Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Science

Bernardo de La Paz

(56,201 posts)

4. I don't see a conflict between "should remove" and "no cheap efficient filter"

Reply to NNadir (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 2, 2023, 05:35 PM

Dec 2023

I agree with the "should" and take your word on 'no such filter'. The former is desirable and the latter is current reality.

When we know what is desirable we can work on making it cheap and efficient. Knowing what to optimize is a good thing.

In the absence of knowing what is desirable for human health, then what gets optimized is raw profits.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Issues in Water Chlorination Toxicology: ID of High Molecular Weight Halogenated Molecules in Drinking Water [View all] NNadir Dec 2023 OP

I was Chief Engineer on a ship Turbineguy Dec 2023 #1

You missed posting key sentence of abstract Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2023 #2

I was simply choosing to describe what is, not what should be. NNadir Dec 2023 #3

I don't see a conflict between "should remove" and "no cheap efficient filter" Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2023 #4

Careful about applying binary thinking to real numbers Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2023 #5

Bull. NNadir Dec 2023 #6

Nice, but doesn't address the main point(s) of my post. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2023 #7