Mo Betta Govt Regs Needed (re Boobs)

[PearlSB4U]

I'm posting the article below, primarily to get the reactions of Idlewind & 30Ashopper, who seem to believe that Big Brother should impose very few if any regulations on citizens, professionals & corporations. It's always interesting to see which, if any, govt regs they might agree with.

http://www.slate.com/id/2297795/

 

[futurebeachbum]

Well. While the post wasn't directed at me, no one has ever accused me of ignoring boobs.

 

[idlewind]

I'm posting the article below, primarily to get the reactions of Idlewind & 30Ashopper, who seem to believe that Big Brother should impose very few if any regulations on citizens, professionals & corporations. It's always interesting to see which, if any, govt regs they might agree with.

http://www.slate.com/id/2297795/

Let me say that I love Ta-Ta's and stand foursquare for their protection I think personal examination and reflection might be better rather than government regulation as the government always screws up what they get into and ta-ta's are where I draw the line.

 

[Zebraspots]

It's pretty easy to see who didn't read the article.

Not sure how personal examination and reflection applies to properly testing chemicals and evaluating toxic exposure.

 

[idlewind]

It's pretty easy to see who didn't read the article.

Not sure how personal examination and reflection applies to properly testing chemicals and evaluating toxic exposure.

I read it. I thought a comedic response fit.
The article is more scare tactics designed to get the sheeple to give the government more say in our lives. Threre are risks in every part of life. And even if you buy in, who will pay for the massive amount of testing and regulation that would be needed to bring the levels down?

 

[scooterbug44]

How does carcinogen testing for FDA approval give the government MORE say in our lives? It's what they SHOULD have been doing, not something new.

 

[PearlSB4U]

I read it. I thought a comedic response fit.

Why? Something funny about boobs?

...who will pay for the massive amount of testing and regulation that would be needed to bring the levels down?

Idlewind, WE will pay--the same folks who pay for the costs associated w/ govt regulations on clean air & water, safe food & medicines, workplace safety, national defense, interstate highways, etc., etc.
Most of society is willing to Pay not to be poisoned.
As much as you extol the individual, an individual is not capable of assessing whether she/he is being poisoned by big pharma or otherwise; The govt IS capable.
There are some things done better by all of us acting corporately rather than individually.

 

[ASH]

What I pick up from the article is that we are beginning to discuss something not even considered 5 or 10 years ago whatsoever. Be fortunate that we are.

Considering how long ago the common cigarette was invented to how long ago we finally figured out how much cancer it creates and actually did something about it as a society, this idea is moving in leaps and bounds.
I'm all for save the ta ta's!

At some point, we as a society will finally figure out that the faster we live, the faster we die and stop trying so hard to do that. Note that the current generation is known as the instant gratification generation.
Watch how many of the last generation outlive that one and know that it's true.

 

[30ashopper]

There are two sides to this. Government is flawed, it is prone to making mistakes, reacting without thinking things through, and often the power we give it is abused to promote less than altruistic pursuits. Some examples: preventing America from accessing it’s natural resources, or telling a land owner they can’t fill in a swamp because it might endanger a certain kind of tree, or preventing the development of a large solar power station because it might endangered a mouse. Ever heard of saccharine? Probably not because back in the 70’s, relying on flawed research the federal government basically destroyed an entire industry thanks to a health scare they created. DDT to fight malaria in Africa? Sorry. Want access to a bleeding edge non-FDA approved drug that might save your live? To bad. Reliable levies in New Orleans? Oops. When government makes mistakes, it can do a lot of damage.

I think there are some positive aspects of government research and oversight – groups such as the CDC, FEMA in some respects, the NSF, the Dept. of Energy, to name a few. Government research is critically important, and warning people of dangers is important as well. But if I try to stick a stick in my eye despite all the research telling me it might be harmful and the feds try to stop me? They've gone to far. This represents the downside - when you give any one of these groups more control than they should have, or when one of these groups is infiltrated by people interested in abusing their power to promote a particular view. Things can go horribly wrong.

My general point being that government isn't infallible and sometimes it makes bad decisions that hurt people, the country, or industry or it prevents people from living their lives the way they choose. Some people put total faith in our masters in Washington. Me, I’m going to continue to be skeptical of everything they do.

 

[scooterbug44]

The life span of the average American is decreasing because of harmful chemicals and additives, not because of a need for instant gratification in the younger generation.

Our food, water, air, soil, and everyday items are full of them and as this article points out, they are not properly tested to see if they will cause a life threatening condition for more than half of our population (men get breast cancer too BTW).