3 ms·

>The one asbestos disease that is different is mesothelioma. Very small amounts of asbestos can give you mesothelioma. Asbestos workers' families have gotten me

>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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
    I certainly agree with all that. It should be banned.

the-dude 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
  I certainly agree with all that. It should be banned.