Hacker News Reader

Comment by SoftTalker | Hacker News Reader

I think we do need science. We just went through three years of divisive public debate about science vs. "knowing" what is good or bad for our health.

Plastic is pretty chemically inert. We've been using it widely for decades to great benefit and there is no strong evidence that it's harmful. I would not be surprised to find that in the body it's basically benign.

Or maybe not, but I don't see how you can "know" either way, without scientific research.

View on HN

> I think we do need science.

I don’t understand how one could read user3939382’s comment and conclude that the expressed position is that we don’t need science.

That’s not at all what they said. Rather, they were advocating for the application of the Precautionary Principle while waiting for science.

The precautionary principle seems like it's often misapplied and dumb and never really applied properly. We shouldn't discard a wonder material for lack of science.

what makes you personally believe it seems like that?

Inertness doesn't matter a whole lot when it comes to biological systems. There might not be any reactions where electrons are moving around but what really matters are the noncovalent intermolecular interactions when they get near proteins. Things that don't react can still act as ligands

I don’t disagree with you but Research cannot even directly conclude whether drinking any amount of alcohol is good or bad for human health - such is the case for any study which tries to link Behavior with Health Outcome.

> No studies have shown that the potential existence of a protective effect for cardiovascular diseases or type 2 diabetes also reduces the risk of cancer for an individual consumer. Evidence does not indicate the existence of a particular threshold at which the carcinogenic effects of alcohol start to manifest in the human body. As such, no safe amount of alcohol consumption for cancers and health can be established.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2...

Indeed but it's complicated. I only mean to suggest one article/publication isn't enough to support or prove a point definitively - rather than get caught in the weeds about "if alcohol really does/n't effect health". Researching health outcomes is very complicated and nuanced but we should certainly continue to do it.

> These findings seemingly contradict a previous GBD estimate published in The Lancet, which emphasised that any alcohol use, regardless of amount, leads to health loss across populations.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

One study isn't enough for anything in any field but we have a lot more evidence than that that alcohol consumption causes cancer

We've been using it widely for decades and in that time fertility has dropped to the point that almost all humans will be infertile within 20 years. And that's without going into all the other stuff like the mental illnesses.

You're very much fighting the "healthy lead" fight

Seems like you're conflating (in)fertility levels with fertility rate. Fertility rate has been dropping steadily, particularly in developed countries; however, this doesn't mean individuals are slowly all becoming infertile. In fact, studies have shown infertility rates have plateaued in recent decades, at least among women [1].

Fertility rates are dropping for different reasons--fewer individuals choosing to enter into long-term relationships and have kids, and families choosing to have fewer children on average than previous generations.

[1] https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/newsroom/news-releases/...

Find the most fertile region right now and I can assure you cheap plastics are abundant

Reply on news.ycombinator.com