> We could pose all of your same questions about, say, asbestos. Indeed we could. And the answer we would find is that no, such requirements were not generally

> We could pose all of your same questions about, say, asbestos. Indeed we could. And the answer we would find is that no, such requirements were not generally imposed on ordinary homeowners, but on manufacturers and construction firms, in the form of requirements not to use asbestos in future projects and to be forced to undertake remediation efforts when asbestos was found at an existing side that needed to be modified. And we would also find that, as a result, many of those same homeowners ended up with long term health issues from asbestos exposure because they were never informed of the risks or given any feasible way to mitigate them. Nor was any cost benefit calculation done in either case (homeowners or manufacturers/construction firms) to see whether the policy that was actually adopted could reasonably be argued to be a fair tradeoff. Here at least we are being informed of the (claimed) risk. But there is still no cost benefit analysis being done that I can see.