3 ms·
It’s also that relatively few people are affected. That’s approximately one in 100,000 people, twice as many people in the United States were murdered in 2015.
by repiret 3y ago
It’s also that relatively few people are affected. That’s approximately one in 100,000 people, twice as many people in the United States were murdered in 2015. It is really easy to know nobody who died from asbestos.
- Hikikomori 3y agoIs the risk of asbestos exposure when you work in construction as low as someone that doesn't?
- kristofferR 3y agoDepends on your job - new construction shouldn't have anything to do with asbestos at all, but if you work on/demolish old buildings you might. The only reason asbestos is becoming less and less deadly is that we banned it decades ago.
- Hikikomori 3y agoWhy are averages relevant when these workers are not getting an average exposure to these materials?
- lostlogin 3y agoYeah, but I don’t claim murder risk is overblown and run around badlands like I’m invincible.
- kortilla 3y agoMurder risk is negligible though. Especially if you aren’t directly involved in crime.
- Brian_K_White 3y agoMurder risk is negligible because we do things about it. My house has never burned down, therefor firemen, smoke alarms, and extinguishers are a scam. Got it.
- kortilla 3y agoNo, murder risk is negligible not because you avoid going out, but because of law. You conflated the two.
- lostlogin 3y agoIs it because of law? Making harsher laws doesn’t seem to reduce the murder rate. Having a death penalty doesn’t seem to stop the murders.
- kortilla 3y agoWhat are you talking about? Where is murder legal so you can compare the rates?
- Brian_K_White 3y agoI did? Where did I say anything about not going out?