[cykotic]

I think they should be banned because it makes no sense to me to extensively use chemicals that have not been shown to have a reasonable chance of being safe. Why extensively use something about which we know very little what the environmental effects are?

My stance has nothing to do with the study.

[jstanley]

You would halt almost all progress with this attitude. You would freeze civilisation in the state it is today.

If people of the past were as risk-averse as this we would still be living in caves.

[cykotic]

No. What you wrote is completely wrong. Besides, it would be better for the environment and humanity if we did not progress so fast in the area of releasing massive amounts of toxic chemicals and detritus.

[Robotbeat]

That applies to literally everything.

[esafak]

Yes? Objectors are free to be guinea pigs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

[ethbr1]

> Why extensively use something about which we know very little what the environmental effects are?

Because burning jet fuel in an enclosed interior ship space while hundreds of miles from land is a bigger and more immediate threat?

It makes sense to phase out dangerous chemicals wherever we can, but sometimes their use is a chemical imperative because there are no equivalent alternatives.

The X-37 reportedly uses hypergolic nitrogen-tetroxide + hydrazine fuel, which means everyone wears spacesuits around it on the ground. But it solves an engineering challenge that more mundane fuel mixes don't. Ergo, they use something toxic and dangerous.