EPA Staff Objected To Agency's New Rules on Asbestos Use, Internal Emails Show (nytimes.com) 212
Top officials at the Environmental Protection Agency pushed through a measure to review applications for using asbestos in consumer products, and did so over the objections of E.P.A.'s in-house scientists and attorneys, internal agency emails show. From a report: The clash over the proposal exposes the tensions within the E.P.A. over the Trump administration's efforts to roll back environmental rules and rewrite other regulations that industries have long fought. Asbestos, a naturally occurring mineral and known carcinogen, was once common in insulation and fireproofing materials, but today most developed countries ban it. The United States still allows limited use in products including gaskets, roofing materials and sealants. The proposed new rule would create a new process for regulating uses of asbestos, something the E.P.A. is obliged to do under a 2016 amendment to a toxic substances law.
Good news? (Score:1)
So...government agency is following the law instead of random/anecdotal citizen input. Generally, I'd think this is a good thing. (If you want to entirely ban asbestos...work on passing that law instead of whining on SlashDot.)
Re: (Score:2)
The EPA needs to look at the regulations of toxic chemicals due to the 2016 Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (i.e."mandatory requirement for EPA to evaluate existing chemicals with clear and enforceable deadlines"). There is no statement in that amendment that the EPA has to relax the use rules on asbestos.
Next up (Score:3)
Let's bring back lead-based paints and gasoline.
It creates jobs you know.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's bring back lead-based paints and gasoline.
It creates jobs you know.
My Municipal Airport sells ONLY leaded aviation fuel for piston-engine planes.
Re: (Score:2)
My Municipal Airport sells ONLY leaded aviation fuel for piston-engine planes.
What they sell is a form of avgas called 100LL. Take a guess at what the LL stands for. If you guessed Low-Lead and then further realised that it is very much different from any fuel that was used back in the day when cars used copious amounts of tetraethyl lead to increase octane then you deserve some internet points.
The only cases where fuel with the same amount of lead is used as in the past are rare engines requiring very high octane e.g. 115 grade, special events for very unique aircraft, and some mili
He doth protest too much (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump claims asbestos is "safe". Trump has a lot of real estate. Hmm...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
>https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/11/asbestos-trump-face-seal-uralasbest-russia
Trump: "... asbestos is 100% safe after application."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey let's bring back arsenic-treated lumber, trans fats and CFCs
What do you mean "bring back" all of those things still exist, and are in use to this day, hell mills pump out CCA lumber but the metric fucking shit ton. Remember all those studies that said CCA was bad, it'd kill ya, cause all sorts of problems and there was a mad rush to restrict and ban it? Yeah, and guess what? Nothing, not a damn thing to show that it actually caused problems in wildlife or even humans. What was the solution when CCA was being restricted, well shit we'll just SOAK IT IN OIL(creosot
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, so you've got two workers who were exposed to LIQUID CCA. Seriously, I worked at a mill that made pressure treated lumber with CCA, you suited up when handling it. Your entire study has to do with direct exposure to CCA, not surface contact. You get more arsenic from eating hot dogs.
Not nearly as prevalent as they once were, although this was primarily market-driven.
True and give it another 10 years and they'll discover that maybe they weren't really as bad as they thought, just like butter, milk, eggs, bacon, and various other fats.
Correct. But remind me why R12 and R22 are being phased out? The Trump EPA could just as well allow the mass-manufacture of this stuff again because, you know, the destruction of the ozone layer is fake like global warming.
Well that's easy, because they were more damaging
Re: (Score:2)
There is a persistent error even experts make in nutrition: attributing the effects of a particular compound to a wider class of compounds to which it belongs for classification purposes. Not all saturated fats are bad, not all unsaturated fats are good. Trans fats (which by definition are unsaturated) are not all bad; the ones that are reasonably common in nature like CLA are good for you. It's when hydrogenation creates products with very high quantities of stuff like elaidic acid, which is rare in nat
Re: (Score:2)
An asbestos fiber is gigantic in relation to a DNA molecule. It's the inflammation, not mechanical damage.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really the answer I'd want. Low? I'd want zero.
Then don't go outside. You're more likely to die from melanoma(skin cancer) then I'd die from mesothelioma(asbestos cancer).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's as embarrassing as a Birther seeing a picture of Obama eating humus and using it as proof that the man is a Muslim who was born in Kenya.
As well they should (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The new rules certainly shouldn't be approved as is. However, this isn't a fight about what uses of asbestos are within our tolerance of human health risks, it's about the fact that the proposed rules are procedurally stupid and full of loopholes. The coverage of this policy seems to be painted with the brush of rolling back regulation to an excessive extent when that isn't the issue here. If you read the actual complaints from the scientists ( https://int.nyt.com/data/docum... [nyt.com] ), none of them cite any cont
Re: (Score:2)
2. Asbestos is currently not banned in the US. Asbestos is currently used in many products. There are currently no regulatory processes that stop a company from using asbestos. This proposal will actually force companies to notify the EPA and go through a risk evaluation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FFS, what's next? (Score:2)
What to ban next? (Score:2)
https://blogs.biomedcentral.co... [biomedcentral.com]
Hopelessly confused (Score:2)
Does anyone know what is actually going on here?
From TFA I expected to see text replaced or removed but all it seems to do is add Asbestos and a specific list of uses to substance list of 40 CFR 721.
Does the presence of this text somehow weaken existing new use restrictions of Asbestos? Or is it just that the text added while intentionally nerfed does not in any way reduce existing regulations/laws/whatever governing use of Asbestos?
I'm so confused...
Re: (Score:2)
How about starting to toss some patents while we're creating solid rules on what not to use to keep people alive? Needn't limit it to 2 if you do it that way.
Re:Too many regulations hurt job creators (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, who give a shit about things like peoples health or the environment we live in. Lets just do whatever the fuck we want!
Re: (Score:2)
So, I assume there are strict regulations in place to enforce safe installation then, right?
Re: (Score:3)
So, I assume there are strict regulations in place to enforce safe installation then, right?
It's right there in the summary, never mind having to go to the article: " The proposed new rule would create a new process for regulating uses of asbestos"
Re:Too many regulations hurt job creators (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
"Greatest" =! "only".
He's right btw. Asbestos is an excellent fire retardant to use in insulation layers. We have nothing even close to it. Nowadays we use various mineral wools and fibreglass instead. Those are much worse in terms of their ability to retard fire.
Problem is, it costs a lot to actually dismantle structures with asbestos, because of cancer risks from breathing in the microfibre form. And if something does go seriously wrong, such as for example building collapse, there's no way to contain the
Re: (Score:2)
Water works pretty well. As in sprinkler systems.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think you can just shove water into the isolation layer and that will prevent fires, you're beyond stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately the asbestos used in insulation was also the most friable form and dangerous to health that we used. I live in an asbestos house. But I wouldn't be caught... errr. alive near an asbestos fire blanket, or a place with asbestos insulation.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. But nowadays, asbestos when used in building insulation is typically used in self-contained panels (as far as I have seen). These would be safe until you break them apart, and breaking apart a self contained panel would require quite severe efforts.
Also, I'm fairly certain that you would in fact be caught alive near asbestos fire blanket in a raging fire. See, dying of fire is a very painful way to go, and at that point you will choose "possible, potential lung damage that may materialise in many t
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I'm fairly certain that you would in fact be caught alive near asbestos fire blanket in a raging fire.
Nope, because they are banned and the alternatives are equally as effective. ;-)
But yes we are generally in agreement in contained panels. I think the hysteria has exposed more people to asbestos than would otherwise have been exposed. I decided last time I inspected my roof (corrugated asbestos) to get it re-sealed. My local school on the other hand closed a building off for a month and had a borderline hazmat bubble built around it (think of the children) because the perfectly fine condition panels was m
Re: (Score:2)
They're only banned in small amount of Western countries. Worldwide, overwhelming majority of countries does not ban them.
Reminder: do not project Western values upon the world. We're a tiny minority.
Re: (Score:2)
Because asbestos (and DDT, and leaded gasoline, etc) are only health problems in western countries. Insert eyeroll emoji here.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Did you notice that every country you listed falls within "Western" umbrella, and their totality is indeed a small fraction of the world?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually both are considered "hybrid Western".
Re: (Score:2)
Because the incredibly unproductive risk aversion of Western countries doesn't really exist outside them. Case for DDT vs malaria for example is clear. Take DDT if you're sane. Same for leaded gasoline vs billions of people not being able to afford fuel.
As for your last statement, there's an old quote: "If you're not communist when you're young, you have no heart. If you're not capitalist when you're old, you have no brain".
Hopefully you're still young. No one likes edgy and ignorant adults.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yep. That's right, pardner. The government shouldn't stop god fearing corporations from using whatever the hell they want, however the hell they want to. Who care if they put asbestos into every God-damned thing. Slap a warning sticker on it and move on.
It's not like every damned fool in the world would do something as stupid as, say, remove a floor that might have asbestos in it, or shingles, or ceiling tiles, or insulation.
Hell, if you are too stupid to know that every thing in the world could potential k
Re:Too many regulations hurt job creators (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, who give a shit about things like peoples health or the environment we live in. Lets just do whatever the fuck we want!
People's health? Asbestos is hands down the greatest fire retardant ever discovered; it's only cancer causing when breathed in shredded microfiber form. Banning it everywhere no matter what is wild overreaction. More asbestos installed safely would prevent fires and improve heath.
Maybe. But it is the removal of the asbestos -- in a fire where particles form an aerosol -- or when the building is torn down -- that it gets into the air. I've been in plenty of buildings with asbestos. They were built long ago, and the stuff is fine while it remains undisturbed.
US buildings are primarily 'throw-away', meaning that the building will probably come down within 50 years, creating an asbestos problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Each new one we create will be 3 times as complicated.
It isn't the number of regulations but the complexity of existing ones.
Starting a business if the local government came in and offered free guidance to businesses on what to do and not do. It would make things easier.
You business deals with hazardous chemicals. There should be guidance telling how to properly dispose of them, so they can include it in their business plan.
Re: (Score:2)
US already has a high tax on saving (Score:2)
There are basically two things you can do with your money after you've bought groceries and paid the water and electric bills, the basic necessities. You can spend the rest, buying things like lattes and Air Jordans, or you can save / invest it. Spending means the money is basically gone, saving means you'll have it when you need it later. You won't be homeless when you get hurt, sick or old.
Most saving is also investing - the money is used to build something, such as a semiconductor fab or a ship, which pr
Re: (Score:2)
All developed countries tax investment at about the same rate.
Some just tax corporate earnings more and cap gains less, or vice versa.
They have to, or they get no investments. High ROI lets them tax a little more.
Re:Yes like tax exemptions (Score:5, Insightful)
And when you're investing, you're not spending a large chunk of your life for that money. Why should a supposedly democratic country have a tax system that explicitly encourages wealth concentration by taxing capitalists less than labor?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why should a supposedly democratic country have a tax system that explicitly encourages wealth concentration by taxing capitalists less than labor?
Because capitalists have more interest in low taxes for themselves than laborers have.
Re:Yes like tax exemptions (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure. You also need to have labor. So why should capital get preferential treatment?
Re: (Score:2)
So why should capital get preferential treatment?
People need to work so they can eat. People don't need to invest their savings to eat, usually. The government has a long history of tax incentives to promote "beneficial" activity.
Re: (Score:3)
When you go to work and put in your hours, you are not risking any money. You will get paid. 100% chance. You are not putting your neck (or assets) on the line.
No, you're putting your time on the line. Money and other assets? Those can be recovered or regenerated. Your time cannot, and wages are taxed as if your time had zero value. And by the way, there are plenty of folks that have gotten stiffed on paychecks, be it from a regular W-2 job, consulting/contracting, or whatever.
Re:Yes like tax exemptions (Score:4, Informative)
When you go to work and put in your hours, you are not risking any money. You will get paid. 100% chance.
Unless you're working on a construction project for Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Nations have to compete for investment.
If your nation's: AverageROI * (1 - CorporateTaxRate) * (1 - CapitalGainsTaxRate) is not competitive, your economy will be _shit_, as it should be.
Re: (Score:2)
Let us apply this to politicians, first. Then let's talk.
Re:EPA killed a very needed bypass road now there (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe not destroying our environment is more important than your commute. If you don't like how long your drive is, move somewhere else.
Re: (Score:3)
The sad part is that such people will move to mess up something pristine once they tarnished where they lived.
Re: (Score:2)
Verily, he is a son of Trump. Ready to be thrown under the bus when needed. Because buses are so un-American.
Re: (Score:2)
you brain has facts addled and mixed up like scrambled eggs.
Talc is a clay.
Asbestos is fibers from weathered rock of silicate minerals. It is natural and you are breathing natural asbestos right now. There are six types of asbestos, Two of them are known to be hazardous, and one more of them suspected to be hazardous.
Re: (Score:3)
You should take your own advice. Talc has traces of asbestos fibers in it, both being mined, which is why lawyers are becoming covetous.
Re:"but today most developed countries ban it" (Score:4, Informative)
Asbestos is a unique health threat. Unlike arsenic or radium, the physical shape of an asbestos specimen affects its toxicity. Large fibers and any amount of asbestos embedded in a matrix get filtered out in the nose and throat. Really small fibers don't cause damage as they pass through the lining of the lungs and exit the body. Its the three to ten micron fibers that will kill you by turning your lungs into scar tissue.
Asbestos embedded in pretty much anything is rarely dangerous. Even the mountains that are very high in asbestos content in California and Colorado pose little health risk. Asbestos processed for use as insulation is the most dangerous, asbestos on wear surfaces like brakes are also something to worry about.
BTW, I used to work in the asbestos removal industry and I have given training on the health effect of asbestos. For a few years, I worked as a lab tech determining if material was asbestos containing. We did low tech analysis where we verified that nothing existed in a sample that was of the correct morphology to be hazardous asbestos - in which case the customer could forego the expense of determining if it really was asbestos. We did high tech analysis where we used an electron microscope to determine the exact crystal structure of an item under study to conclusively determine if it was or wasn't asbestos.
Re: (Score:2)
Bringing scientific facts to a Slashdot discussion is like bringing a neutron bomb to a slap fight. It will settle things for people, but the ACs and trolls will continue to argue as if nothing happened. Like cockroaches.
Re: (Score:2)
Even the mountains that are very high in asbestos content in California
"Warning! California Is Known To The State Of California To Cause Cancer."
Damn! Now I have to go buy a new Irony Meter! :/
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
If you're looking for where to calibrate the meter, the answer is King City: http://www.mesothelioma-attorn... [mesothelio...torney.com]
Although you probably shouldn't put a whole lot of stock in that website's characterization of things. The article states that Union Carbide held the opinion that asbestos was harmless in 1974, and it turns out my father was a Union Carbide employee at that time. His job was to go to their asbestos customers, educated them on the proper handling and risks, inspect their operation, and cut off any c
Re: (Score:2)
If you're looking for where to calibrate the meter, the answer is King City: http://www.mesothelioma-attorn... [www.mesoth...-attorn...] [mesothelio...torney.com]
Although you probably shouldn't put a whole lot of stock in that website's characterization of things. The article states that Union Carbide held the opinion that asbestos was harmless in 1974, and it turns out my father was a Union Carbide employee at that time. His job was to go to their asbestos customers, educated them on the proper handling and risks, inspect their operation, and cut off any customers that were behaving recklessly.
Thanks for the reply. Born in the late '50s myself. Many, many people with political/ideological agendas and/or narrow world-views attempt to paint the past far differently than it actually was. There were just as many caring and conscientious people then as now, probably fewer now, actually.
What has changed is that the population no longer shares the same values and culture to the same extent now that it did then thanks to group-identity politics, the "cultural diversity" meme which leads to islands of hom
Re: (Score:2)
you brain has facts addled and mixed up like scrambled eggs.
Talc is a clay.
Talc is NOT a clay, as most people know clay. Talc is a layered silicate compound, not a layered aluminosilicate (which clays are). Talc is also NOT soluble in water. Talc is a sheet-stuctured, crystalline material -- making it clay-like, but not a clay in the usual sense of the word.
Asbestos (six minerals are in the category) have more fiber-based crystalline structures. Thus they break down into fibers (thin daggers), rather than the flakes of talc. Asbestos is not soluble in water, either, which is w
Re: (Score:2)
The lungs do not care about what category a substance belongs to. There are a whole class of minerals that are very "absestos like" that if inhaled will cause similar damage. In fact, any airborne small particulate matter should be considered harmful to health and precautions should subsequently be taken. Including sawdust even.
Re: (Score:2)
Any idea what's in your brake linings?
Also catalytic converter heat shields. When my car reached 25 years old and I deleted the cat (no more emissions tests) the asbestos pad sandwiched between sheet metal was disintegrating.
I wonder how much of this stuff gets blown out onto the roadside for cyclists to huff as they ride?
Re: (Score:2)
like taking their cat convert apart.
It's taking itself apart.
Re:"but today most developed countries ban it" (Score:4, Informative)
Sure, we don't ban the existence of asbestos, in the same way we don't ban the existence of mercury. But the use of these substances is heavily regulated so that they are either illegal or impractical.
Asbestos use is limited under three major laws: (1) The Toxic Substances Control Act, (2) The Clean Air Act, and (3) The Consumer Product Safety Act. A number of other federal laws ban asbestos in places like schools. Asbestos is banned in the manufacture of a wide variety of products such as flooring felt, and use in commercial developments has been forbidden under the TCSA since 1989. However concrete-asbestos insulated pipes continued to be used in some niche industrial applications for some years after that.
Deregulating asbestos is something which the Executive Branch cannot entirely do without new legislation. Even if it had the federal legislation, there'd still be local laws and building codes forbidding its use. Even if you got rid of those, you'd have civil liability. And if you could get rid of that, you'd have the fact that installing asbestos lowers a building's market value.
The idea that federal bureaucrats can reanimate the dead corpse of asbestos insulation is even dumber than the idea they can win back the market share coal has lost to natural gas.
Re: (Score:2)
My apartment complex, and pretty much everywhere else in the region, has a proposition 65 cancer warning on it because of natural ground asbestos. Which is silly. But there is a danger on windy, dusty days -- precautions are taken by construction crews to avoid excess exposure on bad days.
Re: (Score:2)
No, no we don't ban asbestos. Never have, as it is naturally occuring. We ban synthetic substances all the time, but asbestos being banned is just silly, even if it makes a lot of sense to reduce our exposure to it.
Asbestos is found in all sorts of things in trace (and higher) levels. Ever wonder why companies are moving away from talcum powder? Any idea what's in your brake linings?
And where did that 'popcorn mica' packaging filler go? Ever wonder why it isn't used so much these days? Same as above: more than trace amounts of asbestos are typically found in mica.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people are smart enough to realize that a ban on a naturally occurring substance means a ban on using that substance in a manufactured product.
Re: (Score:3)
pffft, getting your "facts" from 'asbestosnation.org'? maybe they're just a tad, you know, biased?
Re: (Score:2)
pffft, getting your "facts" from 'asbestosnation.org'? maybe they're just a tad, you know, biased?
I haven't checked their facts, but neither have you, so you're making a baseless attack. If a problem is identified and a group is created to increase awareness of the problem, then there's still a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
most forms of asbestos are not known to do that, only 2 out of 6 forms. 1 more *might* but human evidence is not conclusive yet.
Re:"but today most developed countries ban it" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"but today most developed countries ban it" (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah not quite true. Asbestos was used in a lot of stuff, brakes for example. It was still mixed as a "semi-metallic" brake pad/shoes right up through to the late 90's as well as the industry(automotive and truck) were weaning off of using asbestos. Pretty much anyone who was an apprentice during those times(they'd be in their very early 30's to 40's now) has a chance for it, we already knew it was an issue though so the idea was to limit breathing the dust by hosing down the brakes, drums, pads, shoes, with water before you started hammering away with a hammer to pull it all apart. These days? You'll be lucky if your car brakes are anything but ceramic, it's only the cheaper models that don't use it. And semi-metallic pads don't contain any asbestos after the phase out. But let me tell ya, I've got the tools, brochures, promotional materials, toolboxes, and all the rest from the 60's,70's, 80's and 90's on the benefits of using "genuine asbestos brake pads" made by lots of companies. Probably the best known aftermarket was raybestos and they manufactured pads and shoes that were pure asbestos based right up until 1989, which means those shoes and pads were probably still in the market until 2001 or 2003.
Asbestos pads, tape, paste, wrap, and such were used still in the 90's as well in the collision industry too. Asbestos wrap was very popular with mechanics when you needed to heat up parts and hopefully avoid lighting the vehicle on fire, of course now the only real option you have is soaking shop rags in water and with luck that'll get you through whatever you're heating up. Also, lead used as a filler in body damage was used right up until the mid 1980's for anyone who's curious.
Re: (Score:2)
Asbestos wrap was very popular with mechanics when you needed to heat up parts and hopefully avoid lighting the vehicle on fire, of course now the only real option you have is soaking shop rags in water and with luck that'll get you through whatever you're heating up
Accepting that it's not quite as fireproof as asbestos, why won't Kevlar or Nomex work for this? At the very least, if you're gonna be doing a rag soak method, why not use a 'rag' that is itself relatively fire resistant rather than what I would assume is cotton or poly blend or something.
Re: (Score:2)
HF blankets if you're welding, but if you're pulling something apart? A blanket won't take the temperatures of oxy-acetylene very well, and catch on fire pretty quickly. Nothing really ever beat asbestos for that. All shop rags are cotton, too much crap in vehicle fluids will dissolve any other blend to even bother screwing around with. That's really all there is to it. HF's are rated to 3000F(1648C), your average cutting temperature for oxy-acetylene is 6,000F(3315). Cotton rags soaked with water? Che
Re:"but today most developed countries ban it" (Score:4, Informative)
You can buy a welding blanket at HF for about $20.
Re: (Score:2)
HF's are rated to around 3000F, your proper cutting temperature for oxy-actyl is 6000-6350F.
Re: (Score:2)
The dangers of asbestos were known to the Romans....
The US gov't knew well asbestos killed people, they just didn't have any better alternative product when it was needed, and as such covered it up
(I worked in the industry...it was no secret how dangerous the stuff was)
Re:"but today most developed countries ban it" (Score:4, Insightful)
So basically the mesothelioma death rate (from all causes, not just asbestos related) went from 1.396 per 100,000 to 1.093 per 100,000 per year.. Or a reduction of 0.3 per 100,000 per year. That puts the benefit of banning asbestos at the very bottom of the list of causes of death [fivethirtyeight.com], even if you assume 100% of mesothelioma was caused by asbestos.
The money we spent banning and ripping out asbestos probably would've been much better spent on things like PSAs to buckle your seat belt, or suicide prevention hotlines. Those have a death rate nearly a hundred times higher than the reduction in mesothelioma death rate. Heck, fires kill 5.0 people per 100,000 each year [wikipedia.org], so it's even possible that banning asbestos resulted in more people dying to fires than were saved from death by mesothelioma.
Based on this one paper, it would seem that banning asbestos was a vast overreaction. Given the tiny scale of the problem, it probably would've been better addressed by stricter regulations mandating masks and filters during the mining and processing of asbestos, and manufacture of products containing asbestos, rather than a widescale ban. Kinda like how disproportionate news coverage of airliner crashes has caused us to spend more on preventing airliner crashes, resulting in air travel being 86x safer than cars [fortune.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Well now, hold on. The generation that was exposed to asbestos is still working it's way through the demographic meat-grinder. It was partial
Re:"but today most developed countries ban it" (Score:4, Informative)
You forgot that mesothelioma is just one way asbestos can kill you.
Re: (Score:3)
Did you hear about the Federal ban on drop side cribs a few years back? That was done because a dozen infants were killed by them over the course of some number of years. Whereas elective circumcisions are estimated to kill 100 infants a year from complications like infection. As a society there doesn't seem to be a lot of reasoned thought about what we ban.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course mesothelioma deaths have decreased.Asbestos has been banned since 1973.
A decrease in mesothelioma deaths thanks to a ban on asbestos is no reason to end a ban on asbestos. It's proof that the ban is working, and saves lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Those statistics demonstrate that curbing the use of asbestos was an effective measure that has actually saved lives. The people still suffering were exposed prior to the restrictions.
It also suggests that loosening the restrictions will likely show up as an increase in deaths years from now.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you can ban a naturally occuring material, you're just taking a literalist approach to what banning actually entails. As Russia mines 55% of the worlds asbestos minerals (followed by China), this will come as a great boon to Russian industry.
I think the notoriousness of Asbestos will ensure that most people are well aware of how dangerous it is and will steer clear of anybody peddling products featuring 'Asbestos!! The new miracle material of the future' although there may be a few particularly passionate right-wingers who may actually make it their material of choice for insulating their homes as a way of sticking it to the 'liberal elites'. Plus, I kind of doubt that the asbestos mining industry is crucial to the bottom line of Russian indust
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't that people will run out and buy things proudly featuring asbestos. It's that they will unknowingly buy products that quietly and shamefully include asbestos because it bumps the profit margin up a tiny bit.
Re: mod parent up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Fear Mongering (Score:4, Informative)
If there is no alternative to asbestos in the chlorine industry then why are most plants moving to an alternative method of production.
Many have already converted from either mercury cell or asbestos to a newer, safer option called the membrane cell process. Short of a complete conversion, many other plants switched from dangerous asbestos diaphragms to those made of polymers, that show no dangerous health risks.
https://www.maacenter.org/blog... [maacenter.org]
Re:"attorneys and scientists" (Score:5, Informative)
Ah yes, the stereotypical right-wing attacks on experts who have data and know what they're talking about.
I sometimes wonder how many of these ACs actually believe the nonsense they spout or whether they're some loser sitting at a desk in China or Russia being paid peanuts
Re: (Score:2)
I sometimes wonder how many of these ACs actually believe the nonsense they spout or whether they're some loser sitting at a desk in China or Russia being paid peanuts
Don't worry, they can easily be both.
Re: (Score:2)