EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing • Hacker News Board

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#361

Post by omegaworks » Wed, Aug 08, 2018, 6:39 PM UTC

tortasaur wrote: post #344

omegaworks wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ba…

How is this a shift in our society? When in recent history has this not been the standard?

Strong unions in the post-war era kept it at bay, but those have been declining in power.

Cost externalization has always been there. It's inherent in capitalist systems, and it lurked silently under the covers of neoliberalism for the past several administrations.

The change is its shift from covert to overt under this administration. They've saturated our ability to cover scandal, so they're no longer maintaining the facade.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#362

Post by RobertRoberts » Wed, Aug 08, 2018, 7:21 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #356

RobertRoberts wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about cigarettes, lead pipes, lead paint? There's quite a few chemicals/toxins that were in use for thousands of years before any did anything about them. Even something as simple as hygiene is new to doctors as of the 18th century.

You can’t look before the modern era, as the tools and techniques for discovering this sort of long-term damage didn’t exist. Are there any examples of things that were in pervasive use around, say, 1970 but didn’t get recognized as dangerous until recently? I think there are examples in nutrition, but I don’t know about environmental toxins.

Every era is the modern era, until it isn't anymore.

Are you claiming that people could spend decades counting the average movement of the moon around the earth, accurate to the fraction of a second, thousands of years ago, but couldn't understand long term health effects until just recently?

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#363

Post by mikeash » Wed, Aug 08, 2018, 11:06 PM UTC

RobertRoberts wrote: post #362

mikeash wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t look before the modern era, as the tools and techniques for discovering this sort of long-term damage didn’t exist. Are there any examples of things that were in pervasive use around, say, 1970 but didn’t get recognized as dangerous until recently? I think there are examples in nutrition, but I don’t know about environmental toxins.

Every era is the modern era, until it isn't anymore. Are you claiming that people could spend decades counting the average movement of the moon around the earth, accurate to the fraction of a second, thousands of years ago, but couldn't understand long term health effects until just recently?

I'm pretty sure you know that I was referring to the period of time from a couple hundred years ago until now, 2018, when I said "the modern era." Let's not delve into semantic fuckery.

And yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Figuring out the motion of the moon can be done by a single person using nothing but dedicated observation and arithmetic. Figuring out the public health effects of chronic low-level exposure to toxins requires statistical techniques and data-gathering infrastructure that didn't exist until at least the 18th century, and wasn't commonly applied until the 20th century.

The concept of long-term health effects due to exposure to stuff has been around forever, but the ability to conclusively prove it is a lot more recent.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#364

Post by nemacol » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 12:27 PM UTC

hfdgiutdryg wrote: post #252

nemacol wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cases per year are going down and the average age of diagnosis is 69. So you are right in that most of this is legacy. But we know now and knew then that it was dangerous. Much like the radium girls in the early 1900's - where the people delivering the paint would wear leaded protective equipment and then management would watch (and encourage) the girls lick the paint brushes to keep the tip pointed. They knew it…

I'd never heard of radium girls and found this interesting: https://www.cnn.com/style/article/radium-girls-radioactive-p... I'm slightly confused why the public at large was ignorant of the danger of radium (and even thought it was healthy), but the radium girl managers knew the danger...?

It is a compelling story.

As for why the public was ignorant to the danger; radiation was only discovered in 1895 (x-rays). First injuries the following year from x-ray exposure. First death in 1904.

I am no expert, so I can only speculate. Thinking that pre-internet, information moved slower and scientific information slower still. The radium they were using was "different" and really trendy. Even a handful of deaths wouldn't repel the masses. It was only 12 years after the x-ray deaths.

If I can be cynical for a moment, this is a cycle that replays far too often. Some industry uses a product that is more or less known to be dangerous and it is only with years or decades of evidence, public outrage, and government intervention does that industry change its ways. Not always is it malicious or intentional, but this kind of thing does seem to happen a lot.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#365

Post by zaarn » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 1:30 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…

Well, for one, there isn't any chlorine in my water. None. 0.

The last time we had chlorine in the water was after a farmer overfertilized and the ancient water system took on some pathogens. After cleaning out the pipes the water system was chlorinated lightly for a week.

Low doses of chlorine aren't deadly, there is such a thing as a LD50 for chlorine.

In low doses, chlorine and asbestos aren't harmful in a significant manner but it should be added that chlorine has much more direct effects than asbestos and asbestos to my knowledge has much lower limits at which prolonged exposure will cause negative medical effects.

Asbestos in nature is not different to background radiation. The obvious conclusion isn't "radiation isn't harmful" or "getting hit with a car is more dangerous than radiation".

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#366

Post by jccalhoun » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 3:01 AM UTC

burfog wrote: post #348

jccalhoun wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The political parties did largely switch sides on many issues. As Republicans love to remind people, Lincoln was a Republican and he freed the slaves. Additionally the politicians who opposed civil rights legislation were largely Democrats. http://factmyth.com/factoids/democrats-and-republicans-switc...

Had there been an actual switch, you would have seen numerous politicians changing party. Virtually none of them did. The one senator: Strom Thurmond The one representative: Albert Watson The whole "party switch" idea is slander and an excuse. It's a rewrite of history intended to evade the ugly truth of an unbroken continuity to behavior that is now considered unacceptable.

and that behavior would be?