California To Drop State Rock Over Asbestos Concerns 256
Diamonddavej writes "The LA Times reports that Californian legislators are close to dropping the translucent green rock Serpentine as the state rock of California because of its tenuous association with chrysotile asbestos. Sen. Gloria Romero declares in her bill (SB 624) that Serpentine should be dropped as California's state rock because it 'contains the deadly mineral chrysotile asbestos, a known carcinogen, exposure to which increases the risk of the cancer mesothelioma.' The bill has backing from mesothelioma support groups. Critics point out that Serpentine is a group of 20 different minerals, and Californian Serpentine rarely contains much chrysotile, never mind its dangerous fibrous asbestos form. Its is suspected that lawyers involved in asbestos compensation claims and cleanup companies will profit from the bill. Vast tracts of California where bedrock is made of Serpentine could be declared hazardous to health... even if it contains no crysotile at all! It looks like SB 624 will be passed; it won unanimous bi-partisan support from an Assembly committee last week."
Re:In other news... (Score:4, Informative)
Funny thing is this is the non-cancerious asbestos (Score:5, Informative)
If California ever decided to do some research like the New England Journal of Medicine they would find articles all the back to the late 1980's showing that this type of asbestos is not cancerious. The other funny thing is the "doctor" in the 1960's who said that cancer was bad wasn't even a doctor but researching someone's background is a lot harder than just gining into some idiot. If they are banning this rock maybe we should ban dihydrogen monoxide I hear that kills thousnads of people every year.
Re:Unanimous bi-partisan support... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Unanimous bi-partisan support... (Score:5, Informative)
This is akin to the "all puppies are lovely act" - anyone who doesn't vote yes on it is a communist.
Seriously - doesn't California have bigger problems to tackle? It really is a testament to how broken government is when the only thing they can pass is a change to the state rock.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Informative)
It's been modded funny, but it's correct. The most common mineral on the land surface is quartz -- the crystalline form of SiO2. Powder it, breath it in, and eventually you get silicosis [wikipedia.org]. So, obviously we must ban rocks.
In reality, rock *dust* is harmful, but that should be fricking obvious. Take the risk seriously and wear breathing protection, and avoid powdering rocks and breathing it in if you can.
The only rock dust that might not be particularly harmful if inhaled in small quantities could be from minerals that are reactive enough to be completely dissolved in the body. Silica and asbestos are such a problem precisely because they are silicate minerals that *aren't* easily broken down chemically, so the microscopic but sharp grains mechanically damage cells over and over again -- it's like the microscopic equivalent of crushed glass shards. Among the common rocks, limestone (CaCO3) and gypsum (CaSO4) are the only ones I can think of that are easily metabolized. We often eat these ones as food additives. Calcium supplements are often limestone. But too much of that is probably also harmful if breathed in (the lungs have a limited capacity to remove particles), and most natural limestones are not pure CaCO3 (there would be an insoluble residue left over, and that could build up).
I can't believe they're wasting time on this. As the article mentions, much serpentine doesn't even have asbestos.
Re:lots of fraud around asbestos (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah but as costly as lawyers are, they are still only 1/100th as costly as the US Congress or State Legislators that are writing the laws. It's the reason why Thomas Jefferson quit his law career and moved into politics - he realized real change can only come from the top, by writing the laws himself, and ignoring those who would try to corrupt the system
Re:Should be banned from even being considered (Score:2, Informative)
What you forget to point out is that all those pay cuts are because the state can't actually lay off any of the workers due to union protections.
Meanwhile, in the private sector, companies like mine are laying off 30% of their staff and cutting the pay of everyone else by 10% in order to keep fiscally solvent. Of course this means dramatic cuts to the state because of reduced income and sales taxes. But let's make sure that people in state government keep their jobs and mandatory pay raises. Let's not cut spending, we'll just raises taxes. They're already the highest in the country, what's another couple percent?
Re:Funny thing is this is the non-cancerious asbes (Score:1, Informative)
"...this type of asbestos is not cancerious."
One: it's spelled cancerous, not cancerious.
Two: Cancerous means being a cancer - e.g. "that lump on your lip is cancerous". By definition, no rock is cancerous (unless it is on a Horta or other silicon based life form, I guess - currently a moot point).
To be capable of causing cancer is to be carcinogenic.
Of course, the rock in question isn't carcinogenic as well as not being "cancerious".