Remix clone Hacker News

I think the argument is interesting, but the specific example of prop 65 doesn't really work on a few levels. The argument in the post is that Prop 65's warnings are legitimate in some sense, but only apply in specific contexts.

However, Prop 65 is much broader than that. To qualify, a chemical just needs to show up on one of maybe half a dozen lists that show the chemical has some association w/ cancer, but all these show is that in some study, at some quantity, the association existed. The amount that was linked to cancer could be far beyond what is ever present in a consumer good, and the links could have only been shown in non-humans.

The lists aren't the ones gov't agencies like the FDA use to regulate product safety, they're lists far upstream of that that research institutions use to inform further study. The typical starting point is a mouse study with a huge dosage. It's not a useless study, but it's not meant to inform what a human should/should not consume, it's just the start of an investigation.

I don't think this actually has any bearing on the substance of the broader argument, but Prop 65 is not the best example.

▲

1oooqooq 6 hours ago | parent [-]

prop65 have the same level of coordinated opposition and information corruption as the food pyramid or cigarettes damage had for most of the time.

industry coluded to make it seems useless and industry spoon fed you the narrative you repeated. the list is very informative and meant to force the "invisible hand of the market" (its a pun, relax) to pay for better studies if they truly believe it is not harmful but studies are inconclusive. industry just decided to band and spend on making the signs useless.

▲

norseboar 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> the list is very informative and meant to force the "invisible hand of the market" (its a pun, relax) to pay for better studies if they truly believe it is not harmful but studies are inconclusive

To make sure I understand right: you're saying a good way to run things is: publish a list of a bunch of things that could be true or false, and then if industry cares enough, they should spend time/money debunking it?

I think that would be an extremely slow/conservative way to run just about anything, and is not the way we handle basically any claim. I can see an argument for "don't do something until you prove it's safe", useful in some very high-risk situations, but "warn that all kinds of commonplace things could cause cancer until somebody proves it doesn't" is misleading, not just conservative.

And it doesn't even work -- lots of places have spent time/money debunking e.g. negative claims about aspartame, but claims about how unsafe it is persist. And it all comes back to dosage. There is no good evidence that aspartame, at the levels found in a normal soda, cause any issues for humans, but this gets drowned out by studies either showing effects from massive doses on rodents, or indirect effects (e.g. it makes you hungrier, so if you eat more refined sugar as a result of that hunger, then yes it's bad for you, just like more refined sugar is almost always bad for you).

	▲	1oooqooq 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		you are still misguided that the list is utterly useless. i cannot open your eyes for you. go for first hand experiences. you are still repeating others you don't know (and have been told told are authorities)