myrkul999 on May 29, 2012, 02:16:54 pm
As a human being and a Christian, I feel it is proper to save lives if I can than allow people to die.

That's all well and good, but I'd rather you not force me to contribute my resources to doing it.

macsnafu on May 29, 2012, 03:08:30 pm
But your reply does demonstrate the difference between us. To use an analogy, you sound like someone who would tolerate some innocent people being executed so that not a single guilty person goes free, whereas I would rather allow a few guilty people to go free rather than allow one innocent person to be executed.

I other words, I prefer to anticipate disaster and try to prevent it. It's what makes us uniquely human. Many animals can cope with disaster and even adapt, but humans are the only creatures that can anticipate disaster and prepare for it or even prevent it.

So I would rather prevent the possibility of a company harming consumers even if it reduces its profits, then have to deal with the mess that occurs after some company puts out a products it knows is dangerous or that it didn't test for safety.

As a human being and a Christian, I feel it is proper to save lives if I can than allow people to die.

But that's just it.  I believe that the coercive regulation of government IS allowing people to die.  Government regulation provides no guarantees, and doesn't stop deaths from occurring--it merely avoids placing blame on the proper people, allowing them to continue to be a danger to others. 

And when (not if) some tragedy occurs under government regulation, the government can only respond after the fact, too.

I, too, prefer prevention to waiting after the fact.  You just haven't gotten it into your head yet how prevention can occur without coercive regulation. Or that government control can't guarantee anything.



I love mankind.  It's PEOPLE I can't stand!  - Linus Van Pelt.

SandySandfort on May 29, 2012, 06:44:53 pm
I, too, prefer prevention to waiting after the fact.  You just haven't gotten it into your head yet how prevention can occur without coercive regulation.

Quite correct. That is why the market naturally evolves private solutions such as Consumers Report, Better Business Bureau, Underwriter's Laboratory, ISO, Ralph Nader, Alex Jones, the Sierra Club, Green Peace, Wikileaks and an internet full of  private interest groups, snitches, whistle-blowers and EFT Forum trolls. It's the free market, boys and girls.

myrkul999 on May 30, 2012, 12:11:14 am
free market coercion

This thing you speak of... it does not exist.

Ian Wendt on May 30, 2012, 12:57:38 am

 In fact, the belief that drinking pure water causes mineral deficiencies is something of an Old Wives' Tale.

Wrong.

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/nutdemineralized.pdf


Andreas on May 30, 2012, 01:08:22 am

No, she just said it "tasted funny." I assume comet water--even after some treatment--would taste "different" and the presence of magnesium would be purely coincidental.


Magnesium is tasteless, as is water itself. For comet water to taste "different" it would have to contain other components that have taste. Things like hydrocarbons and other carbonaceous compounds, that are present in comets, but they would also produce odors as well. But these can be removed by using activate charcoal filters, among other types, at least to low enough levels that they are no longer detectable by taste or smell. There's no reason to believe that, suitably purified, water obtained from comets would taste any different from pure water obtained from any other source. Unless it picked up something from the purification process, which is always possible.

Quote

The reason that we know there is not excessive magnesium or any other  harmful substance in the water is that the market would put them out of business faster than Bon Vivant vichyssoise soup.


That assumes two things: that this is not a one-time incident, and that people would know the water was contaminated.

If it is a one-time incident of accidental contamination, we may be seeing the first indication of anyone finding out.

The problem with people knowing is that if people started getting sick or dying in an enclosed environment, there's no reason to immediately focus on the water. It could be tainted air or food, it could be a malfunctioning piece of equipment or decomposing synthetic releasing toxic fumes or chemicals, it could even be the colonists themselves. The human body produces methane, ethane, and hydrogen sulfide, among other gases, and in an enclosed environment they can build up to toxic levels if not removed. So if a small colony experiences a sudden influx of more immigrants than the life support system can handle, the colonists own body emissions could make them sick.

Now, if the colonists have contracted a private regulatory company, or a knowledgeable local doctor, or if the insurance companies have onsite investigators, they can step in, collect samples of everything the sick or dead people came into contact with, and have them tested to determine the source of the contamination.

In the absence of that, however, some enterprising colonist(s) will have to take the initiative and collect the samples himself. The woman in EFT may be portrayed as an hysteric, but at least she's doing what needs to be done, even if she is going about it the wrong way.

She does, however, also demonstrate the inherent flaw with relying solely on concerned citizens. Most will be laymen, and so won't know how to proceed properly. Some will jump to conclusions like the woman and single out one source, or others may only focus on a few obvious sources, and so could miss the real source. Still others won't know how to properly collect the samples, and may thereby produce false positives or false negatives that would mislead them. And someone has to pay for all that testing. One colonist may not be able to afford it, and the rest may demand someone do something but refuse to help support it with their own money. Unless a testing company is willing to waive its fee for the public good, the needed testing may never get done and the source will continue to be unknown.

Plus, the samples should be tested by at least three companies to protect against mistakes and false results. That will triple the costs. Would all three companies waive their fees?

Actually, no two waters taste the same.
In one place I lived, the tap water tasted terrible (it wasn't contaminated, only it contained an unfortunate combination of traces) and in another it tasted decidedly good (better than average). It's also possible that this woman's taste buds were offended by a lack of additives (like, UW probably add both Chlorine and Fluorine to the tap water, right?).

Denatured water (the very pure kind needed for chemistry) actually tastes rather bad, so this idea that pure water is tasteless isn't really true.

GaTor on May 30, 2012, 02:06:49 am
Hmm, so a thought occurs.  Do they still use "Milk of Magnesia" or it's more palatable equivalent?  Ah well this thread (NOT EFT) is getting a bit tedious due to troll droppings.   Seriously,  if one finds the comic and it's debate threads so objectionable then why read it and post things simply to annoy the other readers?  Yes, this is just a 'comic' and a work of fiction, but it is NOT baseless speculation, it is an intellectual exercise and a pretty damn good work of Science Fiction. 
BTW when Marx and Engals wrote the communist manifesto I'd bet money that it was considered far fetched fiction at the time yet it was responsible for the murder of over 200 million people.  While it's got its own inherent problems (calls for the golden rule which most people fall far short of etc.)  I'll take AnCap over Team Girl's brand of Marxism hands down. 
Go forth and do good.

Andreas on May 30, 2012, 05:17:38 am
I misread you : Marx and Ingalls => "Little workers' possession of the means of production on the Prairie"

myrkul999 on May 30, 2012, 06:00:12 am
I misread you : Marx and Ingalls => "Little workers' possession of the means of production on the Prairie"

Hah... that, I might read!

macsnafu on May 30, 2012, 09:02:05 am
And while we're at it, please stop pretending to claim some moral high ground.

Why not?  You tried to.  Re-read your post.
And I believe there is moral high ground to capture.  Many people believe that government coercion is a "necessary" evil, while other people, such as you, try to justify it and pretend it isn't even evil.  You even try to claim that the voluntary exchanges that take place in the marketplace can be evil, too.  That's way beyond cognitive dissonance.
I love mankind.  It's PEOPLE I can't stand!  - Linus Van Pelt.

bjdotson on May 30, 2012, 04:00:13 pm
Anybody that lives where there is "hard water" drinks magnesium (as well as other minerals) daily.  I asked about this where I work (a chemical laboratory) and they all just shrugged it off as no big deal.

Homer2101 on May 30, 2012, 06:56:12 pm
A better question may be why anyone in the EFT universe even cares about waterborne contaminants. Autodocs can apparently bring even the dead to life, and can restructure a person's DNA without too much effort from what we've seen so far. They also appear to be quite cheap and plentiful; no-one has yet been unable to afford a trip to the autodoc, or unable to get autodoc time. So it seems that someone could pour rat poison into the water supply, and no-one would really care, since it would just mean a few days of missed work.

myrkul999 on May 30, 2012, 07:42:23 pm
So it seems that someone could pour rat poison into the water supply, and no-one would really care, since it would just mean a few days of missed work.

...for everybody. Can you imagine what would happen if the entire economy took three days off?

sam on May 31, 2012, 12:22:01 am
That's not a particularly credible argument. Sulfur is the 10th most common element in the universe and the 8th most common in the human body, but you still wouldn't want it in your drinking water.

But, Teamgirl, you have it in your drinking water, in the form of sulfates.

The most common compounds, sulfides and sulfites, are toxic;

In the presence of oxygen, otherwise known as air, they are swiftly converted into sulfates.

You only get sulfites in anaerobic environment, such as wine.  All wine contains substantial amounts of sulfite, and yet wine drinkers are not dropping dead like flies.

Ian Wendt on May 31, 2012, 01:04:46 am
Sodium Metabisulfite is also an extremely common preservative. It's pervasive in modern, pre-packaged foods and is also a very commonly used component of Campden tablets, used for wine and beer making. Many other sulfites are used as food additives as well. That's twice TeamGirl has missed the mark. Masters in biochem, was it?

 

anything