Asklemmy

43942 readers

522 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

What other actions were scientists so preoccupied with whether or not they could, that they didn't stop to think if they should? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 4 months ago by lemuria@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 16 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It's not quite the same since there was no reason to believe CFCs would be dangerous. They checked for toxicity to humans and that was about it. It never occurred to anyone to simulate interactions with atmospheric particles, meteorological science was almost non-existent back then, it was essentially just limited to weather forecasting.

It never occurred anyone to worry to about what might happen 100+ years in the future.

But yeah he had absolutely no excuse for lead in gasoline, as far back as the Romans we knew lead was toxic.