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

131–140 of 366 posts

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#131

Post by nimbius »

Im seeing a lot of comments on brakes containing asbestos.

As an automotive engine mechanic, I started my trade changing out brake pads. As far as im aware, the last generation of asbestos containing brake pads in the US were Ferodo Brake Pads ending around 1994. The pads were phased out for a number of reasons

- health, of course. as a mechanic, mesothelioma was your biggest risk changing brakes all day. most shops douse the pad assembly in a mix of dawn dish liquid or a basic degreaser liquid we called just called sauce, and send it through a quick carwash after the job. It was also an easy way to please customers and it kept friable dust to a minimum.

- performance. compared to euro/japanese brakes arriving in the states in the early nineties, companies like raybestos were at a serious risk of going bankrupt if they didnt change. My first set of ceramic/ceramide pads was a revelation. I recommended them to all my customers.

- health scares. Your consumer risk of driving a car with brakes impregnated with asbestos was minimal, but the CNN/60 minutes documentaries really did a number on the industry. It got so bad that at one point, Raybestos included big labels reading "CONTAINS NO ASBESTOS."

- quality. As manufacturing for ceramic or exotic carbon pads got better, they got cheaper. the only companies still cranking out asbestos had legacy factories in Mexico or Indonesia that could not re-tool. They were just cranking out cheap pads for fleet customers too lazy to change brands.

*update: checking with a buddy in the shop today It seems im wrong. Older Pierce brand firetrucks (pierce saber models she says) shipped with asbestos front and rear pads if they were not intended for airport duty.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#132

Post by swebs »

wlesieutre wrote: post #45
base698 wrote: post #3

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-epa-allowing-asbestos-p... The EPA has not changed anything about currently banned uses of asbestos, and any new uses would first be assessed by the agency.

Also from snopes: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/russian-asbestos-trump_fac... >Did a Russian Asbestos Company Put Trump’s Face on Their Product? >A Russian asbestos producer shared a photograph of their product to social media with a seal of Donald Trump’s face and the text "Approved by Donald Trump”.

They should probably also mention that all of the United States asbestos imports comes from Brazil.

>All asbestos used in this country is imported. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the only form of asbestos currently imported into the United States is chrysotile, all of which originated from Brazil in 2017(USGS, 2018). USGS reports that in 2017, the United States imported approximately 300 metric tons of raw asbestos, the total of which they state is used in the chlor-alkali industry (USGS, 2018). In 2016, the United States imported approximately 702 metric tons of raw asbestos (USGS, 2018)

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4495888/Problem-F... Page 238

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#133

Post by ethagknight »

roland35 wrote: post #127

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 dif…

False on all accounts. Handling asbestos and lead is a well defined scope of work in the construction industry, large projects or small. The fact that you weren't carrying a budget for hot materials doesn't mean its a big conspiracy. There are very clear rules. Its a pain in the rear, but its also a budget line item just like mechanical, electrical, carpentry. Asbestos and Lead is a large piece of Environmental Engineering. Granted, you don't know what you have until you uncover it, but if your structure was built before a certain date, go ahead and assume you will be removing or encapsulating some hot materials.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#134

Post by RobertRoberts »

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…

There seems to be group think present even here on HN. I don't downvote comments if that at least attempt to make a coherent argument with supporting facts.

But, when I got rid of asbestos insulation around some water pipes I followed every precaution. But many people seem to think chlorine isn't toxic because it's so common.

Note: There is _no_ known antidote to chlorine poisoning. (an example of how there is a toxin around us everyday, in our drinking water, in our pools, on our clothes, cleaning products, etc...) Why is there no outrage over this?

https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/chlorine/basics/facts.asp

More on asbestos many people may not know that I got from the same wikipedia entry.

"Portions of El Dorado County, California are known to contain natural amphibole asbestos formations at the surface. The USGS studied amphiboles in rock and soil in the area in response to an EPA sampling study and subsequent criticism of the EPA study. The EPA study was refuted by its own peer reviewers and never completed or published."

"Globally, samples collected from Antarctic ice indicate chrysotile asbestos has been a ubiquitous contaminant of the environment for at least 10,000 years."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_impact_of_asbestos#Envi...

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#135

Post by bruinjoe »

hanniabu wrote: post #113
jdietrich wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EPA already allows asbestos to be used in a huge range of products. I simply cannot see what justification could be made for allowing asbestos to continue to be used in cement sheet, floor tile and brake pads. It might pose no immediate hazard when installed, but it could become a serious hazard at any point during its lifespan. Cement sheets crack and crumble, floor tiles become worn and get replaced, brake pads…

Welcome to the US lobbying system, where science, ethics, and morals take a backseat to agendas of those with the deepest pockets.

This is so true. We should just ban lobbying because it is only used by rich corporations and individuals.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#136

Post by Kurtz79 »

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…

Because your arguments are ridiculous, and you are referencing directly to material that points out very clearly that exposure to asbestos carries a risk of health hazard, for the people exposed.

"In general" people who become ill from inhaling asbestos have been regularly exposed in a job where they worked directly with the material ???

If there is even the risk that a single person could fall ill because of unintentional exposure, then it should be ground enough for a blanket ban.

It's like saying that smoking should be allowed again in public places, since "in general", people that get cancer are first-hand smokers.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#137

Post by mirimir »

Wow. I mean, wow. I'm impressed. These idiots in government really only care about their bribes. And the idiots who are bribing them only care about making money. Everyone else can just fuck off and die.

But hey. The Reagan era was horrible too. I mean, eight fucking years! Plus four more of Bush I. And then, all too soon, another eight years of Bush II. ...

Actually, I was going for optimism. But I just can't get it up. Clinton and Obama were cool and all, for their two-term runs, but they were mostly bullshit. The political center of the US has shifted so far that, in many ways, Nixon (for all of his drunken paranoia) was more of a liberal than either.

Edit: So hey, I went off the rails there. But seriously, this is insane. I mean, look at the mesothelioma epidemic. So what's next? Taking the pressure off tobacco marketing to children?

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#138

Post by LeifCarrotson »

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…

Both of the following statements statements are true:

> there is no level of [asbestos] exposure below which clinical effects do not occur

> in general, people who become ill from inhaling asbestos have been regularly exposed in a job where they worked directly with the material

If minimal exposure causes small effects, and maximal exposure - loose, lots of it, long periods of time - causes huge effects, you would expect the people who interact with it most to show the most severe symptoms. That does not mean the small effects are not present, only that they're smaller than the large effects.

For an analogy, poking people with a penknife is not a healthy activity. Just because most people who die from or who go to the hospital for knife wounds were stabbed with larger knives does not mean we should promote poking people with small knives, and suggest that knife wounds are only bad if you're stabbed with large fixed-blade knives many times. Being worst in the latter case does not mean that they're benign in the former case. A headline that law enforcement are now allowing people to stab each other with small knives would be ridiculous.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#139

Post by kwhitefoot »

sametmax wrote: post #55
CompelTechnic wrote: post #11

I imagine that whether or not the asbestos is frangible will be strongly considered during evaluation. Incidentally, I have also seen a good amount of evidence that the fiberglass we currently use to replace asbestos insulation is super bad for your health, but likely not as bad.

And wait for us to discover all the wonderful side effects of ingesting or breathing nano particles of anything. They are everywhere now. E.G: salt now often contains E551, which is silica nano particles. It's silica, so the laws says it's ok because the raw material is harmless. Except we have no idea how the shape of it affects us. It will be able to go into places it couldn't before, interact chemically differentl…

> E.G: salt now often contains E551,

Strange how new solutions to non-problems keep getting invented. We just used to put a few grains of rice in the salt cellar to stop it getting damp.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#140

Post by prolikewh0a »

wvenable wrote: post #125
DougWebb wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Or they didn't see a viable candidate that represented their interests and decided to abstain. This is a legal right.
Post reply on HN