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

141–150 of 366 posts

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#141

Post by randcraw »

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.

If asbestos is enclosed, what's the point in using it? Why not just build the entire object using the material that enclosed the asbestos?

Safety analysis on a 'case-by-case basis' will take place where the product is made, not where it's sold. In China. So you believe Chinese inspectors will keep Americans safe?

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#142

Post by boobsbr »

tomp wrote: post #66
rc_bhg wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If we banned all uses of harmful substances, many things (e.g. spaceflight) wouldn't be possible (or at least much more expensive) (e.g. most hypergolic propellant used for fine maneuvring e.g. during docking are extremely poisonous - alternatives are being tested but aren't there yet).

Yeah, hydrazine came to my mind instantly.

That stuff is scary.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#143

Post by ekianjo »

bruinjoe wrote: post #135
hanniabu wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Lobbying is just a legal form of corruption. Ban it, and it will still continue to exist underground anyway. What we need is to stop voting for idiot politicians.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#144

Post by boobsbr »

pard68 wrote: post #79
jdironman wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about asbestos and marine wild life?

Genuine question, if you do not have lungs does asbestos have any negative impact on you? Marine animals either hold their breath and come up for air or have gills.

Might perforate the blood vessels in the gills and enter the blood stream? Later on we eat it?

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#145

Post by gus_massa »

peterwwillis wrote: post #121
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…

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 u…

Smoke detectors have a radioactive source, and we put them inside our homes, because the radiation level is so low that the increase of the risk is minimal.

Walls have a tiny amount of radioactive material, but they protect you from the radiation of the exterior. I don't know if the walls increase or decrease your cancer risk.

There are many thinks that may cause cancer. It's important to calculate the risk of each one, because you can't avoid all of them.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#147

Post by nemacol »

Having just lost a father-in-law to mesothelioma (June 2018), this makes me incredibly sad.

I understand this is not an actual rule change and blah blah blah. 3,000 people are diagnosed with mesothelioma each year.

What a slow and horrific way to go. Slowly losing your breath. Lungs filling with fluid and being rushed off to ER to drain. Endless breathing treatments. Never sleeping more than an hour without waking up coughing. I am sure many of you are aware the treatments can be just as painful as the illness itself.

The man I knew when through all of this and more spread over a decade. 2 lung lobectomy surgeries. Chemo. Radiation. Misc corrective surgeries. Not to mention the hassles of the American healthcare system, doctors, lawyers, bills, and enough paperwork to fill a small office building.

3000 people a year.

I can only understand new deployments of asbestos if they are... "perfectly safe" Saving thousands of lives There is no alternative.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#148

Post by AngryData »

pard68 wrote: post #79
jdironman wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about asbestos and marine wild life?

Genuine question, if you do not have lungs does asbestos have any negative impact on you? Marine animals either hold their breath and come up for air or have gills.

If it becomes loose in the water it would get in their gills and bottom feeders would suck it up off the sea floor and harm them the same way it harms lungs. That said, im not sure there would be loose pieces of it leaving the cement. Plus if someone REALLY wanted the properties of asbestos, there are plenty of ceramic wools that are pretty much identical products (with the same risks of asbestos) that are comparable in price and not subject to the same kind of rules. However nobody that makes ceramic wool would be dumb enough to pretend that shit isn't harmful to be exposed to.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#149

Post by grenoire »

randcraw wrote: post #141
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.

If asbestos is enclosed, what's the point in using it? Why not just build the entire object using the material that enclosed the asbestos? Safety analysis on a 'case-by-case basis' will take place where the product is made, not where it's sold. In China. So you believe Chinese inspectors will keep Americans safe?

Because the material itself may not have the insulating properties of asbestos itself. Additionally the material enclosing might be more expensive than asbestos too.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#150

Post by wufufufu »

Wow, this really shows the power of lobbying and possibly Trump's EPA. I would not have thought this was possible. In my mind "asbestos" has as bad of a media image as "Zika", "AIDs", "Al Qaeda", "ISIS". Obviously, it doesn't mean everyone home built in 2019 will have asbestos in the drywall (it sounds like the change is with reservations), but the fact that they could open up anything on the topic without intense resistance is impressive.

I hope everyone who was a part of this lives in a home that was manufactured with asbestos as part of the process.

Post reply on HN