[EnviroTO]

My point was about the notion of toxicity. As for "man-made" versus "natural" toxins, what's the difference; toxic is toxic, no?

Does it matter if it is proven toxic or not? If a chemical can't be found in plants, animals, water, and air naturally should we be putting it there when there is no real way to know the impact since there are thousands of species on the planet, millions of biochemical reactons on the planet, and no company is going to test each chemical on all of them before they start to release those chemicals into the envrionment. Naturally occuring substances have a way of reaching equilibrium... bacteria that breaks them down, plants that break them down, chemical reactions that render them inert solids, etc... a man made compound that never previously existed often has no natural path in the ecosystem and simply builds up somewhere and potentially causes harm. Poisonous berries are toxic obviously but they are naturally created and are naturally broken down. Man made chemicals such as Deca-BDE don't break down. Focusing solely on toxicity is pointless... there is a natural balance of naturally occuring chemicals in various ecosystems and disrupting that balance is dangerous to the plants and animals that live there. Even putting too much salt on a road is pollution because it washes into the river in unnatural levels of concentration and kill plants and aquatic life. For salt there is a natural non-zero level of concentration, for Deca-BDE and various man made chemicals the natural level of concentration is zero.

If you are suggesting the modelling of chemical or biochemical interactions, this is already being done with success. It will get better with greater understanding of biochemistry and raw computing power.

I'm talking about taking a diagram of a chemical compound and simulating how that compound would affect the human body in all tissues, brain chemistry, cells, etc. I'm talking about being able to do that same simulation on all types of organisms. Only when we can realistically know the outcome of introducing a man made chemical into the environment should we be allowed to do so... and even then if that chemical wasn't there before should we be putting it there?

There is actually close to 150 years of collected laws and regulations regulating how classes of chemicals and hazardous materials are disposed of.

Did most of those regulations on chemicals and hazardous materials come before those chemicals and materials left the lab of after they had already left the lab and perhaps did some environmental damage? Most research being done in the environmental field is asking "did we already cause damage" which means we are putting the cart before the horse. We shouldn't be releasing things into the environment before all the answers are known.

 

[ganjavih]

Look at, ADD and Ritalin which is probably the biggest BS made up - drug companies cashing in on stupid parents whose children are bored.

ADD was just made up, eh? And you know this how?

I guarantee if a drug company had a cure for cancer, it wouldn't hide it. It would be a massive source of revenue.

 

[dan e 1980]

I guarantee if a drug company had a cure for cancer, it wouldn't hide it. It would be a massive source of revenue.

which is why we have cars that last forever and never break down. :\

 

[EnviroTO]

People aren't willing to pay the price for a car that lasts forever and never breaks down. Engineering something that resilient would cost a fortune in R&D and manufacturing costs.

 

[dan e 1980]

Engineering something that resilient would cost a fortune in R&D and manufacturing costs.

not if it was mass-produced.

too many jobs rely on treatments, not enough on cures.

 

[cacruden]

People aren't willing to pay the price for a car that lasts forever and never breaks down. Engineering something that resilient would cost a fortune in R&D and manufacturing costs.

I don't know about that...... I think you just described a Toyota (especially if it is manufactured in Japan) :b

Actually, from what I have heard from one person I know in Japan -- the problem that that person has -- is that they WOULD like some things to break down -- so that they don't feel guilty and buying a new model.

 

[boiler2000]

Drug companies focus their research on drugs and if they could cure cancer they would because there is a lot of money to be made from a cancer curing drug.

That all depends.

Think about it from a business perspective. Right now, with AIDS, for instance, you need to take an expensive daily coctail of drugs, indefinitely, in order to survive. Huge money is involved here. If someone came up with a cheap cure (take one pill and its all over), it would be hugely damaging to lots of large pharmaceutical companies and would definitely hurt the industry.

The optimal thing for business is not to have a cure, but an expensive "treatment", which is required forever.

 

[bizorky]

Focusing solely on toxicity is pointless...

I believe that was something you were focussing on. My point was that toxic products are easily found in nature as all substances are toxic to any organism in large enough quantities. This is not a political stance or an opinion, but a biological fact, so it's not pointless.

Does it matter if it is proven toxic or not? If a chemical can't be found in plants, animals, water, and air naturally should we be putting it there when there is no real way to know the impact since there are thousands of species on the planet...

So you are suggesting that all fabrication of what you term as an non-natural substances should come to a halt? By natural substances I assume you mean...what?

All the constituent atoms and numerous complex molecules of any substance on this planet (except hydrogen) were made by stellar evolution, a natural phenomenon. Molecular arrangements are allowed and limited by the laws of physical chemistry (also natural), and molecular structure plays an important role in how these molecules operate with other complex molecules - the ones we are made up of - for example. What you are trying to define as unnatural is in fact allowed by nature. No one has examined the potential range of all the molecules that could be produced on the planet and by the planet (just think of the geophysics alone).

From this perspective, understanding and defining levels of toxicity is useful as a measure since it actually defines something for us; it is stating an effect worth understanding. Otherwise, at a a fundamental level there is no actual definition of natural and not. The capacity for molecular arrangement is a natural process.

Did most of those regulations on chemicals and hazardous materials come before those chemicals and materials left the lab of after they had already left the lab and perhaps did some environmental damage?

The sources of regulations on chemical and biochemical agents are multiple and very complex because we are speaking of tens of thousands of chemicals (many of which are not actually being manufactured). A siginficant number of research laboratories are actually in the process of examining many of these compounds to understand if they have any use in material fabrication or pharmaceuticals.

One of the earliest regulations placed on chemical production had to do oil refining and with the dumping of a product we call gasoline, a bi-product of the production of naptha for lighting in the mid nineteenth century. There was no use for gasoline at that time (!), so some naptha producers decided to dump it in rivers upstream to get rid of the stuff. It was quickly discovered to have obvious nasty effects in large concentrations. The laws were put in place to deal not with the specific gasoline molecules, but stupid human beings who didn't bother to think about what they were doing, or the effect their actions would have.

If you want to read an interesting recent development on regulation and self-regulation, take a look at the history of the Asilomar Conference of 1975 which began to define procedures and prtocols for recombinant DNA. It's fascinating recent scientific and legal history, and a regulatory process still very much in action.

 

[EnviroTO]

Its the cost of materials which would be more expensive. Have you ever seen an old Electrolux Vaccuum? The amount of metal and the fabrication process for that type of heavy duty construction would be far more expensive than the plastic injection mold parts they make these days. The consumer buys based on price and telling them the equipment will last longer probably isn't going to convince them to pay more than twice as much. Do you always choose metal over plastic when buying things? Plastic almost always degrades faster than metal. In cars they purposely make the vehicles lightweight for fuel efficiency and make them so they crumple on impact for safety... a focus on lightweight usually entails sacrifice on service life. People are just too cheap to pay for it. People can buy some diesel cars now and they have proven to have a longer service life and have high fuel efficiency... how many people buy those? I don't think having a product purposely destruct after a few years goes into the design process... they simply test a product and if it last long enough to meet their targets it passes. I think you are simply believing what you want to believe.

 

[cacruden]

Actually, given the choice -- I alway choose metal over plastic -- plastic just feels cheap to me :b

Problem is that I rarely get to choose these days.

 

[bizorky]

Think about it from a business perspective. Right now, with AIDS, for instance, you need to take an expensive daily coctail of drugs, indefinitely, in order to survive. Huge money is involved here. If someone came up with a cheap cure (take one pill and its all over), it would be hugely damaging to lots of large pharmaceutical companies and would definitely hurt the industry

So why are they spending all that time, money and human effort on looking for that "one pill" cure?

 

[bizorky]

Do you always choose metal over plastic when buying things? Plastic almost always degrades faster than metal. In cars they purposely make the vehicles lightweight for fuel efficiency and make them so they crumple on impact for safety... a focus on lightweight usually entails sacrifice on service life.

Concerning metal versus plastic and degrading, it depends what alloy or which plastic is being used.

A crumpling car actually absorbs a considerable amount of impact force, it actually helps the occupant. A light weight car would also potentially increase survivability by reducing the quantity of inertial force that such a car would possess upon impact, just as a light weight helmet protects your head, but does not cause it to hit anything harder due to the added weight of a heavier helmet.

 

[EnviroTO]

All the constituent atoms and numerous complex molecules of any substance on this planet (except hydrogen) were made by stellar evolution, a natural phenomenon. Molecular arrangements are allowed and limited by the laws of physical chemistry (also natural), and molecular structure plays an important role in how these molecules operate with other complex molecules - the ones we are made up of - for example. What you are trying to define as unnatural is in fact allowed by nature. No one has examined the potential range of all the molecules that could be produced on the planet and by the planet (just think of the geophysics alone).

Are you saying there is naturally occurring Deca-BDE or PVC in plants and animals? Who cares what chemicals exist at the center of the planet... obviously if there is an unnaturally high temperature any chemical is possible but a chemical made in a factory at over 80'C has little chance of existing on the surface of the planet barring volcanic eruption. Maybe because hot lava comes out of the ground naturally we should take nickel mine tailings from Sudbury and simply sprinkle them over the rain forests to simulate a volcanic eruption? If I draw a moustache on Mona Lisa does is it toxic or damaging? Where is the scientic evidence of harm... some people like a good moustache don't they? If I dump relatively inert garbage on your front lawn which is non-toxic is it really a problem? Where is the scientific evidence that the Coke can on your lawn and my dogs feces isn't actually good for your lawn... perhaps I was helping you out.

Maybe you are expecting science to justify all change we exert on the environment but I don't believe that this planet is ours to consume and spit out. Just because an asteroid might hit the planet in a few weeks and destroy the planet it hardly justifies us blowing it up now. So a chemical might exist in volcanic lava... well volcanic lava hasn't shown up on the St.Clair river lately so should there be new sources of those chemicals on the St.Clair river?

You aren't going to be convinced that there is a natural balance in the environment and that we shouldn't be the ones unbalancing it. The oceans are large so rather than trying to deal with "so called" toxic substances (everything is toxic so WTF are they talking about right??) simply dump them at sea... the chemicals probably already exist somewhere and once the sea dilutes it probably will be no biggie. Dinosaurs went extinct so maybe those whales are meant to go next... might as well get their blubber while we can. The atmosphere is huge and will dilute whatever crap we expel into it eventually... and who is to say a volcanic eruption wouldn't have done it anyways. Avian flu is probably going to kill more people than gangsters in Toronto so why worry about it... violence is normal in the animal kingdom. In history we would have had a big war by now... many we are overdue and should get at it. :rolleyes

 

[Mislav]

ganja - I respect your opinion as I think you mentioned that you are a doctor. Nonetheless there is no possible way you can convince me that 10 % of American children, which is supposedly the % of those with ADD, are in need of Ritalin. However that seems to be the American way - drug a bunch of bored kids to make them more "managable". Let's look at the fact that there is no physical exam that can prove the existence of ADD and also that current ADD tests are totally subjective. Would you honestly put your kid on Ritalin if a "qualified" doctor told you it was necessary? A drug that doesn't increase your IQ but makes you dull and also only improves your performance in repetitive bored tasks. I went to elementary school here - I know how boring and repetitive it was - we pretty much repeated the same crap over and over again until grade 8 - no wonder some kids become "hyper" and that's not just me talking, many doctors agree. If you notice a kid has an excess of energy, do you "sedate" them or do you find activities such as sports that would act as a release? I've noticed, myself, that studying is more efficient after some exercise.

bizorky - If these wonderful pharmaceutical companies are working for the people then why does getting a drug license in the states cost over $100 million? Face it, it's a multi billion dollar industry and they will go by the route that makes the most money. Of course a conspricacy theory is far fetched but let's get real - sick people is what drives this industry.

 

[bizorky]

^I'm not sure what do you mean by a drug license?