24 ms·

EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

560 points by okket 8y ago

EamonnMR 8y ago
The risks have been known for years. At this point isn't not pollution or negligence to use it, it's homicide.
- s3m4j 8y ago
  120 years give or take 10 years. But the free market is always right. Right ?
  - kpil 8y ago
    Yes, Adams Smith's invisible hand will always deliver the global maximum AND all local maxima at the same time! So Say We All!
  - buckminster 8y ago
    Even the Romans knew that you shouldn't buy a slave who had worked in an asbestos mine.
  - swebs 8y ago
    How did "new uses will be reviewed by the EPA on a case-by-case basis" turn into a circlejerk against the free market?
- smt88 8y ago
  Relaxing fossil-fuel emissions standards and every other EPA protection is also homicide. This is par for the course for Trump's EPA.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  I have a huge problem with this attitude. Just because consumers shouldn't side their houses and insulate their pipes with it doesn't mean nobody should have it. Asbestos is amazingly fire resistant. If the use case is extreme enough to make it worth it (working with dangerous materials is $$$) then I don't see why it shouldn't be used. Plenty of nasty materials and chemicals are used in all sorts of industries. I don't see why asbestos should get special treatment. I think the current status quo of "you can't use it in certain things and you need permission if you want to use it in anything else" is perfectly fine. If some company is willing to do what they need to use a dangerous material in 2018 (PPE, procedures for handling, insurance, etc, etc) and articulate a use case and why the alternatives don't work then why shouldn't they be able to use asbestos?
base698 8y ago
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-epa-allowing-asbestos-products/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-epa-allowing-asbestos-p... The EPA has not changed anything about currently banned uses of asbestos, and any new uses would first be assessed by the agency.
- chronial 8y ago
  Thanks, that is a lot clearer than the article.
- jsonne 8y ago
  It was my understanding they were now allowing it to be used in a case by case basis reviewed by the EPA. IMHO that makes sense. Surely there are some applications it makes sense for if the proper precautions are taken.
  - ajmurmann 8y ago
    Well, they also are explicitly excluding any effects of it getting into the ground, water or air. Given ground, water and air is a major part of the environed the EPA is supposed to protect, what are they even doing?
  - smt88 8y ago
    People thought they were taking proper precautions in the past. Proving something is safe in the long-run is very difficult and takes many years. Do you think this EPA will force applicants to do years of studies?
- baq 8y ago
  the overall rating is 'Mostly true', though.
  - base698 8y ago
    Mega misleading, it's not being used in the capacity it used to be. They aren't allowing anyone just anyone to use asbestos and none of the old use cases for it are allowed--only new ones.
socceroos 8y ago
Why??
- pi-rat 8y ago
  Probably for the same reasons they recently (re-)allowed the pesticide (thought to be) responsible for honeybee colony collapse. Why not? Also, it opens up the possibility for importing: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/russian-asbestos-trump_face/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/russian-asbestos-trump_fac...
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  Because the guiding principle of this administration is to undo everything that is either directly or at least philosophically tied to the last one. Perhaps the most destructive case of butthurt ever.
  - smt88 8y ago
    I disagree that it's just spite. It seems to me to be a pro-business agenda. It's literally the definition of crony capitalism.
- doubt_me 8y ago
  Russia is the biggest exporter of asbestos. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/07/11/approved-by-donald-trump-asbestos-sold-by-russian-company-is-branded-with-the-presidents-face https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/07/11/a...
  - smt88 8y ago
    I thought this was a joke and also fact-checked before you added your own citation. It's true. https://www.asbestos.com/mesothelioma/worldwide/ https://www.asbestos.com/mesothelioma/worldwide/ And here we are still wondering what Trump's secret meeting with Putin was about. I'm not suggesting it was about asbestos, but the timing is certainly suspicious.
rapnie 8y ago
What is happening to the EPA in the US is really unbelievable. How low will the bar get for the polluters in this country, one wonders?
- mc32 8y ago
  This is the result of a 2016 amendment. Not the curreent admin. And read what the article says, the headline is clickbait. It will be a case-by-case review of any new application. Old, legacy bans will remain.
  - smt88 8y ago
    It is absolutely the decision of the current administration. From Snopes: > The problem, according to critics, is twofold. The first, more generally, is that the EPA could have used the currently unfolding overhaul of the TSCA — which began at the end of the Obama administration and has continued along a very different path under Trump — to ban any new uses of asbestos, something that had been the case at the end of the last administration. Instead, they are explicitly allowing new uses, but with the caveat that the EPA first evaluate possible potential new uses based on “risk evaluation, select studies, and use the best available science.”
- gameswithgo 8y ago
  It is not unbelievable, it is the stated stance of the GOP to reduce environmental and health regulations, and they are doing it. It is exactly what we voted for.
  - smt88 8y ago
    The majority of us did not vote for this. Without gerrymandering or the electoral college, Congress and the White House would be overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats.
    - shawn 8y ago
      At least the system is working as designed.
CompelTechnic 8y ago
I imagine that whether or not the asbestos is frangible will be strongly considered during evaluation. Incidentally, I have also seen a good amount of evidence that the fiberglass we currently use to replace asbestos insulation is super bad for your health, but likely not as bad.
- yellowapple 8y ago
  Asbestos, stone wool, fiberglass, etc. all tend to have the same physical properties, thus making them dangerous to inhale or ingest. Unfortunately, these physical properties tend to be why these materials are so effective as insulators.
  - justin66 8y ago
    Asbestos stands out in that list as causing a significant mesothelioma risk. It's because some of the fibers are so small. There's some speculation that carbon fiber will be similarly dangerous, but rock wool and fiberglass aren't quite there. They're nasty but not that nasty.
  - yvdriess 8y ago
    Be careful not to conflate chemical and mechanical properties. They share chemical properties, but do not share the mechanical property that makes Asbestos carcinogenic. Asbestos breaks down into particles of a dangerous size and shape. Glass and rock wool fibres are shaped differently and do not break in the same way. Glass/rock wool has been used extensively in practice and no link with cancer has been found to date. A quick search has found a quora post about the subject that goes into more detail: https://www.quora.com/How-much-of-a-health-hazard-is-fiberglass-compared-to-asbestos https://www.quora.com/How-much-of-a-health-hazard-is-fibergl...
- sametmax 8y ago
  And wait for us to discover all the wonderful side effects of ingesting or breathing nano particles of anything. They are everywhere now. E.G: salt now often contains E551, which is silica nano particles. It's silica, so the laws says it's ok because the raw material is harmless. Except we have no idea how the shape of it affects us. It will be able to go into places it couldn't before, interact chemically differently, and so on. A lot of fun is to come. It's the same with GMO: the tech is superb, the potential is wonderful. Can we wait 30 years of testing, and do said testing by independent, interest-free entities before spreading it everywhere ? Can we make testing on interactions ? On long term exposures ? On complete ecosystems ? And for each product ? Hell no: let's say it's safe by default because mouses didn't suffer from eating it for a few months. Then use illiterate facebook mum posts to make sure any critics is regarded as unscientific. We got this. The thing is, human has always did that. It's not being evil. It's our natural way of doing things: try it out, and fix on the way. It's why we made so many cool stuff. The problem is, we are arriving at a point were the destructive potential of our actions is reaching such a scale, this strategy is way too dangerous.
alksalks 8y ago
DRUUUUUUUUMGPFFF
ChrisRR 8y ago
This makes sense as asbestos only really causes harm when humans come into contact with it. For applications where it is safely enclosed or mixed with another material it may have its uses. I think analysis on a case-by-case basis is the right way to go.
- dominostars 8y ago
  Like what kinds of used?
- rc_bhg 8y ago
  Case-by-case analysis is really expensive for a government agency to do. And you know full well that developers will cut corners at any chance they can if the rules are loosened up.
  - tomp 8y ago
    If we banned all uses of harmful substances, many things (e.g. spaceflight) wouldn't be possible (or at least much more expensive) (e.g. most hypergolic propellant used for fine maneuvring e.g. during docking are extremely poisonous - alternatives are being tested but aren't there yet).
    - boobsbr 8y ago
      Yeah, hydrazine came to my mind instantly. That stuff is scary.
  - ethagknight 8y ago
    Case-by-case could be an industry wide standard with Operations & Maintenance requirements, which is what we currently have in real estate surrounding existing asbestos and lead applications. A similar protocol surrounding implementation of new "safe" installations of asbestos-containing-materials could be developed.
- mywittyname 8y ago
  In what cases would you use it where humans wouldn't be in contact with it eventually?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mistrial9 8y ago
.. in related news, only robots will be allowed to apply the material, and a cousin of the second secretary of the EPA happens to have a new robot company. Nothing to see here, please move along. </sarcasm>
- 52-6F-62 8y ago
  I know you're kidding, but: ‘Approved by Donald Trump’: Asbestos sold by Russian company is branded with the president’s face https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/07/11/approved-by-donald-trump-asbestos-sold-by-russian-company-is-branded-with-the-presidents-face https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/07/11/a...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
joecool1029 8y ago
Probably should link the list of things banned and things not banned: https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/us-federal-bans-asbestos https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/us-federal-bans-asbestos As I understand this is a substance you really don’t want to break down and get airborne, so felts made with it are super hazardous. Stuff like vinyl tile with it really only poses a risk if you’re grinding/sanding it or its prone to some form of decomposition (like from water damage)
tmaly 8y ago
It has good material qualities, but do we really want to trade that for an increase in lung cancer? The stuff is so costly to dispose of, it is not really worth using.
- WhompingWindows 8y ago
  Unless your environmental "protection" agency is not in the business of protecting you. In which case, you don't have to pay the costs to dispose of things properly, because businesses shouldn't ever be fettered by any kind of environmental regulations, at least according to the current philosophy of the "protection" agency.
  - HillaryBriss 8y ago
    also factor in the costs to these companies of the lawsuits they will inevitably attract by introducing new asbestos products. EPA approval does not shield them.
acomjean 8y ago
Ever seen an ad for "mesothelioma" and wonder what is that about? Its generally law firms looking for people with asbestos related lung cancer (edit: see replies for better description of the illness). The Asbestos particles are so small your body's natural filters don't stop them from getting stuck in your lungs, where they can cause cancer. As this point I can't imagine the insurance liability to start using asbestos again would allow this stuff to start proliferating widely again.
- caf 8y ago
  I believe it is actually a cancer of the lining of your thoracic cavity rather than your lungs.
  - vedtopkar 8y ago
    Correct, it's a pleural cancer. That being said, asbestos poses an even bigger risk of "regular" lung cancer compared to mesothelioma. It really is a formidable carcinogen.
- mywittyname 8y ago
  The next step is tort reform to prevent victims from receiving compensation for their suffering.
- refurb 8y ago
  If you want to see the worst of the legal profession, start digging into mesothelioma cases. The bar for "proving" asbestos caused your mesothelioma is super low. There was one guy who worked in a factory with asbestos that was never actually compromised (i.e. never exposed), but won millions with the lawyers making out like bandits. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/opinion/nocera-the-asbestos-scam.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/opinion/nocera-the-asbest...
- HillaryBriss 8y ago
  thank you for pointing this out. it should get more attention here. for the last forty or more years, the biggest pressure against the use of asbestos has been lawsuits, not government regulation. many, many US companies were forced into bankruptcy by class action asbestos lawsuits which attached huge liabilities to them, even though their use of asbestos may have been quite limited. the asbestos lawsuit proliferation was such a strain on US industrial businesses that, in the early 2000's, the Senate almost created a huge asbestos trust fund, administered by the government, funded by these companies (and probably also government) to offload the liability from companies so that they could avoid bankruptcy and continue doing business, employing people, etc. (the legislation never passed). bottom line: companies would want more than just EPA approval to start cranking out loads of new asbestos products. EPA approval does little to protect them against these expensive lawsuits. what they would need is a rock-solid lawsuit shield.
christofosho 8y ago
My grandfather died due to asbestos in his lungs from when he was younger. Let's hope this is not going to be affirmed.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
nneonneo 8y ago
To shed some light on the “thinking from the top”, here’s a quote from a related Snopes article (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/russian-asbestos-trump_face/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/russian-asbestos-trump_fac...): > Trump once opined, in his 1997 book The Art of the Comeback, that efforts to reduce and regulate asbestos (a material he claimed was “100% safe” once applied) in building construction were part of a mob-lead conspiracy: >> I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal. Great pressure was put on politicians, and as usual, the politicians relented.
wiradikusuma 8y ago
There should also be a law requiring the CEO of the companies that produce it to receive a sample of each production batch, and they're required to install it at their house(s). If it's only used as part of manufacturing process, the CEO must have an open office next to the machine and be there at least once a week. "It's safe boss, you told me!"
patrickg_zill 8y ago
Aren't there 2 kinds of asbestos? 1 kind is dangerous to humans due to its particle size, and the other is larger and is filtered by your body...?
- AngryData 8y ago
  All forms of it are potentially harmful, but some forms of it are more easily broken down and go airborne making it easier to breath it in. It is nearly identical to breathing in ceramic dust, the finer it is easier it is to ingest it and the less likely your nose and throat will catch the particles before it enters your lungs and can no longer be expelled.
  - HillaryBriss 8y ago
    i agree with you. i believe asbestos is unsafe and we should not be releasing more of into the environment by adding more of it to building materials and other industrial products. but, a perhaps surprising thing about our lungs is that they can expel some of the inhaled asbestos fibers. but, in some people that's just not good enough: they still get sick. (another risk factor, smoking, increases one's chance of mesothelioma from inhaled asbestos fibers) asbestos fibers are everywhere. a very substantial fraction of US residents have some asbestos fibers in their lungs because of natural background levels and/or contamination of the urban environment by industrial asbestos from past decades. during the 9/11 attacks, significant quantities of asbestos became airborne in NYC. asbestos fibers are quite durable. they don't break down into safe substances or disappear from the environment on their own.
- anonuser123456 8y ago
  There are more than 2. Chrysotile is the form most common in building material. Crocidolite is the form found in brake pads. Crocidolite is much more carcinogenic than chrysotile.
sysbell 8y ago
Give the EPA a break guys, they're doing asbestos they can.
- prolikewh0a 8y ago
  Humor on HN? Is this allowed? Upvote deserved.
jezfromfuture 8y ago
Lmafao
- sctb 8y ago
  We've banned this account.
k1ns 8y ago
I believe I've found the SNUR in question [0] and it seems to state that the EPA will consider uses of asbestos in construction: > Any Other Building Materials (other than cement): Examples include insulation, plasters, mastics, textured paints (e.g., simulates stucco), and block filler paints (e.g., for coating masonry). It looks like they're wanting to open a pathway of discussion between potential manufacturers/importers of asbestos and the EPA for new business opportunities which apparently include new construction, the brake pads that go onto your vehicles, and the floor tiles in your home. This sounds insane to me. I don't want to live in a world where policymakers with no scientific background get to decide how they personally feel about proven carcinogens in my children's lives. They seem to literally be saying that they want to consider asbestos in construction projects as a significant new use despite the fact that using it in construction was previously proven to be unsafe. The comment date is quickly closing, please let your voice be heard. [0] https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0159-0001 https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0159... EDIT: If I'm confused and have linked something irrelevant, please let me know and I will redact.
- makomk 8y ago
  I'm pretty sure that's the right rule. What you're missing is that previously those weren't considered new uses of asbestos at all in the US because it had been used for those purposes prior to 1989. As I understand it, without this proposed rule it would in fact be perfectly legal for US companies to just go right ahead and use asbestos in those building materials without any kind of EPA pre-approval. Requiring them to seek out the EPA's approval first is actually tightening the rules. (There are only five pre-1989 uses of asbestos which were banned, and this isn't one of them.) The main reason no-one uses asbestos for this is probably that it's a liability and PR disaster zone. See in particular section III, which explains this all reasonably clearly.
  - k1ns 8y ago
    Very well said, thanks for the clarification. I read through it several times and came away feeling two different ways about it simultaneously. 1) Like you said, I assumed this meant that they were installing themselves via the law instead of relying on the honor system. I think that's awesome news. 2) I don't trust them to act in the best interest of the masses when it comes to which uses they green light and which uses they shoot down. But that's 100% my opinion which is cynical in nature most of the time. As long as the EPA uses this power for good, I'm all for it. I am skeptical about their motives though (which is entirely subjective).
swebs 8y ago
>EPA is now allowing asbestos back into manufacturing Wow, misleading headline of the decade. Asbestos was never completely banned from manufacturing in the United States, only for certain items. https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/us-federal-bans-asbestos https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/us-federal-bans-asbestos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos_and_the_law_(United_States)#Federal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos_and_the_law_(United_S...
- HillaryBriss 8y ago
  yes. that's right. it was the proliferation of costly lawsuits in recent decades which diminished the use of asbestos in the US. companies are still trying to resolve all of these lawsuits. what kind of incentives would need to be in place for a company to willingly put that lawsuit target on its own back?
  - dbatten 8y ago
    I've heard people argue that a much more effective way to do environmental regulation would be to basically not regulate and instead increase liability standards for environmental/health damage. Right now, in many cases, if a factory is dumping toxic sludge into a river and they're within EPA limits, there's nothing anybody can do to stop it. If you allowed farmers downstream to come after them for damaging crops (or whatever), or allowed class action suits against coal-burning power companies for cancer and such, imagine what that might do to incentive structures. I'm not sure I buy it, but the asbestos case makes me wonder.
    - spiralx 8y ago
      How would you prove which power plant produced the particular molecules that gave you cancer? What if the company that owns a power plant has gone bust? How does this help you deal with cancer? What if you die before you make it through the years and years such a court case would drag on?
- makomk 8y ago
  Very much so. The entire proposed rule, so far as I can tell, is solely about taking most of the asbestos products which are still legal to manufacture and use in the US, declaring them a substantial new use on the basis that they're no longer being made, and erecting regulatory barriers to ever manufacturing or importing them again. It doesn't unban anything, not even genuinely novel uses for asbestos (which there's a long-running blanket ban on).
sandworm101 8y ago
Am I living in a cartoon? Deregulation is a valid and understandable view, one that is an established part of the political landscape. But inventing and allowing new uses for asbestos? This is sort of evil plan belongs in an episode of captain planet.
roland35 8y ago
It is exceedingly difficult for general consumers to figure out how to deal with hazards like asbestos and lead in home building materials. I am currently renovating our home and it turned out our floor tile had lead in it (not asbestos too thankfully). There are very few resources available and there are no clear rules on how to deal with the removal of hazardous materials. HUD, EPA, CDC, and state rules are all different. The best option as a homeowner, legally at least, is to not test anything if you can and do whatever you want! My conspiracy theory is that the real estate industry does not want people to know more about hazardous materials because they just want people to buy more houses.
- ethagknight 8y ago
  False on all accounts. Handling asbestos and lead is a well defined scope of work in the construction industry, large projects or small. The fact that you weren't carrying a budget for hot materials doesn't mean its a big conspiracy. There are very clear rules. Its a pain in the rear, but its also a budget line item just like mechanical, electrical, carpentry. Asbestos and Lead is a large piece of Environmental Engineering. Granted, you don't know what you have until you uncover it, but if your structure was built before a certain date, go ahead and assume you will be removing or encapsulating some hot materials.
  - roland35 8y ago
    Maybe for the construction industry, but that is not my experience at least for residential. I had to call at least 30 different contractors across the state, and I recieved 30 different replies on the proper way to remove it. I have not had much luck finding a safe replacement! At least with electronics design I can check 'RoHs compliant' and see documentation from manufacturers. Not the case with ceramic tiles. There is no information available out there other than yes, lead can be in ceramic and yes, lead is bad in any quantity. Who even knows if lead dust is even produced when tiles are destroyed during removal? Maybe I am making a big deal about nothing but nobody can say for sure. And I have not had much luck with any testing procedure. XRF scanners seem to work with paint but there is little I could find about its utility with other materials like ceramic. Lab tests have fairly high thresholds of detection. While you are correct in that there are some clear rules and regulations with removing paint I have not been able to get any straight information on lead in other materials. It has been frustrating!
nimbius 8y ago
Im seeing a lot of comments on brakes containing asbestos. As an automotive engine mechanic, I started my trade changing out brake pads. As far as im aware, the last generation of asbestos containing brake pads in the US were Ferodo Brake Pads ending around 1994. The pads were phased out for a number of reasons - health, of course. as a mechanic, mesothelioma was your biggest risk changing brakes all day. most shops douse the pad assembly in a mix of dawn dish liquid or a basic degreaser liquid we called just called sauce, and send it through a quick carwash after the job. It was also an easy way to please customers and it kept friable dust to a minimum. - performance. compared to euro/japanese brakes arriving in the states in the early nineties, companies like raybestos were at a serious risk of going bankrupt if they didnt change. My first set of ceramic/ceramide pads was a revelation. I recommended them to all my customers. - health scares. Your consumer risk of driving a car with brakes impregnated with asbestos was minimal, but the CNN/60 minutes documentaries really did a number on the industry. It got so bad that at one point, Raybestos included big labels reading "CONTAINS NO ASBESTOS." - quality. As manufacturing for ceramic or exotic carbon pads got better, they got cheaper. the only companies still cranking out asbestos had legacy factories in Mexico or Indonesia that could not re-tool. They were just cranking out cheap pads for fleet customers too lazy to change brands. *update: checking with a buddy in the shop today It seems im wrong. Older Pierce brand firetrucks (pierce saber models she says) shipped with asbestos front and rear pads if they were not intended for airport duty.
- RankingMember 8y ago
  Ha, for some reason it never occurred to me that the "bestos" in "Raybestos" was a reference to asbestos.
  - nimbius 8y ago
    oh man, they were legendary for their use of the stuff. The negative association with Asbestos eventaully cost the owner his company in 1998. Raymark filed for Chapter 11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raybestos#Superfund_site_cleanup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raybestos#Superfund_site_clean...
- 8y ago
mirimir 8y ago
Wow. I mean, wow. I'm impressed. These idiots in government really only care about their bribes. And the idiots who are bribing them only care about making money. Everyone else can just fuck off and die. But hey. The Reagan era was horrible too. I mean, eight fucking years! Plus four more of Bush I. And then, all too soon, another eight years of Bush II. ... Actually, I was going for optimism. But I just can't get it up. Clinton and Obama were cool and all, for their two-term runs, but they were mostly bullshit. The political center of the US has shifted so far that, in many ways, Nixon (for all of his drunken paranoia) was more of a liberal than either. Edit: So hey, I went off the rails there. But seriously, this is insane. I mean, look at the mesothelioma epidemic. So what's next? Taking the pressure off tobacco marketing to children?
- okket 8y ago
  Nixon created the EPA...
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Not only that, but (according to a former senior adviser, who I got to know in the 90s) he was very close to supporting something like national minimum income. To replace welfare. As I recall, it used the income tax system. Below some minimum income, the tax rate became negative, increasingly so as income dropped.
    - craftyguy 8y ago
      > he was very close to Then he resigned, or was he always just 'very close to' it but never committed?
      - mirimir 8y ago
        That, I don't know. But we do know that he got preoccupied with the Vietnam War, and paranoid about those who opposed it. Also, he was quite the racist. And toward the end, he had more or less gone off the rails. So anyway, I'm guessing that it was early in his first term.
nemacol 8y ago
Having just lost a father-in-law to mesothelioma (June 2018), this makes me incredibly sad. I understand this is not an actual rule change and blah blah blah. 3,000 people are diagnosed with mesothelioma each year. What a slow and horrific way to go. Slowly losing your breath. Lungs filling with fluid and being rushed off to ER to drain. Endless breathing treatments. Never sleeping more than an hour without waking up coughing. I am sure many of you are aware the treatments can be just as painful as the illness itself. The man I knew when through all of this and more spread over a decade. 2 lung lobectomy surgeries. Chemo. Radiation. Misc corrective surgeries. Not to mention the hassles of the American healthcare system, doctors, lawyers, bills, and enough paperwork to fill a small office building. 3000 people a year. I can only understand new deployments of asbestos if they are... "perfectly safe" Saving thousands of lives There is no alternative.
- mtw 8y ago
  > Not to mention the hassles of the American healthcare system, doctors, lawyers, bills, and enough paperwork to fill a small office building. For reference, each new case costs the Canadian healthcare system $1m CAD.
  - arcticbull 8y ago
    Assuming case costs are evenly distributed and proportional to per capita expenditure, that means each new case would cost the US healthcare system about $1.6M USD. Something tells me that's an underestimate.
- dmix 8y ago
  It does say it's only being approved in special cases. I wouldn't expect the building industry to suddenly start using it again. How many of those 3000 are a legacy of the previous eras misunderstanding of the chemical? I doubt any company would ignore that risk and produce a product that put people at a direct and unknown risk, especially given the legal liability since we now know the full risks of the chemical and the alternatives the market has long ago developed in every category.
wufufufu 8y ago
Wow, this really shows the power of lobbying and possibly Trump's EPA. I would not have thought this was possible. In my mind "asbestos" has as bad of a media image as "Zika", "AIDs", "Al Qaeda", "ISIS". Obviously, it doesn't mean everyone home built in 2019 will have asbestos in the drywall (it sounds like the change is with reservations), but the fact that they could open up anything on the topic without intense resistance is impressive. I hope everyone who was a part of this lives in a home that was manufactured with asbestos as part of the process.
resters 8y ago
This article is 100% political. The EPA did this due to political shifts. What makes it eligible for the top spot on HN? Any detailed discussion of the politics underlying why this happened will be censored within minutes. What are we supposed to do, discuss the science of asbestos being toxic? This is a perfect example of why the "no politics" zealots on HN need to be stopped.
- doubt_me 8y ago
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/07/11/approved-by-donald-trump-asbestos-sold-by-russian-company-is-branded-with-the-presidents-face/?utm_term=.40d8ac9f345d https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/07/11/a... Or we can get to the real reasons why and get downvoted and flagged regardless.
  - resters 8y ago
    I want to read that, do you know of a good non-paywalled link?
    - doubt_me 8y ago
      Google it. No seriously. Multiple articles. It's all over Reddit.
- pokemongoaway 8y ago
  Last time I broke the rules I was banned. Then when I emailed asking about it I was told, "I've unkilled some of your recent comments that don't break the suite guidelines. Users can vouch for others, which also unkills them." He would not go into detail about how one user can vouch for another. Take this comment as me vouching for you :)
Exuma 8y ago
How long does it take for symptoms of asbestos to show up? I grew up in a 100 year old house where it probably had very old insulation and such... we did all kind of house maintenance and now I'm terrified something in there had it. I have lived in fairly modern apartments the last 15 years so I'm hoping I'm OK?
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  There is a very good chance you will have no problems. A lot of people have been exposed to asbestos decades ago but only small percentage got cancer. Your risk is probably higher than normal but I wouldn't worry about it too much.
Carl-Byrd 8y ago
fdaf
dfsegoat 8y ago
Just a reminder that asbestos occurs naturally in many CA state forests. Was recently offroading in McCloud, CA and it was all over the road - definitely didn't want to kick up dust: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/landmanagement/resourcemanagement/?cid=stelprdb5363833 https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/landmanagement/resourceman... http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/hazardous_minerals/asbestos http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/hazardous_minera...
- mrguyorama 8y ago
  Isn't this a non-sequitur? Nearly everything "occurs naturally" to some degree. That does not mean we should be okay with extra exposure. Asbestos was "banned" for a very good reason, why the step back?
rayiner 8y ago
The reaction on here is disappointing. Asbestos isn't nuclear waste: it causes harm in well understood ways, and the dangers of its use can be mitigated. A case-by-case analysis of new asbestos products is absolutely a reasonable approach. The EPA is charged with regulating rationally. Costs must be weighed against benefits. That balancing process is itself something that saves lives--e.g. there are people who are dead because asbestos alternatives aren't as good for fire proofing.
- refurb 8y ago
  Considering HN probably has a high percentage of well educated people on it, you can clearly see why politics is such a mess. People react emotionally to these things, rather than examine the facts.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    Or maybe we have examined the facts, and still believe this is a terrible idea.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  And we don't trust the Trump administration to make that assessment in a rational way.
justinpaulson 8y ago
Interesting that Russia has also just become almost the exclusive exporter of asbestos after Brazil has banned it. I'm not saying I think Trump is colluding with Russia, but COME ON!
throw2016 8y ago
The problem with these kind of threads on regulations, nuclear power, the epa is there is a lot of talk as if the commentators would live with their families right next to a nuclear plant but its in the comments of those who are personally affected where you see the concern, empathy and maturity. A lot of these 'strong opinions' often give way to the fastest u-turn known in history when people are personally affected. Empathy and maturity means you don't wait to be personally affected to change your mind.
dbg31415 8y ago
But CA still has to have a 1.8 GPM shower head?! Yeah, makes sense. =P Pre-1994 all shower heads were like 6 GPM -- those were nice showers. Not sure we've really saved any water by making people take longer, crappier showers. Sydney is still 25 LPM... roughly 6 GPM. It's bliss. I'm sure the EPA does some wonderful things, but they've totally ruined showers over the last 30 years.
acd 8y ago
Because lobbyist do what is in the general publics health concern NOT! I am quite concerned what industry with lobbying can achieve nowadays. This used to be illegal to lobby and also be called something else corruption The Forgotten Law of Lobbying https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2383317 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2383317
anonanon77 8y ago
This piece heavily lifts from the Fast Company story that originally reported it last week, I'd recommend you read that first: https://www.fastcompany.com/90208948/under-trumps-epa-asbestos-might-be-making-a-comeback https://www.fastcompany.com/90208948/under-trumps-epa-asbest...
anonanon77 8y ago
This story is nearly identical to the original article reported by Fast Company: https://www.fastcompany.com/90208948/under-trumps-epa-asbestos-might-be-making-a-comeback https://www.fastcompany.com/90208948/under-trumps-epa-asbest...
negadave 8y ago
Business as usual. Profits over people
negadave 8y ago
It sounds like business as usual. Profits over people.
Imburr 8y ago
My brother is a Marine and he states that some of the barracks they stay in are still abestos. He claims that the military knows and it would cost them more to address it versus fighting/paying for it later.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

560 points by okket 8y ago

EamonnMR 8y ago

The risks have been known for years. At this point isn't not pollution or negligence to use it, it's homicide.

s3m4j 8y ago
120 years give or take 10 years. But the free market is always right. Right ?
- kpil 8y ago
  Yes, Adams Smith's invisible hand will always deliver the global maximum AND all local maxima at the same time! So Say We All!
- buckminster 8y ago
  Even the Romans knew that you shouldn't buy a slave who had worked in an asbestos mine.
- swebs 8y ago
  How did "new uses will be reviewed by the EPA on a case-by-case basis" turn into a circlejerk against the free market?
smt88 8y ago
Relaxing fossil-fuel emissions standards and every other EPA protection is also homicide. This is par for the course for Trump's EPA.
dsfyu404ed 8y ago
I have a huge problem with this attitude. Just because consumers shouldn't side their houses and insulate their pipes with it doesn't mean nobody should have it. Asbestos is amazingly fire resistant. If the use case is extreme enough to make it worth it (working with dangerous materials is $$$) then I don't see why it shouldn't be used. Plenty of nasty materials and chemicals are used in all sorts of industries. I don't see why asbestos should get special treatment. I think the current status quo of "you can't use it in certain things and you need permission if you want to use it in anything else" is perfectly fine. If some company is willing to do what they need to use a dangerous material in 2018 (PPE, procedures for handling, insurance, etc, etc) and articulate a use case and why the alternatives don't work then why shouldn't they be able to use asbestos?

base698 8y ago

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-epa-allowing-asbestos-products/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-epa-allowing-asbestos-p... The EPA has not changed anything about currently banned uses of asbestos, and any new uses would first be assessed by the agency.

chronial 8y ago
Thanks, that is a lot clearer than the article.
jsonne 8y ago
It was my understanding they were now allowing it to be used in a case by case basis reviewed by the EPA. IMHO that makes sense. Surely there are some applications it makes sense for if the proper precautions are taken.
- ajmurmann 8y ago
  Well, they also are explicitly excluding any effects of it getting into the ground, water or air. Given ground, water and air is a major part of the environed the EPA is supposed to protect, what are they even doing?
- smt88 8y ago
  People thought they were taking proper precautions in the past. Proving something is safe in the long-run is very difficult and takes many years. Do you think this EPA will force applicants to do years of studies?
baq 8y ago
the overall rating is 'Mostly true', though.
- base698 8y ago
  Mega misleading, it's not being used in the capacity it used to be. They aren't allowing anyone just anyone to use asbestos and none of the old use cases for it are allowed--only new ones.

socceroos 8y ago

Why??

pi-rat 8y ago
Probably for the same reasons they recently (re-)allowed the pesticide (thought to be) responsible for honeybee colony collapse. Why not? Also, it opens up the possibility for importing: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/russian-asbestos-trump_face/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/russian-asbestos-trump_fac...
rootusrootus 8y ago
Because the guiding principle of this administration is to undo everything that is either directly or at least philosophically tied to the last one. Perhaps the most destructive case of butthurt ever.
- smt88 8y ago
  I disagree that it's just spite. It seems to me to be a pro-business agenda. It's literally the definition of crony capitalism.
doubt_me 8y ago
Russia is the biggest exporter of asbestos. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/07/11/approved-by-donald-trump-asbestos-sold-by-russian-company-is-branded-with-the-presidents-face https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/07/11/a...
- smt88 8y ago
  I thought this was a joke and also fact-checked before you added your own citation. It's true. https://www.asbestos.com/mesothelioma/worldwide/ https://www.asbestos.com/mesothelioma/worldwide/ And here we are still wondering what Trump's secret meeting with Putin was about. I'm not suggesting it was about asbestos, but the timing is certainly suspicious.

rapnie 8y ago

What is happening to the EPA in the US is really unbelievable. How low will the bar get for the polluters in this country, one wonders?

mc32 8y ago
This is the result of a 2016 amendment. Not the curreent admin. And read what the article says, the headline is clickbait. It will be a case-by-case review of any new application. Old, legacy bans will remain.
- smt88 8y ago
  It is absolutely the decision of the current administration. From Snopes: > The problem, according to critics, is twofold. The first, more generally, is that the EPA could have used the currently unfolding overhaul of the TSCA — which began at the end of the Obama administration and has continued along a very different path under Trump — to ban any new uses of asbestos, something that had been the case at the end of the last administration. Instead, they are explicitly allowing new uses, but with the caveat that the EPA first evaluate possible potential new uses based on “risk evaluation, select studies, and use the best available science.”
gameswithgo 8y ago
It is not unbelievable, it is the stated stance of the GOP to reduce environmental and health regulations, and they are doing it. It is exactly what we voted for.
- smt88 8y ago
  The majority of us did not vote for this. Without gerrymandering or the electoral college, Congress and the White House would be overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats.
  - shawn 8y ago
    At least the system is working as designed.

CompelTechnic 8y ago

I imagine that whether or not the asbestos is frangible will be strongly considered during evaluation. Incidentally, I have also seen a good amount of evidence that the fiberglass we currently use to replace asbestos insulation is super bad for your health, but likely not as bad.

yellowapple 8y ago
Asbestos, stone wool, fiberglass, etc. all tend to have the same physical properties, thus making them dangerous to inhale or ingest. Unfortunately, these physical properties tend to be why these materials are so effective as insulators.
- justin66 8y ago
  Asbestos stands out in that list as causing a significant mesothelioma risk. It's because some of the fibers are so small. There's some speculation that carbon fiber will be similarly dangerous, but rock wool and fiberglass aren't quite there. They're nasty but not that nasty.
- yvdriess 8y ago
  Be careful not to conflate chemical and mechanical properties. They share chemical properties, but do not share the mechanical property that makes Asbestos carcinogenic. Asbestos breaks down into particles of a dangerous size and shape. Glass and rock wool fibres are shaped differently and do not break in the same way. Glass/rock wool has been used extensively in practice and no link with cancer has been found to date. A quick search has found a quora post about the subject that goes into more detail: https://www.quora.com/How-much-of-a-health-hazard-is-fiberglass-compared-to-asbestos https://www.quora.com/How-much-of-a-health-hazard-is-fibergl...
sametmax 8y ago
And wait for us to discover all the wonderful side effects of ingesting or breathing nano particles of anything. They are everywhere now. E.G: salt now often contains E551, which is silica nano particles. It's silica, so the laws says it's ok because the raw material is harmless. Except we have no idea how the shape of it affects us. It will be able to go into places it couldn't before, interact chemically differently, and so on. A lot of fun is to come. It's the same with GMO: the tech is superb, the potential is wonderful. Can we wait 30 years of testing, and do said testing by independent, interest-free entities before spreading it everywhere ? Can we make testing on interactions ? On long term exposures ? On complete ecosystems ? And for each product ? Hell no: let's say it's safe by default because mouses didn't suffer from eating it for a few months. Then use illiterate facebook mum posts to make sure any critics is regarded as unscientific. We got this. The thing is, human has always did that. It's not being evil. It's our natural way of doing things: try it out, and fix on the way. It's why we made so many cool stuff. The problem is, we are arriving at a point were the destructive potential of our actions is reaching such a scale, this strategy is way too dangerous.

alksalks 8y ago

DRUUUUUUUUMGPFFF

ChrisRR 8y ago

This makes sense as asbestos only really causes harm when humans come into contact with it. For applications where it is safely enclosed or mixed with another material it may have its uses. I think analysis on a case-by-case basis is the right way to go.

dominostars 8y ago
Like what kinds of used?
rc_bhg 8y ago
Case-by-case analysis is really expensive for a government agency to do. And you know full well that developers will cut corners at any chance they can if the rules are loosened up.
- tomp 8y ago
  If we banned all uses of harmful substances, many things (e.g. spaceflight) wouldn't be possible (or at least much more expensive) (e.g. most hypergolic propellant used for fine maneuvring e.g. during docking are extremely poisonous - alternatives are being tested but aren't there yet).
  - boobsbr 8y ago
    Yeah, hydrazine came to my mind instantly. That stuff is scary.
- ethagknight 8y ago
  Case-by-case could be an industry wide standard with Operations & Maintenance requirements, which is what we currently have in real estate surrounding existing asbestos and lead applications. A similar protocol surrounding implementation of new "safe" installations of asbestos-containing-materials could be developed.
mywittyname 8y ago
In what cases would you use it where humans wouldn't be in contact with it eventually?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

mistrial9 8y ago

.. in related news, only robots will be allowed to apply the material, and a cousin of the second secretary of the EPA happens to have a new robot company. Nothing to see here, please move along. </sarcasm>

52-6F-62 8y ago
I know you're kidding, but: ‘Approved by Donald Trump’: Asbestos sold by Russian company is branded with the president’s face https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/07/11/approved-by-donald-trump-asbestos-sold-by-russian-company-is-branded-with-the-presidents-face https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/07/11/a...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

joecool1029 8y ago

Probably should link the list of things banned and things not banned: https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/us-federal-bans-asbestos https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/us-federal-bans-asbestos As I understand this is a substance you really don’t want to break down and get airborne, so felts made with it are super hazardous. Stuff like vinyl tile with it really only poses a risk if you’re grinding/sanding it or its prone to some form of decomposition (like from water damage)

tmaly 8y ago

It has good material qualities, but do we really want to trade that for an increase in lung cancer? The stuff is so costly to dispose of, it is not really worth using.

WhompingWindows 8y ago
Unless your environmental "protection" agency is not in the business of protecting you. In which case, you don't have to pay the costs to dispose of things properly, because businesses shouldn't ever be fettered by any kind of environmental regulations, at least according to the current philosophy of the "protection" agency.
- HillaryBriss 8y ago
  also factor in the costs to these companies of the lawsuits they will inevitably attract by introducing new asbestos products. EPA approval does not shield them.

acomjean 8y ago

Ever seen an ad for "mesothelioma" and wonder what is that about? Its generally law firms looking for people with asbestos related lung cancer (edit: see replies for better description of the illness). The Asbestos particles are so small your body's natural filters don't stop them from getting stuck in your lungs, where they can cause cancer. As this point I can't imagine the insurance liability to start using asbestos again would allow this stuff to start proliferating widely again.

caf 8y ago
I believe it is actually a cancer of the lining of your thoracic cavity rather than your lungs.
- vedtopkar 8y ago
  Correct, it's a pleural cancer. That being said, asbestos poses an even bigger risk of "regular" lung cancer compared to mesothelioma. It really is a formidable carcinogen.
mywittyname 8y ago
The next step is tort reform to prevent victims from receiving compensation for their suffering.
refurb 8y ago
If you want to see the worst of the legal profession, start digging into mesothelioma cases. The bar for "proving" asbestos caused your mesothelioma is super low. There was one guy who worked in a factory with asbestos that was never actually compromised (i.e. never exposed), but won millions with the lawyers making out like bandits. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/opinion/nocera-the-asbestos-scam.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/opinion/nocera-the-asbest...
HillaryBriss 8y ago
thank you for pointing this out. it should get more attention here. for the last forty or more years, the biggest pressure against the use of asbestos has been lawsuits, not government regulation. many, many US companies were forced into bankruptcy by class action asbestos lawsuits which attached huge liabilities to them, even though their use of asbestos may have been quite limited. the asbestos lawsuit proliferation was such a strain on US industrial businesses that, in the early 2000's, the Senate almost created a huge asbestos trust fund, administered by the government, funded by these companies (and probably also government) to offload the liability from companies so that they could avoid bankruptcy and continue doing business, employing people, etc. (the legislation never passed). bottom line: companies would want more than just EPA approval to start cranking out loads of new asbestos products. EPA approval does little to protect them against these expensive lawsuits. what they would need is a rock-solid lawsuit shield.

christofosho 8y ago

My grandfather died due to asbestos in his lungs from when he was younger. Let's hope this is not going to be affirmed.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

nneonneo 8y ago

To shed some light on the “thinking from the top”, here’s a quote from a related Snopes article (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/russian-asbestos-trump_face/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/russian-asbestos-trump_fac...): > Trump once opined, in his 1997 book The Art of the Comeback, that efforts to reduce and regulate asbestos (a material he claimed was “100% safe” once applied) in building construction were part of a mob-lead conspiracy: >> I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal. Great pressure was put on politicians, and as usual, the politicians relented.

wiradikusuma 8y ago

There should also be a law requiring the CEO of the companies that produce it to receive a sample of each production batch, and they're required to install it at their house(s). If it's only used as part of manufacturing process, the CEO must have an open office next to the machine and be there at least once a week. "It's safe boss, you told me!"

patrickg_zill 8y ago

Aren't there 2 kinds of asbestos? 1 kind is dangerous to humans due to its particle size, and the other is larger and is filtered by your body...?

AngryData 8y ago
All forms of it are potentially harmful, but some forms of it are more easily broken down and go airborne making it easier to breath it in. It is nearly identical to breathing in ceramic dust, the finer it is easier it is to ingest it and the less likely your nose and throat will catch the particles before it enters your lungs and can no longer be expelled.
- HillaryBriss 8y ago
  i agree with you. i believe asbestos is unsafe and we should not be releasing more of into the environment by adding more of it to building materials and other industrial products. but, a perhaps surprising thing about our lungs is that they can expel some of the inhaled asbestos fibers. but, in some people that's just not good enough: they still get sick. (another risk factor, smoking, increases one's chance of mesothelioma from inhaled asbestos fibers) asbestos fibers are everywhere. a very substantial fraction of US residents have some asbestos fibers in their lungs because of natural background levels and/or contamination of the urban environment by industrial asbestos from past decades. during the 9/11 attacks, significant quantities of asbestos became airborne in NYC. asbestos fibers are quite durable. they don't break down into safe substances or disappear from the environment on their own.
anonuser123456 8y ago
There are more than 2. Chrysotile is the form most common in building material. Crocidolite is the form found in brake pads. Crocidolite is much more carcinogenic than chrysotile.

sysbell 8y ago

Give the EPA a break guys, they're doing asbestos they can.

prolikewh0a 8y ago
Humor on HN? Is this allowed? Upvote deserved.

jezfromfuture 8y ago

Lmafao

sctb 8y ago
We've banned this account.

k1ns 8y ago

I believe I've found the SNUR in question [0] and it seems to state that the EPA will consider uses of asbestos in construction: > Any Other Building Materials (other than cement): Examples include insulation, plasters, mastics, textured paints (e.g., simulates stucco), and block filler paints (e.g., for coating masonry). It looks like they're wanting to open a pathway of discussion between potential manufacturers/importers of asbestos and the EPA for new business opportunities which apparently include new construction, the brake pads that go onto your vehicles, and the floor tiles in your home. This sounds insane to me. I don't want to live in a world where policymakers with no scientific background get to decide how they personally feel about proven carcinogens in my children's lives. They seem to literally be saying that they want to consider asbestos in construction projects as a significant new use despite the fact that using it in construction was previously proven to be unsafe. The comment date is quickly closing, please let your voice be heard. [0] https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0159-0001 https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0159... EDIT: If I'm confused and have linked something irrelevant, please let me know and I will redact.

makomk 8y ago
I'm pretty sure that's the right rule. What you're missing is that previously those weren't considered new uses of asbestos at all in the US because it had been used for those purposes prior to 1989. As I understand it, without this proposed rule it would in fact be perfectly legal for US companies to just go right ahead and use asbestos in those building materials without any kind of EPA pre-approval. Requiring them to seek out the EPA's approval first is actually tightening the rules. (There are only five pre-1989 uses of asbestos which were banned, and this isn't one of them.) The main reason no-one uses asbestos for this is probably that it's a liability and PR disaster zone. See in particular section III, which explains this all reasonably clearly.
- k1ns 8y ago
  Very well said, thanks for the clarification. I read through it several times and came away feeling two different ways about it simultaneously. 1) Like you said, I assumed this meant that they were installing themselves via the law instead of relying on the honor system. I think that's awesome news. 2) I don't trust them to act in the best interest of the masses when it comes to which uses they green light and which uses they shoot down. But that's 100% my opinion which is cynical in nature most of the time. As long as the EPA uses this power for good, I'm all for it. I am skeptical about their motives though (which is entirely subjective).

swebs 8y ago

>EPA is now allowing asbestos back into manufacturing Wow, misleading headline of the decade. Asbestos was never completely banned from manufacturing in the United States, only for certain items. https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/us-federal-bans-asbestos https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/us-federal-bans-asbestos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos_and_the_law_(United_States)#Federal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos_and_the_law_(United_S...

HillaryBriss 8y ago
yes. that's right. it was the proliferation of costly lawsuits in recent decades which diminished the use of asbestos in the US. companies are still trying to resolve all of these lawsuits. what kind of incentives would need to be in place for a company to willingly put that lawsuit target on its own back?
- dbatten 8y ago
  I've heard people argue that a much more effective way to do environmental regulation would be to basically not regulate and instead increase liability standards for environmental/health damage. Right now, in many cases, if a factory is dumping toxic sludge into a river and they're within EPA limits, there's nothing anybody can do to stop it. If you allowed farmers downstream to come after them for damaging crops (or whatever), or allowed class action suits against coal-burning power companies for cancer and such, imagine what that might do to incentive structures. I'm not sure I buy it, but the asbestos case makes me wonder.
  - spiralx 8y ago
    How would you prove which power plant produced the particular molecules that gave you cancer? What if the company that owns a power plant has gone bust? How does this help you deal with cancer? What if you die before you make it through the years and years such a court case would drag on?
makomk 8y ago
Very much so. The entire proposed rule, so far as I can tell, is solely about taking most of the asbestos products which are still legal to manufacture and use in the US, declaring them a substantial new use on the basis that they're no longer being made, and erecting regulatory barriers to ever manufacturing or importing them again. It doesn't unban anything, not even genuinely novel uses for asbestos (which there's a long-running blanket ban on).

sandworm101 8y ago

Am I living in a cartoon? Deregulation is a valid and understandable view, one that is an established part of the political landscape. But inventing and allowing new uses for asbestos? This is sort of evil plan belongs in an episode of captain planet.

roland35 8y ago

It is exceedingly difficult for general consumers to figure out how to deal with hazards like asbestos and lead in home building materials. I am currently renovating our home and it turned out our floor tile had lead in it (not asbestos too thankfully). There are very few resources available and there are no clear rules on how to deal with the removal of hazardous materials. HUD, EPA, CDC, and state rules are all different. The best option as a homeowner, legally at least, is to not test anything if you can and do whatever you want! My conspiracy theory is that the real estate industry does not want people to know more about hazardous materials because they just want people to buy more houses.

ethagknight 8y ago
False on all accounts. Handling asbestos and lead is a well defined scope of work in the construction industry, large projects or small. The fact that you weren't carrying a budget for hot materials doesn't mean its a big conspiracy. There are very clear rules. Its a pain in the rear, but its also a budget line item just like mechanical, electrical, carpentry. Asbestos and Lead is a large piece of Environmental Engineering. Granted, you don't know what you have until you uncover it, but if your structure was built before a certain date, go ahead and assume you will be removing or encapsulating some hot materials.
- roland35 8y ago
  Maybe for the construction industry, but that is not my experience at least for residential. I had to call at least 30 different contractors across the state, and I recieved 30 different replies on the proper way to remove it. I have not had much luck finding a safe replacement! At least with electronics design I can check 'RoHs compliant' and see documentation from manufacturers. Not the case with ceramic tiles. There is no information available out there other than yes, lead can be in ceramic and yes, lead is bad in any quantity. Who even knows if lead dust is even produced when tiles are destroyed during removal? Maybe I am making a big deal about nothing but nobody can say for sure. And I have not had much luck with any testing procedure. XRF scanners seem to work with paint but there is little I could find about its utility with other materials like ceramic. Lab tests have fairly high thresholds of detection. While you are correct in that there are some clear rules and regulations with removing paint I have not been able to get any straight information on lead in other materials. It has been frustrating!

nimbius 8y ago

Im seeing a lot of comments on brakes containing asbestos. As an automotive engine mechanic, I started my trade changing out brake pads. As far as im aware, the last generation of asbestos containing brake pads in the US were Ferodo Brake Pads ending around 1994. The pads were phased out for a number of reasons - health, of course. as a mechanic, mesothelioma was your biggest risk changing brakes all day. most shops douse the pad assembly in a mix of dawn dish liquid or a basic degreaser liquid we called just called sauce, and send it through a quick carwash after the job. It was also an easy way to please customers and it kept friable dust to a minimum. - performance. compared to euro/japanese brakes arriving in the states in the early nineties, companies like raybestos were at a serious risk of going bankrupt if they didnt change. My first set of ceramic/ceramide pads was a revelation. I recommended them to all my customers. - health scares. Your consumer risk of driving a car with brakes impregnated with asbestos was minimal, but the CNN/60 minutes documentaries really did a number on the industry. It got so bad that at one point, Raybestos included big labels reading "CONTAINS NO ASBESTOS." - quality. As manufacturing for ceramic or exotic carbon pads got better, they got cheaper. the only companies still cranking out asbestos had legacy factories in Mexico or Indonesia that could not re-tool. They were just cranking out cheap pads for fleet customers too lazy to change brands. *update: checking with a buddy in the shop today It seems im wrong. Older Pierce brand firetrucks (pierce saber models she says) shipped with asbestos front and rear pads if they were not intended for airport duty.

RankingMember 8y ago
Ha, for some reason it never occurred to me that the "bestos" in "Raybestos" was a reference to asbestos.
- nimbius 8y ago
  oh man, they were legendary for their use of the stuff. The negative association with Asbestos eventaully cost the owner his company in 1998. Raymark filed for Chapter 11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raybestos#Superfund_site_cleanup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raybestos#Superfund_site_clean...
8y ago

mirimir 8y ago

Wow. I mean, wow. I'm impressed. These idiots in government really only care about their bribes. And the idiots who are bribing them only care about making money. Everyone else can just fuck off and die. But hey. The Reagan era was horrible too. I mean, eight fucking years! Plus four more of Bush I. And then, all too soon, another eight years of Bush II. ... Actually, I was going for optimism. But I just can't get it up. Clinton and Obama were cool and all, for their two-term runs, but they were mostly bullshit. The political center of the US has shifted so far that, in many ways, Nixon (for all of his drunken paranoia) was more of a liberal than either. Edit: So hey, I went off the rails there. But seriously, this is insane. I mean, look at the mesothelioma epidemic. So what's next? Taking the pressure off tobacco marketing to children?

okket 8y ago
Nixon created the EPA...
- mirimir 8y ago
  Not only that, but (according to a former senior adviser, who I got to know in the 90s) he was very close to supporting something like national minimum income. To replace welfare. As I recall, it used the income tax system. Below some minimum income, the tax rate became negative, increasingly so as income dropped.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    > he was very close to Then he resigned, or was he always just 'very close to' it but never committed?
    - mirimir 8y ago
      That, I don't know. But we do know that he got preoccupied with the Vietnam War, and paranoid about those who opposed it. Also, he was quite the racist. And toward the end, he had more or less gone off the rails. So anyway, I'm guessing that it was early in his first term.

nemacol 8y ago

Having just lost a father-in-law to mesothelioma (June 2018), this makes me incredibly sad. I understand this is not an actual rule change and blah blah blah. 3,000 people are diagnosed with mesothelioma each year. What a slow and horrific way to go. Slowly losing your breath. Lungs filling with fluid and being rushed off to ER to drain. Endless breathing treatments. Never sleeping more than an hour without waking up coughing. I am sure many of you are aware the treatments can be just as painful as the illness itself. The man I knew when through all of this and more spread over a decade. 2 lung lobectomy surgeries. Chemo. Radiation. Misc corrective surgeries. Not to mention the hassles of the American healthcare system, doctors, lawyers, bills, and enough paperwork to fill a small office building. 3000 people a year. I can only understand new deployments of asbestos if they are... "perfectly safe" Saving thousands of lives There is no alternative.

mtw 8y ago
> Not to mention the hassles of the American healthcare system, doctors, lawyers, bills, and enough paperwork to fill a small office building. For reference, each new case costs the Canadian healthcare system $1m CAD.
- arcticbull 8y ago
  Assuming case costs are evenly distributed and proportional to per capita expenditure, that means each new case would cost the US healthcare system about $1.6M USD. Something tells me that's an underestimate.
dmix 8y ago
It does say it's only being approved in special cases. I wouldn't expect the building industry to suddenly start using it again. How many of those 3000 are a legacy of the previous eras misunderstanding of the chemical? I doubt any company would ignore that risk and produce a product that put people at a direct and unknown risk, especially given the legal liability since we now know the full risks of the chemical and the alternatives the market has long ago developed in every category.

wufufufu 8y ago

Wow, this really shows the power of lobbying and possibly Trump's EPA. I would not have thought this was possible. In my mind "asbestos" has as bad of a media image as "Zika", "AIDs", "Al Qaeda", "ISIS". Obviously, it doesn't mean everyone home built in 2019 will have asbestos in the drywall (it sounds like the change is with reservations), but the fact that they could open up anything on the topic without intense resistance is impressive. I hope everyone who was a part of this lives in a home that was manufactured with asbestos as part of the process.

resters 8y ago

This article is 100% political. The EPA did this due to political shifts. What makes it eligible for the top spot on HN? Any detailed discussion of the politics underlying why this happened will be censored within minutes. What are we supposed to do, discuss the science of asbestos being toxic? This is a perfect example of why the "no politics" zealots on HN need to be stopped.

doubt_me 8y ago
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/07/11/approved-by-donald-trump-asbestos-sold-by-russian-company-is-branded-with-the-presidents-face/?utm_term=.40d8ac9f345d https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/07/11/a... Or we can get to the real reasons why and get downvoted and flagged regardless.
- resters 8y ago
  I want to read that, do you know of a good non-paywalled link?
  - doubt_me 8y ago
    Google it. No seriously. Multiple articles. It's all over Reddit.
pokemongoaway 8y ago
Last time I broke the rules I was banned. Then when I emailed asking about it I was told, "I've unkilled some of your recent comments that don't break the suite guidelines. Users can vouch for others, which also unkills them." He would not go into detail about how one user can vouch for another. Take this comment as me vouching for you :)

Exuma 8y ago

How long does it take for symptoms of asbestos to show up? I grew up in a 100 year old house where it probably had very old insulation and such... we did all kind of house maintenance and now I'm terrified something in there had it. I have lived in fairly modern apartments the last 15 years so I'm hoping I'm OK?

maxxxxx 8y ago
There is a very good chance you will have no problems. A lot of people have been exposed to asbestos decades ago but only small percentage got cancer. Your risk is probably higher than normal but I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Carl-Byrd 8y ago

fdaf

dfsegoat 8y ago

Just a reminder that asbestos occurs naturally in many CA state forests. Was recently offroading in McCloud, CA and it was all over the road - definitely didn't want to kick up dust: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/landmanagement/resourcemanagement/?cid=stelprdb5363833 https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/landmanagement/resourceman... http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/hazardous_minerals/asbestos http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/hazardous_minera...

mrguyorama 8y ago
Isn't this a non-sequitur? Nearly everything "occurs naturally" to some degree. That does not mean we should be okay with extra exposure. Asbestos was "banned" for a very good reason, why the step back?

rayiner 8y ago

The reaction on here is disappointing. Asbestos isn't nuclear waste: it causes harm in well understood ways, and the dangers of its use can be mitigated. A case-by-case analysis of new asbestos products is absolutely a reasonable approach. The EPA is charged with regulating rationally. Costs must be weighed against benefits. That balancing process is itself something that saves lives--e.g. there are people who are dead because asbestos alternatives aren't as good for fire proofing.

refurb 8y ago
Considering HN probably has a high percentage of well educated people on it, you can clearly see why politics is such a mess. People react emotionally to these things, rather than examine the facts.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Or maybe we have examined the facts, and still believe this is a terrible idea.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
And we don't trust the Trump administration to make that assessment in a rational way.

justinpaulson 8y ago

Interesting that Russia has also just become almost the exclusive exporter of asbestos after Brazil has banned it. I'm not saying I think Trump is colluding with Russia, but COME ON!

throw2016 8y ago

The problem with these kind of threads on regulations, nuclear power, the epa is there is a lot of talk as if the commentators would live with their families right next to a nuclear plant but its in the comments of those who are personally affected where you see the concern, empathy and maturity. A lot of these 'strong opinions' often give way to the fastest u-turn known in history when people are personally affected. Empathy and maturity means you don't wait to be personally affected to change your mind.

dbg31415 8y ago

But CA still has to have a 1.8 GPM shower head?! Yeah, makes sense. =P Pre-1994 all shower heads were like 6 GPM -- those were nice showers. Not sure we've really saved any water by making people take longer, crappier showers. Sydney is still 25 LPM... roughly 6 GPM. It's bliss. I'm sure the EPA does some wonderful things, but they've totally ruined showers over the last 30 years.

acd 8y ago

Because lobbyist do what is in the general publics health concern NOT! I am quite concerned what industry with lobbying can achieve nowadays. This used to be illegal to lobby and also be called something else corruption The Forgotten Law of Lobbying https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2383317 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2383317

anonanon77 8y ago

This piece heavily lifts from the Fast Company story that originally reported it last week, I'd recommend you read that first: https://www.fastcompany.com/90208948/under-trumps-epa-asbestos-might-be-making-a-comeback https://www.fastcompany.com/90208948/under-trumps-epa-asbest...

anonanon77 8y ago

This story is nearly identical to the original article reported by Fast Company: https://www.fastcompany.com/90208948/under-trumps-epa-asbestos-might-be-making-a-comeback https://www.fastcompany.com/90208948/under-trumps-epa-asbest...

negadave 8y ago

Business as usual. Profits over people

negadave 8y ago

It sounds like business as usual. Profits over people.

Imburr 8y ago

My brother is a Marine and he states that some of the barracks they stay in are still abestos. He claims that the military knows and it would cost them more to address it versus fighting/paying for it later.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]