Hacker News Reader

The part you chose to not quote is rather important "we need to find a way to use it without breaking anything". So i don't think the precaution should be zero.

Maybe the thing we disagree about is the order of concerns, i believe the needs of people come first, then comes requirement to be cautious because not being cautious can cause harm to people.

View on HN

Yes it seems we agree on that. :)

> The part you chose to not quote is rather important "we need to find a way to use it without breaking anything". So i don't think the precaution should be zero.

To clarify: my point was by saying "we need to find a way to use it," you've already ruled out the possibility that further scientific study will rule out its use entirely. I'm not saying this is the most likely outcome, just that this outcome was conspicuously and unexplainedly excluded from consideration.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com