[vkou]

I think the onus on proving safety should be on the people selling products, not on some third party to prove that those products are dangerous.

Otherwise, we get vendors poisoning us for decades, and then whoopsie-daisies pleading ignorance. And even when they get held accountable (almost never), the value that remains in the vendor is insufficient to compensate for the damage inflicted on us.

Heads I lose, tails they win.

[lazide]

But how can anyone prove safety here? On anything? I’m unaware of any substance which isn’t dangerous or harmful in some context. Even sand!

What is the actual bar?

[vkou]

Generally safety is evaluated based on intended use.

The intended use of leaded gasoline is burning it and putting lead in the air.

The intended use of asbestos is as an inert fire-retardant layer. It's safe in that context. Where it's not safe is in all the work that goes into building, or tearing down that layer.

The intended use of BPA was putting it into 'microwave safe' plastic containers, where it leeched into food.

Bleach is safe to handle (carefully), but not safe to drink.

[lazide]

I’m not sure your examples make much sense?

It also requires a risk/reward assessment, as everything has tradeoffs. Without some sort of assessment of concrete risks, making tradeoffs is also a wild guess.

Using asbestos in oven mitts? Probably not worth it, safety wise. Plenty of good and safe alternatives, and nobody is going to die if it’s 25% more or less effective.

Using it in firefighter turnouts? Maybe, depending on shedding characteristics and effectiveness of alternatives.

Using it in encapsulated hard paneling for specialized industrial furnaces? Quite safe.

But only if you have some sort of stats on cancer rates vs exposure rates. But that takes a lot of time and exposure (for almost anything except FOOF anyway), and requires actually using it.

Or a lot of guessing and inconclusive/misleading lab tests anyway.

And if you can’t use something until you can prove it’s safe, the whole situation is a Catch 22.

[kragen]

especially sand; crystalline silica is a known carcinogen (iarc group 1, the most severe classification)

(when inhaled)

[lazide]

Generally only when in a very fine powdered crystalline form, though, and only when exposed persistently at a moderate level.

High short term exposure apparently isn’t a cancer risk (but is a ‘you’ll be miserable and have a hard time breathing’ risk), and low grade exposure below a threshold is also apparently fine.

And just sand itself (except for certain specific rare types) is also apparently fine.

Weird eh?

[kragen]

well, it depends on what you do with the sand; things like sandblasting or desert sandstorms liberate plenty of the very fine powdered crystalline form that is the concern

your points about high short-term exposure and long-term low-grade exposure are well taken, and may also apply to phthalates, since humans evolved in an environment with many sources of phthalates, such as coconuts, poppy seeds, grapes, and kidney beans. see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8310026/ and https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Phthalic-acid#sect...