EPA is now allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

We as a country have spent the last 40 years trying to reduce the number of asbesto lined products and this guy is wanting to bring them back lol.
 
I don’t understand the push for this.
Maybe the FDA can unban Thalidomide next.
 
I saw an article the other day saying a name brand crayon had traces of asbestos in it.
 
https://archpaper.com/2018/08/epa-asbestos-manufacturing/



hey, but at least you have free healthcare so you can deal with those asbestos related illnesses right guys?

btw russians are grateful:



35194177_531137017284553_5983469452891521024_o.jpg


36188742_531137047284550_8200176046578860032_n.jpg



trump supporters, you still against agencies regulating the free market? enjoy your deteriorating health.
Well at least they can look forward to their tax dollars cleaning up another mess created by corporations.
 
I am not defending asbestos. If it is being used as non encapsulated fibers it is dangerous.

I want to know in what form this asbestos is coming in.

There are very few applications where I would justify it but I have no problem with it being used in those limited applications where it can be used safely and where there is no good substitute.

I will complain if it is going to be misused. I would just like to know how it is intended to be used first.


Well dont worry there are no corporations that would dream of using it in applications that might be harmful even if there are no regulations against it and there is profit to be made.
 
Actually what you mean is, it is the cheapest and easiest option. This is nothing but a big steaming dump on worker safety for $$$$$$$

Polyurethane foams
Flour fillers
Cellulose fibres
Thermoset plastic flour
Amorphous silica fabrics
Fibreglass, PBI fibre, ceramic fibre and bio soluble alternatives

Not to mention the 60 or so substitutes for every kind of asbestos cement.
Actually polyurethane foams are quite dangerous and can cause asthma through skin contact.
 
Well J&J is still sneaking it in to the US via baby powder.
 
Yeah, I was always taught that one asbestos fiber getting in your lungs could f you up. I'd have to look it up.
The asbestos fiber travels through your lung tissue into the meso layer that encases your lungs where it causes mesothelioma. But that takes around thirty years to happen. You may be dead already by then so what’s the big deal.
 
Meh, we allow all sorts of extremely harmful products to be used in a variety of circumstances. A complete ban on asbestos seems a bit silly, to be honest, and a "When the benefits outweigh the risks, it should be allowed" approach doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Are we sure that this isn't just a knee jerk response, so far, in this thread?
They are risking your life and health for the benefit of making a shit ton of money to buy more designer jeans.
 
Do you seriously not know why the use of asbestos was so widespread, or is this just one of those "ANSWER THE QUESTION SO I CAN PICK IT APART FOR A GOTCHA MOMENT?" posts? Look it up if you want to find out - the information is readily available, as it was a widely used industrial product. Having had to remove asbestos from houses before I'm well aware of the potential risks, and how unfortunate it is to spend your day in a big plastic suit with a respirator on, but the simple fact is that it's far from the only dangerous industrial product in use today. If there is a situation in which the use outweighs the benefit, proper safety measures are taken, and everyone involved is aware, I don't see why it couldn't be used on a case by case basis with significant oversight and controls.
Are you sure your plastic suit was able to protect you? You may have inhaled some fibers.
 
Sometimes I think there really are rich dudes in pin striped suits, smoking cigars, twirling their pencil thin mustaches, while coming up with diabolodia plots to kill people in mass and milking every last penny out of their dying hands.
There's some sadists for sure but I think most of them have a cost-benefits approach to the whole thing and have no qualms with sacrificing lives if it makes them richer.

In a way I feel it's worse than the sadists.
 
Trump's rubes would drink a glass of dioxin if he told them to, and then argue it was a good idea before dropping dead.
 
Sorry if I came off hostile, but if you framed your initial response as something closer to the lines of "it's a bad material and should have very limited, if any, uses in construction, but out of principle I would handle it with something other than a blanket ban", then we might have found common ground sooner.

Fair enough. I could have entered the thread in a more effective manner.

You know, I was quite soundly attacked for it for suggesting this the other day, but it's going to be a drum I keep beating. What this forum - and the political climate in general - could really use is just a bit more generosity of interpretation. When someone says something that doesn't align with your side's talking points, the first assumption shouldn't be "They're an evil, stupid, no good ______ and they just want what's bad" with a serving of hostility on the side. Oftentimes it's just a miscommunication, an earnest and reasoned difference of opinion, and not something nefarious or morally questionable. It's a good policy to make one's first reading, particularly of a poster you don't know well, to be generous of their intent.

Of course, in light of this, I need to police my own actions carefully. I'm certainly not perfect in this area. Have a good day.
 
Back
Top