Hacker News Reader

Comment by Prrometheus | Hacker News Reader

Are there any peer-reviewed, properly controlled studies used to back up their assertions?

I could watch the video and track the references on my own. However, doing so for every new consumer scare would be a full-time job.

By the way, I'm still happily using a cell phone and brain tumor free. I'm hoping to live a long life if avian influenza doesn't get me. Long enough to see the end of my species by catastrophic global warming, which is unstoppable if we don't act drastically and soon, according to some folks with fancy degrees. I figure I am pretty lucky - I got vaccinated as a child but managed to avoid autism - so maybe I'll even get to be the last person left. I am so hardy, I have even been exposed to second-hand smoke and managed to survive. So yeah, I'll probably make it.

Anything you guys want me to do when I'm the last man on the planet?

View on HN

I read a book that devoted a chapter to this topic not too long ago called Exposed by Mark Schapiro. The end of the book had dozens of pages of reference citations. I think you could find the documents you are looking for by checking it out.

Anyway, this sort of stuff has been under review in Europe since the late 90s so it's not a "new consumer scare". The EU passed a temporary ban on certain plastic additives there just before 2000 and have made it a permanent ban in 2005. Old news link-> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20050706/ai_...

The EU doesn't need good reasons to ban something. It is every bit as political as any other democratic body.

For example, see their ban on GM foods.

I didn't make an assertion one way or another about it being a good reason or a bad reason. I was simply pointing out that it's old.

As for resources, perhaps you can find a peer reviewed study in one of these sites.

This site has pro-phthalate information -> http://www.phthalates.org/

This site has anti-phthalate information under the Chapter 3 section-> http://centerforinvestigativereporting.org/articles/exposeds...

Judging by my lifestyle, I'll be dead before any of those issues can kill me. So, basically, I'm impervious to this destruction!

You might sing a different tune if you have children...

Bulverism is not a valid form of argument. I would likely sing a different tune were I currently on fire, so I fail to see your point.

Hmm, I've never heard of the term Bulverism before. Interesting.

Based on the definition on Wikipedia, I'm not sure my statement qualifies as Bulverism. The definition says that I assume your statement is wrong. What I did was state that if a certain condition exists, you might have a different opinion, which is to say that I assume your current statement is correct. If I misunderstood the meaning of Bulverism, please let me know.

Perhaps phrasing your original comment differently would help clarify:

"That's because you don't have children"

You haven't actually proven me wrong in any sense, you've just presented an alternate reality where I would be wrong, which you've framed as an argument against what I initially said. This assumes I am wrong, otherwise you would have agreed with me because there's no logic in presenting a rebuttal to an argument based on nonexistent data (hence the "logical fallacy" part).

The phrase "If you had children..." is always either a case of Bulverism or simple platitude; irrelevant either way. And given the number of times I've heard it, we should probably all be glad I don't have children ;)

My thought process was as follows: You used the word "impervious," which made me think about both physical and mental susceptibility to those issues. If you died before those issues could kill you, then indeed you would be impervious. However, if you had children, then your concern for them could make you vulnerable to the effects of those issues.

That's why I don't really feel that my statement fits the definition of Bulverism. I had no intention of proving you wrong, nor did I assume you were wrong. After all, who knows how you felt about the subject better than you? Because of that, there was really no point in agreeing with you, unless I thought you were lying, and since I don't know you, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. =)

Doing further research, I found the following statement on Bulverism: "The Bulverist’s thought is that if a person’s convictions can be fully explained as a result of non-rational factors then we need not bother about those convictions." Now I consider both the childless and child-laden conclusions to be very rational, though you're probably right in that it's a platitude, I don't hang out with child-laden people often enough. =)

doing so for every new consumer scare would be a full-time job

It's been around for at least 10 years...I was concerned about warming plastic baby bottles.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com