3 ms·

You write "nothing must ever contain CFCs ever again, including critical medical products that use only insignificant amounts" while Wikipedia at https://en.wik

You write "nothing must ever contain CFCs ever again, including critical medical products that use only insignificant amounts" while Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol writes: > There were a few exceptions for "essential uses" where no acceptable substitutes were initially found (for example, in the past metered dose inhalers commonly used to treat asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were exempt) or Halon fire suppression systems used in submarines and aircraft (but not in general industry). You write "and the substitute materials were later found to have their own problems." Could you be more specific? I mean, there's no wonder material that has no problems. I don't think you mean that trivial observation, so do you mean the substitutes overall were more harmful than asbestos, across the full product cycle from mining to disposal? And, does "the panicked removal" mean to include the use of unlicensed workers not following legal requirements for removal? As I recall, predatory contractors did take advantage of the situation, but then what's the lesson - that we need more government oversight of all building contract work?

takeda 3y ago
Regarding "its on problems" I think patent commenter was primarily talking about amalgamated filings. The scare is that amalgamated filings contained mercury. The thing is that they were bonded with silver which made them safe. The thing is that some dentists are often removing them, to replace with other filings. The process exposes patient to mercury and the alternative filings often don't last as long as the amalgamated one.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- eesmith 3y ago
  Then why mention asbestos? Even limiting it to dental amalgam, p-e-w says there is a lesson for future regulatory action. What is that lesson? I don't recall the government ever said amalgam fillings should be removed, and the FDA now certainly says to leave them in: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/dental-devices/dental-amalgam-fillings#removed https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/dental-devices/dental-am... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_amalgam_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_amalgam_controversy makes it seem like much of the controversy came from people "using pseudoscience to scare patients into more lucrative treatment options", not the government. The major new regulations in the US seems to be installing filters at the dentists' to keep mercury waste out of the public sewer system. I therefore don't see the lesson from regulating CFCs, nor from asbestos, nor from dental amalgam.

takeda 3y ago

Regarding "its on problems" I think patent commenter was primarily talking about amalgamated filings. The scare is that amalgamated filings contained mercury. The thing is that they were bonded with silver which made them safe. The thing is that some dentists are often removing them, to replace with other filings. The process exposes patient to mercury and the alternative filings often don't last as long as the amalgamated one.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
eesmith 3y ago
Then why mention asbestos? Even limiting it to dental amalgam, p-e-w says there is a lesson for future regulatory action. What is that lesson? I don't recall the government ever said amalgam fillings should be removed, and the FDA now certainly says to leave them in: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/dental-devices/dental-amalgam-fillings#removed https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/dental-devices/dental-am... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_amalgam_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_amalgam_controversy makes it seem like much of the controversy came from people "using pseudoscience to scare patients into more lucrative treatment options", not the government. The major new regulations in the US seems to be installing filters at the dentists' to keep mercury waste out of the public sewer system. I therefore don't see the lesson from regulating CFCs, nor from asbestos, nor from dental amalgam.