It's also a big component of fireworks – and every July 4th levels in lakes and rivers spike.
That being said, this paper only presents in vitro data. Perchlorate may be more toxic than assumed, but the evidence isn't strong.
That being said, this paper only presents in vitro data. Perchlorate may be more toxic than assumed, but the evidence isn't strong.
I always feel compelled to point out that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Or chemicals should be presumed unsafe until proven safe, rather than the other way around.
The idea is to assume new chemicals may be dangerous. Then undertake careful testing programs to determine if they really are dangerous. I think that this is what the grandparent comment was suggesting.
There is good precedent for the use of this principle, take for instance drug trials. Furthermore, I think it would be beneficial to assume all new technologies may have detrimental effects, and weigh those effects carefully.
Is "let's wait and see" a precautionary move?
Are you saying the cost of inaction must be quantified before it's a legitimate choice?
In which case, in our world of imperfect understanding, does that lead to bias towards action?