5 ms·

> The first documented death related to asbestos was in 1906, yet it was only banned a century later Incredibly it's still not generally banned in the USA; onl

by ljcn 8y ago

> The first documented death related to asbestos was in 1906, yet it was only banned a century later Incredibly it's still not generally banned in the USA; only a small list of products are banned by the EPA federally.[0] It was increasingly banned in Europe from the mid 1980s, and totally banned throughout the EU in 2005.[1] [0] https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/us-federal-bans-asbestos https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/us-federal-bans-asbestos [1] https://cordis.europa.eu/news/rcn/13445_en.html https://cordis.europa.eu/news/rcn/13445_en.html > but who knows about it ? That was big news in Europe, e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34615621 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34615621

sametmax 8y ago
Making the news once doesn't mean people know about it, unfortunately. Otherwise people would not vote for crooked politicians after their first idiotic behavior. Unless you educate again and again, generation after generation, abstract knowledge doesn't stick.
ekianjo 8y ago
>Incredibly it's still not generally banned in the USA; only a small list of products are banned by the EPA federally.[0] It was increasingly banned in Europe from the mid 1980s, and totally banned throughout the EU in 2005.[1] Like everything else, everything is deadly at large doses. Even water. Alcohol clearly causes stomach cancer too at large doses, yet alcohol is not banned, right? If we were to ban everything that leads to a certain point of toxicity, we would not be able to live with anything around us. Toxicity is factored by exposure, which is why "carcinogenic risk" is not a binary variable. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/substances/asbestos/asbestos-fact-sheet#q3 https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/s... > Everyone is exposed to asbestos at some time during their life. Low levels of asbestos are present in the air, water, and soil. However, most people do not become ill from their exposure. People who become ill from asbestos are usually those who are exposed to it on a regular basis, most often in a job where they work directly with the material or through substantial environmental contact. The ones who are at the most risk in regard to asbestos are workers in construction or demolition. And in most countries how they should work with asbestos is now clearly regulated (safety gear and procedures).
- marcoperaza 8y ago
  The ones at the most risk are those who also smoke tobacco. The difference in cancer rates between smokers and non-smokers with equal exposure is huge.
- sametmax 8y ago
  > The ones who are at the most risk in regard to asbestos are workers in construction or demolition. And in most countries how they should work with asbestos is now clearly regulated (safety gear and procedures). Yes but this is something that is commonly badly understood: the problem with asbestos is not that we can't manage it, it's that it WILL be badly managed at some point. If you handle arsenic, you won't put it in schools and offices. You will manipulate it in very specifically environment that accommodate specific activities and is filled with specific people. With asbestos, you have it in unmarked exposed building parts. Some accident may damage them. Somebody may drill a hole to fix something. Some contractor may rebuilt part of something without noticing. And then a small but continuous dose of asbestos will invisibly goes into the occupant lungs for years. It's like lead in water pipe. It's insidious.
- wowDude 8y ago
  everything is deadly at large doses ... if we were to ban everything that leads to a certain point of toxicity, we would not be able to live with anything around us No, that's not how this works. The salient point here, is that we know about specific things which are predominantly non-essential, and atrociously bad for everyone. Lead. Asbestos. Cigarette smoke. DDT. Plutonium. This list is not exhaustive. Believe it or not, humanity is well acquainted with some natural, persistent, toxic villains, that no one needs to share a room with. No one's life is actually better with any of these things. Yeah, coffee has low concentrations of acrylamide in it. Then, use that to argue that there's the same sort of calculated risk in the stimulant side-effects sought by those who self administer a cigarette's dose of smoke. People try to form the same sort of argument, when contrasting natural substances and materials, versus synthetic counterparts. Gee, everything's natural! Yes, and the sun will swallow the better part of the solar system during its red giant phase. Except, that's not the point. Muddying the waters, by digging up grey zone edge cases doesn't make asbestos a desirable choice for consumer goods, or even professional products. It doesn't make cigarettes good for anyone. It doesn't make lead a practical additive for gasoline. It doesn't mean we should render random birds extinct as by-catch, so we can barbecue all summer. It doesn't mean plutonium, in any amount, should be handled beyond the watchful eyes of armed guards by pretty much anyone.
abainbridge 8y ago
> Incredibly it's still not generally banned in the USA Surprisingly (to me) the restrictions on asbestos use were relaxed on 1 June 2018: https://www.fastcompany.com/90208948/under-trumps-epa-asbestos-might-be-making-a-comeback https://www.fastcompany.com/90208948/under-trumps-epa-asbest...
- rbanffy 8y ago
  Sadly, it's not that surprising.

by ljcn 8y ago

sametmax 8y ago

Making the news once doesn't mean people know about it, unfortunately. Otherwise people would not vote for crooked politicians after their first idiotic behavior. Unless you educate again and again, generation after generation, abstract knowledge doesn't stick.

ekianjo 8y ago

>Incredibly it's still not generally banned in the USA; only a small list of products are banned by the EPA federally.[0] It was increasingly banned in Europe from the mid 1980s, and totally banned throughout the EU in 2005.[1] Like everything else, everything is deadly at large doses. Even water. Alcohol clearly causes stomach cancer too at large doses, yet alcohol is not banned, right? If we were to ban everything that leads to a certain point of toxicity, we would not be able to live with anything around us. Toxicity is factored by exposure, which is why "carcinogenic risk" is not a binary variable. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/substances/asbestos/asbestos-fact-sheet#q3 https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/s... > Everyone is exposed to asbestos at some time during their life. Low levels of asbestos are present in the air, water, and soil. However, most people do not become ill from their exposure. People who become ill from asbestos are usually those who are exposed to it on a regular basis, most often in a job where they work directly with the material or through substantial environmental contact. The ones who are at the most risk in regard to asbestos are workers in construction or demolition. And in most countries how they should work with asbestos is now clearly regulated (safety gear and procedures).

marcoperaza 8y ago
The ones at the most risk are those who also smoke tobacco. The difference in cancer rates between smokers and non-smokers with equal exposure is huge.
sametmax 8y ago
> The ones who are at the most risk in regard to asbestos are workers in construction or demolition. And in most countries how they should work with asbestos is now clearly regulated (safety gear and procedures). Yes but this is something that is commonly badly understood: the problem with asbestos is not that we can't manage it, it's that it WILL be badly managed at some point. If you handle arsenic, you won't put it in schools and offices. You will manipulate it in very specifically environment that accommodate specific activities and is filled with specific people. With asbestos, you have it in unmarked exposed building parts. Some accident may damage them. Somebody may drill a hole to fix something. Some contractor may rebuilt part of something without noticing. And then a small but continuous dose of asbestos will invisibly goes into the occupant lungs for years. It's like lead in water pipe. It's insidious.
wowDude 8y ago
everything is deadly at large doses ... if we were to ban everything that leads to a certain point of toxicity, we would not be able to live with anything around us No, that's not how this works. The salient point here, is that we know about specific things which are predominantly non-essential, and atrociously bad for everyone. Lead. Asbestos. Cigarette smoke. DDT. Plutonium. This list is not exhaustive. Believe it or not, humanity is well acquainted with some natural, persistent, toxic villains, that no one needs to share a room with. No one's life is actually better with any of these things. Yeah, coffee has low concentrations of acrylamide in it. Then, use that to argue that there's the same sort of calculated risk in the stimulant side-effects sought by those who self administer a cigarette's dose of smoke. People try to form the same sort of argument, when contrasting natural substances and materials, versus synthetic counterparts. Gee, everything's natural! Yes, and the sun will swallow the better part of the solar system during its red giant phase. Except, that's not the point. Muddying the waters, by digging up grey zone edge cases doesn't make asbestos a desirable choice for consumer goods, or even professional products. It doesn't make cigarettes good for anyone. It doesn't make lead a practical additive for gasoline. It doesn't mean we should render random birds extinct as by-catch, so we can barbecue all summer. It doesn't mean plutonium, in any amount, should be handled beyond the watchful eyes of armed guards by pretty much anyone.

abainbridge 8y ago

> Incredibly it's still not generally banned in the USA Surprisingly (to me) the restrictions on asbestos use were relaxed on 1 June 2018: https://www.fastcompany.com/90208948/under-trumps-epa-asbestos-might-be-making-a-comeback https://www.fastcompany.com/90208948/under-trumps-epa-asbest...

rbanffy 8y ago
Sadly, it's not that surprising.