19 ms·
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
by 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 agoLike what kinds of used?
- rc_bhg 8y agoCase-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 agoIf 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 agoYeah, hydrazine came to my mind instantly. That stuff is scary.
- ethagknight 8y agoCase-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 agoIn what cases would you use it where humans wouldn't be in contact with it eventually?
- debacle 8y agoOne thought would be as a cement additive in marine applications.
- jdironman 8y agoWhat about asbestos and marine wild life?
- pard68 8y agoGenuine question, if you do not have lungs does asbestos have any negative impact on you? Marine animals either hold their breath and come up for air or have gills.
- boobsbr 8y agoMight perforate the blood vessels in the gills and enter the blood stream? Later on we eat it?
- AngryData 8y agoIf it becomes loose in the water it would get in their gills and bottom feeders would suck it up off the sea floor and harm them the same way it harms lungs. That said, im not sure there would be loose pieces of it leaving the cement. Plus if someone REALLY wanted the properties of asbestos, there are plenty of ceramic wools that are pretty much identical products (with the same risks of asbestos) that are comparable in price and not subject to the same kind of rules. However nobody that makes ceramic wool would be dumb enough to pretend that shit isn't harmful to be exposed to.
- hokumguru 8y agoI would wager that most marine animals would be unaffected. Mammals would hold their breath, and any other animal with gills already deals with fine-grained sediment.
- jccalhoun 8y agoCan it be mined or mixed with other material without people coming into contact with it?
- skummetmaelk 8y agoLeaded paint is only really dangerous if you pry it off the wall and swallow it. Who would do that?
- cure 8y agoOr if it is pulverized into dust and becomes airborne, like when you open/close an old painted window, or door.
- usefulcat 8y agoOr, much more likely, if you create a fine dust by sanding it.
- DiabloD3 8y agoOr breath in the dust as the paint degrades in an alarmingly short time.
- ars 8y agoAnd yet there is a nice chunk of lead in my car. It's all in how you use it, asbestos included.
- rdtsc 8y agoKids do that. The paint chips even have a sweetish taste to it.
- zorkw4rg 8y agoIsn't that anyways now different, I mean asbestos is dangerous when its in the air but: > 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. Therefore if they don't consider effects from having it in the air asbestos is not dangerous anymore? This article must seriously misrepresent the facts, I can't believe that even post-Trump / GOP are this insane.
- ankka 8y agoThe manufacturing process pretty much always involves humans.
- randcraw 8y agoIf asbestos is enclosed, what's the point in using it? Why not just build the entire object using the material that enclosed the asbestos? Safety analysis on a 'case-by-case basis' will take place where the product is made, not where it's sold. In China. So you believe Chinese inspectors will keep Americans safe?
- grenoire 8y agoBecause the material itself may not have the insulating properties of asbestos itself. Additionally the material enclosing might be more expensive than asbestos too.
- throwawaymath 8y ago> If asbestos is enclosed, what's the point in using it? Why not just build the entire object using the material that enclosed the asbestos? Asbestos is carcinogenic because it's extremely fibrous. By enclosing asbestos you mitigate its deleterious effects on human lungs. However, you do not remove its insulation properties, which may not be shared by whatever is physically enclosing it. Simply put: all you need to prevent fibrous material from entering the lungs is a physical barrier. But a physical barrier is insufficient to provide insulation. Sandwiched asbestos provides insulation that the enclosure material cannot provide on its own.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- ethagknight 8y agoIt does make sense, and I get frustrated by the blanket reactions below. In my line of work redeveloping historic buildings, asbestos is just another item to deal with. Some of the asbestos we encounter is friable, where we have to seal off a room with plastic, have all workers in hazmat suits, keep the material wet at all times, double bag it, and send it off to a special landfill in a sealed-top dumpster. Non-friables are much easier to safely remediate. Furthermore, asbestos that is encapsulated is safe to be left in place undisturbed. It stands to reason that if there is a non-friable, encapsulated use where asbestos' natural properties make a significant impact, them we should at least consider their potential benefits as well. Asbestos is a cheap and natural product with dangerous side effects. Much like oil. Allowing ways to use it safely is a worthwhile consideration. EDIT: thinking back, the real pain in the ass with asbestos in my buildings is when it is glued down or otherwise affixed, and cannot be lifted away cleanly. Even in friable asbestos applications, if it can be removed or replaced relatively cleanly, then its not a big deal. EDIT 2: to put numbers to the abatement discussion, we typically spend 1.5% of our construction budget on abatement. $30mm construction budget will cost $450k to remove it all properly, and in these buildings, asbestos and lead is everywhere. The bigger hit to us is on schedule, where we have to set aside an additional month or 2 to let the abatement guys have a whole floor at time, sometimes having to make 2 passes to abate the surface finishes like floor and ceiling tile, then come back through after general demo to remove pipe insulation, mastics, etc. The schedule hurts.