The parent comment didn't claim they couldn't be broken down, but that they "never [break] down". The (obvious) intended meaning is that the chemicals will not break down with regular use or normal exposure to common environments.
> It is impossible to prove a negative, so you are arguing we should stop inventing new things.
This is such a disingenuous line of reasoning that I almost wondered if you were intending to be comedic.
The parent comment was clearly advocating for policies that require companies to actually put forth effort to demonstrate safety over time. The longer a compound is expected to remain intact under regular conditions, the greater the guarantee of safety demanded. What you are advocating for is essentially what we already have: companies should not need to go to great efforts to demonstrate long-term safety because "innovation" and "progress", though of course when the companies say this they really mean "profit".
It is unclear what stake you have in advocating for such a position, but a good argument it is not.
You're reading generously into GP's very short statements and mine relatively uncharitably. That's fine, but I don't think we're ready to have an interesting discussion.
The original comment was quite clear in its intent. The only interpretation of your response was that you wanted to play devil's advocate --- something we could really use less of these days.
> these chemicals can of course be broken down
The parent comment didn't claim they couldn't be broken down, but that they "never [break] down". The (obvious) intended meaning is that the chemicals will not break down with regular use or normal exposure to common environments.
> It is impossible to prove a negative, so you are arguing we should stop inventing new things.
This is such a disingenuous line of reasoning that I almost wondered if you were intending to be comedic.
The parent comment was clearly advocating for policies that require companies to actually put forth effort to demonstrate safety over time. The longer a compound is expected to remain intact under regular conditions, the greater the guarantee of safety demanded. What you are advocating for is essentially what we already have: companies should not need to go to great efforts to demonstrate long-term safety because "innovation" and "progress", though of course when the companies say this they really mean "profit".
It is unclear what stake you have in advocating for such a position, but a good argument it is not.