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

321–330 of 366 posts

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#321

Post by maxxxxx »

Exuma wrote: post #178

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?

There is a very good chance you will have no problems. A lot of people have been exposed to asbestos decades ago but only small percentage got cancer. Your risk is probably higher than normal but I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#323

Post by gHosts »

markvdb wrote: post #236
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…

The material stil has to be mined. Even with US companies treating the health risks to their employees in an exemplary way (hah!), there still would be extra deaths in asbestos mining and processing in Russia or Brazil...

My uncle was a geologist, spent some time on an Asbestos mine... and it killed him.

As user nemacol said above..... What an awful way to die. Really really nasty.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#324

Post by prolikewh0a »

e40 wrote: post #311
prolikewh0a wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or they didn't see a viable candidate that represented their interests and decided to abstain. This is a legal right.

Yes, because as we all know, both sides are exactly the same. /s

What are they different on that makes the lives of everyday Americans better? Abortion? LGBT rights? They're both war & business parties and practically do exactly the same things. They both sell out the worker in favor of the establishment.

Once you expand your knowledge of political ideologies outside of USA's acceptable overton window, you get a true sense of just how close both parties actually are.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#325

Post by khazhou »

prolikewh0a wrote: post #320
chipotle_coyote wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your interests are going to be represented by one of the two major party candidates, whether you like it or not. And even if you're firmly on the side of "do not like," one of those candidates is almost certainly going to be less worse than the other. Maybe you think both of them have authoritarian tendencies, but only one of them openly talks about the press as the enemy of the people and tacitly encourages their fo…

It's the candidates job to win my vote. If neither win my vote what am I supposed to do? Vote for someone I don't like at all? Why should I have to do that? People who don't vote have been roughly 45-50% of the voting bloc in recent history [1]. As a Democratic Socialist learning towards Socialist, neither Hillary nor Trump represented really any of my views. Pretty much none at all to be honest. Both were terrible p…

There wasn't even a single issue you agreed with either Hillary or Trump on? Because even if there was just one thing you cared about and which only one side supported, then by your stated principle that both parties are (otherwise) the same, then you should have voted for that.

Or... even if both sides were pro-war, pro-big-business, anti-worker, whatever, you could have still voted against the undignified office-demeaning racist.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#326

Post by forapurpose »

menacingly wrote: post #230
bruinjoe wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

I've actually considered that, because it's effectively the status quo, but then I conclude: Why should wealthy people have special proportional access? There are so many more groups who are so much more at risk: Small business? Orphans? Groups facing systemic discrimination (women, minorities, LGBTQ)? Homeless? Minority party members in solid red/blue districts? People with rare diseases? With unpopular political beliefs? OpenBSD users? Wealthy people already have so much power and so many advantages; they might be the absolute last group that needs special protection.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#327

Post by mikeash »

RobertRoberts wrote: post #249
mikeash wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's a good question, does it? I know that there was a time when not a single doctor in the world believed there was such a thing as latex allergy. My family is in the chemical business and my father (chemist) won't put chlorine in his pool, he uses a bromide of some kind. But, if something is popular (asbestos was at one point) it must be just fine.

If something is popular, problems tend to become apparent. It can be an unknown with a new chemical, but for something like chlorine which has had massive public exposure for a very long time, it’s fairly safe to say that it doesn’t have much in the way of negative effects at low levels of exposure.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#328

Post by prolikewh0a »

khazhou wrote: post #325
prolikewh0a wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the candidates job to win my vote. If neither win my vote what am I supposed to do? Vote for someone I don't like at all? Why should I have to do that? People who don't vote have been roughly 45-50% of the voting bloc in recent history [1]. As a Democratic Socialist learning towards Socialist, neither Hillary nor Trump represented really any of my views. Pretty much none at all to be honest. Both were terrible p…

There wasn't even a single issue you agreed with either Hillary or Trump on? Because even if there was just one thing you cared about and which only one side supported, then by your stated principle that both parties are (otherwise) the same, then you should have voted for that. Or... even if both sides were pro-war, pro-big-business, anti-worker, whatever, you could have still voted against the undignified office-de…

One thing that I agree with isn't enough to get me to drop my morals and vote in favor of endless wars, low wages, unaffordable healthcare, unaffordable college, keeping marijuana illegal, privatization of our schools, more oil drilling & fracking, more income inequality, more anti-union rhetoric, doing the favors of Wall St., surveillance state, etc.

I voted for Obama in 2012, and even though his public image was fantastic, I feel as if the blood from everything that was kept out of public view is on my hands. I won't make that mistake again.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#329

Post by romwell »

adventured wrote: post #221
mrguyorama wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

>Most of those companies were destroyed for it.

But how many CEO's were?

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#330

Post by perl4ever »

thawkins wrote: post #304
docker_up wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

They're not made of chemicals?
Post reply on HN