Lead(Pb), Mercury(Hg), other toxics, capitalism and goverment role?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter AlexES16
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the use of toxic substances such as lead, mercury, and chromium in everyday products, their implications for health and the environment, and the role of government regulation in managing these issues. Participants explore the balance between capitalism, individual rights, and environmental safety, questioning whether government intervention is necessary or seen as authoritarian.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern about the toxicity of substances like mercury and lead in products and advocate for increased awareness and regulation.
  • Others argue that government control over pollution is authoritarian and that a balance must be struck between individual freedom and environmental responsibility.
  • There is a discussion about the classic thermometer's use of mercury, with some suggesting it should be banned while others argue for responsible usage rather than elimination.
  • Some participants highlight the importance of understanding the actual risks associated with toxic substances and advocate for responsible management rather than outright bans.
  • Examples of common household items that contain toxic substances, such as smoke detectors and fluorescent light bulbs, are provided to illustrate the complexities of the issue.
  • There is a contention regarding the implications of eliminating toxic substances versus managing their use responsibly, with differing views on the impact on quality of life.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the necessity and extent of government regulation, the responsibility of individuals and industries in managing toxic substances, and the balance between health risks and quality of life benefits.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include varying definitions of what constitutes responsible use of toxic substances, differing opinions on the role of government, and unresolved questions about the environmental impact of specific products.

AlexES16
Messages
113
Reaction score
1
Im really hating how toxics ruin our lives and our future, you see mercury, lead, and i think chrome (IV) are used in daily products and are very toxic. Personally I am reading all the information of the prodcuts i buy, looking for toxics or things like that, and i try to tell people about this, i hope this have an effect. My other concern is this: I kinda admire the "American Dream" and the spirit of cpaitalism that you have to give the best of you, liberty and individual rigths but when it comes to the environment should it be government force for polluters, what about the laws that say that you have to label products? Whats the role of government when it comes to prodcuts safety? is that socialism?.

Please i hope some light about this, I am kinda getting hippie avoiding technology that could contain toxics and that's that i want to be Electrical Engineer.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
AlexES16 said:
Im really hating how toxics ruin our lives and our future, you see mercury, lead, and i think chrome (IV) are used in daily products and are very toxic. Personally I am reading all the information of the prodcuts i buy, looking for toxics or things like that, and i try to tell people about this, i hope this have an effect.
Why do you care if the things you buy have these substances in them?
My other concern is this: I kinda admire the "American Dream" and the spirit of cpaitalism that you have to give the best of you, liberty and individual rigths but when it comes to the environment should it be government force for polluters, what about the laws that say that you have to label products? Whats the role of government when it comes to prodcuts safety? is that socialism?
Yes, for government to control pollution is authoritarian/anti-capitalism/anti-freedom. But a modern democracy isn't completely lassez-faire: it has to exert a reasonable amount of control over certain things in the common interest.
 
The classic thermometer uses mercury. Should this be banned? It's not about removing these toxics from society, it's about being responsible about their use and understanding how much is actually toxic and in what forms they become dangerous. This reminds me of how some people are so ignorant and knee-jerkish that the idea that anything is radioactive makes them fly off a wall and hide in their panic rooms
 
Pengwuino said:
This reminds me of how some people are so ignorant and knee-jerkish that the idea that anything is radioactive makes them fly off a wall and hide in their panic rooms
Yet at the same time, a small bit of radioactive material may someday save your life if your house catches fire!
 
russ_watters said:
Why do you care if the things you buy have these substances in them? Yes, for government to control pollution is authoritarian/anti-capitalism/anti-freedom. But a modern democracy isn't completely lassez-faire: it has to exert a reasonable amount of control over certain things in the common interest.

Well i care becouse i care my quality of life, and i also care how this things go back to the environment, rivers etc. You sounded like saying why i would care slavery in the past. And Lead and Mercury have real health implications.

Well looks like the mixed economy is the best.
 
Pengwuino said:
The classic thermometer uses mercury. Should this be banned? It's not about removing these toxics from society, it's about being responsible about their use and understanding how much is actually toxic and in what forms they become dangerous. This reminds me of how some people are so ignorant and knee-jerkish that the idea that anything is radioactive makes them fly off a wall and hide in their panic rooms

Well when i think how this products containing lead or mercury go to rivers, destroy the environment and threat the future of human specie and its sustainability, well i have to say that i am proud of being ignorant and knee-jerkish for thinking in this.
 
Pity that. Ignorance is never something to be proud of.
 
Pengwuino said:
The classic thermometer uses mercury.

You realize the reason it's classic and not used anymore is because of the mercury in it? Terrible example
 
AlexES16 said:
Well i care becouse i care my quality of life...
Your quality of life is vastly improved by having those toxic substances around you. Eliminating them will reduce your quality of life.
...and i also care how this things go back to the environment, rivers etc.
Definitely, things need to be disposed of properly. That's a completely separate issue from whether we should use these substances in products.
You sounded like saying why i would care slavery in the past.
Huh? That makes no sense.
And Lead and Mercury have real health implications.
And provide enormous quality of life benefits. So that just means they have to be used responsibly, it doesn't mean they should be eliminated. There are so many things in your house that could kill you if misused (of course, the most dangerous product in your house is your bathtub...), but these things should not just be eliminated because the benefit of having them outweighs the risk.

What is important is properly dealing with dangerous substances of all types. Not blindly trying to eliminate them.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Office_Shredder said:
You realize the reason it's classic and not used anymore is because of the mercury in it? Terrible example
That was my first thought. A better example would be fluorescent light bulbs.
 
  • #11
Office_Shredder said:
You realize the reason it's classic and not used anymore is because of the mercury in it? Terrible example

You see what i mean?
 
  • #12
Vanadium 50 said:
Pity that. Ignorance is never something to be proud of.

Sarcasm?
 
  • #13
russ_watters said:
Your quality of life is vastly improved by having those toxic substances around you. Eliminating them will reduce your quality of life. Definitely, things need to be disposed of properly. That's a completely separate issue from whether we should use these substances in products. Huh? That makes no sense. And provide enormous quality of life benefits. So that just means they have to be used responsibly, it doesn't mean they should be eliminated. There are so many things in your house that could kill you if misused (of course, the most dangerous product in your house is your bathtub...), but these things should not just be eliminated because the benefit of having them outweighs the risk.

What is important is properly dealing with dangerous substances of all types. Not blindly trying to eliminate them.

Examples please
 
  • #15
AlexES16 said:
Examples please
Your bathtub is a great example of a product in your house that could injure or kill you, but just off the top of my head:

-Your stairs.
-Knives in your kitchen.
-Cooking oil
-Your oven/range and its fuel (or electricity)
-Just about everything you store under your sink is poisonous and many are flammable.
-Your smoke detector is radioactive.
-The refrigerant in your air conditioner could suffocate you if it gets out.
-Your heater could suffocate you if its exhaust duct has a problem.

For mercury and lead themeselves, they are used primarily in electronics and are very important components. As I said, fluorescent light bulbs use mercury. The most important use of lead is in batteries like your car battery. It wouldn't be a good idea to eat your car battery, but the battery acid would kill you long before the lead would.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
edward said:
How many smoke dectectors end up in our rivers and waterways?:cool:
I don't know. How is that relevant to their usefulness? Besides, you are raising the issue of disposal, which is not the primary point here.
 
  • #18
Here's a list of the most common ways people die (year 2000 stats). Bathtubs are actually less dangerous than I realized, killing only about 340 people a year in the US: http://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm

That's actually about the same as the risk of accidentally strangling yourself in bed (not sure if that one has had an uptick in recent years...).
 
Last edited:
  • #19
edward said:
How many smoke dectectors end up in our rivers and waterways?:cool:
I don't know - how does lead or mercury end up in our waterways? Isn't it the same way - via leaky landfills or improper industrial dumping?
 
  • #20
russ_watters said:
I don't know - how does lead or mercury end up in our waterways? Isn't it the same way - via leaky landfills or improper industrial dumping?

Burning coal accounts for about half of human caused mercury pollution.

When coal is burned, mercury is released into the environment. Coal-burning power plants are the largest human-caused source of mercury emissions to the air in the United States, accounting for over 50 percent of all domestic human-caused mercury emissions

http://www.epa.gov/mercury/about.htm

Indoor pollution now appears to be a major source of exposure to toxins.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
edward said:
Burning coal accounts for about half of human caused mercury pollution.

Yes, and for more radiation than caused by all nuclear power plants the world over. :eek:
 
  • #22
CRGreathouse said:
Yes, and for more radiation than caused by all nuclear power plants the world over. :eek:

It will be good if they can make fusion
 
  • #23
edward said:
Burning coal accounts for about half of human caused mercury pollution.



http://www.epa.gov/mercury/about.htm

Indoor pollution now appears to be a major source of exposure to toxins.

Yeah i mean we should use other thigns like mercury
 
  • #24
russ_watters said:
I don't know - how does lead or mercury end up in our waterways? Isn't it the same way - via leaky landfills or improper industrial dumping?

Stairs, bathoobs etc don't count. And by the way you can make clean batteries. Personally i like using less lead and mercury as possible
 
  • #25
AlexES16 said:
Stairs, bathoobs etc don't count.
Why not?
And by the way you can make clean batteries.
How?
Personally i like using less lead and mercury as possible
It's your prerogrative. I prefer keeping my high quality of life and saving energy/protecting the environment, etc.
 
  • #26
AlexES16 said:
Yeah i mean we should use other thigns like mercury

For many years mercury was used in water based paints to prevent mold from growing in the can.

Here try some radium for your health.:smile:

http://www.museumofquackery.com/devices/radium.htm
 
  • #27
  • #28
russ_watters said:
Why not? How? It's your prerogrative. I prefer keeping my high quality of life and saving energy/protecting the environment, etc.

Well i think then we need government force in that case. If all people be like you that don't care sustainabilty and society health at all. At the end that will give you benefits to so you can have a longer and healthy life.
 
  • #29
And also i don't think quality of life is having 1000 electronics, cars and fancy toxic stuff. Well Computers are very useful.
 

Similar threads

News Obama Inaugural Address: Summary & Analysis
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
7K
News Bush Administration: My Indictment
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
News Ahmadinejad's speech at Durban II
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
8K
Graduate BRS: Random Comments on Some Recent PF Threads
  • · Replies 94 ·
4
Replies
94
Views
14K