This story is nearly identical to the original article reported by Fast Company:
https://www.fastcompany.com/90208948/under-trumps-epa-asbest...
EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing
301–310 of 366 posts
Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing
#302>EPA is now allowing asbestos back into manufacturing Wow, misleading headline of the decade. Asbestos was never completely banned from manufacturing in the United States, only for certain items. https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/us-federal-bans-asbestos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos_and_the_law_(United_S...
Very much so. The entire proposed rule, so far as I can tell, is solely about taking most of the asbestos products which are still legal to manufacture and use in the US, declaring them a substantial new use on the basis that they're no longer being made, and erecting regulatory barriers to ever manufacturing or importing them again. It doesn't unban anything, not even genuinely novel uses for asbestos (which there's a long-running blanket ban on).
Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing
#303Earlier 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…
Both of the following statements statements are true: > there is no level of [asbestos] exposure below which clinical effects do not occur > in general, people who become ill from inhaling asbestos have been regularly exposed in a job where they worked directly with the material If minimal exposure causes small effects, and maximal exposure - loose, lots of it, long periods of time - causes huge effects, you would ex…
On reading sibling comments, I note that there's an important counter-analogy which I neglected to mention: Many things do have minimum exposure levels below which they are safe. Various medicines, for example - an appropriate dose is good for you, overdosing will kill you.
Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing
#304Earlier 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…
Chemicals can have levels of dilution, where below a certain level it ceases to be a threat. Diluted in air, or in liquids.
You cant dilute a fibre....
This is also the same reason why nanoparticles are such a threat.
Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 worki…
I think you're right; simply increasing turnout would probably split the vote along the same lines, and not change the outcome. What I was replying to is the idea that the winner speaks for the people , which you always hear after every election, which you hear a lot from Trump and his supporters, and which is reflected in the comment "we got what we voted for." If everyone voted, then that would be at least arguably…
Bingo. It's incredibly condescending and straight-up ignorant to caricature non-voters as naively unaware of the goings on.
Personally I like to make it as clear as possible that I did not endorse the outcome of the election. And seeing how the press reports on third parties gives little option there.
But as I said my biggest concern is that having voted seems to warp people's minds. If they voted for the winner, they rationalize what's being done as in line with corresponding to what they wished for. And if they voted for the loser they get to tell themselves they fought the good fight, but that the other majority is responsible for the results.
I actually think the second largest factor to winning elections is getting wary voters to show up and vote against the incumbent party (with the first being the tendency to go with what one knows).
IMHO, "centrist" is the wrong way to look at it, but of course I'm imparting my own views here. Primarily people just want to be left alone, but they can be whipped into a fervor against an "other". So both parties' basic marketing spiel is freedom for their grass roots constituents' general pain points. But obviously what's ruining your freedom is that other group over there. So really we've got to stop them, and maybe even give them some of their own medicine.
Then when an election is won and it's time for action, of course the profitable ideas have legs - say, undermining the freedoms of the "other" in a way justifiable to the winners. Meanwhile rolling back the older policies would cut into someone's profit, is thus politically unpalatable, and therefore nothing gets done.
Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing
#306Business as usual. Profits over people
Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing
#307I believe I've found the SNUR in question [0] and it seems to state that the EPA will consider uses of asbestos in construction: > Any Other Building Materials (other than cement): Examples include insulation, plasters, mastics, textured paints (e.g., simulates stucco), and block filler paints (e.g., for coating masonry). It looks like they're wanting to open a pathway of discussion between potential manufacturers/im…
I'm pretty sure that's the right rule. What you're missing is that previously those weren't considered new uses of asbestos at all in the US because it had been used for those purposes prior to 1989. As I understand it, without this proposed rule it would in fact be perfectly legal for US companies to just go right ahead and use asbestos in those building materials without any kind of EPA pre-approval. Requiring them…
Very well said, thanks for the clarification. I read through it several times and came away feeling two different ways about it simultaneously.
1) Like you said, I assumed this meant that they were installing themselves via the law instead of relying on the honor system. I think that's awesome news. 2) I don't trust them to act in the best interest of the masses when it comes to which uses they green light and which uses they shoot down. But that's 100% my opinion which is cynical in nature most of the time.
As long as the EPA uses this power for good, I'm all for it. I am skeptical about their motives though (which is entirely subjective).
Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing
#308It sounds like business as usual. Profits over people.
Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
I say it's a feature, not a bug. Reducing everything to a popular vote is just a feel good way of describing mob rule. The electoral college and equal Senate representation acts as a tempering force on said mob.
A few years ago I might have agreed with you. The fact that the electoral college allowed a person with absolutely no political experience who's primary accomplishments were several failed businesses and some TV spotlights to be president of the United States is an absolute fucking glowing failure. Donald Trump IS the person the electoral college was put in place to stop. They did not do their job. The electoral coll…
> Donald Trump IS the person the electoral college was put in place to stop.
Wrong. It was put in place to stop someone who was only popular in urban areas. You need to carry a majority of states in order to represent the states. There are plenty of other checks to "stop" (curb) the power of the office. The voters can have a big say whether or not those should be invoked this November.
Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing
#310Having 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…
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
History contradicts your statement. The most recent one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal
They knew. They did it anyway.
But I agree that most companies, and most people, will not take that path. But you just need a very few to create a global health problem.