Re:'New car smell' is the scent of carcinogens
by annoyingnoob on Tuesday February 16, 2021 @02:47PM
(#26157928)
There is a spot somewhere between abstinence and gluttony where you can live well and keep your risks under control. I think I'd rather live a little and take my chances - as long as its my choice. I'm with you generally, its good to have notice, but not all science is correct/settled and we need thresholds.
Re:'New car smell' is the scent of carcinogens
by mleonhard on Tuesday February 16, 2021 @06:28PM
(#26160192)
I believe this is the "Argument to Moderation" logical fallacy [0].
> Argument to moderation is the fallacy that the truth is a compromise between two opposing positions.
Re:'New car smell' is the scent of carcinogens
by annoyingnoob on Tuesday February 16, 2021 @08:27PM
(#26161447)
I'm saying that I can't eat french fries everyday, but once in say 15 days isn't so bad. That isn't true of Benzene. Prop 65 would warn you to abstain from many things, many things that need more science.
Re:'New car smell' is the scent of carcinogens
by _nalply on Wednesday February 17, 2021 @06:57AM
(#26165412)
Let me tell you about Swiss direct democracy. If an initiative comes up, parliament can amend the law and tell the people, hey look, we already improved the law, you can reject the initiative, or make a rejectable counter-proposal, or even both. It's sometimes complicated and it doesn't always produce something I would call nice but more often than not the outcome is better than acceptable.
This is one example of why most things that are proposed should not actually be done through the initiative process, IMHO. As a Californian, my default bias on ALL ballot propositions has become NO until proven well-written.
That said, I'd rather have Prop 65 as imperfect as it is than nothing. It occasionally gives me actionable information.