4 ms·
The risks have been known for years. At this point isn't not pollution or negligence to use it, it's homicide.
by 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 ago120 years give or take 10 years. But the free market is always right. Right ?
- kpil 8y agoYes, 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 agoEven the Romans knew that you shouldn't buy a slave who had worked in an asbestos mine.
- swebs 8y agoHow 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 agoRelaxing fossil-fuel emissions standards and every other EPA protection is also homicide. This is par for the course for Trump's EPA.
- dsfyu404ed 8y agoI 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?