06 Mar 13
Originally posted by e4chrisCosmetics companies not wanting tests done on their products is nothing to do with science. That is big business trying to preserve profits at all costs.
Its not really relevant to haber but a recent case highlights the kind of attitudes I'm on about. People got paranoid about buying parabens, enough for cosmetics companies to market 'paraben free' products, allegedly they can mimic eastrogen, there is a mix commonly used in cosmetics and one was recently found to be risky in that way. It got into the press a ...[text shortened]... dium benzoate could well be worse then paraben and they don't want any tests to find out...
06 Mar 13
Originally posted by KeplerIn engineering you have this concept 6 sigma, that a part must be reliable for a million uses. (stops planes from falling out they sky) I tell you chemists really lack this concept... how cheap can we make it, how fast can we turn it out, sue if someone says its toxic, for a long time that has been the chemical industry thinking.
Cosmetics companies not wanting tests done on their products is nothing to do with science. That is big business trying to preserve profits at all costs.
06 Mar 13
2 edits
Originally posted by e4chrisWhat is " how cheap can we make it, how fast can we turn it out, sue if someone says its toxic," got to do with scientific knowledge/understanding? This is just politics and any 'bad' politics is not the fault of scientific knowledge/understanding.
In engineering you have this concept 6 sigma, that a part must be reliable for a million uses. (stops planes from falling out they sky) I tell you chemists really lack this concept... how cheap can we make it, how fast can we turn it out, sue if someone says its toxic, for a long time that has been the chemical industry thinking.
06 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by e4chrisWhat has that got to do with scientific knowledge/understanding? and before you say
how cheap can we make it, how fast can we turn it out, sue if someone says its toxic
D I O X I N again, how is the unwise use of science the fault of science and not us?
06 Mar 13
6 edits
Originally posted by e4chrisOK; the answer is "it isn't" i.e. it isn't the fault of science that some people sometimes misuse it.
Why don't you try and answer that question, I've tried.
What's your answer? (and "D I O X I N" would not be an answer I understand -you really need to elaborate on that a bit and, bear in mind, I am not a mind reader!
-I cannot usually guess the whole of your thinking from just one or two words unless you explain it)
06 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by humywhen i put in in capitals I just mean thats was a big, long lasting example of chemists, and industry being negligent, oddly it was well meaning in places, eg with malaria, but they had no idea how toxic it was and it wouldn't of taken that much work to find out.
What is " how cheap can we make it, how fast can we turn it out, sue if someone says its toxic," got to do with scientific knowledge/understanding? This is just politics and any 'bad' politics is not the fault of scientific knowledge/understanding.
06 Mar 13
Originally posted by e4chrisI would ban guns. Why aren't you railing against them? Surely they are involved in almost all violent deaths in the world today? (excluding car accidents)
I'm sure haber would say that too, you can take that way of thinking to far tho ....(i would ban most fireworks for that reason! but thats just me)
07 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadban them for who? I would ban them in the green grocers but in some places thats normal. I would ban most fireworks because they are not idiot proof, and this is the thing about haber and wreckless chemistry, my aunt with an nvq in catering would have a better idea what to do with toxic chemicals then haber... she would put on gloves to start and i've seen professors that don't .
I would ban guns. Why aren't you railing against them? Surely they are involved in almost all violent deaths in the world today? (excluding car accidents)