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

171–180 of 366 posts

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#171

Post by HillaryBriss »

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…

thank you for pointing this out. it should get more attention here.

for the last forty or more years, the biggest pressure against the use of asbestos has been lawsuits, not government regulation.

many, many US companies were forced into bankruptcy by class action asbestos lawsuits which attached huge liabilities to them, even though their use of asbestos may have been quite limited.

the asbestos lawsuit proliferation was such a strain on US industrial businesses that, in the early 2000's, the Senate almost created a huge asbestos trust fund, administered by the government, funded by these companies (and probably also government) to offload the liability from companies so that they could avoid bankruptcy and continue doing business, employing people, etc. (the legislation never passed).

bottom line: companies would want more than just EPA approval to start cranking out loads of new asbestos products. EPA approval does little to protect them against these expensive lawsuits. what they would need is a rock-solid lawsuit shield.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#172

Post by throwawaymath »

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?

> 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?

Asbestos is carcinogenic because it's extremely fibrous. By enclosing asbestos you mitigate its deleterious effects on human lungs. However, you do not remove its insulation properties, which may not be shared by whatever is physically enclosing it.

Simply put: all you need to prevent fibrous material from entering the lungs is a physical barrier. But a physical barrier is insufficient to provide insulation. Sandwiched asbestos provides insulation that the enclosure material cannot provide on its own.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#173

Post by jdietrich »

nimbius wrote: post #131

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…

OEMs have phased out asbestos, but there's a serious risk posed by aftermarket pads, shoes and linings. Because asbestos brake parts are legal, there's nothing stopping a parts distributor from shipping in a bunch of cheap Chinese parts made with asbestos. If you operate on the assumption that modern braking systems are all asbestos free, there's a greater risk of accidental exposure if you do encounter asbestos. In many cases, there's no visible difference.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#174

Post by bbeonx »

mhaymo wrote: post #58
smt88 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of us did not vote for this. Without gerrymandering or the electoral college, Congress and the White House would be overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats.

I think you're massively overstating the effects of gerrymandering. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026137941... > while Republican and Democratic gerrymandering affects the partisan outcomes of Congressional elections in some states, the net effect across the states is modest, creating no more than one new Republican seat in Congress

IMO, even if gerrymandering doesn't have a huge effect on seating in Congress (perhaps it has more effect on state level politics? I didn't read the other commenter's link so I won't make any claims) it makes a lot of districts non-competitive. The effects of this are hard to quantify and so we don't hear as much about it, but I argue that they are at least as profound as the numerical differences in congress on our national dialogue.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#176

Post by ethagknight »

rc_bhg wrote: post #41
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.

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.

Case-by-case could be an industry wide standard with Operations & Maintenance requirements, which is what we currently have in real estate surrounding existing asbestos and lead applications. A similar protocol surrounding implementation of new "safe" installations of asbestos-containing-materials could be developed.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#177

Post by mirimir »

okket wrote: post #166
mirimir wrote: post #137

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…

Nixon created the EPA...

Not only that, but (according to a former senior adviser, who I got to know in the 90s) he was very close to supporting something like national minimum income. To replace welfare. As I recall, it used the income tax system. Below some minimum income, the tax rate became negative, increasingly so as income dropped.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#178

Post by Exuma »

How long does it take for symptoms of asbestos to show up? I grew up in a 100 year old house where it probably had very old insulation and such... we did all kind of house maintenance and now I'm terrified something in there had it. I have lived in fairly modern apartments the last 15 years so I'm hoping I'm OK?

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#179

Post by [deleted] »

mirimir wrote: post #137

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…

[deleted]

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#180

Post by ChrisRR »

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?

As far as I know asbestos was often mixed with cement for insulating properties. And in this case was often deemed unharmful.

Maybe it'll find uses in locations that use cement that requires thermal insulation but isn't exposed to humans.

Post reply on HN