We knew it was dangerous within a year of it being introduced, even if we didn't publish widespread clinical studies before the 60s. Its creator, Thomas Midgley Jr, was diagnosed with lead poisoning multiple times.
> Warnings about the toxicity of tetraethyllead came to Midgley from various sources. The letter of Erich Krause concerning its toxic effects, quoted in part in part 1,2 written on November 30, 1922, to George Calingaert (then at M.I.T.) was forwarded to Midgley in December 1922 by W. G. Whitman, Assistant Director of the M.I.T. Research Laboratory of Applied Chemistry. However, despite his own health problems and these early warnings, Midgley did not appear to be overly concerned about the health issues associated with the handling and use of tetraethyllead.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/om030621b
There's also some discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#Initial_controv... suggesting that early studies may have been suppressed by the lead industry.
> In the years that followed, research was heavily funded by the lead industry; in 1943, Randolph Byers found children with lead poisoning had behavior problems, but the Lead Industries Association threatened him with a lawsuit and the research ended.
Right, so we figure these things out within 100 years or so at most. We've been dealing with hunger for millions of years, you'd expect there to be something in the Torah about how no man shall act as a judge before he's had lunch.
Until when do they sit in judgment? ? Rav Sheshet said: Until mealtime, noon. Rav Ḥama said: What is the verse that alludes to this? As it is written: “Woe to you, land that your king is a lad and your ministers eat in the morning. Happy are you, land that your king is free and your ministers eat on time in strength and not in drunkenness”
-Shabbos 10a
Not at all, as a society ee are really good at ignoring terrible consequences of our decisions and carrying on regardless, sometimes for no reason other than habit.
We force children to go to school early despite mountains of evidence that this harms their learning, we give antibiotics to healthy livestock despite absolute proof that this causes antibiotic resistance, you can probably add more to this list, I.e climate change, etc.
That's the explicit purpose of barnehage (from one to five years old) in Scandinavia, specifically Norway. That's preschool or kindergarten in other countries but without any academic instruction at all. Every child is guaranteed a place and the cost is strictly limited.
> Also is part of the primary school teaching respect for the Flag, the history and heros, anthem, etc. also patriotic holidays, like independence day,
We don't have that. I suppose that Constitution Day (17th May) has some slight similarity with American Independence Day. The barnehage children will walk in the procession waving flags but it's not really the same.
Of course part of the reason that hero worship isn't inculcated in barnehage in Norway is probably because every Norwegian has an unshakeable belief in the greatness of Norwegians (especially in regard to skiing championships against the Swedes) so it is unnecessary.
I exaggerate of course, but slightly. :-)
The effect size claimed for the original paper, as well as how obvious and localised the effect is, would make it incredibly obvious to observe. Thus if this effect were true, we would have to explain how we've all missed it.
This is not comparable to long-term effects, or ones otherwise difficult to notice, etc. We notice the effects of alcohol immediately, and here, it's claimed being hungry-for-lunch is at least as large, if not larger, effect.
This seems obvious nonsense. If any other statistical model can explain the same effect, it's vastly more likely, since it benefits from not making a miracle out of our missing the lethality of mild lunchtime hunger.
Do we? In many companies there is free infinite beer
You’d think that if anyone, these people would have to be sober.
Someone did a survey of how much MPs knew about economics and the results were dire, and they is something good many have been taught (all those PPE degrees!) and that is really important to them.
Would you rather they were dispensed with and instead we have a dictatorship?
This is especially true when the "science" they are supposed to study is economics, a notorious pseudo-science whose real purpose is to act as justificationa for policies desired by whoever is paying the research.
There is no way to ensure that rulers align with the people unless the people have a say in who rules. Scientific authorities have a long history of being negative even for their own fields ("physics advances one funeral at a time"), and that doesn't change when they are given power over an entire country.
This is really simple political theory, not some advanced concepts.
I’m pretty sure you’re not serious in suggesting a technocrat class who are sheltered from the real world, but let’s assume you weren’t. The end result of this is likely to be stagnation because you lack the introduction of new people and new views into positions of power. I’d also add that in a functional government we already have that class of people who are purely focused on implementation and looking at options in the Civil Service. Rarely is a cabinet minister themselves really coming up with ideas, they’re waving their arms and describing vibes to the Civil Service, who then go and work how they’re meant to achieve it.
Unfortunately for the last 14 years we’ve had a government asking them to do ever more unhinged things, with predictable results.
I think representative democracy is fine, it's career politicians I'd do away with.
The term for this kind of election is sortition.
In general important decisions require many different skills.
This will also lead to the problem raised earlier of experts making decisions that suit their own interests (and biases).
Do you have a source for the "someone"?
Here is one about very simple stats: https://rss.org.uk/news-publication/news-publications/2022/g...
In many west european countries it is forbidden to consume alcohol in work hours, except at company-arranged events etc. and/or to be intoxicated.
For a comparative overview of the practical differences: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9779578/
From the article you posted:
> Therefore, in most companies and public administration, it is solely at the discretion of employers as to what extent they tolerate alcohol consumption by their employees. The employer has the right to impose sanctions on the employee who refuses to take an alcohol test, which may result in loss of employment or suspension [53]. In Germany, regional and cultural particularities can be decisive; for example, in Lower and Upper Bavaria and in Franconia it is still common for many companies’ employees to have a glass of beer during the lunch break.
I work for a German-owned industry corporation (in a nearby EU country) and would get fired for having a friday beer with colleagues if not at company-arranged “friday bar” or some other event :)
No national law requires this strictness, but +95% of companies in my country have simular rules in place.
My German colleagues are mostly serious when saying “Kein Bier vor vier” (i.e. no beers before 16:00/work ends).
> My German colleagues are mostly serious when saying “Kein Bier vor vier” (i.e. no beers before 16:00/work ends).
4pm doesn't mean that work ends then though. Many people continue working after that beer.
If this means factories full of machinery that can be very dangerous if safety rules aren't followed, it probably makes sense that they'd have stricter rules than say a small webdev shop.
I asked around and my german colleagues tell me it is a Bavarian thing with the beers.
> 4pm doesn't mean that work ends then though. Many people continue working after that beer.
We are also offered a beer a few times at official Company events etc. and most can have a beer and do proper work after. It is also legal to drive after a single normal-sized beer.