Tylenol enthusiast

  • 0 Posts
  • 35 Comments
Joined 25 days ago
cake
Cake day: October 2nd, 2025

help-circle
  • My problem is that these labels don’t differentiate the levels at which demonstrable harm occurs. I’m not against labels, I’m against bad labels

    Putting something that’s harmful at the parts per million(ppm) level in the exact same category as something that’s harmful in the parts per billion(ppb) level is counterproductive.

    This results in people treating incredibly harmful compounds that are dangerous in the ppb range the same as compounds that are dangerous in the ppm or even ppt(thousand) range.

    Including minor and major carcinogens in the same label makes people think they’re safer than they are.

    It’s why prop65 warnings are a joke and ignored by almost all consumers.

    If we’re going to use a single label that doesn’t differentiate the level of harm then we need to save it for the most harmful compounds only.

    Tldr: Without more information on the label putting nitrates in the same category as asbestos or lead is counterproductive via implied false equivalence.











  • I never said they weren’t in the same category. To act like implying the risks of nitrates are identical to asbestos is insane and just makes people ignore these warnings.

    There is a need to differentiate the level of risk because if you don’t people are going to think the 10,000kg bomb is the same danger as a Glock when in reality they abso-fucking-lutely not.

    It’s disingenuous, you’re right that context matters because displaying the two as if they’re the same strips the risk assessment of its context.