3 ms·

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

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.
- kwhitefoot 8y ago
  > E.G: salt now often contains E551, Strange how new solutions to non-problems keep getting invented. We just used to put a few grains of rice in the salt cellar to stop it getting damp.

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.

kwhitefoot 8y ago
> E.G: salt now often contains E551, Strange how new solutions to non-problems keep getting invented. We just used to put a few grains of rice in the salt cellar to stop it getting damp.