EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing • Hacker News Board

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#211

Post by stevenwoo » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 4:16 PM UTC

crankylinuxuser wrote: post #44

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.

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?

In a very shorthand version of things - it's related to fundamentalist Christians switching from segregation to anti abortion as a rallying cry in the 70's, which somewhat meant a switch from southern Democrats to the GOP as time went on, the tie in used during the Reagan adminstration by his EPA head James Watt was that the Bible says that the world is for humans to use, and that since the Bible predicts that Jesus is coming back, saving the environment from development is a pointless goal cause the second coming of God would render the state of the environment moot (of course one could probably find contradictory statements/interpretations for either side of an argument in the Bible).

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#212

Post by hpcjoe » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 4:16 PM UTC

SeanAppleby wrote: post #153

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…

> 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 thousands of asbestos fibers per gram of dry lung tissue, equivalent to millions of fibers in each lung. If you're using this as an argument that increased asbestos exposure has no correlation to negative health…

The study linked in the article itself, indicates that the current state of scientific understanding is that water born and skin contact are not significant issues for asbestos, and the primary concern is inhalation. Took me only 5 minutes to find it looking through the docs.

I am not agreeing with the GP on their theory of "overblown". Asbestos initiated cancers seem to be some of those with no known threshold. That is, there is no safe amount of asbestos dust inhalation above which you get cancer.

I am disagreeing with your statement on the scientific literature and consensus. As far as I know (not my field, so I am an outsider looking at literature), there is no strong consensus either way. There are hypotheses that need deeper looks [1][2][3][4][5]. That is, it looks like there may be something there, but the investigators can't as of yet, distinguish between this as causal versus other factors.

This does not mean I think it is safe to ingest a bowl of asbestos followed by an asbestos flavored adult drink. What it does mean is that evidence is inconclusive, though there are a few pathways researchers could imagine would make sense as a causative.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28276807

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27919155

[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15820729

[4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3304998

[5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21534087

[minor update to add a missing "be" ]

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#213

Post by mikeash » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 4:16 PM UTC

RobertRoberts wrote: post #134

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…

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 toxi…

Does persistent low-level exposure to chlorine cause health problems?

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#214

Post by HillaryBriss » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 4:17 PM UTC

WhompingWindows wrote: post #100

tmaly wrote: post #32

It has good material qualities, but do we really want to trade that for an increase in lung cancer? The stuff is so costly to dispose of, it is not really worth using.

Unless your environmental "protection" agency is not in the business of protecting you. In which case, you don't have to pay the costs to dispose of things properly, because businesses shouldn't ever be fettered by any kind of environmental regulations, at least according to the current philosophy of the "protection" agency.

also factor in the costs to these companies of the lawsuits they will inevitably attract by introducing new asbestos products. EPA approval does not shield them.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#215

Post by resters » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 4:17 PM UTC

doubt_me wrote: post #165

resters wrote: post #154

This article is 100% political. The EPA did this due to political shifts. What makes it eligible for the top spot on HN? Any detailed discussion of the politics underlying why this happened will be censored within minutes. What are we supposed to do, discuss the science of asbestos being toxic? This is a perfect example of why the "no politics" zealots on HN need to be stopped.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/07/11/a... Or we can get to the real reasons why and get downvoted and flagged regardless.

I want to read that, do you know of a good non-paywalled link?

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#216

Post by TimJYoung » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 4:18 PM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #177

okket wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Milton Friedman was a big proponent of the negative income tax:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

http://mitsloan.mit.edu/newsroom/articles/negative-income-ta...

It has some very interesting properties when you combine it with a removal of the minimum wage, such as getting rid of the welfare trap and allowing jobs to stay on-shore that would have, otherwise, gone off-shore. You do have to be careful or you end up subsidizing low-wage employers in a wholesale manner, but I would argue that we're already doing that now, just in a more targeted manner. I'm sure that someone with more economic clout than myself could weigh in with some other possible issues that may arise.

We have the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) in the US, but it suffers from not being universal and having too many conditions. Without those conditions, it would be pretty close to a UBI (Universal Basic Income). But, as Milton Friedman pointed out many times, you need to get rid of all of the other welfare programs in order to realize the efficiency gains and tax savings from any negative income tax scheme.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#217

Post by shadofx » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 4:18 PM UTC

gus_massa wrote: post #145

peterwwillis wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/asbestos/

The difference between asbestos and radiation is that there is no "safe" amount of asbestos exposure, according to OSHA.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#218

Post by falcolas » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 4:19 PM UTC

gus_massa wrote: post #145

peterwwillis wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Nit: most smoke detectors don't use radioactive materials anymore - they are inferior to the infrared sensors that operate on the same principals.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#219

Post by justinpaulson » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 4:19 PM UTC

[flagged]

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#220

Post by amluto » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 4:22 PM UTC

RobertRoberts wrote: post #134

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…

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 toxi…

> 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?

There’s probably no credible outrage for two major reasons:

- Chlorine in water is not actually a meaningful problem. Unlike, say, asbestos, there are many, many chemicals that are problematic in high concentrations and very safe in low concentrations. As extreme examples, water and sodium chloride will both kill you if taken in excess. Chlorine at ~4 ppm in tap water is a bit stinky but won’t hurt you even after a lifetime of exposure. And Chlorine at ~3 ppm in a swimming pool with an appropriate level of cyanuric acid added is barely perceptible.

- There aren’t credible alternatives. We can chlorinate our water, or we can add monochloramine, or we could let pathogens grow in our municipal plumbing. The latter will sicken people on a large scale.