5 ms·
Society's track record is pretty good, then. Deaths attributable to asbestos are extremely rare in the scheme of things. Sensational headlines and ambulance cha
by ellyagg 16y ago
Society's track record is pretty good, then. Deaths attributable to asbestos are extremely rare in the scheme of things. Sensational headlines and ambulance chasing lawyers fool our primitive brain's broken probabilistic reasoning circuitry into making bad risk assessments. Given the overwhelming improvement in health and lifespan due to new material development and widespread use, I'd say we've been consistently making the right trade-offs. So, yeah, I'm firmly in the "OP is being paranoid" camp.
- juiceandjuice 16y agoExtremely rare compared to what? Compared to the entire population of the United States? Maybe. Compared to the population of those directly and continuously exposed? Not so much. We don't use that much asbestos anymore for a reason, and it's not because we found something better to replace it. I'm not advocating we abandon nanomaterial research by any means. I'm hoping that it's widespread use and adoption doesn't outpace research of it's effects on humans given it's similarities with asbestos.
- yummyfajitas 16y agoExtremely rare compared to what? Compared to the entire population of the United States? Compared to other health threats in the US. Before the 60's and 70's, Asbestosis was a minor concern except for people with occupational exposure (e.g. asbestos miners). Much bigger and more pressing issues were polio, malaria, measles, and the like. Once we became rich and healthy enough to care about it, we dealt with it. It was hardly an unknown threat, just a minor one.
- juiceandjuice 16y agoYes, the dangers of Asbestos were limited to people exposed to asbestos. It was an occupational hazard, and the uses of asbestos were largely commercial and industrial in nature. As such, Asbestos was never directly marketed to consumers. Asbestos exposure was also limited because it's relatively narrow scope of usefulness. Asbestos was never a cultural phenomenon. The extremely wide range of usefulness of nanotech means that it will show up in everything everywhere. Of specific concern should be anything designed to be airborne or directly applied directly on somebody. The product in question directly matches that description. Furthermore, this product is aimed directly at consumers, and the article even mentions how it is about to "revolutionize everything", alluding to widespread adoption and use. I'd hate for something like this to be plastered over keyboards, door knobs, floors and countertops, sunglasses, shoes, phones, surgical equipment, dishes and silverware, headphones, cosmetics, etc... Those are the targets for something like this. You know, things you touch and use every day.
- L-L-Lame_J 16y agoaww shit
- bkmartin 16y agowell I think asbestos was marketed to consumers. that is why my house siding is made of it. And as long as I am not sanding it and breathing the dust I have nothing to worry about. I do wonder what this really could mean for society if something like this took off.
- malbs 16y agoI guess you'd be happy to break up asbestos sheeting with no breathing apparatus then? Or participate in loose-fibre insulation removal, again with no protection? We'll check in with you in 20 years and see how you're going.
- njharman 16y agoThen take PCB's, or mercury and other hvy metal poisoning. Or radium (maybe a different radioactive) they use to paint on clock/watches to make them glow in the dark.
- patrickk 16y ago"Or radium (maybe a different radioactive) they use to paint on clock/watches to make them glow in the dark." You're thinking of tritium: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium_illumination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium_illumination
- rgsteele 16y agoYeah, or radium: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_dials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_dials