[Nahtnah]

This whole thread is a great example of an interesting phenomenon... whenever people talk about this people come out of the woodwork to nitpick the details of whoever is criticizing the wonton use of likely poisonous compounds. Theyll argue things like this about the details of the exact likely bioactivity of the compound, or go on about how its impossible to have modern society without poisoning everything in a huge perfect enemy of the good argument.

Like, go drink from a cup of pthalates if youre so ok with it being in your brain, balls, ovaries, etc. No ones arguing we need to ban plastics, but maybe coating the world in single use water bottles without considering the effects is suboptimal. Shouldnt the onus be on proving its safe before spreading it everywhere, rather than proving its dangerous?

https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2021/06/wor...

Theyll call me extreme/ignorant/naive, but maybe a society where we have to poison ourselves to sustain "growth" isnt worth sustaining.

Not to mention the constant alarm bells about rising GI cancers in younger people. "OH BuT YOU HAVNEnT staTIstiCALLY prOved A cAusAL AssOCiaTION".

[timr]

I'm not nitpicking the parent. The parent comment is just wrong, full stop. You should not listen to them.

They have an incorrect notion of what a phthalate is (usually a slightly greasy ester or an alcohol), how polar/hydrophopic they are (mixed; generally ampiphilic), and whether or not they tend to bioaccumulate (in general, they do not).

Your broader point is well-taken, however, but not in the way you intended: chemistry does not reward a shallow understanding. The details matter a lot.

[Nahtnah]

You're arguing as if you understand all the side effects of the biochemistry on the biology. None of us do. Theyre correct about one thing: its probably not good for you.

But sure, you might be more right on the basics of the biochemistry.

I guess I'm just frustrated about the state of the world - im not a degrowth person I just want a better balance.

There seems to be plenty of evidence for, for example, their role in endocrine disruption.

[timr]

At no point did I claim they were "good for you". I'm just saying that the OP is not making a valid argument.

[Nahtnah]

Sure, but I didnt claim he made a valid argument either. What I am claiming is when someone says things like

"The question of what this would do in the human body, which is full of polymers with very sensitively evolved mechanical properties, was obvious - yet it was not asked in a funded capacity until we had been letting it accumulate in our kids for decades"

which the article I linked supports, people come out of the woodwork to argue we need "more evidence/an exact biochemical pathway" when we dont have the understanding/technology to actually do that.

[foxglacier]

You're assuming we're all being poisoned. We might not be, and clearly if we are, it's not a huge effect because we're still not obviously more diseasous than before. It could even be that the benefits of these chemicals on civilization outweigh the health costs so we're better off using them.

[Nahtnah]

You're assuming were not all being poisoned, lol. Did you even read what I wrote.

There's plenty of evidence we're increasingly fucking with our bodies, again see the rising rates of cancer in youth. Yes, there are likely many causes for that. You'd have to be criminally negligent to argue a class of chemicals like phthalates is in the clear. Yes, the details are complicated. Yes, the dose makes the poison. Yes.

I believe we're smart enough to find a way to have/eat out cake, but smart people are arguing in this classic way about details that miss the main point people should care about, downplaying the issue in a way that laypeople cant understand the nuance of. So we keep following the $$$ and likely poisoning ourselves.