I think sametmax wrote a great reply already. I'll just address your logical fallacies. Generalisation fallacy 1: "some harmful things are not banned; asbestos

I think sametmax wrote a great reply already. I'll just address your logical fallacies. Generalisation fallacy 1: "some harmful things are not banned; asbestos is a harmful thing; asbestos should not be banned". Thankfully most governments are more nuanced with their regulations. In the case of asbestos, since comparable materials exist with less potential for harm, they are favoured and/or the more harmful stuff is banned. Where not possible there can be exemptions, e.g. see my European Commission link earlier, along with the "ban" it says: > One remaining use of chrysotile has not been banned, however - in diaphragms which are used for electrolysis in certain chlorine plants. This exception is justified because no safe alternative has been developed and this process is carried out on closed sites under strictly controlled conditions. Generalisation fallacy 2: "asbestos can be dangerous; if handled safely asbestos is not dangerous; asbestos is not a large risk". Because it can be used safely does not make it generally safe.