Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

archpaper.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 366 posts

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#121

Post by peterwwillis »

xienze wrote: post #99
rescripting wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"all levels of asbestos exposure studied to date have demonstrated asbestos-related disease ... there is no level of [asbestos] exposure below which clinical effects do not occur" https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/81-103/pdfs/81-103.pdf

> However, in general, people who become ill from inhaling asbestos have been regularly exposed in a job where they worked directly with the material. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_impact_of_asbestos > Asbestos can be found naturally in the air outdoors and in some drinkable water, including water from natural sources. Even nonoccupationally exposed members of the human population have tens to hundreds of thou…

So your argument is, because people get mesothelioma from living near natural deposits of asbestos, we should put more of the stuff in our homes? "What's a little more cancer?"

Your own source material shows just living near asbestos gives you higher risk of cancer. You're trying to argue that we aren't at significant risk without prolonged exposure. Living with asbestos is prolonged exposure. Increasing the amount used in products that we all live around/near will increase the risk and incidence of cancers.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#122

Post by ilikehurdles »

xienze wrote: post #99
rescripting wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"all levels of asbestos exposure studied to date have demonstrated asbestos-related disease ... there is no level of [asbestos] exposure below which clinical effects do not occur" https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/81-103/pdfs/81-103.pdf

> However, in general, people who become ill from inhaling asbestos have been regularly exposed in a job where they worked directly with the material. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_impact_of_asbestos > Asbestos can be found naturally in the air outdoors and in some drinkable water, including water from natural sources. Even nonoccupationally exposed members of the human population have tens to hundreds of thou…

Are you here on some kind of political mission? You're not making scientific claims, you're picking single sentences out from a context that backs up the actual scientific claims made the by the actual scientific paper posted by the person you're replying to. Why pretend that we can't click on the same wikipedia link as you and read the paragraphs surrounding the quoted and impressively vague "However, in general..." sentence.

At least, I gotta thank you for pointing out a needlessly vague an slanted statement in wikipedia. It should be removed or amended with the figures that follow elsewhere.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#123

Post by i_am_nomad »

mywittyname wrote: post #51
crankylinuxuser wrote: post #44

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.

Not exactly. Reagan was a surprisingly nuanced political thinker, whether or not you agree with him. He believed - and in fact observed - that government has an inherent motivation to constantly increase legislation. This, according to Reagan, is partly because legislators who vote for more regulations on a given industry will then benefit from that industry’s lobbying and campaigning efforts. It’s akin to a somewhat benevolent protection racket - play ball, or you might find it even more expensive to do business.

Of course, Reagan flipped that script and made wanton deregulation a “selling point” of the GOP. And now Trump has taken that to the extreme.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#124

Post by mtw »

xienze wrote: post #99
rescripting wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"all levels of asbestos exposure studied to date have demonstrated asbestos-related disease ... there is no level of [asbestos] exposure below which clinical effects do not occur" https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/81-103/pdfs/81-103.pdf

> However, in general, people who become ill from inhaling asbestos have been regularly exposed in a job where they worked directly with the material. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_impact_of_asbestos > Asbestos can be found naturally in the air outdoors and in some drinkable water, including water from natural sources. Even nonoccupationally exposed members of the human population have tens to hundreds of thou…

In the same wikipedia article

>A history of asbestos exposure at work is reported in about 70 percent to 80 percent of all cases.

This means in 20 to 30 percent of all cases, health effects occur in subjects who do not have periodic exposure to asbestos at work. 20 to 30 percent is not negligible.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#125

Post by wvenable »

DougWebb wrote: post #105
gameswithgo wrote: post #12

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.

"We" didn't vote for this. A bit less than 25% of us voted for it, a bit more than 25% voted against it, and nearly 50% of us didn't bother to vote at all. (3rd parties got a small number of votes in the middle there too.) Neither of the major parties has a majority, or anything like a "mandate" about what the American people want. The majority wants "none of the above". If anyone figures out how to get that majority…

The 50% of people who didn't vote basically have said, we don't care to choose. So they got exactly what they voted for.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#126

Post by mikestew »

xienze wrote: post #99
rescripting wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"all levels of asbestos exposure studied to date have demonstrated asbestos-related disease ... there is no level of [asbestos] exposure below which clinical effects do not occur" https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/81-103/pdfs/81-103.pdf

> However, in general, people who become ill from inhaling asbestos have been regularly exposed in a job where they worked directly with the material. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_impact_of_asbestos > Asbestos can be found naturally in the air outdoors and in some drinkable water, including water from natural sources. Even nonoccupationally exposed members of the human population have tens to hundreds of thou…

Edit: ya know people, you could respond to the specific claims instead of pressing the "I disagree" button.

I pressed the "made a reasonable argument, even if I disagree, and backed it up with some sources" button. More folks would do well to choose that one more often over other choices.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#127

Post by roland35 »

It is exceedingly difficult for general consumers to figure out how to deal with hazards like asbestos and lead in home building materials. I am currently renovating our home and it turned out our floor tile had lead in it (not asbestos too thankfully). There are very few resources available and there are no clear rules on how to deal with the removal of hazardous materials. HUD, EPA, CDC, and state rules are all different.

The best option as a homeowner, legally at least, is to not test anything if you can and do whatever you want! My conspiracy theory is that the real estate industry does not want people to know more about hazardous materials because they just want people to buy more houses.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#128

Post by refurb »

acomjean wrote: post #34

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…

If you want to see the worst of the legal profession, start digging into mesothelioma cases. The bar for "proving" asbestos caused your mesothelioma is super low. There was one guy who worked in a factory with asbestos that was never actually compromised (i.e. never exposed), but won millions with the lawyers making out like bandits.

[1]https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/opinion/nocera-the-asbest...

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#129

Post by xienze »

ilikehurdles wrote: post #122
xienze wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, in general, people who become ill from inhaling asbestos have been regularly exposed in a job where they worked directly with the material. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_impact_of_asbestos > Asbestos can be found naturally in the air outdoors and in some drinkable water, including water from natural sources. Even nonoccupationally exposed members of the human population have tens to hundreds of thou…

Are you here on some kind of political mission? You're not making scientific claims, you're picking single sentences out from a context that backs up the actual scientific claims made the by the actual scientific paper posted by the person you're replying to. Why pretend that we can't click on the same wikipedia link as you and read the paragraphs surrounding the quoted and impressively vague "However, in general..."…

> Are you here on some kind of political mission?

No, I'm just annoyed that people seem to treat a statement of fact, that asbestos in your floor tiles or walls is a grave risk to people who don't work around it all day is so controversial.

> Why pretend that we can't click on the same wikipedia link as you and read the paragraphs surrounding the quoted and impressively vague "However, in general..." sentence.

Did you click on it though? Because you would've seen this immediately after:

> A paper published in 1998, in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, concurs, and comments that asbestosis has been reported primarily in asbestos workers, and appears to require long-term exposure, high concentration for the development of the clinical disease.

Which again, supports my original statement.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#130

Post by superkuh »

mywittyname wrote: post #46
ChrisRR wrote: post #17

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?

Electrolysis membranes.
Post reply on HN