Asbestos

[Anonymous No.1485689]

Sorry if I'm late to the party /diy/, but now that Asbetos is being normalized once more by the EPA in the United States, how worried should your average blue-collar tradesman be? Nobody seems to be talking about anymore this but it feels like kind of a big deal for anyone who works on any sites.

Is this all blown out of proportion or will we all have Mesothelioma in 40 years? What am I missing here? This seems like an absolutely terrible idea so why is it evening being considered?

[Anonymous No.1485700]

The big problem with asbestos is the fibers getting in your lungs, if they have improved it from the last 40 years to not give off these fibers, then (in theory) you should be good.

[Anonymous No.1485741]

>>1485689
All it takes is one lungful at the wrong time and you are fucked years later.

[Anonymous No.1485756]

>>1485741
Just 1???

Uh oh...

I always heard people around it got it all the time. I just guted a house ventalation system for 1 day.

Well, i guess we'll see. Too late now.

[Anonymous No.1485762]

>>1485741
I would LOVE to see the proof for this one. Extremely vague, and smacks of end times prophecy as well, so I'm calling bullshit, and you can go fuck off.

[Anonymous No.1485764]

>>1485762
what don't you get?
fibres poke holes in your lungs and your body has no mechanism to excrete or dissolve the fibre.
maybe if they come up with a kind of asbestos magnet a doctor could use to extract them.
but you wouldn't get better, just wouldn't get worse.

[Anonymous No.1485787]

>>1485764
Generally those guys with significant asbestos-related problems have handled that shit all day every day for years or even decades. On the other extreme, I've seen one paper where minor effects were observed after just some months of daily exposure, but even that is quite far from your "one whiff and you're fucked".

So yeah, I'm interested in seeing your proof, too.

[Anonymous No.1485800]

>>1485764
The problem is you can say the same shit about anything. Hell, one lungful of water at the wrong time and you're fucked right NOW. Is water a bigger problem than asbestos? What don't YOU get? That everything has levels of danger and consequences? Or that we're asking for some citations besides "Hurr! Everyone knows this shit!"? If one lungful of asbestos is going to kill me when I'm 85, but I'm going to die from a stroke at 80, than I just don't give a fuck about the asbestos. It's not hard, Anon.

[Anonymous No.1485809]

>>1485764
more people get cancer from cigarettes in a year than asbestos has caused in all its years

its way overblown I knew a few old guys that made it to there 90s and they installed it for years and when they sprayed it, it made the room fog up with fibers. one of the keys is not to smoke in a dusty environment it will also keep you from getting lead poisoning

[Anonymous No.1485817]

>>1485809
Jesus you're retarded. This shit fucks your lungs and gives you causes cancer, we dont need to know more than that, ban the shit.

What are good arguments for keeping it other than increasing the size your boss's wallet? The people benefiting from the product are not the ones that have to deal with the consequences of using it many years later in their lives. And company's will try to blame the workers for not using proper safety equipment. Even though those fibers stick to
every piece of clothing you use on your work site, and be inevitably brought to your home, where it will end up in the lungs of you and your family. Its really fucked up if people are going back to using it.

>It doesn't even kill as many people as one of the biggest killers in the world, its totally harmless.
End yourself.

[Anonymous No.1485821]

>>1485817
if you work around high heat asbestos is a god tier material. also the evidence against it was circumstantial at best when it was banned. it was used in shitloads of stuff for a very long time why is everyone not dead from this evil dust then. I personally knew men that worked in clouds of asbestos for 60 hours a week installing fireproofing for years and never got effected. truth is the risk rating is lower than smoking cigarettes to get mesothelioma. also are you fine with fiberglass? it does the same shit to your body asbestos does your body cant break down glass so better ban that too.
if you read the osha guidelines fucking everything will kill you and will tell you to wear a fucking respirator when in a dusty environment. also concrete dust has caused health problems than asbestos has ever caused but thats perfectly a ok

[Anonymous No.1485823]

>>1485689
It is not being "normalized", they're just open to more uses if it can be proven to be used safely. Right now its only being used in heavy machinery break pads and concrete. They're not going to approve of it in general building insulation again since it has already been proven to be unsafe.

[Anonymous No.1485825]

>>1485821
>also the evidence against it was circumstantial at best when it was banned. it was used in shitloads of stuff for a very long time why is everyone not dead from this evil dust then. I personally knew men that worked in clouds of asbestos for 60 hours a week installing fireproofing for years and never got effected.

I really need more than a your word and a personal anecdote to be convinced that its not harmfull.

>All forms of asbestos are carcinogenic to humans. Exposure to asbestos, including chrysotile, causes cancer of the lung, larynx, and ovaries, and also mesothelioma (a cancer of the pleural and peritoneal linings). Asbestos exposure is also responsible for other diseases such as asbestosis (fibrosis of the lungs), and plaques, thickening and effusion in the pleura.

Currently, about 125 million people in the world are exposed to asbestos at the workplace. Approximately half of the deaths from occupational cancer are estimated to be caused by asbestos. In addition, it is estimated that several thousand deaths annually can be attributed to exposure to asbestos in the home.

This is from The World Health Organisation
http://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/asbestos-elimination-of-asbestos-related-diseases

[Anonymous No.1485826]

a fitter who worked with the guys I work with now's wife died just from hugging him when he came home from work, washing his overalls for him, just from the odd now and again where he had it on his overalls. asbestos shill pls go.

[Anonymous No.1485827]

>>1485826
But its like really good at heat insulation man.

[Anonymous No.1485831]

>>1485823
>>1485827
Yeah it's a good material. If you want an outright ban you might as well ban nuclear power plants cause they contain "dangerous material". You just need a protocol to safely handle anything that falls into that category.
Obviously the last time around we didn't know how dangerous it was, but the fact that it's still being used shows that it fills a niche that other materials simply can't.

[Anonymous No.1485836]

>>1485831
>Yeah it's a good material.
Good material? You mean the material that kills thousands every year? 'Good' is a really funny word to use here.

Once there is industry built around it, you can bet your ass lobbyists will be lining the pockets of dumb politicians to further reduce the regulations on it. Fuck asbestos.

[Anonymous No.1485859]

>>1485836
thousands is a low number when theres billions of people
silica exposure kills 5000 people a year and thats just sand

[Anonymous No.1485861]

>>1485689
>Asbetos is being normalized once more by the EPA in the United States

Jesus Christ Ameribros. Stay safe, stay healthy.

t. Solidary Euro

[Anonymous No.1485869]

>>1485689
>a big deal for anyone who works on any sites.
Where is it being normalized? I'm a carpenter and only encounter it in renovations. I mostly do new construction and never see it.

>will we all have Mesothelioma in 40 years?
Some kind of lung problems I'm sure. I've definitely sucked down a little too much silica dust, and I'm sure that the dust from cutting plastic building materials isn't doing me any favors.

[Anonymous No.1485904]

>>1485800
You're either a retard or a shill. With water there's immediate feedback before you start drowning. With asbestos, you don't notice anything until decades later. Your second point is still retarded though. It happens a lot sooner than age 85.

[Anonymous No.1485955]

Asbesdos is a roulette. A single fiber is enough to function as a carciogen but your lungs do have a mechanism to clear the bronchioles. There is no cillia in the alveoli however so if it gets in there in the wrong way at the wrong time you're fucked. Also it decays over time so old houses fill up with the dust fibers and kids get fucked by it.

[Anonymous No.1485973]

>>1485821
being this retarded.

[Anonymous No.1485995]

>>1485817
Um... It's a natural substance that occurs whether we use it or not, sweetie. You can't just "ban the shit." Run along now, somewhere I'm sure there's a tree that needs a hug, or a bear. I hear that bears are pretty cuddly, actually.

[Anonymous No.1486000]

>>1485995
>It's a natural substance that occurs whether we use it or not, sweetie

Whether or not asbestos is a problem...using this argument is akin to waving a giant flag with "I'm a retard" written on it.

As an obvious example, botulinum toxins, literally the most poisonous thing to humans we've ever found, occur naturally. "It's a natural substance" doesn't mean jack shit, one way or the other. Asbestos me be found naturally, but your exposure to it (you know, the make-or-break factor regarding any kind of hazardous substance) in the wild amounts to next to nothing, mitigating any real risk.

You cannot simply write off a poison/toxin/carcinogen/whatever because an arbitrarily small dose won't effect you any more than you can write off a bullet to your head because you got shot with an Nerf gun and survived.

[Anonymous No.1486003]

>>1485689

[Anonymous No.1486010]

>>1485689
The EPA bascially said they were open to new uses for the material. This included proving that it won't produce that oh so dangerous dust during instillation, use, or removal. So if I can demonstrate a modular foam board that includes Asbestos but produces flakes to large to get airborne even when drilled, then we might have fireproof insulation again.

[Anonymous No.1486026]

>>1486010
a epoxy style asbestos would probably work pretty good

[Anonymous No.1486029]

>>1486000
>your exposure to it in the wild amounts to next to nothing
>next to nothing
>NEXT TO
That is, like many natural substances, normal exposure is low but not zero.

>You cannot simply write off a poison/toxin/carcinogen/whatever because an arbitrarily small dose won't effect you
Isn't that what you just did there? Wrote off the effects of environmental asbestos exposure because you think it falls below an arbitrary threshold?

To go with your obvious example, botulinum toxin is produced by a ubiquitous bacterium. It can be found on pretty much all food products exposed to soil that are not then cooked or pasteurized. It's in honey, for example. "Banning" botox from these food products outright would effectively prevent their legal use as food. Instead of that, exposure limits are used instead of outright bans, and people are advised to be careful when preparing food for babies and other people with weak immune systems.

[Anonymous No.1486041]

>>1486010
>drilling
>no airborne flakes

You all ready fucked up

[Anonymous No.1486042]

>>1486041
reread that post numb-nuts

[Anonymous No.1486094]

>>1486000
Why would you greentext a direct quote from a post, then respond to something that is never stated in the post you're responding to, let alone in your greentext? I want to say that's what's called a strawman... And as to the whole "exposure amounting to next to nothing" thing, no no no! It's stated here, >>1485955, that "a single fiber" is enough to cause problems. Looks like you get to eat at the kiddie table for Thanksgiving again this year. Work on your reading comprehension, Anon.

[Anonymous No.1486120]

I currently work in asbestos removal, in Europe.
I know guys that used to work in the industry before they proper masks and filters were used.
Some are fine, some wear oxygen mask because they cant breathe otherwise.
The pain of mesotolioom ( the cancer you can get from asbestos fibers) is the same as an elephent sitting on your chest while you breathe.
Dont fuck arouns with this stuff, in 10- 30 years it wil come back to hunt you.
Ask me anything asbestos related an ill answer you( in the best english
I can ;)

[Anonymous No.1486121]

>people ITT actually think there's a "safe" application or "safe" exposure level to asbestos

bros, please. It is literally made from tiny fibers from the moment it comes out of the ground, any sort of working of the material causes the tiny fibers to break apart, releasing what are essentially microscopic needles. They become airborne because they have a large surface area for their mass, they're not "safe" to inhale in ANY amount, there is no "normal background exposure" like radiation. Unless you can create a material using asbestos which does not fragment at all, it WILL release those microscopic pieces when you work it or damage it. If it's in an epoxy or some shit it will release them when you drill, sand or cut it. There's really no safe way to use the stuff for anything other than industrial or lab purposes where all who are exposed are wearing proper breathing apparatus.

[Anonymous No.1486125]

>>1485689
Unless you work in industry or waste disposal it doesn't affect you. This shit is currently used as a refractory material, not in home building.

[Anonymous No.1486129]

>>1485821
Glas fibre breaks like sphaget while asbestos breaks along the axle
The fibres are longer and the cells that should remove them get literall pierced while devouring the fibre
Its not the same as glass
Thats the main difference

[Anonymous No.1486130]

Apparently asbestos is only really used in spacecrafts for its heat resistance. But if they want heat resistance they should use steel beams.

[Anonymous No.1486131]

>>1486029
>Wrote off the effects of environmental asbestos exposure because you think it falls below an arbitrary threshold?

Yes, because humanity doesn't have a chronic history of dying due to asbestos inhalation. Stepping up exposure by a couple orders of magnitude is a whole new issue.

>To go with your obvious example

I don't even know where you're trying to go with this. At no point did I even imply favoring a zero-tolerance ban. To be clear, I am not >>1485817. I am merely pointing out the stupidity of using "hurr durr it's natural" as an argument, that's it. I had thought this would be obvious with the explicit statement about exposure being the make-or-break factor for harmful effects.

>>1486094

There is no way this isn't a troll, and I'm giving (You) the benefit of the doubt. The only other option is that you are actually too braindead to figure out what was being stated. That being said, I'd be mildly curious to see what pretzel logic results in this particular misinterpretation.

[Anonymous No.1486132]

>>1485859
Had to fucking jewjewgo (TM) it. Shit's pretty funny.

[Anonymous No.1486163]

>>1486131
If you aren't >>1485817, then all you are doing is muddying the waters and causing confusion. It's no wonder that you can't follow what's being said; but by all means, put on your tard helmet and jump into the fray! Call everyone else special while you're at it! You could honestly be PUSA someday if you keep this up.

[Anonymous No.1486195]

>>1485689
i mean, its not difficult to wear a respirator when working with asbestos. especially now that everybody knows its bad for you. in 1940 nobody knew it was cancer city

[Anonymous No.1486196]

>>1485817
>This shit fucks your lungs and gives you causes cancer, we dont need to know more than that, ban the shit.
carb cleaner also causes cancer if misused.

[Anonymous No.1486224]

>>1485904
Water containing bacteria probably kills more people yearly, than asbestos. Legionnaires disease is just one example.

[Anonymous No.1486228]

>>1485689
Well, I guess that means designated shitting streets are next.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrYSrJdS5bQ

[Anonymous No.1486253]

>>1485689
>so why is it evening being considered?
Because killing poor people to for profit is what makes America great !

[Anonymous No.1486261]

>>1485756
>Knows it's dangerous
>Doesn't wear PPE
No-one but yourself to blame, Anon.

[Anonymous No.1486264]

>>1485821
>evidence against it was circumstantial at best
Right, so those corporations paid compensation out of the goodness of their hearts? Shills gonna shill.

[Anonymous No.1486270]

>>1486196
>whataboutism
kys

[Anonymous No.1486274]

>>1485689
>so why is it evening being considered?
Because rather than draining the swamp,Trump has monetized it for his corporate doners.

[Anonymous No.1486278]

>>1486264
they were forced to by the government

[Anonymous No.1486279]

>>1486278
Yes, because the allegations were totally unfounded and not backed by irrefutable evidence, so the Government forced them to pay because the Jews ordered them to, right?

[Anonymous No.1486289]

>>1485800
if you have water in lungs you can go to doctor and get it out
>>1485809
if you smoke you can quit and usually lungs will heal and no problem

pokey needle dust makes holes and turns lung tissue into scar tissue or some shit its irreversible.

[Anonymous No.1486676]

>>1486224
>Legionnaires disease
Is treatable with antibiotics. I'll wager that most of the deaths are in 3rd world countries.

[Anonymous No.1486690]

>blue collar tradesman

Enjoy your blown out knees before you are 35

[Anonymous No.1486705]

>>1486690
eh more like dying from smoking too much, or some kind of weird infection from water soluble oil bacteria

[Anonymous No.1486708]

>>1486289

>if you have water in lungs you can go to doctor and get it out

You can manage a trip to the doctor so he can take the drowning out of you?

[Anonymous No.1486733]

People supporting the use of asbestos are reaching levels of cuckoldry that shouldn't even be possible. I wish they were forced to snort a long line of powdered asbestos as a prize. Thank god I'm in Europe.

[Anonymous No.1486751]

>>1486121
There are safe applications. All of them involve trained personnel in a clean environment.

[Anonymous No.1486753]

>>1486751
Are you illiterate or just in too much of a hurry to read my whole post?

[Anonymous No.1486885]

>>1486270
I'll plant my flag here. This "whataboutism" defense is pure retardation in general. This exchange is a perfect example:
>hurr durr, asbestos bad
>>no U, carb cleaner bad too
>heh retard what about whataboutism
Both people are claiming something is bad, I don't get why the second claim constitutes some special class of retarded argument any more than the first.

[Anonymous No.1486887]

>>1485764
Is this the trade equivalent of bro science?

[Anonymous No.1486888]

>>1486289
>if you have water in lungs you can go to doctor and get it out
I’m glad I wasn’t taking a drink when I read this hahaha.

[Anonymous No.1486889]

>>1486887
Not really, since he's correct. Asbestos lung damage is indeed due to the tiny fibers damaging tissue and your body having no way to deal with the fiber other than to incapsulate it in scar tissue.

[Anonymous No.1486916]

>>1486753
too much of a hurry, too lazy to delete

[Anonymous No.1487890]

>>1486885
>I don't get why the second claim constitutes some special class of retarded argument any more than the first.
Because the second claim is made as a way to dismiss the first claim as irrelevant. That is why whataboutism is retarded. If something is irrelevant then prove it, instead of going "Ooh look, a squirrel"

[Anonymous No.1487897]

>>1486130
>using steel beams to resist heat

[Anonymous No.1487907]

>>1487890
Ok I see your point, but the way I interpreted this one is not that he's going for 'irrelevant' but more like "if you want to talk about banning things that are bad for you, there's a shitload more things than asbestos we can discuss" he just did it without so many words. In most cases that's the way I interpret the arguments that get dismissed by others for their 'whataboutism. Usually I find the exchange up to the accusation to be s a pretty appropriate metaphor for either the futility of addressing such a small part of a larger problem and then the whataboutism accuser missing the forest for the trees.

[Anonymous No.1487925]

>>1487907
I'm not the guy, but that is a horrible way to approach problems. It only serves to de-legitimize the problem you are talking about. Of course there are other issues in the world, bigger even, but no-one actually approaches problem solving by starting with the biggest problem we face and then work your way down. Or merge all remotely similar issues into one that is impossible to solve.

All you end up doing is dismiss actual arguments.

For example if we were to talk about sexual harassment at the work place, and you would bring up:
>Well there are women out there that actually get forcibly raped, shouldn't you fight for them instead?

Obviously everyone agrees that that is an important and even bigger issue, but everyone in the argument already agrees that rape is bad, so by bringing it up you just distract from the issue they were originally focusing on. Its a very fallacious way of arguing.

[Anonymous No.1488279]

>>1485995
Well, yes it is, but:
a) there's plenty of natural substances that are dangerous
b) asbestos fibres are well known to be a danger to your health
c) mining asbestos generates huge quantities of loose fibres
d) asbestos containing materials release fibres over time and asbestos containment on said materials also decays over time resulting in fibres being released too
It's a great material but boy does it fuck people up, and yes, yes you can ban the industrial/commercial use of anything, that's just one of those things about living in a society of laws
I really don't see how we're still going around in this circle, literally one fifth of the residents of Libby, Montana developed asbestos related lung disease following the opening of a nearby asbestos mine, can we please not do this again?

[Anonymous No.1488509]

>>1485689
>is this all blown out of proportion

Take a day off work, go walk around a grocery store at 10am on a Tuesday. Then go eat at a golden corral at noon.

You'll see nothing but grey hairs with all sorts of lung and neurological problems. They are EVERYWHERE because of the conditions they grew up in.

Believe it or not, the people who rally for safer working conditions and bans on hazardous material aren't doing it as some sort of conspiracy to fuck over their neighbors. Neither are the objective scientists who deemed it too unhealthy in the first place.

The only people who are actively trying to fuck their fellow man are the corporate scum who want to trade your health for a few bucks. Who exactly do you think is pushing the"its overbown" agenda?

[Anonymous No.1488724]

>>1485825
flase flagging by lieing shills

[Anonymous No.1488728]

>>1488509
>The only people who are actively trying to fuck their fellow man are the corporate scum who want to trade your health for a few bucks. Who exactly do you think is pushing the"its overbown" agenda?
this

>>1488724
hello, shill

[Anonymous No.1488763]

>>1488279
So everyone is on your side, you need the weakest argument in history and your post will still sound cool and we'll all be on your side... So why do you then proceed to spout bullshit? The only things true about Libby Montana that you said was that there were asbestos related deaths there. Did you straight up just make up the rest, or are you repeating shit you heard without checking?

[Anonymous No.1488790]

>>1487925
>>Well there are women out there that actually get forcibly raped, shouldn't you fight for them instead?
Yeah I think we should fight for them instead. That's a little more important to me on a moral level than some drunk slut who woke up to a guy a few levels uglier than she remembered the night before.

[Anonymous No.1488848]

>>1488763
>without checking
if I really must, I guess I can go through what I said line by line with you
>a) there's plenty of natural substances that are dangerous
Do we really need to unpack this one? I can understand maybe questioning some of my other points but do you need a list of natural substances that are hazardous to your health? How about puffer fish toxin? That is a natural substance, but it's not a great idea to drink it. Peanuts are pretty dangerous to some people. Hemlock isn't great for you either.
>b) asbestos fibres are well known to be a danger to your health
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.Toxicological Profile for Asbestos. September 2001. Retrieved April 18, 2017.
National Toxicology Program.Asbestos. In:Report on Carcinogens. Fourteenth Edition.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program, 2016.
Ullrich RL. Etiology of cancer: Physical factors. In: DeVita VT Jr., Hellman S, Rosenberg SA, editors.Cancer: Principles and Practice of Oncology. Vol. 1 and 2. 7thed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2004.
U.S. Geological Survey.Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2016: Asbestos. Retrieved April 18, 2017.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.Health Effects of Asbestos. Retrieved April 18, 2017.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Health Effects Assessment for Asbestos.September 1984. EPA/540/1-86/049 (NTIS PB86134608). Retrieved April 18, 2017.
>c) mining asbestos generates huge quantities of loose fibres
Again, do we really have to unpack this one? Anyone who has seen literally any mine can attest to it, and this is post restrictions on the level of asbestos fibres that is allowed in the air

[Anonymous No.1488850]

>>1488763
>d) asbestos containing materials release fibres over time and asbestos containment on said materials also decays over time resulting in fibres being released too
If an asbestos containing materials is left to sit there, it generally won't release fibres into the air, but this is just not reality, a roof tile gets damaged in a storm, a slab of insulation gets wet, any disturbance to it will result in the tiny fibres becoming airborne, and that's without saying anything about the next owner of the building, or the owner after that and any remodelling, demolition, etc...
>It's a great material but boy does it fuck people up,
As above
>and yes, yes you can ban the industrial/commercial use of anything, that's just one of those things about living in a society of laws
Do I really need to go over this with you too?
>I really don't see how we're still going around in this circle, literally one fifth of the residents of Libby, Montana developed asbestos related lung disease following the opening of a nearby asbestos mine, can we please not do this again?

[Anonymous No.1488851]

>>1488763
Libby, Montana had 2,500 people living there in 2010, but this is down from a peak of around 3,300 in the 70s. According to the 2000 census there were 8668 people in the area around and including Libby that the EPA sampled, and 10,362 in the zip code area, you can check this yourself, it is publicly available here
US Census Bureau. American fact finder, data set from 2000 summary file 1, 5-digit zip code tabulation area 59923. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce. URL: http://factfinder.census.gov..
There have been over 400 deaths due to and over 2400 cases of asbestos related lung disease in Libby, these figures come from the Libby Epidemiology Research Project carried out by the Center for Asbestos Related Disease, although various news outlets have reported a figure of 3000+, I tend to favour this estimate because it's also closer to another result of 18% with asbestos related lung disease out of 7307 Libby residents who were studied by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in 2001. I rounded to 20%, between the two estimates, also known as one fifth.
References:
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Health consultation on mortality from asbestosis in Libby, Montana for Libby Asbestos site. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services. December 12, 2000.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Year 2000 medical testing of individuals potentially exposed to asbestoform minerals associated with vermiculite in Libby, Montana: a report to the community. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Health consultation on mortality in Libby, Montana. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services. August, 2002. 18. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Preliminary findings of Libby, Montana asbestos medical testing. URL: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/pha/LibbyAsbestosSite/MT_LibbyPHAMay-15-2003_508.pdf

[Anonymous No.1488853]

>>1488763
Now please elaborate on exactly which part of my post is bullshit

[Anonymous No.1488883]

>>1485689
Well I am both glad and deeply concerned.

I believe that many hazardous substances response actions were over blown, and such fear hurt our over all potential. A straight up ban hurts us in many ways.

That said there is such a plague of stupid people that I would regulate the heck out of it. Sorry DIY, but I just don't trust the regular folks with this stuff and I know someone will try something if it is available.

The simple facts are Asbestos is just one of a much larger and more complex hazard that is already everywhere, Nanomaterials. (and generally just bad designing that favors such stuff to fix a preventable problem)

After going to college to study them for a bit I was both amazed at what they could do, and mortified at the huge hidden cost they had. I switched from the stance of our glorious Nano future, to use only in extreme cases where it pays off.

So if you are going to Mars or some other major critical thing, use it because it is amazing and will get the job done. But don't use it for common applications because you simple can't trust current people to use it correctly, and there are many simpler and cheaper alternatives in the long run.

P.S. I have since got a basic nano-particulate protection set in my car, because of what I learned, and I was taking a Frit mixing class back then. And even then it is not a substitute for a proper clean room setup, so I absolutely avoid it when able.

[Anonymous No.1488890]

>>1488853
Yeah, I'm not reading all that shit: throwing up a wall of text doesn't make you right. It wasn't a fifth. It wasn't an asbestos mine. They died because they used the byproducts from the mine, not because the mine was merely close. That one is tenuous: you use vague phrasing to hint that it was because of the mine being there, but it's not as if the mine was throwing clouds of asbestos into the air, but I'm still calling bullshit because you're an autismo. That being said, you're still right, I'm on your side, shit can be dangerous. There way you phrased your example just sucks is all.

[Anonymous No.1488891]

>>1486733
>he thinks we don't use asbestos in Europe
Got some news for you m8

[Anonymous No.1488907]

>>1485762
Google australia+asbestos+lawsuit
Educate yourself you fucking twat

[Anonymous No.1488928]

>>1488907
Don't really care about a legal ruling in a nanny state there, Hoss. That's not exactly proof.

[Anonymous No.1488933]

WHY would people support a substance that fucking kills you?
DO you fucks want the Jews to make more money?

[Anonymous No.1488988]

>>1485689
>Asbetos is being normalized once more by the EPA in the United States
holy fuck america don't go full retard ok

[Anonymous No.1488989]

>>1488928
>a legal ruling in a nanny state
yeah good argument buddy, those asbestos fibres won't give you mesothelioma cos you live in free world oorah fucking idiot

[Anonymous No.1488996]

>>1488933
>DO you fucks want the Jews to make more money?

Yes, at the expense of my one and only body living my one and only life.

[Anonymous No.1489003]

>>1488890
Jesus dude don't you remember this from when it was all over the news? None of this is new information, WR Grace was hauled over the coals for things like not providing coveralls or showers, so the workers in the mine took all their asbestos dust home with them
The last link I posted has the numbers for you on page 18 under Morbidity Information if you want to go ahead and disprove your own misconceptions

[Anonymous No.1489018]

>>1485689
When the tobacco companies were sued and ordered to pay a couple billion dollars, they said hell that's nothin, we'll pay twice that, if you throw in a clause saying that tobacco companies can never be sued again, even if they intentionally put poison in their products.
The government agreed, so henceforth the tobacco companies can and do use pesticides that would kill an elephant, because they can get away with it.

Since that case worked so well for the tobacco companies, other industries are following the same model. Asbestos is bad, but your cars and trucks need clutches and brake pads, and there are other places where asbestos is cheaper to use than other materials. Now that the lawsuit is settled, and everyone knows asbestos is bad, they just have to put a warning label on the package saying use at your own risk, and you accept responsibility for any harm that comes to others from your use of the product.
so you can never sue the tobacco company, because you smoked at your own risk, but other people around you when you smoke, can sue you personally for harm that your smoking does. This includes children of smokers, suing their parents... employees suing their boss, etc.

Asbestos is bad, you know it's bad. If you continue to drive a car with asbestos brakes or asbestos clutch, anyone in the city you drive in can sue you making asbestos dust. The mechanic who adjusts your brakes, can sue you for giving him mesothelioma. But nobody, can ever again sue the manufacturer, because the government gave them immunity as part of the settlement agreement.
Many more cases like this are being settled, to protect manufacturers, and it will allow industries to poison you with impunity.

[Anonymous No.1489022]

>>1488989
You got me, that's what I said... A Court ruling proves nothing, good, bad, ugly or otherwise, and it also has nothing to do with whether or not I or anyone else gets cancer from asbestos. It's not scientific, it's the feeling of judge. And in Australia the government thinks you're so stupid and incapable that you can't even replace a light switch yourself, so fuck off with your strawman.

>>1489003
No, dude, I don't remember it. I don't tend to watch much of the news because anything sensational seems to be played up. Again, 20% didn't die from it, it wasn't an asbestos mine, and NOW (even though he was skewered in court and in the news evidently), the mine owner was exonerated? Wtf? You make it sound like he was guilty of pulling the trigger and blowing out their brains himself, but they let him go when such a sensational issue was at the heart of the case? Sounds like blown up, sensational shit. Just like your description of it. You like the killdozer guy too, don't you?

[Anonymous No.1489023]

>>1485689

[Anonymous No.1489095]

>>1488790
>That's a little more important to me on a moral level than some drunk slut who woke up to a guy a few levels uglier than she remembered the night before.
Were not even talking about this, and you felt the need give your incel take on sexual harassment? Jesus.

[Anonymous No.1489161]

>>1488988
Too late.

[Anonymous No.1489163]

>>1489022
>The law is broke and rich powerful people rarely suffer the consequences of their actions
How is this news to you?

[Anonymous No.1489194]

>>1485762
That's how cancer works, you may not be a smoker, but if you huff some other dope's smoke just once you have a (very low) chance of getting lung cancer. For each huff, your chance goes up. The same goes for other carcinogenic substances, inhaled, swallowed, absorbed by skin, etc,

[Anonymous No.1489290]

>>1489022
Oh, you just can't read, that's funny, I don't really see how you can expect to have a grown up conversation about something if you can't even read. Please point out where I said that 20% of the town died, I can wait, but I think I'll be waiting a while

[Anonymous No.1489333]

>>1489290
Fuck, you're right. I did skim over that and got it wrong, my bad Anon. And that was part of what made me shake my head and question your lineage. Apologies. Sticking with: I'm on your side, but I still think you're blowing it up a little. I've said that a couple of times now, for the record.

>>1489194
That's kind of how cancer works, maybe, in one particular way. I'm thinking it has to do with telomeres, and your DNA being damaged, and it's entirely probable that the damage that your "one puff" causes will be completely fixed at the cellular level. There is no way to nail down a case of cancer to one particular exposure, because there are just too many variables. Once again, asbestos is bad, I agree completely with that, but I'm not foolish enough to say your cancer 40 years from now will be caused by a single exposure to it today.

[Anonymous No.1489335]

>>1489333
>That's kind of how cancer works, maybe, in one particular way. I'm thinking it has to do with telomeres, and your DNA being damaged, and it's entirely probable that the damage that your "one puff" causes will be completely fixed at the cellular level. There is no way to nail down a case of cancer to one particular exposure, because there are just too many variables. Once again, asbestos is bad, I agree completely with that, but I'm not foolish enough to say your cancer 40 years from now will be caused by a single exposure to it today.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-johnson-johnson-cancer-lawsuit/women-who-sued-jj-declare-victory-after-4-69-billion-talc-verdict-idUKKBN1K92SO

[Anonymous No.1489391]

>>1489335
DNA is absolutely dependent on Vitamin intake.
A large percentage of the population aren't getting enough of some vitamins, and it makes them vulnerable to cancer. A healthy person might not be affected by asbestos, but less than 10% of the population are healthy.
Caffeine use is another factor. Caffeine itself is not carcinogenic, but caffeine turns off your cells ability to stop mutation. Drinking and eating caffeine opens the door to cancer.

If you drink coffee you will probably get cancer.

[Anonymous No.1489479]

first world problems

[Anonymous No.1489484]

>>1489095
sorry I didn't see
>at the workplace
but my point remains, would you rather have your wife's butt grabbed by a co-worker who she could easily get fired by today's standards, or forcibly raped by Jamal when she's jogging through central park?
>inb4 muh whataboutism

[Anonymous No.1489518]

>>1489484
Why would anyone choose one over the other? Are they mutually exclusive? Why do I have to pick one of them and not neither?

[Anonymous No.1489623]

>>1489484
by today's standards you don't make a complaint against a coworker without getting backlash, or probably fired.

the first thing the company does when you make a complaint is... investigate YOU
presumably to verify the credibility of your story.
they pull all your social media, credit reports, everything, and they quickly brand you as a slut. this stops any lawsuit against the company dead in it's tracks. Then they investigate the alleged butt grabber, and send them to sensitivity training to show that they as a company took action. This is company policy where by law, the company must protect the stockholders. usually any bitch who makes a complaint is a risk, and they dont want risk, so she will be laid off.
be honest, you know your wife only goes jogging to meet up with jamal. she only says it was rape if you follow her and she get caught.

[Anonymous No.1489913]

>>1489623
What do you even want your boss to do when you take this stuff to them? Fire somebody? On your word alone? Sorry m80 but employees have rights, even Steve from accounts whom you don't like, and yes, even Manager Brian whom you said grabbed your ass. The company has to follow the law, the fair process of a reasonable employer involves investigating the complaint in good faith, informing and involving the accused, and taking into account what all parties have to say before any decisions are made. If you decide that is too onerous and rescind your complaint half way through the process then that's on you, and I guess it didn't matter to you that much in the first place.

[Anonymous No.1490046]

>>1489913
It's pointless to try and understand feminists. Logic doesn't apply to women. They try to get men fired, so they can climb the ladder. Some suggest that they think men ruled for hundreds of years, so women should have their turn for a few hundred years.
Thankfully, most women are happy to have men in charge, and they enjoy the benefits.

[Anonymous No.1490074]

>>1486195
And then wear a full suit to prevent it getting in yoeur clothes. Then when you are done go to the scrubbing shed and clean your self after discarding the suit and respirator. Seems easy enough right mate?

[Anonymous No.1490101]

>>1485689
>Asbetos is being normalized once more by the EPA in the United States

Fake News.

[Anonymous No.1490245]

>>1489518
I'm saying you should pick both of them. Both are societal problems, but forcible rape should be dealt with more harshly and protested against more vigorously than workplace harassment.

[Anonymous No.1490275]

>>1490245
According to your view there's no reason why a business shouldn't try to address sexual harrassment in their workplace, just because bigger/worse issues exist doesn't mean smaller/less awful issues should be ignored, so do you see why whataboutism is fallacious now?

[Anonymous No.1490276]

>>1490245
>forcible rape should be dealt with more harshly than workplace harassment
Are you claiming that that is not the case now?

[Anonymous No.1490282]

>>1490276
no that's what the word "and" means... deal with more harshly "and" protest against more vigorously. Did you get it this time?
>>1490275
I agree that a business should address sexual harassment in the workplace, problem is that once they do that they generally feel a sense of moral superiority and think they have nothing more to do.
For instance our country is going to shit because there's no sense of community or social responsibility anymore among individuals nor businesses. The place I work gives everyone that works there a turkey on thanksgiving. They operate in a town of 5,000 with nearly half on food stamps, including some of the employees. Does that turkey absolve all social responsibility they have to the town that they operate in? My boss sure thinks it does.

[Anonymous No.1490324]

hotpockets nuke thread

[Anonymous No.1490338]

>>1489913
> If you decide that is too onerous and rescind your complaint half way through the process then that's on you, and I guess it didn't matter to you that much in the first place.

gonna lol when this shit happens to your daughter and tell her not to press charges. Or not to bring up to her boss how several people on her sales team make jokes about fucking her up the ass. Or that her has made it clear he'll promote her if she starts sucking his dick on business trips.. or that if she doesn't, he'll replace her.

And you will remind her that she will get investigated first, and the company will try and shit on her... but that you've got her back. That if this really happened, she will risk her job, her income, caring for her own daughter... on filing the report. right? Lol.

Just picture her on her knees sucking down his knob so she can keep her job, and let it warm your heart that you made sure he'll never face any consequences for it.

[Anonymous No.1490349]

>>1490338
Do you think his daughter is likely to work in Hollywood? Or be transported to the fictional world of mad men?

[Anonymous No.1490354]

>>1485689
is the thing in the photo asbestos?
I think I licked some when I was a kid

[Anonymous No.1490405]

>>1490282
>I agree that a business should address sexual harassment in the workplace, problem is that once they do that they generally feel a sense of moral superiority and think they have nothing more to do.
That is pure projection and speculation on your part, your boss knows that he could do more for the hungry, giving everyone a turkey on Thanksgiving is not going to save the starving children in Africa, but it's still a nice thing to do for everyone who works there

[Anonymous No.1490406]

>>1490338
Why would I tell my daughter to not press charges though? Why would I tell her to be a doormat and to take that shit lying down? Jesus what world do you even live in?

[Anonymous No.1490442]

>>1485689
It's a fine way to get rid of blue collar worker. But I'm sure there's a deeper reasons for such decision.

[Anonymous No.1490518]

A hundred years ago, some shady butchers were selling bad meat, and a lot of people got sick and died.
Word spread about "bad meat" and it caused a panic across the country. The government stepped in and created a plan to convince people that meat was safe to eat. They hired an actor to wear a clown suit, and travel around the country doing shows telling people that he was the official USDA meat inspector, and that he personally inspected the meat and assured people that the meat was safe. The clown in the USDA meat inspector posters later became known as "Uncle Sam" and was used as a recruiting tool for the army during the war.

In reality, there is no "meat inspector" it was just propaganda to make people think the meat was tested, but it really isn't. Some minimum-wage employee ate the meat packing plant was given the job of stamping USDA on the meat as it passed by on the conveyor. No real testing of meat can be done, because honestly, there's no such thing as good meat, all meat is contaminated, but if it's fresh you can cook it enough to kill some of the diseases that the meat carries.

There's a long history of government protecting industry, while they pretend that they are protecting consumers.

[Anonymous No.1490538]

>>1490518
You're really going to compare the USDA from 100 years ago to today, and then vaguely relate that to asbestos? Not that this thread was ever exactly serious, but now it's nothing but a laughing stock. Well done, Anon. Please, somehow bring up GMO chickens or beef; and if you link that to the Jews it would just straight up be the icing on the cake to completely put my sides in orbit.

[Anonymous No.1490549]

>>1490538
we've already established that you're a fucking moron by the fact that you are actually considering the de-listing asbestos as a positive thing. I think anon was just trying to give you some historical perspective on why exactly you are such a fucking brainless fool.

[Anonymous No.1490552]

>>1490442
>I'm sure there's a deeper reasons for such decision.

[Anonymous No.1490558]

>>1490538
Kinda strange that you'd bring up Jews. Makes me wonder if you are one.

[Anonymous No.1490570]

>>1490549
Except "Uncle Sam" is at least 100 years older than Anon is attributing him to. So yeah, you trolled me good. 2/10 for making me reply.

>>1490558
For you, 1/10. I replied, but you were lazy and just used a tired /pol/ meme, so fewer points.

[Anonymous No.1490698]

>>1490558
Boi he did it

[Anonymous No.1490812]

>>1490405
well I ship mine to Senegal on Thanksgiving day, maybe that makes me the better person, we'll never know.

[Anonymous No.1490864]

>>1489018
>can sue you personally for harm that your smoking does
Second hand smoke is almost entirely nonsense.

[Anonymous No.1490866]

>>1490282
>social responsibility they have to the town that they operate in
Fuck off with your communist horseshit.

[Anonymous No.1490870]

>>1490866
yeah i guess that town should just stop repairing the roads that their products are transported over then, huh?

[Anonymous No.1490872]

>>1490870
Those roads are financed by property tax, you dunce.

[Anonymous No.1490876]

>>1490872
yeah my grandma who doesn't drive a car has to pay the same property tax as a for profit business who's ruining the roads transporting the heavy equipment they make. Real equitable of you there Che.

[Anonymous No.1490882]

>>1490876
Blame the government, pinko. Your grandma wouldn't have to pay if they were private, but muh roads.

[Anonymous No.1490892]

>>1490882
>if they were private
She'll be fine, she's got a spike strip ready to go and my uncle has a $350/tire repair business next door in case that ever happens.

[Anonymous No.1490898]

>>1490892
>violating the NAP and getting McNuked over $350

[Anonymous No.1490902]

>>1490898
she already owns the road due to adverse possession over the last 29 years. Yes it's officially a township road but she built a gate and maintained the surface that whole time. If ever anyone tried to claim sovereignty over her rightful land she has a bevy of warlords who she sold her daughters off to who are more than willing to defend her honor.

[Anonymous No.1490905]

>>1490902
>no kings means no laws

[Anonymous No.1490907]

>>1490905
There's a sign that has a lot of small print at the incoming end of the road.

[Anonymous No.1490975]

>>1490812
But is that good enough anon? There are people who do more to help the hungry than you

[Anonymous No.1490988]

>asbestos fibers bad
>carbon fibers good
???

[Anonymous No.1491003]

I'm uninsured

[Anonymous No.1491010]

>>1485904

You also don't get any feedback from pancreatic cancer, some brain aneurysms, aortic dissection, rabies or a bus that missed a stop sign.

One way or another, we're all on the way out. Do what you can. Don't worry about stuff you can't control.

[Anonymous No.1491020]

>>1491010
So if there are few things that don't supposedly have a pre-warning then it's okay to have asbestos on top of those ones?

Holy cow. I think have The Danube of Thoughts here.

[Anonymous No.1491030]

>>1491010
So if there are few things that don't supposedly have a pre-warning then it's okay to have asbestos on top of those ones?

Holy cow. I think we have The Danube of Thoughts here.

[Anonymous No.1491498]

>>1491010
But we do have the power to stop this asbestos madness, it was banned for a long time for good reason

[Anonymous No.1491654]

>Wont die from fire
>Dies from asbestosis instead

If thats really gonna happen, I have no hope left...

[Anonymous No.1491660]

>>1491654
The twin towers were originally designed for asbestos fire proofing. It was made illegal before they finished so both buildings were only partially treated. The replacement fire proofing was not as good. If they were fully treated it would have given responders much more time to evacuate people

[Anonymous No.1491769]

>>1491660
Just accept that this stuff is poisonous trash lmao

[Anonymous No.1491776]

as other anons said, if asbestos can be used in compounds where the risk of loosening fibers can be reduced significantly, i dont see a huge problem.
plastererbro, europe here. the biggest issue with asbestos is its recycling, which is expensive as fuck and makes it unattractive as a building material.

[Anonymous No.1491866]

>>1485787
I personally know a woman who contracted mesothelioma from washing her husbands overalls. He worked in the shipyards and she got compensation.

[Anonymous No.1491906]

>>1491660
wtf i love asbestos now.

or you know if they had taken the time to redesign properly instead of doing a shite job.

[Anonymous No.1492903]

>>1490864
t. Marlboro shill

[Anonymous No.1492906]

>>1490882
>Your grandma wouldn't have to pay if they were private
>Actually believing the corporations that pay to transport their goods to stores on toll roads won't pass on the toll charges to their customers
Why are Americans this retarded?

[Anonymous No.1492960]

>>1492906
... who else would they charge? Who else do they charge for taxes?
Corporations are fictional, people are real.

[Anonymous No.1493418]

>>1492960
>my point
>your head
smdh desu

[Anonymous No.1493499]

>>1485700
This.
There was a mine where the majority of it came from up north, I forget where, and that was the majority of the bad stuff, Asbestos is a blanket term for several types of albeit similar materials.
The new stuff isn't nearly as bad as the old stuff, and the old stuff isn't nearly as bad as they say, so long as you're not making a living installing or removing it for a living without proper PPE.

[Anonymous No.1493542]

Exponentially worse for you if you are a smoker.

[Anonymous No.1494131]

>>1486125
Old homes exist, you dummy.
We have asbestos insulation in various parts of the home, and we have a lean-to behind the house whose roof is corrugated asbestos, exactly like OP's pic. Maybe it's just you faggots in the US who know nothing more than 20 years old.

[Anonymous No.1494513]

>>1494131
>Maybe it's just you faggots in the US who know nothing
ftfy

[Anonymous No.1494548]

>>1485764
>no mechanism to excrete
This is why smokers live longer. When they cough out all the tar from smoking, the asbestos fibres are evacuated along with it.

[Anonymous No.1495052]

>>1485836
Cars kill 1.3 million people annually.
Should we ban cars, or make them safer?

[Anonymous No.1495296]

>>1491776
>the biggest issue with asbestos is its recycling, which is expensive as fuck

we tear down asbestos buildings all the time...
hose it down with water to control dust
put it in a dump truck with a cover
dump it in a bottom layer at the landfill
quickly cover it with garbage
done

do recycling, not expensive

[Anonymous No.1495303]

>>1495052
>Cars kill

I saw a car get possessed by demons once
the tires turned into legs, it stood up and walked
killed a lot of people... but it was only a movie

you should let your doctor know that you have trouble distinguishing between fantasy, and reality. cars do not kill people. drivers of cars yes, but cars cannot kill, just like guns do not kill. blaming inanimate objects = insanity

[Anonymous No.1495416]

>>1485762
>>1485756

Medfag here, that guy is kinda right but not quite.

The fibers are really small and get deep into your lungs.
There they will cause irritation and because they do not dissolve and can not be broken down by your body they just stay there and keep causing irritation. This constant irritation will cause cells to die and multiply to try and fix whatever is going on. This rapid cell division makes it more likely for small mistakes to happen during cell division and after years enough mistakes happened so you have full blown cancer.

With smoking every cigarette irritates the lungs and increases the chance to have a mistake happen while your body tries to repair the damage. With a lung full of those fibers the same thing happens. Because those fibers don't move all the bad stuff happens in one spot around the fiber or more realistically thousands of fibers at the same time. You technically only need a single fiber to get cancer while you would need thousands of cigarettes before you get lung cancer from smoking.

Contrary to other forms of exposure the exposure here happens in your lungs and there is no wat to stop it once it is there. Sure people who worked with asbestos for years have more fibers in their lungs and thus more spots where cancer can start. Like with all cancers it is a numbers game, only a incredibly small amount of cell divisions end up in a mutation and you need at least a couple bad mutations to get a full blown cancer. Most mutated cells are killed off by the body before they turn into cancer. This is why it takes years before those people get sick.

To be safe always wear your PPE and be careful when handling it. The only way to be sure you will not be one of the people who die from asbestos is to make sure you are not exposed.

[Anonymous No.1495418]

>>1495416

>TL;DR

While it is true you only need to have worked with it one day to have lifelong exposure to the fibers more fibers give you a bigger chance to get cancer. If you only have a small amount of fibers the chance that you die from other causes before you develop cancer. While everyone who is exposed would eventually develop cancer most people just don't live long enough to do so.

There are cases of people who worked with it for a single day in their life and got it but those are rather rare.

Always wear your PPE.

[Anonymous No.1495448]

>>1495418
But everyone in the world has some exposure to asbestos the drywall and putty in your house, the tile, more rarely the insulation. Anyone born before what 1998? has been exposed to break pad asbestos from walking around outside.

[Anonymous No.1495452]

>>1489022
>It's not scientific
But the scientists also deemed that asbestos was harmful and thus banned it.
>inb4 the are now unbanning it
Yes under an obviously corrupt EPA. Who wudda thunk?

[Anonymous No.1496960]

>>1486000
>botulinum toxins
You mean the stuff people object into their faces?

[Anonymous No.1497076]

>>1494548
Ackshuallay smokers and people with emphysema are at a significantly greater risk of asbestos related lung disease

[Anonymous No.1497612]

>>1485689
>he doesn't know the Asbestos get rich with cancer trick.