4 ms·

> Asbestos can be found naturally in the air outdoors and in some drinkable water, including water from natural sources. Even nonoccupationally exposed members

> 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. If you're using this as an argument that increased asbestos exposure has no correlation to negative health outcomes, then you are contradicting the scientific literature for the sake of making a naturalistic fallacy. Why are you doing that? It's just a strange attempt at an argument. > OMG we're all gonna get mesothelioma from the asbestos that is normally found outdoors, unrelated to man-made activity! Again, because something appears in nature does not mean that it isn't positively correlated to negative health outcomes and that we shouldn't minimize it. That just point blank is not an actual argument. If you want to make an argument for your position you will need to cite research that increased asbestos exposure does not significantly increase negative health outcomes, which will be hard because it's well studied and the research is pretty conclusively against you. To illucidate why your argument isn't valid at a basic level, you can apply it to other things. Cyanide is present in almond plants and a byproduct of metabolizing apple seeds. Does that mean we should lax regulations around how much we systematically increase people's exposure to cyanide? What about radiation? People are exposed to ionizing background radiation every day. Do you think that somehow means that increasing that radiation exposure won't increase rates of cancer?

hpcjoe 8y ago
The study linked in the article itself, indicates that the current state of scientific understanding is that water born and skin contact are not significant issues for asbestos, and the primary concern is inhalation. Took me only 5 minutes to find it looking through the docs. I am not agreeing with the GP on their theory of "overblown". Asbestos initiated cancers seem to be some of those with no known threshold. That is, there is no safe amount of asbestos dust inhalation above which you get cancer. I am disagreeing with your statement on the scientific literature and consensus. As far as I know (not my field, so I am an outsider looking at literature), there is no strong consensus either way. There are hypotheses that need deeper looks [1][2][3][4][5]. That is, it looks like there may be something there, but the investigators can't as of yet, distinguish between this as causal versus other factors. This does not mean I think it is safe to ingest a bowl of asbestos followed by an asbestos flavored adult drink. What it does mean is that evidence is inconclusive, though there are a few pathways researchers could imagine would make sense as a causative. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28276807 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28276807 [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27919155 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27919155 [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15820729 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15820729 [4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3304998 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3304998 [5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21534087 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21534087 [minor update to add a missing "be" ]
hfdgiutdryg 8y ago
for the sake of making a naturalistic fallacy. That's not at all what the parent comment did.

hpcjoe 8y ago

The study linked in the article itself, indicates that the current state of scientific understanding is that water born and skin contact are not significant issues for asbestos, and the primary concern is inhalation. Took me only 5 minutes to find it looking through the docs. I am not agreeing with the GP on their theory of "overblown". Asbestos initiated cancers seem to be some of those with no known threshold. That is, there is no safe amount of asbestos dust inhalation above which you get cancer. I am disagreeing with your statement on the scientific literature and consensus. As far as I know (not my field, so I am an outsider looking at literature), there is no strong consensus either way. There are hypotheses that need deeper looks [1][2][3][4][5]. That is, it looks like there may be something there, but the investigators can't as of yet, distinguish between this as causal versus other factors. This does not mean I think it is safe to ingest a bowl of asbestos followed by an asbestos flavored adult drink. What it does mean is that evidence is inconclusive, though there are a few pathways researchers could imagine would make sense as a causative. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28276807 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28276807 [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27919155 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27919155 [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15820729 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15820729 [4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3304998 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3304998 [5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21534087 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21534087 [minor update to add a missing "be" ]

hfdgiutdryg 8y ago

for the sake of making a naturalistic fallacy. That's not at all what the parent comment did.