EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing • Hacker News Board

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#221

Post by adventured » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 4:23 PM UTC

mrguyorama wrote: post #190

dmix wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does say it's only being approved in special cases. I wouldn't expect the building industry to suddenly start using it again. How many of those 3000 are a legacy of the previous eras misunderstanding of the chemical? I doubt any company would ignore that risk and produce a product that put people at a direct and unknown risk, especially given the legal liability since we now know the full risks of the chemical and…

>I doubt any company would ignore that risk and produce a product that put people at a direct and unknown risk Those companies did exactly that! Asbestos companies knew the dangers internally. It's no different than cigarette companies suppressing the science of how smoking is dangerous

Most of those companies were destroyed for it. That's why the parent is speculating companies wouldn't do it now that the medical dangers are fully understood and the matter has been turned into a vast, lucrative profit field in the legal realm.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#222

Post by shadofx » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 4:24 PM UTC

docker_up wrote: post #170

pastor_elm wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A handful of exposures to friable asbestos will not give you lung cancer Simply not a claim you can make. The incidence may be very low, but it has been proven that asbestos fibers are directly responsible for the creation of cancerous mesothelioma cells. Any number of fibers in your lungs 'may' cause cancer, even one.

> it has been proven that asbestos fibers are directly responsible for the creation of cancerous mesothelioma cells. This is also a claim you simply cannot make. Every chemical has a toxicity level. A single x-ray could give you lung cancer if you're unlucky. Just because there's a claim floating around that a single fiber could cause cancer is meaningless. Was this in a test tube or a lab environment? Every day, mil…

Radiation has known degrees of safety. https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_tab...

>There is no "safe" level of asbestos exposure for any type of asbestos fiber. https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/asbestos/

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#223

Post by aurailious » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 4:25 PM UTC

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?

Deep space probes?

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#224

Post by leereeves » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 4:25 PM UTC

rapnie wrote: post #5

What is happening to the EPA in the US is really unbelievable. How low will the bar get for the polluters in this country, one wonders?

Why are we unquestioningly swallowing this headline from an unknown source as if it were the truth?

The EPA has not approved any new uses of asbestos. Quite the contrary:

> In the absence of this proposed rule, the importing or processing of asbestos (including as part of an article) for the significant new uses proposed in this rule may begin at any time, without prior notice to EPA.

https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/federal-register-notice-propose...

This new rule is required for the EPA to comply with the Lautenberg Act's "Mandatory duty on EPA to evaluate existing chemicals with clear and enforceable deadlines"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_R._Lautenberg_Chemical_S...

Politically, it's an unfortunate name. But it's not approving Significant New Uses, it's regulating Significant New Uses.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#225

Post by ilikehurdles » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 4:26 PM UTC

xienze wrote: post #129

ilikehurdles wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yo…

“Primarily” and “generally” means 70-80% here, based on the actual figures, not 99.5% which is what it sounds like you want people to think. That’s a huge amount of people affected not working in construction.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#226

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 4:28 PM UTC

dmix wrote: post #208

dragonwriter wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> American politics was very centerist in the past. Not for most of its history it wasn't. Between the New Deal and the early 1990s, though, there was a long shift in party alignment that had both major parties being ideologically incoherent big tents in transition between the past (ideological and more so geographic) party alignment and a new ideological, national alignment. This produced something that looked like…

s/past/recent past I'm not debating 19860s politics, I'm talking about the growth of the modern state, largely post WW2. Which has rarely been partisan.

> I'm talking about the growth of the modern state, largely post WW2. Which has rarely been partisan.

It's been intensely partisan and intensely sharply ideologically-divided, just as today. What was different during the long realignment from the New Deal through approximately the Contract With America (though definitely progressively weakening during the last couple decades of that period) is that the ideological and partisan divides were not in sync, because of the lack of coherence due to the ongoing partisan realignment.

Because political power players had to manage both conflicts, the tension between their interest in one vs. the other often served to moderate conflict.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#227

Post by pwenzel » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 4:34 PM UTC

spoiledtechie wrote: post #64

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.

a "stated stance"? Show me where? I call BS.

Trump, in his infinite wisdom, said that if asbestos had not been banned, the World Trade Center would never have burned down.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/25865556945865113...

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#228

Post by lb1lf » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 4:38 PM UTC

jdietrich wrote: post #60

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.

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…

...a former employer (based in the EU, exports perhaps 2/3 of production outside the EU) took a major financial hit when it was found that a valve sourced from a cheaper supplier than the ones originally used contained an (undeclared) asbestos gasket.

Cost of replacement gasket? Less than $1/system.

Cost of getting to gasket? ~$70-80k/system. We had deployed a few hundred.

On the upside, after this incident, noone in purchasing tried to source cheaper, same-same but different replacements for parts specified by engineering for years thereafter...

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#229

Post by ericb » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 4:41 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #194

ericb wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

edited: Lobbying should be considered treasonous.

Please don't post unsubstantive comments.

Would "should be considered" be more appropriate wording and less hyperbolic? I'm being serious.

I think cash contributions for legislation fundamentally subvert our democracy, and my comment was intended to raise that point for discussion. I don't see discussion of the perversion of democracy as unsubstantive.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#230

Post by menacingly » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 4:41 PM UTC

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.

I've always looked at money's influence in politics as a sort of balanced system, like the house and senate. We need both equal access to politics and proportional access to politics based on resources. Otherwise, democracy devolves into two me's and a Jeff Bezos voting on who pays for my stuff.