[sidfthec]

Strange tone to the article. Very adversarial and doomy.

Sounds like 6PPD is essentially required for modern tires. People are researching alternatives but haven't scaled any yet.

Other emissions from modern tires are also bad. People are researching alternatives but haven't scaled any yet.

Regulatory agencies are pushing to speed this up.

What's the issue? It sounds like things are working as intended.

[irq]

The issue is this shouldn’t have happened in the first place. We as a society should have learned from, at least, the debacle that was leaded gasoline and its impact on populations over generations.

[sidfthec]

I'm not sure what you mean. What would the alternative world look like in this case? Less safe / a lack of tires until we confirm every chemical used isn't dangerous? I don't think that's a good trade off. We still don't have good alternatives in 2023, let alone in the last 100 years.

[friend_and_foe]

And DDT, and mercury thermometers, and Teflon, and the list goes on...

It's a fundamental fact: introducing anything new to an environment disrupts the status quo. In a living environment, that means health problems for living things. You either stop creating synthetic materials or you have unforeseen consequences. You can mandate more research and more rigorous standards, but that has diminishing returns. Some things will slip past.

[dkarl]

Doomy? The tone seems balanced and pragmatic to me. Nothing in the article implies an existential threat or takes a doomer perspective. The subject is depressing, but if that bothers you, you should probably skip environmental news altogether.

> What's the issue? It sounds like things are working as intended.

Studying and reporting about pollution is part of how things work as intended.

Maybe you sincerely expected something different when you clicked the link, but it comes off like you're seeking out this material and then complaining that it exists.