61–70 of 366 posts
This makes sense as asbestos only really causes harm when humans come into contact with it. For applications where it is safely enclosed or mixed with another material it may have its uses. I think analysis on a case-by-case basis is the right way to go.
In what cases would you use it where humans wouldn't be in contact with it eventually?
Ever seen an ad for "mesothelioma" and wonder what is that about? Its generally law firms looking for people with asbestos related lung cancer (edit: see replies for better description of the illness). The Asbestos particles are so small your body's natural filters don't stop them from getting stuck in your lungs, where they can cause cancer. As this point I can't imagine the insurance liability to start using asbest…
I believe it is actually a cancer of the lining of your thoracic cavity rather than your lungs.
That being said, asbestos poses an even bigger risk of "regular" lung cancer compared to mesothelioma. It really is a formidable carcinogen.
This makes sense as asbestos only really causes harm when humans come into contact with it. For applications where it is safely enclosed or mixed with another material it may have its uses. I think analysis on a case-by-case basis is the right way to go.
> The report states that the agency will no longer consider the effect or presence of substances in the air, ground, or water in its risk assessments.
Therefore if they don't consider effects from having it in the air asbestos is not dangerous anymore? This article must seriously misrepresent the facts, I can't believe that even post-Trump / GOP are this insane.
What is happening to the EPA in the US is really unbelievable. How low will the bar get for the polluters in this country, one wonders?
It is not unbelievable, it is the stated stance of the GOP to reduce environmental and health regulations, and they are doing it. It is exactly what we voted for.
I call BS.
This makes sense as asbestos only really causes harm when humans come into contact with it. For applications where it is safely enclosed or mixed with another material it may have its uses. I think analysis on a case-by-case basis is the right way to go.
Case-by-case analysis is really expensive for a government agency to do. And you know full well that developers will cut corners at any chance they can if the rules are loosened up.
> Trump once opined, in his 1997 book The Art of the Comeback, that efforts to reduce and regulate asbestos (a material he claimed was “100% safe” once applied) in building construction were part of a mob-lead conspiracy:
>> I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal. Great pressure was put on politicians, and as usual, the politicians relented.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not unbelievable, it is the stated stance of the GOP to reduce environmental and health regulations, and they are doing it. It is exactly what we voted for.
So, what exactly happened? The EPA was founded by a republican (Nixon). Yet environmental efforts are now attributed to democrats. And combined with that, is that republicans was to destroy the very org they made? What am I missing out of this? Why did the parties completely change their face?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, what exactly happened? The EPA was founded by a republican (Nixon). Yet environmental efforts are now attributed to democrats. And combined with that, is that republicans was to destroy the very org they made? What am I missing out of this? Why did the parties completely change their face?
The Reagan administration sold the GOP that all government agencies are incompetent.