4 ms·

> sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos And the question I have asked is where is the evidence that such small quantities are a risk? The UK

> sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos And the question I have asked is where is the evidence that such small quantities are a risk? The UK links I have posted suggest otherwise. This is why I am asking. I'm puzzled... are the US courts are saying "OMG Asbestos" rather than looking at safe levels? What if the same courts said "OMG 5G" ! This is why I am asking a genuine question.

alsetmusic 5y ago
If this gets another “shame on you” edit, I’d reflect on we people are downvoting you. Fwiw, I haven’t voted on your comments either way.
- TheManInThePub 5y ago
  If people could explain why they are down voting honest questions I would appreciate it. I've never heard of claimed talc-cancer links in the UK.
  - ohyeshedid 5y ago
    Slant related: I've never seen anyone asking where the upvotes came from, and that makes the opposite a bit odd across the board for me.
    - FpUser 5y ago
      Well for one thing downvotes make text harder to read unless selected.
rkk3 5y ago
Because there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos. From the above Reuters article "The World Health Organization and other authorities recognize no safe level of exposure to asbestos. While most people exposed never develop cancer, for some, even small amounts of asbestos are enough to trigger the disease years later." https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsonandjohnson-cancer/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona...
- TheManInThePub 5y ago
  > Because there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos. I think we are getting to the bottom of this :-) The UK Health and Safety Executive state... "The control limit for asbestos is 0.1 asbestos fibres per cubic centimetre of air (0.1 f/cm3). The control limit is not a 'safe' level and exposure from work activities involving asbestos must be reduced to as far below the control limit as possible."[1] Maybe this is where the differences arise. The UK are comfortable with a minimum practical level where risks are very low, whereas the US state none at all. Thank you for helping answer a question and not mindlessly clicking on down vote. HN is beginning to turn into Reddit rather than seeking inquisitive technical/scientific conversation. [1] https://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/regulations.htm https://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/regulations.htm
  - rkk3 5y ago
    That link has to deal with regulation and risk mitigation for removing Asbestos, not selling a consumer product with Asbestos. The UK took its time but they did fully ban Asbestos in 1999.
- acomjean 5y ago
  Asbestos has to be in a “friable” form for it to be bad. The particles are so small they can get into deep your lungs. I actually was at a landfill expansion project where a backhoe digging down through the trash hit some bags labeled asbestos. I’m glad it was raining. Also worked in a building with asbestos in the floor tiles. Fine when not disturbed, but anytime they had to remove them it was a production. https://ehs.oregonstate.edu/asb-when https://ehs.oregonstate.edu/asb-when https://www.fs.fed.us/eng/toolbox/haz/haz07b.htm https://www.fs.fed.us/eng/toolbox/haz/haz07b.htm
  - jliptzin 5y ago
    In high school I helped a friend rip up the floor tiles in his basement which were probably from the 50s. Years later I realized I could have been exposed to asbestos, is there any way to know whether asbestos would have been in the particular tiles I was ripping up?
0xFF0123 5y ago
As other comments have pointed out, talcum powder in its pure form is talc, which is a mineral and safe. The issue is that some cosmetics were contaminated with asbestos, which is not safe.
gmadsen 5y ago
conspiracy to falsify info to regulators is a crime by itself
headmelted 5y ago
That’s not the question you asked and you know it. That said, it is very much known that there are no safe levels of exposure. We know this from case data, but also pretty horrifically from workers who inadvertently gave their family members terminal illnesses later in life because they carried what would have at the time been considered fairly trivial amounts of loose dust home on their shoes/overalls/hair.

alsetmusic 5y ago

If this gets another “shame on you” edit, I’d reflect on we people are downvoting you. Fwiw, I haven’t voted on your comments either way.

TheManInThePub 5y ago
If people could explain why they are down voting honest questions I would appreciate it. I've never heard of claimed talc-cancer links in the UK.
- ohyeshedid 5y ago
  Slant related: I've never seen anyone asking where the upvotes came from, and that makes the opposite a bit odd across the board for me.
  - FpUser 5y ago
    Well for one thing downvotes make text harder to read unless selected.

rkk3 5y ago

Because there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos. From the above Reuters article "The World Health Organization and other authorities recognize no safe level of exposure to asbestos. While most people exposed never develop cancer, for some, even small amounts of asbestos are enough to trigger the disease years later." https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsonandjohnson-cancer/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona...

TheManInThePub 5y ago
> Because there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos. I think we are getting to the bottom of this :-) The UK Health and Safety Executive state... "The control limit for asbestos is 0.1 asbestos fibres per cubic centimetre of air (0.1 f/cm3). The control limit is not a 'safe' level and exposure from work activities involving asbestos must be reduced to as far below the control limit as possible."[1] Maybe this is where the differences arise. The UK are comfortable with a minimum practical level where risks are very low, whereas the US state none at all. Thank you for helping answer a question and not mindlessly clicking on down vote. HN is beginning to turn into Reddit rather than seeking inquisitive technical/scientific conversation. [1] https://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/regulations.htm https://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/regulations.htm
- rkk3 5y ago
  That link has to deal with regulation and risk mitigation for removing Asbestos, not selling a consumer product with Asbestos. The UK took its time but they did fully ban Asbestos in 1999.
acomjean 5y ago
Asbestos has to be in a “friable” form for it to be bad. The particles are so small they can get into deep your lungs. I actually was at a landfill expansion project where a backhoe digging down through the trash hit some bags labeled asbestos. I’m glad it was raining. Also worked in a building with asbestos in the floor tiles. Fine when not disturbed, but anytime they had to remove them it was a production. https://ehs.oregonstate.edu/asb-when https://ehs.oregonstate.edu/asb-when https://www.fs.fed.us/eng/toolbox/haz/haz07b.htm https://www.fs.fed.us/eng/toolbox/haz/haz07b.htm
- jliptzin 5y ago
  In high school I helped a friend rip up the floor tiles in his basement which were probably from the 50s. Years later I realized I could have been exposed to asbestos, is there any way to know whether asbestos would have been in the particular tiles I was ripping up?

0xFF0123 5y ago

As other comments have pointed out, talcum powder in its pure form is talc, which is a mineral and safe. The issue is that some cosmetics were contaminated with asbestos, which is not safe.

gmadsen 5y ago

conspiracy to falsify info to regulators is a crime by itself

headmelted 5y ago

That’s not the question you asked and you know it. That said, it is very much known that there are no safe levels of exposure. We know this from case data, but also pretty horrifically from workers who inadvertently gave their family members terminal illnesses later in life because they carried what would have at the time been considered fairly trivial amounts of loose dust home on their shoes/overalls/hair.