Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (94100)	1/20/2005 12:50:05 AM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Well, think of it as tiny, inert stuff that doesn't even raise an immune response. It probably tends to get wedged someplace and just sits there and it's not like mercury or lead which actually cause problems. It really isn't chemically very active because it has no surface charge other than that of the immediate environment. I think DuPont's actions are reprehensible, but understandable in a regulatory environment that allows them to legally use people as guinea pigs. So that's a good question: do I advocate Teflon? Well, I use it and it is convenient. But I feel very, very guilty :-) If I had a broken hip, I'd want Teflon. Bare stainless leaching nickel into me doesn't appeal to me. Should we coat sofas with it? I have but wouldn't do it again. I think there is WAY too much of it out there. It's like CO2 more or less. It really isn't a problem until you create OCEANS full of it. I think all polymers should be engineered to fall apart into components that are biodegradable. With that said, it is a very difficult engineering problem to do that. Teflon is very hygienic and the number of people dying of cancer is probably LESS than the number saved from bacterial contamination on surfaces without it. Hard to do that kind of math but as a technologist with an environmental background, I simply feel conflicted and think it should be seriously studied.

To: Grainne who wrote (94100)	1/20/2005 10:11:41 AM
From: Oeconomicus	Respond to of 108807

2)"The whole reason we have agencies like the EPA and the FDA is that THEY are supposed to represent the public good." Now that is just plain funny! Under Republican administrations like the current one, there seems to be a trend towards protecting companies, not the public, from harm. Actually, whether you like it or not, "companies" and their shareholders are part of "the public". The job of these agencies is to regulate, respectively, use of the environment and the provision of foodstuffs and drugs to maximize social welfare. That does not mean, for example, preventing all damage to the environment, but rather weighing damage costs against social welfare benefits to ensure we make the the most productive use of our resources, including the environment, over the long term. Likewise, it does not mean eliminating all risks in food and drugs, but rather maximizing net benefits to society. Reflexively bashing business or policy-makers as anti-environment or anti-safety accomplishes nothing and, frankly, demonstrates an extreme shallowness of thought.