out there.  While I don't understand it, there are people who swear it 'works'.  Maybe they're nuts, but until I see hard evidence that they actually *are* nuts I tend to reserve judgement.  I don't see much benefit in condemning someone, or someone's ideas, particularly when they harm no one.  As long as they aren't cramming it down my throat, I couldn't give a shiat less what they think/believe/do.  Why do you?

And people take Borax, too, because it's a source of boron (as far as I know), which is more-or-less an essential mineral.  And while I don't take it, myself, Borax's LD50 is roughly the same as that for table salt (~3g/kg), so to say she was poisoning herself at the dose she was likely taking (probably just a tiny, tiny fraction of the LD50, if she's following what she read online) is just flat wrong.  Most people eat far more sugar, which is far more toxic, than the people who use borax take.


The symptoms she was attributing to fluoride poisoning were consistent with borax ingestion.  Headaches, nausea, diarrhea, cramping, and they stopped after she stopped taking the borax, so I'll go with the borax was what was making her sick, and not the non-existent fluoride.
 
2014-03-07 07:14:39 PM

nexxus: nocturnal001: You spend hours researching a bottle of water?

Not saying you are cool with the corporate veil thing but that is something suspiciously absent from most free market soap boxes.

I've spent a lot of time researching water, yes.  Not a bottle so much, but water in general.  Though I do test bottled waters.  The easiest way is to distill them and see what's left over.  You'd be surprised if you've never done that.  And try it with your muncipal water - that's great fun.  Talk about sludge (in many places) ...

I've actually been considering investing in a GC-MS to take it to the next level.


Let's ignore the borderline insane scenario you are claiming to live in, not water. An individual brand of water. In your world either a third party business fulfills the exact same role as the FDA with comparable problems of reliance.

Your idea of how things should be is impossible. Consumers would be paralyzed by choice and innovation would halt.
 
2014-03-07 07:14:46 PM

meat0918: The symptoms she was attributing to fluoride poisoning were consistent with borax ingestion. Headaches, nausea, diarrhea, cramping, and they stopped after she stopped taking the borax, so I'll go with the borax was what was making her sick, and not the non-existent fluoride.


Well, some people are farking stupid and don't know how to read or measure very well.  It's very possible she was overdosing.

It's also possible that the Borax was just killing the yeast (typically candida albicans) that most chronically ill people harbor excessive quantities of in their digestive tracts, which would also explain those symptoms (they fit perfectly with the effects of candida die-off).  You can check that out, too..PubMed has some good research on it, or you can just google 'candida' or 'candidiasis'.  Doctors typically prescribe antifungals in the -azole family, like fluconazole, imidazole, etc., or polyenes like nystatin in those cases, but Borax works too.
 
2014-03-07 07:21:04 PM

nocturnal001: Let's ignore the borderline insane scenario you are claiming to live in, not water. An individual brand of water. In your world either a third party business fulfills the exact same role as the FDA with comparable problems of reliance.

Your idea of how things should be is impossible. Consumers would be paralyzed by choice and innovation would halt.


I can't imagine third parties would have the same problems the FDA does - sure, maybe here or there there'd be issues - but not across the board.  And if they were held liable for their mistakes, they'd be damn careful, wouldn't they?  The government isn't liable, and they don't have to be careful, really.  I mean, this system works for electrical devices, doesn't it?  Underwriters Laboratories isn't a government agency, yet everyone trusts them because they know their shiat, they do a good job testing things, and the "UL" mark means something almost universally.  That could, and would, be done in every part of industry and the economy, if only government kept their noses out of shiat.

So.. I have to disagree, generally.
 
2014-03-07 08:20:23 PM

nexxus: Ridiculous headline.  This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter.  They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

/DNRTFA


Right, consumers would do their own reseach.

Wait...if they did that, wouldn't the problem be fixed now?
 
2014-03-07 08:36:19 PM

nexxus: Ridiculous headline.  This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter.  They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

/DNRTFA


OK.

Assuming you really believe this shiat, let's take an example from history.

Frances Oldham Kelsey.

In 1960, she worked for the FDA, and was assigned the job of reviewing the application for thalidomide. Its use was already approved in many other countries; she withheld approval and requested further studies.

The manufacturer put pressure on the FDA to approve it, yet she held strong and insisted on further studies.

At the same time, children in countries that had approved its use started being born with birth defects, caused by thalidomide being prescribed to pregnant women.

Without the strength of her character, thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of deformed children would have been born in the US.

Do you think she was a bad person? Do you think that the citizens of the US would be better off without the FDA?
 
2014-03-07 08:43:07 PM

iron de havilland: OK.

Assuming you really believe this shiat, let's take an example from history.

Frances Oldham Kelsey.

In 1960, she worked for the FDA, and was assigned the job of reviewing the application for thalidomide. Its use was already approved in many other countries; she withheld approval and requested further studies.

The manufacturer put pressure on the FDA to approve it, yet she held strong and insisted on further studies.

At the same time, children in countries that had approved its use started being born with birth defects, caused by thalidomide being prescribed to pregnant women.

Without the strength of her character, thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of deformed children would have been born in the US.

Do you think she was a bad person? Do you think that the citizens of the US would be better off without the FDA?


Who said they don't do *some* good?  Not me.. certainly they do do some good, occasionally.  My point is that they're not reliable (they don't *always* do good), they're corrupt and easily corruptible, and they have soverign immunity so they can't be held responsible for .. virtually anything.
 
2014-03-07 09:00:57 PM

nexxus: iron de havilland: OK.

Assuming you really believe this shiat, let's take an example from history.

Frances Oldham Kelsey.

In 1960, she worked for the FDA, and was assigned the job of reviewing the application for thalidomide. Its use was already approved in many other countries; she withheld approval and requested further studies.

The manufacturer put pressure on the FDA to approve it, yet she held strong and insisted on further studies.

At the same time, children in countries that had approved its use started being born with birth defects, caused by thalidomide being prescribed to pregnant women.

Without the strength of her character, thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of deformed children would have been born in the US.

Do you think she was a bad person? Do you think that the citizens of the US would be better off without the FDA?

Who said they don't do *some* good?  Not me.. certainly they do do some good, occasionally.  My point is that they're not reliable (they don't *always* do good), they're corrupt and easily corruptible, and they have soverign immunity so they can't be held responsible for .. virtually anything.


And this is different from unregulated corporations in what way, exactly?

Well, unregulated corporations would have put thalidomide on the market in the US with no further questions, and it would have been down to the consumer to research, through experience, the side effects.

Oh, and if your democratic republic is working for you, you have an influence over the likes of the FDA that you don't have over the boards of corporations, who answer only to shareholders and not to every citizen who votes. Shareholders tend to want maximum profit for minimum cost, such as pesky environmental/health considerations.

But, other than that... yay free market.
 
2014-03-07 09:34:28 PM

iron de havilland: And this is different from unregulated corporations in what way, exactly?

Well, unregulated corporations would have put thalidomide on the market in the US with no further questions, and it would have been down to the consumer to research, through experience, the side effects.


'Unregulated corporations' would also be unshielded, and could be sued out of existence if they knowingly sold toxic substances.  Eventually people would have figured out that thalidomide was bad (we did, obviously) and linked it to corporate malfeasance (which is what you're suggesting would be the case), and without damage caps and such, that would be the end of that corporation.  And people would eventually learn that it isn't in their best, long-term, interest to poison little children.  Painful lesson?  Yes.  But who's to say it would have happened that way at all if there were [possibly, and ideally, many] objective, 3rd party evaluations in advance of it being used widely?  If there were no 'regulator', I doubt people would just accept whatever some random corporation tells them .. it seems you're assuming they would?

Oh, and if your democratic republic is working for you, you have an influence over the likes of the FDA that you don't have over the boards of corporations, who answer only to shareholders and not to every citizen who votes. Shareholders tend to want maximum profit for minimum cost, such as pesky environmental/health considerations.

Our influence over regulators, as citizens (unless you have extremely deep pockets and/or cachet), is more-or-less nil.

And, again, you're forgetting that corporations could and would be held liable, unlike now where they're largely shielded as long as they follow regulatory rules/processes and 'pay off' the right people (directly, indirectly .. or however .. maybe it's just a 'favor').

But, other than that... yay free market.

Yay.

/Thanks, everyone, for the discussion.  Enjoyed it.
 
2014-03-07 10:05:21 PM

nexxus: kroonermanblack: Still no.

Just completely wrong in every possible way. But an A for effort.

I wasn't asking you to approve.  I was trying to help you.  Maybe you'll learn eventually.


I've already learned. You're a high-functioning paranoid schizophrenic, possibly a narcissist, and even more likely delusional.

Is there any argument that it's possible to have radio force effect the body? No. It's energy. Is there argument that some people are 'sensitive' to EMF? Yes. Because they are not. They are psycho somatic people with mental illness, just like you.

Here's a tip: there is, constantly, a very high threshold of 'emf' 24x7 everywhere. EVERYWHERE. It doesn't matter whether you are in a city, using a cell phone, or in the middle of the arctic. EMF is issued forth by ANYTHING electrical. These people who are 'sensitive' only display the sensitivities when given poorly administered tests with cueing, like a three year old who 'tests as a genius', it later comes out that the mother was in the room unconsciously or consciously directing the child.

These sensitives should not be able to be around anything using electricity. Like, say, a car. Those have motors and stators, and other significant EMF generating events. Or a light bulb. That's massive EMF. Or a space heater. That's literally nothing but EMF.

But they focus on 'radio waves' or 'wifi' or 'cell signals' as though those are some magical different version of EMF. It's simply people with existing mental illnesses fastening on to issues. They 'feel better' in the safe houses because the entire thing is psychosomatic. I've seen these 'safe houses'. They use tin foil for 'protection'. Guess what tin foil does for EMF?

I'm going to trust a series of doctors and scientists who studied this, coupled with people having lived around 'bad EMF' for decades now with no actual measurable issues, and say you're, again, a person with some mental illnesses who needs to seek help, and possibly medication.

And your 'self education' is highly biased to confirm what you want it to, as well as selective, and quite frankly wrong.
 
2014-03-07 10:23:00 PM

kroonermanblack: nexxus: kroonermanblack: Still no.

Just completely wrong in every possible way. But an A for effort.

I wasn't asking you to approve.  I was trying to help you.  Maybe you'll learn eventually.

I've already learned. You're a high-functioning paranoid schizophrenic, possibly a narcissist, and even more likely delusional.

Is there any argument that it's possible to have radio force effect the body? No. It's energy. Is there argument that some people are 'sensitive' to EMF? Yes. Because they are not. They are psycho somatic people with mental illness, just like you.

Here's a tip: there is, constantly, a very high threshold of 'emf' 24x7 everywhere. EVERYWHERE. It doesn't matter whether you are in a city, using a cell phone, or in the middle of the arctic. EMF is issued forth by ANYTHING electrical. These people who are 'sensitive' only display the sensitivities when given poorly administered tests with cueing, like a three year old who 'tests as a genius', it later comes out that the mother was in the room unconsciously or consciously directing the child.

These sensitives should not be able to be around anything using electricity. Like, say, a car. Those have motors and stators, and other significant EMF generating events. Or a light bulb. That's massive EMF. Or a space heater. That's literally nothing but EMF.

But they focus on 'radio waves' or 'wifi' or 'cell signals' as though those are some magical different version of EMF. It's simply people with existing mental illnesses fastening on to issues. They 'feel better' in the safe houses because the entire thing is psychosomatic. I've seen these 'safe houses'. They use tin foil for 'protection'. Guess what tin foil does for EMF?

I'm going to trust a series of doctors and scientists who studied this, coupled with people having lived around 'bad EMF' for decades now with no actual measurable issues, and say you're, again, a person with some mental illnesses who needs to seek help, and possibly medication.

And your ...


All of that sounds great.  However, you've sidestepped quite a few things, ignored others, and generally just dismissed anything that doesn't fit neatly within your worldview by attacking me personally (which means you lose, by default).

I suppose calling me mentally deficient is all you have, though.

Best of luck.
 
2014-03-07 11:07:21 PM

nexxus: nocturnal001: Let's ignore the borderline insane scenario you are claiming to live in, not water. An individual brand of water. In your world either a third party business fulfills the exact same role as the FDA with comparable problems of reliance.

Your idea of how things should be is impossible. Consumers would be paralyzed by choice and innovation would halt.

I can't imagine third parties would have the same problems the FDA does - sure, maybe here or there there'd be issues - but not across the board.  And if they were held liable for their mistakes, they'd be damn careful, wouldn't they?  The government isn't liable, and they don't have to be careful, really.  I mean, this system works for electrical devices, doesn't it?  Underwriters Laboratories isn't a government agency, yet everyone trusts them because they know their shiat, they do a good job testing things, and the "UL" mark means something almost universally.  That could, and would, be done in every part of industry and the economy, if only government kept their noses out of shiat.

So.. I have to disagree, generally.


First I would like to applaud you for taking an unpopular stance and defending it in an intelligent and civil manner. (or you are a paid commentor on this topic and are earning your pay well)

Second, liability is the crux of this entire argument. I find it hard to imagine a world where third parties are truly liable for their actions. I can not argue that the government has zero liability in that area. My problem is that there is no sane business person that would risk so much to confirm the safety of a new drug let's say.

Why would I ever create a company to build the next new cancer drug if it had the risk of being the new thalidomide if that meant I'd be on trial for deforming babies? I wouldn't. The risks that a third party FDA would face are so astronomical that no sane person would take that investment. In the end that scenario would destroy innovation.

We must accept some risk in the form of an agency that may not face penalties for screw ups at least has no reward for making those mistakes happen.
 
2014-03-07 11:10:05 PM

nocturnal001: nexxus: nocturnal001: Let's ignore the borderline insane scenario you are claiming to live in, not water. An individual brand of water. In your world either a third party business fulfills the exact same role as the FDA with comparable problems of reliance.

Your idea of how things should be is impossible. Consumers would be paralyzed by choice and innovation would halt.

I can't imagine third parties would have the same problems the FDA does - sure, maybe here or there there'd be issues - but not across the board.  And if they were held liable for their mistakes, they'd be damn careful, wouldn't they?  The government isn't liable, and they don't have to be careful, really.  I mean, this system works for electrical devices, doesn't it?  Underwriters Laboratories isn't a government agency, yet everyone trusts them because they know their shiat, they do a good job testing things, and the "UL" mark means something almost universally.  That could, and would, be done in every part of industry and the economy, if only government kept their noses out of shiat.

So.. I have to disagree, generally.

First I would like to applaud you for taking an unpopular stance and defending it in an intelligent and civil manner. (or you are a paid commentor on this topic and are earning your pay well)

Second, liability is the crux of this entire argument. I find it hard to imagine a world where third parties are truly liable for their actions. I can not argue that the government has zero liability in that area. My problem is that there is no sane business person that would risk so much to confirm the safety of a new drug let's say.

Why would I ever create a company to build the next new cancer drug if it had the risk of being the new thalidomide if that meant I'd be on trial for deforming babies? I wouldn't. The risks that a third party FDA would face are so astronomical that no sane person would take that investment. In the end that scenario would destroy innovation.

We must accept some risk in the form of an agency that may not face penalties for screw ups at least has no reward for making those mistakes happen.


Blech. Combo of autocorrect on my phone and excessive Bourbon consumption made my post a very awkward read. (though my points are valid)
 
2014-03-08 12:00:30 AM

nexxus: All of that sounds great.  However, you've sidestepped quite a few things, ignored others, and generally just dismissed anything that doesn't fit neatly within your worldview by attacking me personally (which means you lose, by default).


No, that was my entire point. You ARE mentally deficient, and I haven't remotely attempted to step into your little funhouse of pop psychology and self educated faux science.  I'm saying you have a mental illness. It doesn't mean you can't be functional, many people with bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, and other such illnesses can be, at times.

You're simply paranoid. It's treateable, just like depression.

So no, I'm not going to bother trying to 'debate' you. You've found enough semi science to self justify predisposed answers, and will simply ignore, sidestep, or fish hole any reasonable argument, because it doesn't match with what you've convinced yourself is true.

As I said, I'm going to trust the scientists, doctors, and decades of data and research over one spunky self educator.
 
2014-03-08 12:51:21 AM
nexxus 2014-03-07 05:35:11 PM
nexxus 2014-03-07 05:37:47 PM
nexxus 2014-03-07 05:39:45 PM
nexxus 2014-03-07 05:41:01 PM
nexxus 2014-03-07 05:48:40 PM
nexxus 2014-03-07 05:49:48 PM
nexxus 2014-03-07 05:51:51 PM


Merciful Baby Jesus on a rocket ship to Pluto, man, you're overdoing it.
 
2014-03-08 04:13:16 PM

nocturnal001: First I would like to applaud you for taking an unpopular stance and defending it in an intelligent and civil manner. (or you are a paid commentor on this topic and are earning your pay well)


Thank you.  I'm neither paid nor a troll.  This is an issue that I have an interest in and consider important.

I appreciate intelligent discussion, generally, and thank you for contributing.

Second, liability is the crux of this entire argument. I find it hard to imagine a world where third parties are truly liable for their actions. I can not argue that the government has zero liability in that area. My problem is that there is no sane business person that would risk so much to confirm the safety of a new drug let's say.

Liability is important, yes, but I'm not sure I'd call it the crux, generally.  That the government increasingly feels they have the right to, effectively, control (and micromanage, at this point) the whole of our society with impunity is the key issue, for me.

That said, I don't disagree that it'd be harder to convince a sane business person to develop a drug that may do harm without protection from liability.  It's pretty much a given that more drugs are developed faster because pharmaceutical companies are protected, though I don't necessarily agree that that's a good thing.  That's mainly because I consider this whole "better living through pharmaceuticals" thing just an experiment (albeit a profitable one) that's slowly proving to be a failure.  I'm not suggesting that all drugs are bad - far from it..some are extremely useful in treating acute illness and trauma - but my position (which I can substantiate, generally, I think) is that, on balance, most pharmaceutical drugs taken over any period of time, for most people, do more harm than they do good.  Statins are more or less proven harmful.  Oncologists (the good ones, anyway) are more and more considering chemotherapy a last resort because statistics prove that people live longer, and have better quality lives, the longer they wait to start; that is, the longer they wait to begin chemo., the longer and better they live.  Even aspirin can be toxic taken over a long enough period of time (particularly when the user has compromised health).  And I could go on and on.

As a bit of an aside, it also appears more and more likely (depending on whose statistics you accept) that more people are killed by errors, accidents, and oversights related to pharmaceutical and other 'medical' interventions than by most other causes.  The most aggressive numbers suggest that up to ~1mm people per year in the US die an iatrogenic death, and a very significant fraction of those deaths are medication/drug-related.  If those numbers are accurate, that would make iatrogenic death the leading cause in the US.  On the other side, the most conservative (and widely accepted) numbers suggest that 225k deaths per year are iatrogenic, which makes death-by-doctor (don't mean to be inflammatory) the third leading cause of death.  And these are just death statistics, which say nothing about the numbers of injuries (significant or otherwise), reductions in quality of life, etc. caused by the 'system'.  So choose whichever set of numbers you think are more reasonable .. either way it's a major problem and ties into all of this because doctors, as long as they follow standard practices, aren't negligent, don't commit fraud, etc. are also largely shielded from liability in the same way.  You might argue that this is tolerated because our medical system does more harm than good, overall, but if you exclude care for acute illness and trauma (which our system is extremely good at), you're left with little more than a dubious claim that would ultimately be impossible to substantiate and accept.

(Personal note:  About 2 years ago I was accidentally poisoned with medication [allergic to ingredient, serious consequences], myself.  I know it happens, that it's covered up, and is significantly underreported.  So.. who knows what the real statistics are - I certainly don't.  This is partially why I'm so interested in this topic.)

Why would I ever create a company to build the next new cancer drug if it had the risk of being the new thalidomide if that meant I'd be on trial for deforming babies? I wouldn't. The risks that a third party FDA would face are so astronomical that no sane person would take that investment. In the end that scenario would destroy innovation.

Well, this is probably the best argument to be made in favor of liability shielding and the system that we have now (and I'm glad you made it - was wondering when someone would!), but I would argue that it's precisely our culture of government intervention that makes the risks associated with developing a new drug so high, not the potential negative effects of the new drug.  What I mean is that if new drugs were developed and we didn't have so many approval processes which effectively rubber stamp drugs as 'safe' - or if the 'approval processes' were managed by third parties with actual liability - not as many people would leap to use them until they were proven, and if a problem was found, far fewer would have be harmed than are now.  Yes, this could result in a slower 'rate of innovation', but it could also speed the process up in some cases, and it would likely give people willing to accept more risk an opportunity to try a new drug (think about a breakthrough drug that can't be used for X years because of a slow approval process), too.

Right now, those who test new drugs - most often by engaging scientists to conduct research/studies (who then often select the most favorable results, ignore negatives, or otherwise 'find' the results that they want on behalf of their employer) - see the process as a expense/cost center and as a source of risk to be managed.  Think for a moment about the innovation that would come of reversing that:  if a dozen or more companies considered 'drug safety testing' a source of revenue and a mistake in that process was an actual liability, what would happen?  And also consider who would be attracted to that.  Probably the most competent and confident - those who felt they could do well ('good') without making mistakes - in my opinion, anyway.

Anyway, to respond to the rest of what you've said here:  again, cancer drugs aren't a good example because while they're effective in some cases, on balance people end up dying (generally very) prematurely, their quality of life significantly decreases, and their chances of full recovery begin to approach zero once they start chemo.  'Cancer' exists in all of us all the time, though our bodies normally keep it under control and the cancerous cells can't proliferate; it's when the body can no longer manage itself that that happens, which is often when disease develops and doctors ultimately diagnose us with "cancer".

And again, even if 'innovation' does slow, who's to say that's a bad thing?  I'm very much an innovator, generally, and that's a part of both my personal and professional lives, but lately I'm taking steps 'backwards' because I'm realizing that I am (and we are) better off that way.  Plastics like those discussed in this article are a prime example.  Sure, plastic bottles are convenient and cheap, but what's wrong with glass or stainless steel?  Nothing.  Sure, they cost a little more initially, but they're likely going to last forever (relatively speaking), and ultimately the long-term net cost is much lower, particularly if you account for health-related risks and impacts of the alternatives.

We must accept some risk in the form of an agency that may not face penalties for screw ups at least has no reward for making those mistakes happen.

I'm happy to agree that everyone should have the right to live within any structure or use any method they'd like to manage and balance the rate of innovation with risk, but I object to having someone else impose their ideas wrt those things on me and on the market.  It's not the government's, or anyone's, place.  The only system that can treat everyone fairly is a free market.

The sooner people accept that controlling others is not in their best, long-term interests, the sooner we'll all be better off.

/Again, thanks for the discussion.  Enjoyed it.
//No problem on the 'convolutions'.  You were clear enough.
//Apologies if I've made any typos or errors.  I proofed it, but only once.
 
2014-03-08 04:42:00 PM

kroonermanblack: No, that was my entire point. You ARE mentally deficient, and I haven't remotely attempted to step into your little funhouse of pop psychology and self educated faux science. I'm saying you have a mental illness. It doesn't mean you can't be functional, many people with bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, and other such illnesses can be, at times.

You're simply paranoid. It's treateable, just like depression.

So no, I'm not going to bother trying to 'debate' you. You've found enough semi science to self justify predisposed answers, and will simply ignore, sidestep, or fish hole any reasonable argument, because it doesn't match with what you've convinced yourself is true.

As I said, I'm going to trust the scientists, doctors, and decades of data and research over one spunky self educator.


Your attempts to attack me personally are increasingly transparent and weak.  And your "Internet diagnoses" are laughable, Doc.  I meet virtually none of the critieria for any of the mental illnesses you've mentioned - certainly not enough to support any kind of diagnosis.  And I guess the hundreds of scientists, including those at the US EPA, NIOSH, and OSHA (who all state that EMF has been found harmful), and those behind the EU regulators who are busy establishing laws and regulations, including PELs, for EMF exposures, are all paranoid schizophrenics, too?  Yes, you can look all of this up.

Some unsolicited advice:  Generally, you should back up what you say with things other than (effectively) "I know people" and "I know what I know" if you want to be taken seroiously by anyone intelligent (though maybe that isn't your goal?).  Your best bet, right now, is to cruise over to PubMed and do some reading - you can start with the links I posted above - and then come back when you have a clue.

What do you do for a living, anyway?

/Let's put this to bed, really.  There's no point in continuing, as you aren't trying to have rational discussion.  You might as well have Godwin'd.
 
Displayed 169 of 169 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report