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

261–270 of 366 posts

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#261

Post by RobertRoberts »

amluto wrote: post #220
RobertRoberts wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pro…

>"Chlorine in water is not actually a meaningful problem."

There's the crux of the argument define "meaningful", because I think that is what everyone is arguing over in regards to asbestos.

There are no levels of radioactive alpha particles that are safe to ingest (surface contact, they can apparently be washed off), yet in Desert Storm our troops stomped right through the stuff regularly with no warning or protections. Go look up photos of troops near/on destroyed Iraqi tanks, the white powder is depleted uranium rounds. The wind blows it into the air and the troops breathed that stuff in.

Cancer in Iraqi civilians skyrocketed after that war, and US troops got the mysterious "gulf war syndrome"... (but no one official knows where that came from...) Do you think the Army/government didn't know the area was radioactively polluted?

While I don't have the chemistry degree to argue with you about the dangers of chlorine, my dad (who is a chemist) can. He won't put chlorine in his pool, he uses a bromide of some kind.

Also, there are tons of other toxins dumped into our food supply, including additives to the containers that don't need to be reported as ingredients, but are in the food none the less.

While I don't disagree that pathogens need to be killed in the pipes, and chlorine works pretty well for that, this isn't proof that it's safe to ingest. And considering the massive quantities in many peoples lives, comparing it on a minute level is disingenuous, as it's not just 4ppm if you encounter all day long, it can be dramatically higher than that.

And if anyone doesn't know, chlorine gas, a similar gas to mustard gas (used to kill many in World War 1) can be made by accidentally combining chlorine and another common house cleaner. And these people didn't die right away, in fact most didn't. The effects were longer term.

So to claim since there are no immediate health effects from exposure to chlorine is to dismiss the long term affects, of which, who knows what they are? Seems odd this isn't common knowledge since we know so much about asbestos which somehow one tiny speck of it will give you cancer?

I am not foolish enough to test if asbestos is dangerous, but the sheer willingness to ignore common sense and trust "ppm" and "safe in low concentrations" is likely why we have so much cancer and other diseases these days.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#262

Post by rayiner »

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.

The unhinged emotional reaction to asbestos in this thread is a good example of why lobbying is important. There is a cost-benefit analysis to be done for products containing asbestos, just like for any other product. Lobbyists present that analysis to the regulator. The alternative is regulation by knee jerk reaction, which undermines to point of regulatory agencies.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#263

Post by vkou »

washadjeffmad wrote: post #204
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…

It's not just "the system", it's the people populating it, and they're there. You can't believe that a government stacked with people whose stated missions are to destroy the only formalized, enforceable bodies of standards and accountability in this nation so that only "the market" can judge them would be trying their best to make things work. It'd be like locusts helping farmers choose better pesticides. And they'r…

> You can't believe that a government stacked with people whose stated missions are to destroy the only formalized, enforceable bodies of standards and accountability in this nation so that only "the market" can judge them would be trying their best to make things work. It'd be like locusts helping farmers choose better pesticides.

What put those people into government?

Yes, it was the voters, but how did people representing the agenda end up on the ballot?

That is why this is the system's fault.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#264

Post by dragonwriter »

vkou wrote: post #263
washadjeffmad wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just "the system", it's the people populating it, and they're there. You can't believe that a government stacked with people whose stated missions are to destroy the only formalized, enforceable bodies of standards and accountability in this nation so that only "the market" can judge them would be trying their best to make things work. It'd be like locusts helping farmers choose better pesticides. And they'r…

> You can't believe that a government stacked with people whose stated missions are to destroy the only formalized, enforceable bodies of standards and accountability in this nation so that only "the market" can judge them would be trying their best to make things work. It'd be like locusts helping farmers choose better pesticides. What put those people into government? Yes, it was the voters, but how did people repr…

> What put those people into government?

There's a fairly large criminal investigation with numerous charges already filed about that...

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#265

Post by makomk »

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…

Under the proposed Significant New Use Rule, almost all of those previously-legal products - basically anything that's no longer on the market in the US with asbestos in - will be considered significant new uses and subject to EPA pre-approval. You can read the actual proposed rule here: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-06/documents...

As far as I can tell, both this article and the Snopes fact check are simply wrong. The SNUR pretty clearly does not in any way change the existing blanket ban on new uses of asbestos, defined as using asbestos in any kind of product which it wasn't used in in the US prior to 1989. It only imposes further restrictions on the asbestos products which weren't banned in the US. (See in particular section III of the notice, which explains the rationale and how it relates to the existing ban.)

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#266

Post by mindslight »

dragonwriter wrote: post #248
mindslight wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, the 50% of people who didn't vote in the presidential election have said we don't care to choose between which of the two pieces of shit we're going to be forced to eat , and we're not going to legitimize our own oppression by helping pretend its consensual. If Kodos had been elected, this likely would not be happening at the EPA (nor that shitshow over at the FCC). But other similarly destructive corruptio…

> Actually, the 50% of people who didn't vote in the presidential election have said we don't care to choose between which of the two pieces of shit we're going to be forced to eat If they had voted in the primaries, they would have different choices, but 71% of those eligible to vote in primaries didn't bother (Turnout was only 29% of those eligible in the 2016 primaries). [0] So, cutting the field back to those “tw…

Stepping back to the primaries is fallacious, as it just obscures the criticism. For 2016 we can easily see that the top-level choices were bullshit. But condemning the process that led to the Democratic primary choices is more amorphous, making it easier to cling to belief.

Rather than retreating to lower layers of the recursive structure, it's more productive to discuss models that cover the whole system - my working one is that there is a general gradient whereby the candidates that have (or adopt) views more palatable to entrenched interests receive more support, both funding and institutional. And that support is the primary factor of how far they make it - both election-wise, and how much they "get done" in office.

> The poor set of general election choices is a product of apathy, not it's cause.

The people voting for the popular-corruption candidates look pretty damn non-apathetic to me. I've never understood this idea that if only more people were voting, the process would get more intelligent. I can only think it is wishful thinking by people who are aware of their own struggle between antipathy and capitulation. You hope that if the disinterested suddenly decided to vote, they would all vote in what you consider the intelligent way. And with those numbers, you could have voted for your real choice instead of the one you've resigned yourself to. But, like the idea of gas molecules spontaneously all moving in one direction, it just does not work that way.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#267

Post by dbatten »

fragsworth wrote: post #158
wvenable wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, because of the electoral college, in states like California where your vote doesn't matter as much (because nearly everyone votes democrat) the turnout is lower. It's not apathy when your vote literally isn't worth as much as someone else's, as evidenced by the fact that the number of votes didn't even determine the election.

You vote on more than just the president, though... you still have an opportunity to get your voice heard.

Admittedly, as a statement of fact, it's plausible/likely that the electoral college reduces turnout because presidential elections get people excited (especially when they know their state is in play), but that's not usually a rational response. You still get to vote for congress, state government, ballot initiatives, etc.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#268

Post by a1369209993 »

gonehome wrote: post #241
ericb wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not really, no - you need to expand on the why in order to have some sort of substantive discussion (especially when using politically loaded language). Lobbying in its positive form is about experts trying to explain things to representatives that don't understand the specifics of the field. When done right a representative should get perspective from different areas and be able to understand the issues/regulations…

> you need to expand on the why

The US Constitution defines treason thus:

> Treason against the United States, shall consist [...] in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

If you assume the US is a democracy[0], ie that its enemies are the enemies of its citizens, rather than its nobility^Wgovernment, then any politician who passes laws at the request of (or otherwise Aids and Comforts) eg Facebook, Dow Chemical, [insert human-rights-violating corporation here], is de facto guilty of treason.

You could certainly argue that treason means something other than what the constitution says it does, but taken at face value this is rather obvious.

0: If you don't, then that's a different discussion.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#269

Post by makomk »

leereeves wrote: post #224
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/fed…

Also, this isn't really about new uses of asbestos, despite the name of the rule. It's about making sure that old uses of asbestos which have fallen out of use don't reappear. Actual new applications for it are still unconditionally banned.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#270

Post by omegaworks »

rayiner wrote: post #262
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.

The unhinged emotional reaction to asbestos in this thread is a good example of why lobbying is important. There is a cost-benefit analysis to be done for products containing asbestos, just like for any other product. Lobbyists present that analysis to the regulator. The alternative is regulation by knee jerk reaction, which undermines to point of regulatory agencies.

This would be fine if the dollar-cost value of usage of these toxic materials actually represented the health and wellbeing of a population. Putting a dollar value on health has never been a simple proposition.

In many of these cases, these costs are externalized; they are borne by (healthcare, communal, familial) systems outside the industry where the asbestos is used. Only where a link can be definitively traced back to the industry itself can these costs begin to be rectified.

That the EPA allows this represents a shift in our society, that the costs to life and wellbeing are to be borne by the individual worker exposed to the chemical and not the manufacturer of the chemical or the employer cutting costs by not using alternatives.

Post reply on HN