5 ms·

Build on this even in 1942, just prior to the discovery of the link to Mesothelioma, we were busily figuring out every use case we could for asbestos - http://w

Build on this even in 1942, just prior to the discovery of the link to Mesothelioma, we were busily figuring out every use case we could for asbestos - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC8L8ooBSgQ&t=1m8s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC8L8ooBSgQ&t=1m8s Despite the recognition of Mesothelioma in the early 1900s it took almost 40 years to associate the disease with Asbestos. My understanding is that this was due to the 10 - 40 year average post exposure timeline for Mesothelioma to show up. If Asbestos was discovered today would our contemporary understanding of materials science & safety prevent us from spinning up factories and use cases like this? (1) https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/asbestosis/symptoms-causes/syc-20354637 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/asbestosis/sy...

skellera 6y ago
At least we think about it. The miracle material, graphene, has properties that could potentially cause problems when breathed in [0]. So at least we know what to look for and can mitigate. That said, who knows what other material might come about that causes problems 40 years later in a different way. We will learn when it comes but at least we’re starting to be more aware of potential problems. [0] https://www.materialstoday.com/carbon/articles/s1369702112701013/ https://www.materialstoday.com/carbon/articles/s136970211270...
- ReptileMan 6y ago
  If you really want to freak out - think xenoestrogens.
- dylan604 6y ago
  If we know that certain materials have certain negative repercussions, can we extrapolate any of that learning to new materials to see if they have similar properties?
- shawnz 6y ago
  Somewhat related: carbon nanotubes have been shown to cause mesothelioma, just like asbestos
  - jhoechtl 6y ago
    That sounds amazing and seems like a huge set-back to certain envisioned application areas of carbon nanotubes. Do you have a link to a study?
    - shawnz 6y ago
      Here you are: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4243371/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4243371/
      - thedudeabides5 6y ago
        Interesting thanks. If this guy is to be believed, asbestos and other "amphiboles" are different from nanotubes insofar as they have small metal/iron content, which you can imagine reacting with oxygen in the lungs in a harmful way that something made from pure carbon may not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuHL7hiFTnc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuHL7hiFTnc Now, on the other hand, if those carbon nanotube particles were all as sharp as tiny diamonds, you could imagine them being pretty bad to inhale.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  That is why it is safe to chew on pencils but not putting them too deeply into your nose. Could be though, finding materials that are believed to be harmless and turn out deadly a lot later seems to occur quite regularly.
mullingitover 6y ago
The crazy thing is that Pliny and Strabo were writing about the effects asbestos had on the slaves that processed it, ~2000 years ago.
- flancian 6y ago
  This sounded interesting so I looked it up; it seems it might be a popular misconception? > The term asbestos is traceable to Roman naturalist Pliny the Elder's manuscript Natural History and his use of the term asbestinon, meaning "unquenchable". While Pliny or his nephew Pliny the Younger is popularly credited with recognising the detrimental effects of asbestos on human beings, examination of the primary sources reveals no support for either claim. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos#Early_uses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos#Early_uses I've found many references to Pliny and Strabo around the web, but as the Wikipedia fragment implies yet no actual quotation about its dangers. It seems like a very specific myth to just come up though; my interest remains. Do let me know if you know more about this.
  - Gibbon1 6y ago
    De re Metallica 1500's on the other hand mentions dangers to workers and environmental harm that mining caused. I've also seen references to the Romans banning lead smelting in Italy. Better to force slaves to do that work at the fringes of the empire than give up productive farmland close to Rome.
    - pimlottc 6y ago
      > De re Metallica 1500's on the other hand Er, auto-correct error?
      - wolfgang42 6y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_re_metallica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_re_metallica was published in 1556, but there do seem to be words missing from that sentence somewhere.
sandworm101 6y ago
>> If Asbestos was discovered today... I don't think it would. Asbestos is a totally natural product. It would probably bypass many of our testing standards.
- hansvm 6y ago
  I don't like it, but I think I agree with you. Examples that come to mind include the use of copper sulphate as a more-or-less unregulated pesticide in organic farms, mutagenic breeding as the "safe and natural" alternative to gene splicing, and a whole host of other natural (and therefore obviously safe and beneficial) practices.
- refurb 6y ago
  I would disagree. We have a lot more information about the hazards of inhaling fine particles. When I worked in a lab, we were clearly made aware of the need for protection against fine silica (sand). We may not be aware of the mesothelioma risk, but I would imagine we’d be aware of the hazard of inhaling asbestos particles and avoid exposure. Remember, having asbestos in your home is not a risk as long as it’s encapsulated. It’s really the mining and manipulation of asbestos that’s the risk.
- bsder 6y ago
  It would get tagged as an inhalation hazard almost immediately. We understand silicosis much better than we used to.
- dan_quixote 6y ago
  Disagree. Silica and many types of wood are severe irritants to our respiratory system and also natural. I think nearly anything that leaves noticeable particulate in the air would get scrutiny, especially if newly discovered.
jacquesm 6y ago
There is some concern about carbon fiber and carbon nanotubes, they share some of the physical properties with asbestos fibers. So I do think that we would be on it pretty quickly but whether we would change course before the symptoms appeared is a different matter. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041008X18302941 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041008X1...
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
If asbestos was discovered today we'd likely use the hell out of it because we'd know it causes cancer ahead of time and we'd take precautions (like not building it into things likely to release dust) the same way we do with all sorts of crazy molecules that get used in modern chemicals. It would be in your Ove Glove, not in your floor tiles. Tons of people wouldn't get cancer (because we wouldn't release the dust everywhere) and it would never be able to become a BadThing(TM) in the public's mind. It would just be another boring industrial compound nobody knows about. Same goes for lead paint. If any of the people who disagree would like to share why that would be great.
- rsynnott 6y ago
  > It would be in your Ove Glove, not in your floor tiles Would people buy oven gloves that had to be treated as hazardous waste? You’d likely have to build cost of eventual disposal into the sale price, a la WEEE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Electrical_and_Electronic_Equipment_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Electrical_and_Electroni... > Same goes for lead paint Where would you see this being used?
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    >Would people buy oven gloves that had to be treated as hazardous waste? You kind of answered your own question with the reference to e-waste. If the product confers some benefit and isn't hazardous in the form in which the users will use it then people will have no problem buying it. >Where would you see this being used? Things that very cost sensitive and aren't gonna see much human contact and will almost certainly enter a recycling stream before the paint wears off. 55gal drums come to mind.
    - rsynnott 6y ago
      Perfectly good oven gloves are already available, though, and they don't have a hazardous waste disposal charge tacked on. You also don't have to call in specialists to decontaminate the kitchen if you damage one. > Things that very cost sensitive and aren't gonna see much human contact and will almost certainly enter a recycling stream before the paint wears off. 55gal drums come to mind. People work around those all day. And lead wasn't added to paint to make it cheap, it was added mostly to increase durability. So you probably don't really want it for short-lived products.

skellera 6y ago

At least we think about it. The miracle material, graphene, has properties that could potentially cause problems when breathed in [0]. So at least we know what to look for and can mitigate. That said, who knows what other material might come about that causes problems 40 years later in a different way. We will learn when it comes but at least we’re starting to be more aware of potential problems. [0] https://www.materialstoday.com/carbon/articles/s1369702112701013/ https://www.materialstoday.com/carbon/articles/s136970211270...

ReptileMan 6y ago
If you really want to freak out - think xenoestrogens.
dylan604 6y ago
If we know that certain materials have certain negative repercussions, can we extrapolate any of that learning to new materials to see if they have similar properties?
shawnz 6y ago
Somewhat related: carbon nanotubes have been shown to cause mesothelioma, just like asbestos
- jhoechtl 6y ago
  That sounds amazing and seems like a huge set-back to certain envisioned application areas of carbon nanotubes. Do you have a link to a study?
  - shawnz 6y ago
    Here you are: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4243371/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4243371/
    - thedudeabides5 6y ago
      Interesting thanks. If this guy is to be believed, asbestos and other "amphiboles" are different from nanotubes insofar as they have small metal/iron content, which you can imagine reacting with oxygen in the lungs in a harmful way that something made from pure carbon may not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuHL7hiFTnc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuHL7hiFTnc Now, on the other hand, if those carbon nanotube particles were all as sharp as tiny diamonds, you could imagine them being pretty bad to inhale.
raxxorrax 6y ago
That is why it is safe to chew on pencils but not putting them too deeply into your nose. Could be though, finding materials that are believed to be harmless and turn out deadly a lot later seems to occur quite regularly.

mullingitover 6y ago

The crazy thing is that Pliny and Strabo were writing about the effects asbestos had on the slaves that processed it, ~2000 years ago.

flancian 6y ago
This sounded interesting so I looked it up; it seems it might be a popular misconception? > The term asbestos is traceable to Roman naturalist Pliny the Elder's manuscript Natural History and his use of the term asbestinon, meaning "unquenchable". While Pliny or his nephew Pliny the Younger is popularly credited with recognising the detrimental effects of asbestos on human beings, examination of the primary sources reveals no support for either claim. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos#Early_uses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos#Early_uses I've found many references to Pliny and Strabo around the web, but as the Wikipedia fragment implies yet no actual quotation about its dangers. It seems like a very specific myth to just come up though; my interest remains. Do let me know if you know more about this.
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  De re Metallica 1500's on the other hand mentions dangers to workers and environmental harm that mining caused. I've also seen references to the Romans banning lead smelting in Italy. Better to force slaves to do that work at the fringes of the empire than give up productive farmland close to Rome.
  - pimlottc 6y ago
    > De re Metallica 1500's on the other hand Er, auto-correct error?
    - wolfgang42 6y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_re_metallica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_re_metallica was published in 1556, but there do seem to be words missing from that sentence somewhere.

sandworm101 6y ago

>> If Asbestos was discovered today... I don't think it would. Asbestos is a totally natural product. It would probably bypass many of our testing standards.

hansvm 6y ago
I don't like it, but I think I agree with you. Examples that come to mind include the use of copper sulphate as a more-or-less unregulated pesticide in organic farms, mutagenic breeding as the "safe and natural" alternative to gene splicing, and a whole host of other natural (and therefore obviously safe and beneficial) practices.
refurb 6y ago
I would disagree. We have a lot more information about the hazards of inhaling fine particles. When I worked in a lab, we were clearly made aware of the need for protection against fine silica (sand). We may not be aware of the mesothelioma risk, but I would imagine we’d be aware of the hazard of inhaling asbestos particles and avoid exposure. Remember, having asbestos in your home is not a risk as long as it’s encapsulated. It’s really the mining and manipulation of asbestos that’s the risk.
bsder 6y ago
It would get tagged as an inhalation hazard almost immediately. We understand silicosis much better than we used to.
dan_quixote 6y ago
Disagree. Silica and many types of wood are severe irritants to our respiratory system and also natural. I think nearly anything that leaves noticeable particulate in the air would get scrutiny, especially if newly discovered.

jacquesm 6y ago

There is some concern about carbon fiber and carbon nanotubes, they share some of the physical properties with asbestos fibers. So I do think that we would be on it pretty quickly but whether we would change course before the symptoms appeared is a different matter. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041008X18302941 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041008X1...

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

If asbestos was discovered today we'd likely use the hell out of it because we'd know it causes cancer ahead of time and we'd take precautions (like not building it into things likely to release dust) the same way we do with all sorts of crazy molecules that get used in modern chemicals. It would be in your Ove Glove, not in your floor tiles. Tons of people wouldn't get cancer (because we wouldn't release the dust everywhere) and it would never be able to become a BadThing(TM) in the public's mind. It would just be another boring industrial compound nobody knows about. Same goes for lead paint. If any of the people who disagree would like to share why that would be great.

rsynnott 6y ago
> It would be in your Ove Glove, not in your floor tiles Would people buy oven gloves that had to be treated as hazardous waste? You’d likely have to build cost of eventual disposal into the sale price, a la WEEE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Electrical_and_Electronic_Equipment_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Electrical_and_Electroni... > Same goes for lead paint Where would you see this being used?
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >Would people buy oven gloves that had to be treated as hazardous waste? You kind of answered your own question with the reference to e-waste. If the product confers some benefit and isn't hazardous in the form in which the users will use it then people will have no problem buying it. >Where would you see this being used? Things that very cost sensitive and aren't gonna see much human contact and will almost certainly enter a recycling stream before the paint wears off. 55gal drums come to mind.
  - rsynnott 6y ago
    Perfectly good oven gloves are already available, though, and they don't have a hazardous waste disposal charge tacked on. You also don't have to call in specialists to decontaminate the kitchen if you damage one. > Things that very cost sensitive and aren't gonna see much human contact and will almost certainly enter a recycling stream before the paint wears off. 55gal drums come to mind. People work around those all day. And lead wasn't added to paint to make it cheap, it was added mostly to increase durability. So you probably don't really want it for short-lived products.