|
|
|
|
|
by dathinab
332 days ago
|
|
> and you can reduce it to basically 0% for little money. which is why I'm confused by people second questioning how bad it actually is in context of _fixing_ it (not in context of a national health scope) if there is something which is known to be quite unhealthy in a non small degree, and there is a cheap fix why wouldn't you just fix it. In the end if it's very bad, or slightly less bad or the 10th leading cause instead or whatever doesn't matter, fixing it is affordable and it's guaranteed dangerous on long term exposure so you do it. |
|
In my state, the state forces some of these tests (e.g., smoke detector) as part of the sales process so at least there is some hook for testing.