11 ms·

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 an

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.
  - cryoshon 8y ago
    new uses of asbestos. the use cases where we do not have evidence for its carcinogenicity. because we have never needed to look for it there before. of course, we know that it is carcinogenic. the use case does not change that property of the material. the EPA is explicitly excluding environmental contamination risks, too. we know it is harmful to the environment, and, by proxy, us, again. what a folly the EPA has made here -- for the profit of those who would prefer to make money even if it hurts people.
Tade0 8y ago
This assessment is what I'm worried about the most. The current EPA is perfectly okay with rolling back emissions standards, so why shouldn't they be okay with allowing for more asbestos than it's necessary?
robotnixon 8y ago
Yes, instead of banning it outright they just kept the same rules and added loopholes to get around them.
skywhopper 8y ago
They've not changed any rules... yet. But they are establishing a process for doing so. Whereas before there was no such path. So while, sure nothing has changed yet, the entire point of proposing a process for allowing new uses is ... to allow new uses.
graeme 8y ago
That was the impression I got from the article. I think the headline of this post should be changed, but that snopes post doesn't really add anything beyond what the article says.
byebyetech 8y ago
I think current EPA would allow asbestos infused coal plants.
- kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
  Preferably implemented with neighborhood based DC generators as Edison intended.
_fizz_buzz_ 8y ago
You make it sound like the Snopes article contradicts the OP articled. They both say the same thing: "On June 1, the EPA authorized a “SNUR” (Significant New Use Rule) which allows new products containing asbestos to be created on a case-by-case basis." (2nd sentence of the OP article). Also, Snopes rates the claim as "mostly true".
wlesieutre 8y ago
Also from snopes: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/russian-asbestos-trump_face/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/russian-asbestos-trump_fac... >Did a Russian Asbestos Company Put Trump’s Face on Their Product? >A Russian asbestos producer shared a photograph of their product to social media with a seal of Donald Trump’s face and the text "Approved by Donald Trump”.
- swebs 8y ago
  They should probably also mention that all of the United States asbestos imports comes from Brazil. >All asbestos used in this country is imported. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the only form of asbestos currently imported into the United States is chrysotile, all of which originated from Brazil in 2017(USGS, 2018). USGS reports that in 2017, the United States imported approximately 300 metric tons of raw asbestos, the total of which they state is used in the chlor-alkali industry (USGS, 2018). In 2016, the United States imported approximately 702 metric tons of raw asbestos (USGS, 2018) https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4495888/Problem-Forumulations.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4495888/Problem-F... Page 238
  - riahi 8y ago
    Brazil banned asbestos in the end of 2017. https://www.asbestos.com/news/2017/12/04/brazil-asbestos-ban-us-imports/ https://www.asbestos.com/news/2017/12/04/brazil-asbestos-ban...
  - russelldc 8y ago
    Now that Brazil has banned asbestos, Russia is filling the market gap.
- webXL 8y ago
  Wow, is that not the single best photo summing up the current state of affairs?! Straight out of a James Bond movie. It's got pallets full of poison, red Russian labeling, the cartoonish president himself! Can it get any more sinister?? I thought for sure that it must have been 'shopped!
sametmax 8y ago
> the report states that the agency will no longer consider the effect or presence of substances in the air, ground, or water in its risk assessments.
jdietrich 8y ago
The EPA already allows asbestos to be used in a huge range of products. I simply cannot see what justification could be made for allowing asbestos to continue to be used in cement sheet, floor tile and brake pads. It might pose no immediate hazard when installed, but it could become a serious hazard at any point during its lifespan. Cement sheets crack and crumble, floor tiles become worn and get replaced, brake pads are designed to wear down. When you install any asbestos-containing material, you're setting a deadly man-trap. https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/us-federal-bans-asbestos https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/us-federal-bans-asbestos In the EU, there's a blanket ban on manufacturing or selling asbestos-containing products under the REACH regulations, with an exception only for replacement membranes in existing electrolysis equipment. Member states can add specific exemptions where there is a valid justification; in the UK, those exemptions apply only to used acetylene gas cylinders, heritage vehicles and museum artefacts. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/574c30dd-398d-b3ff-cc67-e7e843c2b243 https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/574c30dd-398d-b3ff-cc... http://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/exemption.htm http://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/exemption.htm
- xienze 8y ago
  The danger of asbestos to regular people is way overstated. Yes, if you work around it every day for years without wearing a mask you'll regret it. If it's in your floor tiles and one breaks, you'll be fine.
  - rescripting 8y ago
    "all levels of asbestos exposure studied to date have demonstrated asbestos-related disease ... there is no level of [asbestos] exposure below which clinical effects do not occur" https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/81-103/pdfs/81-103.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/81-103/pdfs/81-103.pdf
    - xienze 8y ago
      > However, in general, people who become ill from inhaling asbestos have been regularly exposed in a job where they worked directly with the material. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_impact_of_asbestos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_impact_of_asbestos > Asbestos can be found naturally in the air outdoors and in some drinkable water, including water from natural sources. Even nonoccupationally exposed members of the human population have tens to hundreds of thousands of asbestos fibers per gram of dry lung tissue, equivalent to millions of fibers in each lung. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_impact_of_asbestos#Environmental_asbestos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_impact_of_asbestos#Envi... OMG we're all gonna get mesothelioma from the asbestos that is normally found outdoors, unrelated to man-made activity! Again, I stand by what I said. The risks of asbestos to ordinary people are way overblown. It has to be loose and you have to be exposed to a lot of it for a long period of time. Regular people are fine. Edit: ya know people, you could respond to the specific claims instead of pressing the "I disagree" button. Is asbestos a dangerous substance? Yes, in certain circumstances. Are those circumstances something normal people need to be concerned about? No, not unless you work with the substance every day and without proper precautions.
robdachshund 8y ago
Snopes is not a source. It's a guy, his ex wife, and his hooker girlfriend. Not making this shit up.
partiallypro 8y ago
Don't go putting fact checks on this, people's hyper partisanship was coming out.

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.
- cryoshon 8y ago
  new uses of asbestos. the use cases where we do not have evidence for its carcinogenicity. because we have never needed to look for it there before. of course, we know that it is carcinogenic. the use case does not change that property of the material. the EPA is explicitly excluding environmental contamination risks, too. we know it is harmful to the environment, and, by proxy, us, again. what a folly the EPA has made here -- for the profit of those who would prefer to make money even if it hurts people.

Tade0 8y ago

This assessment is what I'm worried about the most. The current EPA is perfectly okay with rolling back emissions standards, so why shouldn't they be okay with allowing for more asbestos than it's necessary?

robotnixon 8y ago

Yes, instead of banning it outright they just kept the same rules and added loopholes to get around them.

skywhopper 8y ago

They've not changed any rules... yet. But they are establishing a process for doing so. Whereas before there was no such path. So while, sure nothing has changed yet, the entire point of proposing a process for allowing new uses is ... to allow new uses.

graeme 8y ago

That was the impression I got from the article. I think the headline of this post should be changed, but that snopes post doesn't really add anything beyond what the article says.

byebyetech 8y ago

I think current EPA would allow asbestos infused coal plants.

kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
Preferably implemented with neighborhood based DC generators as Edison intended.

_fizz_buzz_ 8y ago

You make it sound like the Snopes article contradicts the OP articled. They both say the same thing: "On June 1, the EPA authorized a “SNUR” (Significant New Use Rule) which allows new products containing asbestos to be created on a case-by-case basis." (2nd sentence of the OP article). Also, Snopes rates the claim as "mostly true".

wlesieutre 8y ago

Also from snopes: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/russian-asbestos-trump_face/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/russian-asbestos-trump_fac... >Did a Russian Asbestos Company Put Trump’s Face on Their Product? >A Russian asbestos producer shared a photograph of their product to social media with a seal of Donald Trump’s face and the text "Approved by Donald Trump”.

swebs 8y ago
They should probably also mention that all of the United States asbestos imports comes from Brazil. >All asbestos used in this country is imported. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the only form of asbestos currently imported into the United States is chrysotile, all of which originated from Brazil in 2017(USGS, 2018). USGS reports that in 2017, the United States imported approximately 300 metric tons of raw asbestos, the total of which they state is used in the chlor-alkali industry (USGS, 2018). In 2016, the United States imported approximately 702 metric tons of raw asbestos (USGS, 2018) https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4495888/Problem-Forumulations.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4495888/Problem-F... Page 238
- riahi 8y ago
  Brazil banned asbestos in the end of 2017. https://www.asbestos.com/news/2017/12/04/brazil-asbestos-ban-us-imports/ https://www.asbestos.com/news/2017/12/04/brazil-asbestos-ban...
- russelldc 8y ago
  Now that Brazil has banned asbestos, Russia is filling the market gap.
webXL 8y ago
Wow, is that not the single best photo summing up the current state of affairs?! Straight out of a James Bond movie. It's got pallets full of poison, red Russian labeling, the cartoonish president himself! Can it get any more sinister?? I thought for sure that it must have been 'shopped!

sametmax 8y ago

> the report states that the agency will no longer consider the effect or presence of substances in the air, ground, or water in its risk assessments.

jdietrich 8y ago

The EPA already allows asbestos to be used in a huge range of products. I simply cannot see what justification could be made for allowing asbestos to continue to be used in cement sheet, floor tile and brake pads. It might pose no immediate hazard when installed, but it could become a serious hazard at any point during its lifespan. Cement sheets crack and crumble, floor tiles become worn and get replaced, brake pads are designed to wear down. When you install any asbestos-containing material, you're setting a deadly man-trap. https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/us-federal-bans-asbestos https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/us-federal-bans-asbestos In the EU, there's a blanket ban on manufacturing or selling asbestos-containing products under the REACH regulations, with an exception only for replacement membranes in existing electrolysis equipment. Member states can add specific exemptions where there is a valid justification; in the UK, those exemptions apply only to used acetylene gas cylinders, heritage vehicles and museum artefacts. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/574c30dd-398d-b3ff-cc67-e7e843c2b243 https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/574c30dd-398d-b3ff-cc... http://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/exemption.htm http://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/exemption.htm

xienze 8y ago
The danger of asbestos to regular people is way overstated. Yes, if you work around it every day for years without wearing a mask you'll regret it. If it's in your floor tiles and one breaks, you'll be fine.
- rescripting 8y ago
  "all levels of asbestos exposure studied to date have demonstrated asbestos-related disease ... there is no level of [asbestos] exposure below which clinical effects do not occur" https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/81-103/pdfs/81-103.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/81-103/pdfs/81-103.pdf
  - xienze 8y ago
    > However, in general, people who become ill from inhaling asbestos have been regularly exposed in a job where they worked directly with the material. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_impact_of_asbestos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_impact_of_asbestos > Asbestos can be found naturally in the air outdoors and in some drinkable water, including water from natural sources. Even nonoccupationally exposed members of the human population have tens to hundreds of thousands of asbestos fibers per gram of dry lung tissue, equivalent to millions of fibers in each lung. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_impact_of_asbestos#Environmental_asbestos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_impact_of_asbestos#Envi... OMG we're all gonna get mesothelioma from the asbestos that is normally found outdoors, unrelated to man-made activity! Again, I stand by what I said. The risks of asbestos to ordinary people are way overblown. It has to be loose and you have to be exposed to a lot of it for a long period of time. Regular people are fine. Edit: ya know people, you could respond to the specific claims instead of pressing the "I disagree" button. Is asbestos a dangerous substance? Yes, in certain circumstances. Are those circumstances something normal people need to be concerned about? No, not unless you work with the substance every day and without proper precautions.

robdachshund 8y ago

Snopes is not a source. It's a guy, his ex wife, and his hooker girlfriend. Not making this shit up.

partiallypro 8y ago

Don't go putting fact checks on this, people's hyper partisanship was coming out.