or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Streetwear and Denim › Recent purchases - Part II
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Recent purchases - Part II - Page 2009

post #30121 of 44856
My point is two fold:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Providing information will not make any meaningful impact on risk-assessment
1) Pragmatically people lack the know-how to make a meaningful decision based on the evidence presented because they do not understand what those articles actually mean and can't without training/lots of time and work, which likely they will not expend. This is a legitimate argument because disclosing information does have costs in terms of appeal/mystique and competitiveness. If very few people will bother to investigate then its not really worthwhile to invite other harms.

2) Even if the above argument was untrue, the research evidence is not at the quality level (yet) that you could say ok using cologne with x/y/z ingredients leads to an increase of X% in my risk of getting cancer.

The reason that value is important is because it lets to weigh whether or not said risk is worth taking. If you don't have anything resembling that then its just this "may cause cancer" - but ANYTHING can do that and so you are not making an informed decision at all.

You will either a) say fuck it any risk is too much (which is not logical or consistent with other instances of risk appraisal) or b) you will say yolo but still do so for bad reasons. The appropriate thing would be to have better studies and epidemiological surveillance to get information that would aid in actually making said decisions. Absent that its a toss up.

It is equivalent to guessing what animals someone is thinking of based on if its land/sea/or air. Your odds at accurate assessment have increased in a pragmatically useless way, and you still will more likely than not get the right answer

Edited by Benesyed - 10/22/12 at 12:05am
post #30122 of 44856
JUST STOP NOW
post #30123 of 44856
Quote:
Originally Posted by jet View Post

JUST STOP NOW

PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN OH GOD
post #30124 of 44856
Quote:
Originally Posted by jet View Post

JUST STOP NOW

+1

post #30125 of 44856
post #30126 of 44856
Quote:
Originally Posted by rach2jlc View Post

Oh, dear, IFRA is the biggest nanny-state in teh world. Thanks to them, virtually all of the great frags of history have been mercilessly gutted because somebody somewhere MAY have an allergy that might give his/her nose a tingle. The list of banned notes, essences, etc. grows year by year. While of course I don't want them putting radioactive Cesium into my fragrances, on the other hand I think they go WAY overboard sometimes.
It's this kind of crap that leads to a world full of Trabants and Soylent Green.

I replied to correct your statement that "people know the risks and choose to say fuck it" when really they don't know the risks and can't if there's no ingredient list.

Now, the chances of this having an actual impact on health are pretty fucking minimal, but is it wrong for people to seek assurance or at least persue some transparency?

I'm a scientist, I have the same issue as you when people go on about "organic" food ad nauseum, but I really can't dismiss their attitude. There's a gap in public communication as well as research and that needs to be filled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benesyed View Post

My point is two fold:
Providing information will not make any meaningful impact on risk-assessment
1) Pragmatically people lack the know-how to make a meaningful decision based on the evidence presented because they do not and not without training/lots of time and work, which likely they will not expend.

Again, so no information should be presented? I can't see how you could advocate this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benesyed View Post

2) Even if the above argument was untrue, the research evidence is not at the quality level (yet) that you could say ok using cologne with x/y/z ingredients leads to an increase of X% in my risk of getting cancer. The reason that value is important is because it lets to weigh whether or not said risk is worth taking. If you don't have anything resembling that then its just this "may cause cancer" - but ANYTHING can do that and so you are not making an informed decision at all. You will either a) say fuck it any risk is too much (which is not logical or consistent with other instances of risk appraisal) or b) you will say yolo but still do so for bad reasons.

Look, it's quite likely that nothing in fragrances is a carcinogen - that's not the argument I'm making. I'm simply saying that people should have the information available if they want to weigh up these risks.

The reality is that noone, noone in the world can tell you exactly how likely a carcinogen is to cause cancer to a single individual cell in a single individual human being. That's the domain of systems biology, and yes, we're not quite there yet.

That doesn't mean that you don't do the best you can.
post #30127 of 44856
NO STOP JUST STOP
post #30128 of 44856
ITT we find out who had a humanities major.
post #30129 of 44856
fine, ill stop smile.gif

and I spoilered it to save jet the agony
post #30130 of 44856
Quote:
Originally Posted by hendrix View Post

I replied to correct your statement that "people know the risks and choose to say fuck it" when really they don't know the risks and can't if there's no ingredient list.
Now, the chances of this having an actual impact on health are pretty fucking minimal, but is it wrong for people to seek assurance or at least persue some transparency?
I'm a scientist, I have the same issue as you when people go on about "organic" food ad nauseum, but I really can't dismiss their attitude. There's a gap in public communication as well as research and that needs to be filled.
Again, so no information should be presented? I can't see how you could advocate this.
Look, it's quite likely that nothing in fragrances is a carcinogen - that's not the argument I'm making. I'm simply saying that people should have the information available if they want to weigh up these risks.
The reality is that noone, noone in the world can tell you exactly how likely a carcinogen is to cause cancer to a single individual cell in a single individual human being. That's the domain of systems biology, and yes, we're not quite there yet.
That doesn't mean that you don't do the best you can.

I agree with some other posters that it's not a fruitful discussion for THIS thread, but in general I'd say that (1) these are proprietary formulas... Coke doesn't publish its forumula, nor does a fragrance house that's just finished spending five years and $20mil on a new frag and (2) if a fragrance did publish it (and they may publish or file some form of it with IFRA, which maybe online in a "safety sheet" sort of thing, I dunno... virtually nobody would understand it.

While advertising copy calls a scent "a blend of tobacco, vanilla, and peach" the reality is that it's made up of mlecules and chemicals nobody but chemists will understand. I saw the formula for Tabac Blond once, expecting to see something I coul dplay with at home... and I could barely make heads or tails of any of it!

Finally, fragrance is hardly unregulated... again see IFRA and the MANY scandals/controversies surrounding its decisions.

g'nite fellas! Enjoyed the foray in SW&D!
post #30131 of 44856
In other news I just spent 400 on socks.
post #30132 of 44856
400 scents?

Wow, that was a bad joke.
post #30133 of 44856
and i just spent 400 bucks on this, just to be like; nigga, you aint up on this. can't even go to the grocery store without some 1's that is clean.
post #30134 of 44856
here, lemme bring this thread back. most recent purchase of mine. talk about carcinogenic, or something. dC7cw.jpg
post #30135 of 44856
I just copped a third copy of Matthew Lewis's The Monk because the font and page color were slightly more pleasing than the others. SO BALLER.
Edited by noob - 10/22/12 at 3:50am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Streetwear and Denim
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Streetwear and Denim › Recent purchases - Part II