I don't have to be correct. I just don't want you to be mistaken.
Hmm, have you still not read the OP and other comments in this thread? You are correct, and I'm not mistaken. Have you ever heard the expression, "Preaching to the choir..."?
I think years of reading and commenting on Slashdot has made my comments a little more confrontational than I intend sometimes.
Me too. I try to keep a handle on it, but when the urge becomes unbearable, I'm ashamed to admit that I'll check the post anonymously box.
What does that amount to? A month? A week's worth of revenue? Show some teeth dammit! Revoke their charter...
You're right, but you shouldn't be.
Interesting commentary. Yea, I've always felt this way... Couldn't you have skipped the wall of text laced with insult and just posted the quote above....or at least just skip the lacing? You're not an AC. Show some tact.
AT&T assumed that their advertising was fine until told otherwise.
It doesn't matter how long they evaded law enforcement with double-speak. They were violating the law and should be held accountable for the full magnitude of the crime they've committed. That's how justice works in this country.
Well, in that case, perhaps you should have read the whole conversation, since I had already responded to the arguments you made.
You're insufferable in your willingness to mis-characterize my commentary. Once again, I wasn't making arguments. I was helping another poster with a misunderstanding by sharing a few scientific facts with him. You don't own the entire discussion thread just because you made an elderly post, so in that case you should mind your own business or at least pay closer attention to the contextual basis of mine.
I also think the distinction between "consumer-level products" and other products is invalid.
This is very true, but it's a straw man. I didn't draw that distinction. My post included a qualifier constraining my commentary to products whose existence amount to "basic littering" because they are intended for our wastewater systems. I can't believe you wasted 3 paragraphs of text explaining something so painfully obvious. The only thing missing is a citation about how pornography drives advanced technology development and adoption.
For example, water treatment plants could be changed to be more efficient.
Ahh, finally, something relevant... Is it realistic, though? Getting there is probably gonna require federal regulations and a lot of government spending. We'll see a lot of litter before we get anywhere close to that ideal. Maybe a tax on these companies to raise funding for these efficiency upgrades, eh? No, that's more ridiculous than a ban. Tough one, I guess... I'm sure you'll come up with something.
Why are you beating around the bush? Why are you not stating clearly what your definition actually is?
I joined this conversation specifically to address the broad accusation that folks participating in this conversation "can't articulate a single problem with them." I'm really not interested in the semantic distinction or argument for/against banning that you're focused on, but since you've asked; I think the way you're calling it a theoretical possibility is overtly dismissive and stifles rational discourse. You asked the same question twice, so I'll ask you to re-read everything up to this point. Fair's fair.
California votes to ban microbeads. I ask for evidence of harm. People get abusive and hostile.
Don't take it out on me. I'm not fear-mongering, and I'm not being evasive. I just didn't join this conversation with the intention of addressing your argument. I'll wait here while you go back to take another look at my original post in this thread.
Since you've asked, even though I don't really give a shit that they've enacted a ban, it's fair to say the ban is definitely not supported by the environmental science we've discussed.
All of that environmental science aside, it seems to me that selling plastics intended to enter our wastewater systems and likely unable to be captured by many such systems amounts to basic littering. I can't think of a good reason to allow that in consumer-level products other than to avoid inflicting economic harm on the industries that sell those products. Maybe you can help me out there...
I guess the take-home lesson from all the non-responses is that there is next to no evidence of actual harm
What we've got is evidence of a mechanism that can cause harm by concentrating compounds into our food chain that shouldn't be there. That is to say, we know compounds bind to the surface of these plastics. We know animals are consuming the plastics. We know these harmful compounds are absorbed into the animal when the plastics are consumed. If that's what you call, "next to no evidence of actual harm", then I a guess we agree.
...and no plausible way in which the ban will significantly improve the marine environment
First, you shouldn't mistake my simple recognition of the facts as tacit support for the ban. I'm happy to acknowledge more research is needed before taking a drastic step like banning the microbeads, but I don't think this perspective should impede a rational discussion about the potential impact of these beads on our enviornment and food supply.
Second, it's most definitely plausible that banning the beads could ultimately result in less of the compounds we've been discussing entering our food chain. Maybe that doesn't fit your definition of significantly improving the marine environment? Fine, I'll also agree with you on this one.
Finally, I don't agree that 'significant improvement of the marine environment' should be the singular criteria for enacting bans on pollutants.
Computers are unreliable, but humans are even more unreliable. Any system which depends on human reliability is unreliable. -- Gilb