Mo Betta Govt Regs Needed (re Boobs)

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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! :bow:

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.

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.

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).

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.

Shopper,
Good point!
I certainly agree 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."
I also agree that we should always be "skeptical" of government doings; we should always be on our guard & be watchful that government doesn't become abusive of its powers.
Your full response also seems to recognize that sometimes government can do good things too.
I'm glad to hear you concede this point, 'cause I'd just about gotten the idea that you were a total anarchist.
Do you think that, in principle, "we the people" should expect our government to set reasonable regulations to achieve a clean, safe, non-toxic environment (air, water, food, medicine...)?

......
Do you think that, in principle, "we the people" should expect our government to set reasonable regulations to achieve a clean, safe, non-toxic environment (air, water, food, medicine...)?

.
The things listed here are not isolated in microcosms or microclimates, but can affect populations across state lines and countries. The corn on the cob I'm eating for supper is irrigated by the Rocky Mountain snow melt! There are very few natural ecosystems left - man has pretty much changed all of them as well as modified foods, etc. We do not live in a vacuum! I want reasonable regulation.

.

Shopper,
Good point!
I certainly agree 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."
I also agree that we should always be "skeptical" of government doings; we should always be on our guard & be watchful that government doesn't become abusive of its powers.
Your full response also seems to recognize that sometimes government can do good things too.
I'm glad to hear you concede this point, 'cause I'd just about gotten the idea that you were a total anarchist.
Do you think that, in principle, "we the people" should expect our government to set reasonable regulations to achieve a clean, safe, non-toxic environment (air, water, food, medicine...)?

At the federal level I think it should be more about research and information. I don't feel the feds should be setting much regulation. There are some exceptions to this, for example the safety of imported goods or regulating commerce between the states. Aside from outer influences like that I think the states and local governments should be relied on more heavily. I'd like to see the influence and control the federal government substantially reduced.

At the federal level I think it should be more about research and information. I don't feel the feds should be setting much regulation. There are some exceptions to this, for example the safety of imported goods or regulating commerce between the states. Aside from outer influences like that I think the states and local governments should be relied on more heavily. I'd like to see the influence and control the federal government substantially reduced.

So--if I understand your position--in the instant case (environmental, food & medical impacts on breast health), you would prefer that each of the 50 states individually set whatever minimum regulations might be deemed necessary.
?
To me, that would seem to be incredibly cumbersome, confusing & in the end, ineffectual.
Or, perhaps, this is one of the "exceptions?"
"Exceptions" would seem to be warranted in all cases in which the actions of one state impact another state--which means there are probably more exceptions than non-exceptions.

You still have not answered the question of how the massive amount of testing that would be needed to make a dent in the problem would be paid for? When you are 14 trillion in debt and going an additional 1 trillion plus in debt this year, you cannot add new programs that cost more money.

You still have not answered the question of how the massive amount of testing that would be needed to make a dent in the problem would be paid for? When you are 14 trillion in debt and going an additional 1 trillion plus in debt this year, you cannot add new programs that cost more money.

Idlewind, in post #5, you asked "who will pay?"
In post #7, I responded "WE will pay."
Now...you're asking a different question: "how can we pay--or should we pay--in light of our existing debt & budget problems?"
The answer to these new questions depends on one's priorities--your priorities are different from mine--& consequently our answers are almost certainly different.

Idlewind, in post #5, you asked "who will pay?"
In post #7, I responded "WE will pay."
Now...you're asking a different question: "how can we pay--or should we pay--in light of our existing debt & budget problems?"
The answer to these new questions depends on one's priorities--your priorities are different from mine--& consequently our answers are almost certainly different.

From reading the article is sounds like research is being done, and the FDA is tuned into the latest advances. Warning women and parents of the risks would be a good step if the evidence shows some relationship between a particular chemical and breast cancer. From there, it's up to the individual to make the decision.

Note most of the research is private, so why are you so worked up over the FDA's involvement?

The EPA is watching closely to see if and how the NTP's new tests pass political and scientific muster. So is the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, which guides chemicals testing in Europe. With added data from mammary glands, policymakers could have more reasons to keep unsafe substances off the market.

This is where they tend to overstep and make mistakes. Like I said doing research and warning people of possible dangers is one thing, banning products for sale is another. I'm sure you think the federal government should ban a lot of substances - tobacco, fast food, kids meals, sliced cheese, to name a few.. because you probably feel the federal government should protect us from our own decisions. I disagree with that kind of thinking completely. People aren't stupid and they aren't sheep, stop treating them that way.

Shopper,
Good point!
I certainly agree 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."
I also agree that we should always be "skeptical" of government doings; we should always be on our guard & be watchful that government doesn't become abusive of its powers.
Your full response also seems to recognize that sometimes government can do good things too.
I'm glad to hear you concede this point, 'cause I'd just about gotten the idea that you were a total anarchist.
Do you think that, in principle, "we the people" should expect our government to set reasonable regulations to achieve a clean, safe, non-toxic environment (air, water, food, medicine...)?

I'm not Shopper, but the key words in your post are reasonable regulations. Even us Conservatives are for that but many proposed and in place by the federal government do not meet that statement.

What is so unreasonable about requiring pharmaceutical and chemical companies to test mammary cells too because many "safe and approved" products are being found to cause breast cancer or deformities?

Seriously, we're just talking about requiring that they test the mammary glands instead of chucking them in the trash. This is just a little more data from the same lab rats they are already studying, biopsying, and dissecting as part of clinical trials.

They're already testing for various other cancers, adding breast cancer isn't a major change. NOT testing for it is a major oversight.

What is so unreasonable about requiring pharmaceutical and chemical companies to test mammary cells too because many "safe and approved" products are being found to cause breast cancer or deformities?

Seriously, we're just talking about requiring that they test the mammary glands instead of chucking them in the trash. This is just a little more data from the same lab rats they are already studying, biopsying, and dissecting as part of clinical trials.

They're already testing for various other cancers, adding breast cancer isn't a major change. NOT testing for it is a major oversight.

From the article it sounds like this is the direction federal testing standards are headed. The research only came out last week!

http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1104077