Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Asbestosis

diamondgeezer.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 232 posts

Re: Asbestosis

#111

Post by bee_rider »

dgacmu wrote: post #78
p0w3n3d wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no I'm almost twice that. I'm saying that if I had children in 40s it would be impossible for me.

We had our first when I was 37 and our second when I was 43. It wasn't so bad - it's tiring but I'm also a lot more emotionally mature than I was in my 20s and early 30s. And I have an absolute ton more money and stability (which also helps pay for things like nannies and school). The thing I'm a little sad about is that I'm unlikely to be there for too long when my kids have kids.

I dunno, medical science keeps advancing. Maybe you’ll live forever.

Re: Asbestosis

#112

Post by exasperaited »

olologin wrote: post #110

My mother died from pancreatic cancer 5 months ago when she was 55 years old, 9 months after she started noticing pain and doctors started investigating it. The worst thing is that she never worked in any hazardous environments, never smoked, never drank alcohol, avoided fried cuisine, avoided GMO-food, she was always eating as much as possible from her own garden, did not use any chemicals, she wasn't obese, she did…

My sympathies for what must be just an awful time for you —- sporadic pancreatic cancer is just a lurking evil.

My mother died of an unusual form of it, just a little older than yours, when I was in my early twenties. It was terrible.

The only unusual thing was some prior surgery near her pancreas, from twenty years earlier, had apparently had severe scarring that was noticed during surgery to fit a stent.

Re: Asbestosis

#113

Post by jaccola »

nebezb wrote: post #89
jaccola wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you buy a product with asbestos in if it wasn't regulated against? (Assuming we removed all similar regulation so the lack of regulation does not its self imply safety.) Of course you wouldn't. We have journalists to uncover dangers like this; they are clearly financially incentivised to do so. We have courts to assess damages. We don't need government regulation. Such a common trope that "the heartless capital…

> Of course the capitalist cares about harming customers, she needs to sell to them https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona... Internal memos from 1970s - 2000s reveal knowledge of asbestos traces. Executives, better known as caring capitalists, resisted disclosure. In case you think this isn’t a pattern: Purdue and Oxy, General Motors and their ignitions switches, DuPont and “confirmed animal ca…

Yes of course it is in their interest to lie / hide until it becomes public knowledge. But regulation has the exact same problem (hence why Asbestos was not regulated for a long time, same with your other examples).

When it is widely known (and therefore can be regulated) it is already too late as it's now in the producers interest to cease producing it.

Heavy litigation after the fact can disincentivise the lying in the first place. If legislation doesn't not allow for this (e.g. because of time limitations) then it should be amended.

Re: Asbestosis

#114

Post by ortusdux »

CheeseFromLidl wrote: post #4
XorNot wrote: post #2

Asbestos is genuinely more terrifying then nuclear radiation. If something is radioactive then a Geiger counter will tell you at a distance, it'll even triangulate it. Asbestos? It can be everywhere and the only way to know is to collect samples, pay $100 a piece to a lab to do phase contrast microscopy and wait. Then do it again the next time you find something suspicious. And once you've cleaned it out..well hope y…

Its carcinogenic “modus operandi” is also completely different to anything else. Asbestos is chemically inert, so how does is cause cancer? The tiny crystalline needles puncture cells, sometimes during cell division, and strands of dna will get tangled up and result in messed up genetics.

IIRC, asbestos does not directly cause cells to become cancerous, but it is an irritant that reawakens cancerous cells the body had forced into dormancy.

Re: Asbestosis

#115

Post by exasperaited »

ryukoposting wrote: post #77

I grew up in the Chicago suburbs, but my parents and my whole extended family are from an area in eastern Michigan, about 2 hours north of Detroit. Especially back then, the local economy was heavily dependent on Dow Chemical, who has a massive facility in the area. My grandfather worked there. He was one of the first people to ever handle Saran wrap. He also recalls hilarious stories, like a time when someone pranke…

> I fear that, as this generation leaves us, so will the cautionary tales.

Cautionary tales that are not being learned where the similarly dreadful silicosis is concerned; there is an incredible increase in the number of cases of silicosis among kitchen fitters working on granite worktops.

(I fear we may also find this issue among people working near 3D printers using glass and carbon-fibre-filled filaments.)

Re: Asbestosis

#116

Post by [deleted] »

pac0 wrote: post #6

> My Dad lost his Dad at the age of 34, which is no age at all in the grand scheme of things. By contrast I still have my Dad at the age of 60, which has meant an extra quarter century of guidance, support, advice, love and always being there. How lucky am I? I lost my father when I was 30. I thought I’d been lucky because I’d had him through my “adult” life. Now I’m 40 and have a 2-year-old son, and over these past…

[deleted]

Re: Asbestosis

#117

Post by [deleted] »

jojobas wrote: post #58
Etheryte wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really think asbestos is something that needs balance to the conversation. It's like radioactive material, you will most likely not even know that you've had too much exposure until your health is already permanently affected. The illness may manifest a considerable time later so you might not even know what it was. It's very easy to unknowingly be exposed when e.g. renovating a house or other similar arrange…

Unlike radiation, there's no safe asbestos exposure, if you're really unlucky a single strand can screw you up. On the other hand, of all people having worked at asbestos facilities with early 20th century approach to PPE only 20% developed mesothelioma and 10% died from it. Thinking before swinging your drill will get most people safe enough not to worry about it.

[deleted]

Re: Asbestosis

#118

Post by KaiserPro »

jaccola wrote: post #53
KaiserPro wrote: post #5

I know its not fashionable, but things like asbestos is the point of regulation. If you ignore the health effects, asbestos is a fucking brilliant material, strong(if used with a binder) exceptionally fireproof, UV stable and fairly inert. Why _wouldn't_ you use it? To use modern parlance; only melts wouldn't use it, thats who (this message brought to you by your friendly corporate sponsor...) The problem is that it…

Would you buy a product with asbestos in if it wasn't regulated against? (Assuming we removed all similar regulation so the lack of regulation does not its self imply safety.) Of course you wouldn't. We have journalists to uncover dangers like this; they are clearly financially incentivised to do so. We have courts to assess damages. We don't need government regulation. Such a common trope that "the heartless capital…

> Fossil fuels still kill people, but we don't regulate against it

ULEZ, Euro 6, clean air act (both US and UK), there are more though.

Re: Asbestosis

#119

Post by im3w1l »

monooso wrote: post #39
sva_ wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't blame Imgur for that, but the UK gov + people who elected them/didn't resist.

Pray tell, precisely how should we have resisted?

It's ironic that even when the subject is resistance you are looking for a master to tell you what to do. If you want to be free there must be a choice and for there to be a choice there must alternatives.

  How *could* we have resisted? What were our options?
This is not just a theorethical complaint. I think there were in practice many different things you (in the plural sense) could have done that could have worked adequately. Too many things to list here, you can look up how other people protested in the past.

Re: Asbestosis

#120

Post by jaccola »

KaiserPro wrote: post #118
jaccola wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you buy a product with asbestos in if it wasn't regulated against? (Assuming we removed all similar regulation so the lack of regulation does not its self imply safety.) Of course you wouldn't. We have journalists to uncover dangers like this; they are clearly financially incentivised to do so. We have courts to assess damages. We don't need government regulation. Such a common trope that "the heartless capital…

> Fossil fuels still kill people, but we don't regulate against it ULEZ, Euro 6, clean air act (both US and UK), there are more though.

You are correct, I meant regulate to ban them.

No doubt when electric cars become better in every way than fossil fuel cars, the government will create a regulation banning fossil fuel cars. Everyone will rejoice that the government stopped those horrible fossil-fuel burning cars! Of course, the vast majority of people would have switched to the electric cars at this point anyway.

Post reply on HN