3 ms·

> just one or two microfibers of it in your lungs and your fate of a slow painful death is sealed. Hell of a claim. Sources?

dccoolgai 6y ago
>The one asbestos disease that is different is mesothelioma. Very small amounts of asbestos can give you mesothelioma. Asbestos workers' families have gotten mesothelioma from the dust the workers brought home on their clothes. https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/asbestos/homeowner/heffects.html https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/asbes...
- the-dude 6y ago
  The magic word there is of course can. Although both asbestos and mesothelioma are very nasty, I fail to see evidence for your claim that your faith is sealed.
- shawnz 6y ago
  https://thorax.bmj.com/content/58/9/809#xref-ref-7-1 https://thorax.bmj.com/content/58/9/809#xref-ref-7-1 > Necroscopic studies have led to the determination of asbestos fibre load and the demonstration of a dose related effect, thus making improbable the argument that mesothelioma only requires one fibre of asbestos for initiation of the malignancy. Furthermore, asbestos exposure in urban settings is very common: https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/10.1164/arrd.1980.122.5.669 https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/10.1164/arrd.1980.122.5.669 > We isolated uncoated asbestos fibers from the lungs of 21 urban dwellers who had fewer than 100 asbestos bodies/gram of lung, a level shown previously to be associated with environmental rather than occupational exposure to asbestos
  - dccoolgai 6y ago
    Considering that Mesothelioma can take 30+ years to manifest, that info about exposure being common does _not_ improve my day. The truth is, it's hard to unravel: especially with 100s of billions of dollars on the line in liability, there is probably some "sugar science" going on - maybe on both sides even. What I _do_ know is that: 1. It's harmful af (regardless of "how much" the research says, the fact is: harmful af). 2. Everyone thinks it's banned, but it's not. 3. Some people make billions of dollars continuing to use it (enabled by #2) 4. I'm not in the set of people described in #3 I'd like it to be banned.
    - shawnz 6y ago
      I certainly agree with all that. It should be banned.
Someone 6y ago
https://www.britsafe.org/publications/safety-management-magazine/safety-management-magazine/2014/asbestos-testing-up-in-the-air/ https://www.britsafe.org/publications/safety-management-maga...: * In July 1984 the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) published an update to guidance note EH10, Asbestos – Control Limits, measurement of airborne dust concentrations and the assessment of control measures, which introduced a limit value of 0.01 fibre/ml.* That’s 100 fibers/liter, so at least that with every breath you take. Because of that, I think that, if that claim is true, it only is if you wouldn’t die of something else first.
- stordoff 6y ago
  The stance of the HSE in 2010 is worth mentioning: > There is a lack of scientific consensus as to whether there exists a threshold of exposure to asbestos below which a person is at zero risk of developing mesothelioma. However, there is evidence from epidemiological studies of asbestos exposed groups that any threshold for mesothelioma must be at a very low level - and it is fairly widely agreed that if a threshold does exists then it cannot currently be quantified. For practical purposes HSE does not assume that such a threshold exists. https://web.archive.org/web/20111030182149/http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causdis/asbfaq.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20111030182149/http://www.hse.go...

dccoolgai 6y ago

>The one asbestos disease that is different is mesothelioma. Very small amounts of asbestos can give you mesothelioma. Asbestos workers' families have gotten mesothelioma from the dust the workers brought home on their clothes. https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/asbestos/homeowner/heffects.html https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/asbes...

the-dude 6y ago
The magic word there is of course can. Although both asbestos and mesothelioma are very nasty, I fail to see evidence for your claim that your faith is sealed.
shawnz 6y ago
https://thorax.bmj.com/content/58/9/809#xref-ref-7-1 https://thorax.bmj.com/content/58/9/809#xref-ref-7-1 > Necroscopic studies have led to the determination of asbestos fibre load and the demonstration of a dose related effect, thus making improbable the argument that mesothelioma only requires one fibre of asbestos for initiation of the malignancy. Furthermore, asbestos exposure in urban settings is very common: https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/10.1164/arrd.1980.122.5.669 https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/10.1164/arrd.1980.122.5.669 > We isolated uncoated asbestos fibers from the lungs of 21 urban dwellers who had fewer than 100 asbestos bodies/gram of lung, a level shown previously to be associated with environmental rather than occupational exposure to asbestos
- dccoolgai 6y ago
  Considering that Mesothelioma can take 30+ years to manifest, that info about exposure being common does _not_ improve my day. The truth is, it's hard to unravel: especially with 100s of billions of dollars on the line in liability, there is probably some "sugar science" going on - maybe on both sides even. What I _do_ know is that: 1. It's harmful af (regardless of "how much" the research says, the fact is: harmful af). 2. Everyone thinks it's banned, but it's not. 3. Some people make billions of dollars continuing to use it (enabled by #2) 4. I'm not in the set of people described in #3 I'd like it to be banned.
  - shawnz 6y ago
    I certainly agree with all that. It should be banned.

Someone 6y ago

https://www.britsafe.org/publications/safety-management-magazine/safety-management-magazine/2014/asbestos-testing-up-in-the-air/ https://www.britsafe.org/publications/safety-management-maga...: * In July 1984 the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) published an update to guidance note EH10, Asbestos – Control Limits, measurement of airborne dust concentrations and the assessment of control measures, which introduced a limit value of 0.01 fibre/ml.* That’s 100 fibers/liter, so at least that with every breath you take. Because of that, I think that, if that claim is true, it only is if you wouldn’t die of something else first.

stordoff 6y ago
The stance of the HSE in 2010 is worth mentioning: > There is a lack of scientific consensus as to whether there exists a threshold of exposure to asbestos below which a person is at zero risk of developing mesothelioma. However, there is evidence from epidemiological studies of asbestos exposed groups that any threshold for mesothelioma must be at a very low level - and it is fairly widely agreed that if a threshold does exists then it cannot currently be quantified. For practical purposes HSE does not assume that such a threshold exists. https://web.archive.org/web/20111030182149/http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causdis/asbfaq.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20111030182149/http://www.hse.go...