26 ms·

EPA bans asbestos, a deadly carcinogen still in use decades after partial ban

399 points by anigbrowl 3y ago

ourguile 3y ago
Great news, friend is currently dealing with asbestos remediation headaches. Can't imagine having to deal with someone so dangerous every day.
- azinman2 3y ago
  Googling this it seems it doesn’t cause headaches. Also if you’re doing the remediation, you should have PPE and good protocols to protect you.
  - hokumguru 3y ago
    I think they meant metaphorical headaches dealing with asbestos remediation. As in difficulties.
inglor_cz 3y ago
Asbestos is a two-faced material. On one hand, it really helped to reduce frequency of devastating fires in the late 19th and early 20th century. Many lives saved. On the other hand, especially for people working with it, it is a harbinger of doom.
- simonw 3y ago
  The R101 was a British hydrogen airship with 50 passenger cabins and a smoking room (despite being filled with hydrogen) - but the smoking room was lined with asbestos for safety. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R101 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R101
- timr 3y ago
  > On the other hand, especially for people working with it, it is a harbinger of doom. That's overstating it. We know how to work with the stuff safely, but yeah, you don't want to put it in places where unskilled people have access to it. If we can safely work with trans-uranic compounds and things like hydrofluoric acid, we can safely work with asbestos.
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
    We know, as a civilization, yes, but that doesn't mean we do it. Especially in the developing world, manual workers' rights aren't very strong and plenty of people working in shipbreaking or material recycling don't have any PPEs, or barely any. People working with trans-uranic compounds are usually lab employees/scientists, whose employers value them higher and are willing to spend more money to protect them.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    > That's overstating it. We know how to work with the stuff safely, but yeah, you don't want to put it in places where unskilled people have access to it. Which includes everyone renovating their home. I recently backed out of a purchase because the sellers couldn't find out if there was asbestos used in the tile glue. If there were asbestos, it would have added a significant cost and especially >> 3 months of delay in moving in because people certified to work on that shit are more rare than gold. > If we can safely work with trans-uranic compounds and things like hydrofluoric acid, we can safely work with asbestos. The compounds you list are generally highly regulated, very difficult to get your hands on if you can't prove why you have a legitimate need for it, pretty expensive, and you won't find them outside of places that need to have it. As for asbestos, there are enough "jack of all trades" type handymen who don't give a fuck about safety - neither their own nor those of their client. That's why it got banned in the EU even for theoretically harmless usages.
    - monknomo 3y ago
      to be perfectly honest, we can't really work safely with trans-uranic compounds, just look at rock mountain flats
    - babypuncher 3y ago
      We should consider ourselves lucky that it is not somehow cheaper for low cost homebuilders to fill their drywall with plutonium.
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    I mean, we can work with, say, plutonium, in extremely small amounts, in extremely controlled circumstances, and there are still problems. That’s very different to how asbestos was used, though. It used to be used _everywhere_.
- asdff 3y ago
  On yet another hand, house fires wouldn't be so devastating if they weren't making multifamily balloon framed timber structures.
timr 3y ago
> “For too long, polluters have been allowed to make, use and release toxics like asbestos and PFAS without regard for our health" Criticizing politican-speak about science is almost pointless, but this is a ridiculous conflation of two wildly different things: asbestos, which is a specific mineral, and for which the link to lung cancer in humans is indisputable; and "PFAS", which is a hazy conglomeration of things for which the scientific link to harm is weak, and mostly based on animal studies or bad observational data.
- cobalt60 3y ago
  When you're gonna compare two things and say one is indisputable and the other is weak, cite some claims. PFAS are real, test your water from your tap today. Any carcinogen is detrimental to health but depends on exposure, same goes for PFAS.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    The thing about PFAS to me is it is a build up over time. So it's like heart disease as a silent killer. You can live with it for a long time before you start to notice the effects
    - crote 3y ago
      The worst part is that it doesn't really degrade either. There's literally no way around it, the world just gets increasingly polluted by it. Smoking causes cancer? Stop smoking, and prevent people from smoking near bystanders. Asbestos causes cancer? Ban it in new products, and mandate secure removal for existing stuff. It's not that hard to deal with: just stop using the harmful thing and it'll be fine. PFAS causes cancer? Permanently condemn all contaminated land, kill all wildlife trying to get out, mandatory cremation for all humans who lived there, and a total ban on breastfeeding for mothers who lived there. PFAS might not yet be definitively proven to be harmful in limited quantities, but the bio-accumulation is bad enough that we just cannot take that risk.
  - jjtheblunt 3y ago
    > Any carcinogen is detrimental to health but depends on exposure, same goes for PFAS. I think you can emphasize your point by noting two categories, those which bioaccumulate and those which don't, but the exposure of things bioaccumulated is, to your point, endlessly extended.
bilsbie 3y ago
Were these remaining uses harmful? Is this just a PR victory?
- kube-system 3y ago
  Brake linings in particular were a harmful use, because they are worn away into dust during use, and mechanics in particular are exposed to a brake dust as an occupational hazard.
  - asdff 3y ago
    Mechanics should be wearing sufficient PPE if they are working with particulate pollution. Take asbestos out of the brake dust but they still do things that generate plenty of particulate, which is only an occupational hazard when coupled with improper ppe.
    - azinman2 3y ago
      How often do you see mechanics with any kind of PPE?
      - toast0 3y ago
        Almost all professional mechanics are wearing coveralls. That's PPE. I've certainly seen a lot that wear gloves. That's PPE. Goggles or safety glasses are common but not ubiquitous in the shops I've seen. That's PPE. Ignoring masks that seem responsive to COVID, I haven't seen a lot of masks or respirators outside of shops where they're doing paint work, but I also don't get to see all the shop space and masks are intrusive, so probably if mechanics wear them, it's only when they perceive an accute risk. You don't usually keep your welding mask on all day, unless there's a lot of welding.
      - asdff 3y ago
        How is this an argument to them not needing to wear PPE? Asbestos isn't the only particulate risk they face. PPE on the other hand would solve the others. You can say you don't see mechanics wearing PPE but thats because its not presently regulated. How many kitchens today lack a handwashing sink? Zero, if they have passed a health inspection.
m463 3y ago
[flagged]
- imglorp 3y ago
  ... yes, for which J&J just paid a $8.9B settlement. I don't know if that makes it true or right, but maybe a little?
- declaredapple 3y ago
  I think that happens because talc deposits often contain asbestos so it's not an uncommon contaminate. that doesn't mean talc products always contain asbestos https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7691901/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7691901/
- jjtheblunt 3y ago
  I think you mean that there exist baby powders which use talc, and there exist talc mines contaminated with asbestos, so there exist some (not all) baby powders that contain(ed?) asbestos. of course, how to know what does and does not is unclear.
- kwhitefoot 3y ago
  Baby powder these days, in Europe at least, is finely divided starch, usually potato or maize. Has been for a long time.
  - jjtheblunt 3y ago
    (Available in the US too)
    - kwhitefoot 3y ago
      Only available? You mean that you can still buy baby powder that contains actual talc?
- jen_h 3y ago
  It’s not just baby powder. It was in Grandma’s Coty powder puff and is in your little niece’s eyeshadow from Claire’s (https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-recalls-alerts/fda-advises-consumers-stop-using-certain-cosmetic-products https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-recalls-alerts/fda-a...). As declaredapple said: talc and asbestos grow together in many mines. So it’s difficult to say that any talc is safe without testing or knowing provenance. It’s disappointing (but not surprising) to see your comment downvoted. And all the diminishing comments. Yes, cigarettes are dangerous, but those I’ve known that were exposed to asbestos and died (horribly) from it never smoked. There are entire communities in the US that used asbestos in sidewalks and playgrounds. Companies like Johns Manville dumped it by the truckloads onto playgrounds. People spread it over sidewalks and driveways and drive-in theater parking lots, sprayed water to harden it. That stuff was the definition of frangible. Kids played in it when it was dumped, played on it when it hardened. People reminisce about the powder, falling like snow, from the factories, and wiping it from their cars. In the 90s, EPA officials showed up in hazmat suits, ripping up sidewalks and driveways and basketball courts. The company responsible created a fund for victims, went bankrupt, and now is a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway . “Lung cancer” shows up prominently in the obituaries in those towns many years later. And the billboards in those areas are dominated by meso ambulance chasers (it’s good money for the lawyers and the victims’ families can be strung along, many reports of “penny checks”). It’s an environmental disaster we should learn from and not repeat, but I don’t have a lot of hope reading this thread. https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/CurSites/cadminrecord.cfm?id=0604095&doc=Y&colid=3048 https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/CurSites/cadminrecord.cfm?...
GenerWork 3y ago
I'm curious as to why they banned the use of asbestos by the chlor-alkali industry. It seems that the asbestos is relatively inert (i.e. it's not going anywhere), perhaps they had some evidence that there were asbestos fibers getting into the final products?
- whatshisface 3y ago
  That stuff almost always gets into the lungs of the workers making it. Oftentimes stuff gets banned because nobody can handle it properly. Its actually kind of like nuclear power. The electricity isn't more dangerous to consumers, but observation of the mortal nature of man lead to the conclusion that it'd be better to keep corporations away from it.
  - smallmancontrov 3y ago
    If we had kept up the pace of nuclear construction, we would have finished decarbonizing our electric grid by now. Instead, we've barely started. Was it worth the extra 100Gt of CO2 in the atmosphere?
    - Filligree 3y ago
      Yes. Extra CO2 and global warming is far less likely to scuttle your reelection attempts, and voter deaths don't matter if they're diffuse enough no-one will point their finger at you.
      - contravariant 3y ago
        Diffuse isn't the most important bit, the main point is that they happen during the next election cycle.
    - jajko 3y ago
      People clearly prefer slow silent mass death (and messing up world for good for grandchildren) over few-per-century bigger accidents (when literally everybody in the world takes notes and massively improves). Similar to car massive amount of death (not even going into secondary and tertiary effects) and nobody bats an eye, even if they know personally somebody who died like that. Yet every single plane crash and tons of folks are getting panic attacks. Human psychology fascinates me, but at the same time makes me outright sad. So much potential often wasted on utter stupidities, and even worse - its trivial for skilled people to manipulate masses into literally shooting off their own feet with 12 gauge shotgun buckshot, just play the fear tune well enough for long enough.
palla89 3y ago
[flagged]
- blackbeans 3y ago
  Many European countries already banned it in the '90s. That was decades ago and the EU is currently discussing making it obligatory to replace old asbestos materials in existing constructions.
  - jijijijij 3y ago
    Could you link some source? Do you know, if it's all buildings? I have a hard time imagining Eternit roofing on garages and barns going anywhere soon. I mean, would be really great, but asbestos is still all over the place.
    - pskinner 3y ago
      Here you go: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/asbestos-properties-incident-management-and-toxicology/asbestos-general-information https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/asbestos-properti...
      - jijijijij 3y ago
        Not EU related as far as I can see.
- ars 3y ago
  Not true. https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/13166/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/13166/attachments/1/... And https://www.etui.org/sites/default/files/ez_import/Asbestos_derogation_chrysotile_diaphragms.pdf https://www.etui.org/sites/default/files/ez_import/Asbestos_...
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    Did you read that document? It relates to a _single_ authorised usecase (electrolysis diaphragms used in chlorine production), plus some national laws which allow second-hand sale of existing things (generally buildings and old cars) which contain asbestos. It amounts to a ban.
throwitaway222 3y ago
Are they going to ban tiger's eye
mkl95 3y ago
My building still has some asbestos pipes. Removing that stuff can be expensive and annoying, so it is usually delayed again and again.
- Sharlin 3y ago
  They're essentially harmless as long as they're in there. Removing the stuff is the dangerous part.
  - elromulous 3y ago
    Harmless, until some contractor accidently disturbs it, and people have to have their home vacated (just happened to a friend of mine). That story might just be an anecdote, but the US has really normalized the "it's ok to live with poison, just don't awaken it". Same with lead pipes, lead paint, etc. Government remediation is long overdue. This is a price we pay as a society, we should treat it as a society.
    - anonuser123456 3y ago
      Pretty harmless to the building occupants. The contractor is at risk it they are doing it everyday for a decade.
      - wtfwhateven 3y ago
        no, it's dangerous for everyone, not just contractors.
        alex_lav 3y ago
        Care to explain?
        usrusr 3y ago
        If it's dangerously unknown to the contractor, chances are inhabitants won't know better. The contractor only exposed for a few hours, inhabitants live there.
dukeofdoom 3y ago
It's still in schools in Canada, especially older grade schools, many of which still don't have AC. I sometimes wonder where all the taxes went to.
- morkalork 3y ago
  I'd wager it's in most institutional sorts of buildings built in the 50s and 60s.
- asdff 3y ago
  It's not an issue until you demo the building
grogenaut 3y ago
Are they banning it in safety gear like bunker gear?
gtvwill 3y ago
Product shouldn't be on market and should have global bans on its sale and installation/use. It's everywhere in building, and because it has dangers when removed or worked on, nobody wants to pay to get that work done correctly. Resulting in situations like we now have asbestos fibers found in mulch distributed across sydney. From kids playgrounds to the local council garden bed. All because someone wanted to avoid a fee whilst holding the perspective of "It's not that dangerous". Have pulled raw asbestos when drilling from like 300m+ down. Stuff is crazy pretty but is a pita to handle and keep safe. Looks almost like spicy fairy floss.
- anonuser123456 3y ago
  The reason no one wants to pay the fee is because the exposure standards are so unreasonably low, that remediation costs huge $$$. And since we’ve made everyone terrified of the stuff, only specialized dumps handle it. Reasonable precautions that prevent 95% of exposure could be had at a fraction of the cost if people were more reasonable about the stuff.
  - gtvwill 3y ago
    You ah wanna go roll that dice for that 5 percent exposure risk? Or are you just willing to pay me to roll that dice? Because if it's the latter we'll guess what I value my life fairly highly so you can pay up the high rates. I find most of the folks whinging about the costs are rarely involved in doing the work or taking the risk.
    - anonuser123456 3y ago
      Yeah, I will roll those dice. I am steeped in the literature of asbestos demolition, exposure, health hazards etc. The current policy around ACM and its handling makes you _LESS_ safe because everyone looks the other way. It could be easily, cheaply disposed of by relaxing a number of protocols on how it’s handled during demolition. But because everyone has to follow the crazy moonsuit protocols, which improves the safety of the general public by absolutely zero, contractors just go find unknowing immigrant labor to blitz in and tear shit up.
ryanisnan 3y ago
The US has in my opinion the exact wrong approach to regulation here. The deny-list approach of regulation may very well foster innovation, but it also fosters lawlessness and exploitation. If a company can get away with not needing to really care about the negative side effects of their products, they will most certainly do that. The entire model needs to be inverted.
- zeroonetwothree 3y ago
  Modern technology wouldn’t exist if we had this philosophy 200 years ago. I hardly think it’s a worthwhile trade off.
  - ryanisnan 3y ago
    With respect, I don't entirely agree. I do think you're right in sentiment; things would look very differently. If given a choice, I'd rather live in a slower-paced society where development was held to higher standards. What we have now is a complete shit show.
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    > Modern technology wouldn’t exist if we had this philosophy 200 years ago This is a really bad line of thinking - 200 years ago humanity was small and helpless. In year 1788 Britain, the centre of industrial revolution, produced 32,000 tons of iron. Today we produce billions. Our ships weigh more than all the fish in the ocean combined. The chickens we eat weigh more than all the wild animals left on the planet. 200 years ago we did not have the ability to create completely new synthetic chemicals that last thousands of years, today we have put so much plastic in the ocean, it will soon outweigh all the fish. We didn't have to care about the planet because we couldn't break it- now we can
- ryandrake 3y ago
  The deny-list model is fine if 1. You deny quickly and decisively, 2. Actually deny, without loopholes, grace periods, or grandfather clauses (which will all be abused) and 3. Actually enforce, rather than just throwing a law over the wall and ignoring violators. The US is pretty slow with #1, absolutely terrible and ineffective with #2, and uneven/spotty with #3.
failuser 3y ago
How long will EPA survive? Trump promised to bring asbestos back last time. Will probably do it again if re-elected.
- declan_roberts 3y ago
  If he didn't bring it back last time why would he bring it back the 2nd time? He'll probably do it right after he mandates lead piping in all schools.
  - failuser 3y ago
    He kept it legal. https://apnews.com/article/ea3d87fb8ef741c3bc255f1921892c9d https://apnews.com/article/ea3d87fb8ef741c3bc255f1921892c9d
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
animatethrow 3y ago
An EPA ban can't do anything about natural mineral asbestos that occurs near many residential areas. Floods continue to contaminate residential areas with natural asbestos and have done so for millennia. Recent report from Washington state: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfbedUVOxCU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfbedUVOxCU California's state rock is serpentinite, which is known for its often beautiful green coloration, and for containing chrysotile asbestos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpentinite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpentinite There's an outcrop near the Golden Gate bridge (scroll down for photo): https://www.nps.gov/goga/learn/education/serpentinite-faq.htm https://www.nps.gov/goga/learn/education/serpentinite-faq.ht...
- dangus 3y ago
  What's your point? Just because natural dangers exist doesn't mean we should go ahead and create human-made dangers of our own. Under this logic we shouldn't have structural engineering standards because rock falls happen all the time in nature.
  - animatethrow 3y ago
    I never said the EPA ban was bad. My point was to point out that natural asbestos sources remain a threat. I was quickly massively downvoted though because readers assumed I was criticizing the EPA when I in fact was not. I will have to be more careful in the future to understand that many readers don't carefully read what one actually writes, but rather read what they think someone might be implying.
    - dangus 3y ago
      Are you sure that the multiple people who are assuming your implication and downvoting as a result are wrong? I think it’s quite clear and obvious that your comment’s intention was to downplay the importance of the EPA’s ban and frame it against or redirect it toward the topic of naturally occurring threats. If that’s NOT what you were doing, then your comment was essentially irrelevant.
happytiger 3y ago
Leading the world in protecting Americans by following the lead of more than 50 countries. That’s my EPA. Good job!
- fastball 3y ago
  Not sure what purpose the snark serves – the way you phrased your comment seems to imply someone involved claimed they are "leading the world", but that isn't the case.
  - hexo 3y ago
    Not sure what or who your comment serves, at all.
    - fastball 3y ago
      Trying to nudge the conversation into a more productive direction than misleading snark. First rule[1] of the HN comment guidelines. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - hexo 3y ago
        This helps nothing and you started whining about it.
      - Freedom2 3y ago
        Yet regardless of your nudging, the conversation moved into a productive and importantly curious discussion, which is one of the most important things when it comes to HN comment sections.
        fastball 3y ago
        How do you know it is regardless of my nudging?
  - spiderfarmer 3y ago
seanp2k2 3y ago
Given sentiments about regulations and government agencies these days, I fully expect a new TikTok trend of snorting lines of asbestos to pop up very soon.
- fransje26 3y ago
  It would be a bit like washing your hands in tetraethyllead to show that it's totally safe.
shmerl 3y ago
Finally. Corruption prevented it from happening more than 30 years ago.
- fransje26 3y ago
  Here here. Lobbying has nothing to do with corruption. It's here to counterbalance over-zealous regulators who are detached from business reality. Please think of the shareholders.
zachmu 3y ago
Mesothelioma from household exposure is very rare, nearly all cases come from industrial exposure, involving chronic exposure to concentrations of airborne particles millions of times higher than you would ever find in a residential setting, even during a renovation that disturbs asbestos. I looked into this when I discovered some old asbestos paper in my basement that I had abated by professionals (which I always recommend). I was freaking out about my family being exposed to the fibers for years before that, so I went digging for hard numbers. To my surprise, there is almost zero good quantitative data on the risk of mesothelioma from residential asbestos exposure. The best info we have suggests about a doubling of the risk of MM from residential exposure, from about 1 per million person-years to 2.5 per million person years: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(17)30200-1/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2... > However, the chief interest from this study will be in the more than doubling of risk of mesothelioma in men who had lived in an affected house, compared with unexposed males (SIR 2·54, 95% CI 1·02–5·24). ... The background incidence of mesothelioma without exposure to asbestos is very low (highly age-dependent and roughly one case per million person-years), so any rise would be indicative of previous asbestos exposure Other studies indicate that home renovations that disturb asbestos could increase the risk by about a factor of 5 from baseline, which sounds high until you realize that it means about 5 per million person-years. The base rate is very low! And there is no such thing as zero exposure to asbestos: there are a couple fibers, on average, in every liter of air you breathe. Everybody is constantly exposed to a very small amount of these fibers, and it's not the case that it gives everybody MM: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7721955/#:~:text=The%20standard%20asbestos%20concentration%20in,)%20%5B12%2C%2013%5D https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7721955/#:~:tex.... So the bottom line is: get your asbestos abated by professionals, but don't freak out if you have been living with the stuff. It's not the same as being an asbestos miner, your risk is higher but still very low.
- hanniabu 3y ago
  > Mesothelioma from household exposure is very rare > To my surprise, there is almost zero good quantitative data on the risk of mesothelioma from residential asbestos exposure Love it when comments state something so confidently, yet contradict themselves a few sentences later
cat_plus_plus 3y ago
I would rather not categorically ban anything. I don't want lots of arsenic in my food, but arsenic also has unique industrial uses where it can be prevented from leaching into the environment. Maybe asbestos turns out to be the only thing we can think of to enable exploration of other planets, or heat storage of zero carbon energy. Or maybe in time asbestos can be treated to prevent release of airborne fibers. I certainly wouldn't use asbestos in residential buildings or consumer products barring unforeseen breakthroughs to make it safe. But treat each use case separately, there could be rare ones where it's worth the risk.
KingOfCoders 3y ago
Sometimes the US is suprising to me. The EU has done that 2005, getting 25 countries on board. Germany in 1993. Then again, in a free market, why regulate at all? I understand the regulation in the EU, but with all the free market fundamentalism, why is the US regulating this? Shouldn't people decide if they want to buy stuff with asbestos or live in an asbestos home? Or get a job with asbestos exposure? If you believe in free market fundamentalism, why regulate anything? Just label things.
- blitzar 3y ago
  Forcing companies to label things is government over-reach.
- the_other 3y ago
  If government isn’t protecting the people it represents, why have one?
  - coldtea 3y ago
    It's not like the people are asked, or have a choice on the matter of having a government
    - the_other 3y ago
      Lots of things pre-date their users: plates, wheels, farming, aeroplanes. The lack of choice in the matter isn’t in itself a reason to discount the phenomenon. The nature of the phenomenon is more important. In the case of government (or lack), its nature should inform its form and behaviour. My earlier point was more like “what is this government doing if not looking after those it represents?” If its not doing as it should, we should change it. (I’m open to ideas of anarchistic self determination. Most “good” implementations seem to have some form of coalition and/or committee-with-sphere-of-responsibility which looks like government if you squint so I’m a bit hazy how you do it. Happy to learn)
- hackernewds 3y ago
  [flagged]
cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
I don’t know what I’m more surprised-but-not-actually-surprised by: the fact that the US is this far behind the rest of the world, or that the comments are packed full of American debating the merits of this ban as if they’re in some sort of vacuum. When it comes down to it, the typical born-and-bred American truly cant help but engage in some good old fashioned American exceptionalism. This is great news, worldwide. Presumably the US was a major buyer of some of the asbestos products that were up-til-now legal to sell. As that market gets smaller, there’ll be less of a chance of asbestos-laden products fraudulently making their way into other markets with more same asbestos bans. As a resident of one of those countries, thank you for getting your act together, I guess.
wutwutwat 3y ago
In another life I sandblasted heat exchangers in power plants and oil refineries - the first refinery I ever worked in had pipes overhead wrapped in asbestos insulation. It was all very well marked and had plenty of warnings to not go near it unless authorized and properly protected. Honestly though, I was crawling into a hole I could barely fit my body through to blast out thousands of pipes which flow liquid sulfur through them, with a grit that should the blast hose split was under enough pressure to inject sand straight through your heart, while wearing a sensor on my hard hat that I was told if it starts to beep I had 60 seconds to climb up out of the hole before I’d be dead. Asbestos exposure wasn’t a worry I had in those places, because everything else was trying to kill me too but much more urgently.

399 points by anigbrowl 3y ago

Great news, friend is currently dealing with asbestos remediation headaches. Can't imagine having to deal with someone so dangerous every day.

azinman2 3y ago
Googling this it seems it doesn’t cause headaches. Also if you’re doing the remediation, you should have PPE and good protocols to protect you.
- hokumguru 3y ago
  I think they meant metaphorical headaches dealing with asbestos remediation. As in difficulties.

inglor_cz 3y ago

Asbestos is a two-faced material. On one hand, it really helped to reduce frequency of devastating fires in the late 19th and early 20th century. Many lives saved. On the other hand, especially for people working with it, it is a harbinger of doom.

simonw 3y ago
The R101 was a British hydrogen airship with 50 passenger cabins and a smoking room (despite being filled with hydrogen) - but the smoking room was lined with asbestos for safety. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R101 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R101
timr 3y ago
> On the other hand, especially for people working with it, it is a harbinger of doom. That's overstating it. We know how to work with the stuff safely, but yeah, you don't want to put it in places where unskilled people have access to it. If we can safely work with trans-uranic compounds and things like hydrofluoric acid, we can safely work with asbestos.
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  We know, as a civilization, yes, but that doesn't mean we do it. Especially in the developing world, manual workers' rights aren't very strong and plenty of people working in shipbreaking or material recycling don't have any PPEs, or barely any. People working with trans-uranic compounds are usually lab employees/scientists, whose employers value them higher and are willing to spend more money to protect them.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > That's overstating it. We know how to work with the stuff safely, but yeah, you don't want to put it in places where unskilled people have access to it. Which includes everyone renovating their home. I recently backed out of a purchase because the sellers couldn't find out if there was asbestos used in the tile glue. If there were asbestos, it would have added a significant cost and especially >> 3 months of delay in moving in because people certified to work on that shit are more rare than gold. > If we can safely work with trans-uranic compounds and things like hydrofluoric acid, we can safely work with asbestos. The compounds you list are generally highly regulated, very difficult to get your hands on if you can't prove why you have a legitimate need for it, pretty expensive, and you won't find them outside of places that need to have it. As for asbestos, there are enough "jack of all trades" type handymen who don't give a fuck about safety - neither their own nor those of their client. That's why it got banned in the EU even for theoretically harmless usages.
  - monknomo 3y ago
    to be perfectly honest, we can't really work safely with trans-uranic compounds, just look at rock mountain flats
  - babypuncher 3y ago
    We should consider ourselves lucky that it is not somehow cheaper for low cost homebuilders to fill their drywall with plutonium.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  I mean, we can work with, say, plutonium, in extremely small amounts, in extremely controlled circumstances, and there are still problems. That’s very different to how asbestos was used, though. It used to be used _everywhere_.
asdff 3y ago
On yet another hand, house fires wouldn't be so devastating if they weren't making multifamily balloon framed timber structures.

timr 3y ago

> “For too long, polluters have been allowed to make, use and release toxics like asbestos and PFAS without regard for our health" Criticizing politican-speak about science is almost pointless, but this is a ridiculous conflation of two wildly different things: asbestos, which is a specific mineral, and for which the link to lung cancer in humans is indisputable; and "PFAS", which is a hazy conglomeration of things for which the scientific link to harm is weak, and mostly based on animal studies or bad observational data.

cobalt60 3y ago
When you're gonna compare two things and say one is indisputable and the other is weak, cite some claims. PFAS are real, test your water from your tap today. Any carcinogen is detrimental to health but depends on exposure, same goes for PFAS.
- dylan604 3y ago
  The thing about PFAS to me is it is a build up over time. So it's like heart disease as a silent killer. You can live with it for a long time before you start to notice the effects
  - crote 3y ago
    The worst part is that it doesn't really degrade either. There's literally no way around it, the world just gets increasingly polluted by it. Smoking causes cancer? Stop smoking, and prevent people from smoking near bystanders. Asbestos causes cancer? Ban it in new products, and mandate secure removal for existing stuff. It's not that hard to deal with: just stop using the harmful thing and it'll be fine. PFAS causes cancer? Permanently condemn all contaminated land, kill all wildlife trying to get out, mandatory cremation for all humans who lived there, and a total ban on breastfeeding for mothers who lived there. PFAS might not yet be definitively proven to be harmful in limited quantities, but the bio-accumulation is bad enough that we just cannot take that risk.
- jjtheblunt 3y ago
  > Any carcinogen is detrimental to health but depends on exposure, same goes for PFAS. I think you can emphasize your point by noting two categories, those which bioaccumulate and those which don't, but the exposure of things bioaccumulated is, to your point, endlessly extended.

bilsbie 3y ago

Were these remaining uses harmful? Is this just a PR victory?

kube-system 3y ago
Brake linings in particular were a harmful use, because they are worn away into dust during use, and mechanics in particular are exposed to a brake dust as an occupational hazard.
- asdff 3y ago
  Mechanics should be wearing sufficient PPE if they are working with particulate pollution. Take asbestos out of the brake dust but they still do things that generate plenty of particulate, which is only an occupational hazard when coupled with improper ppe.
  - azinman2 3y ago
    How often do you see mechanics with any kind of PPE?
    - toast0 3y ago
      Almost all professional mechanics are wearing coveralls. That's PPE. I've certainly seen a lot that wear gloves. That's PPE. Goggles or safety glasses are common but not ubiquitous in the shops I've seen. That's PPE. Ignoring masks that seem responsive to COVID, I haven't seen a lot of masks or respirators outside of shops where they're doing paint work, but I also don't get to see all the shop space and masks are intrusive, so probably if mechanics wear them, it's only when they perceive an accute risk. You don't usually keep your welding mask on all day, unless there's a lot of welding.
    - asdff 3y ago
      How is this an argument to them not needing to wear PPE? Asbestos isn't the only particulate risk they face. PPE on the other hand would solve the others. You can say you don't see mechanics wearing PPE but thats because its not presently regulated. How many kitchens today lack a handwashing sink? Zero, if they have passed a health inspection.

m463 3y ago

[flagged]

imglorp 3y ago
... yes, for which J&J just paid a $8.9B settlement. I don't know if that makes it true or right, but maybe a little?
declaredapple 3y ago
I think that happens because talc deposits often contain asbestos so it's not an uncommon contaminate. that doesn't mean talc products always contain asbestos https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7691901/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7691901/
jjtheblunt 3y ago
I think you mean that there exist baby powders which use talc, and there exist talc mines contaminated with asbestos, so there exist some (not all) baby powders that contain(ed?) asbestos. of course, how to know what does and does not is unclear.
kwhitefoot 3y ago
Baby powder these days, in Europe at least, is finely divided starch, usually potato or maize. Has been for a long time.
- jjtheblunt 3y ago
  (Available in the US too)
  - kwhitefoot 3y ago
    Only available? You mean that you can still buy baby powder that contains actual talc?
jen_h 3y ago
It’s not just baby powder. It was in Grandma’s Coty powder puff and is in your little niece’s eyeshadow from Claire’s (https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-recalls-alerts/fda-advises-consumers-stop-using-certain-cosmetic-products https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-recalls-alerts/fda-a...). As declaredapple said: talc and asbestos grow together in many mines. So it’s difficult to say that any talc is safe without testing or knowing provenance. It’s disappointing (but not surprising) to see your comment downvoted. And all the diminishing comments. Yes, cigarettes are dangerous, but those I’ve known that were exposed to asbestos and died (horribly) from it never smoked. There are entire communities in the US that used asbestos in sidewalks and playgrounds. Companies like Johns Manville dumped it by the truckloads onto playgrounds. People spread it over sidewalks and driveways and drive-in theater parking lots, sprayed water to harden it. That stuff was the definition of frangible. Kids played in it when it was dumped, played on it when it hardened. People reminisce about the powder, falling like snow, from the factories, and wiping it from their cars. In the 90s, EPA officials showed up in hazmat suits, ripping up sidewalks and driveways and basketball courts. The company responsible created a fund for victims, went bankrupt, and now is a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway . “Lung cancer” shows up prominently in the obituaries in those towns many years later. And the billboards in those areas are dominated by meso ambulance chasers (it’s good money for the lawyers and the victims’ families can be strung along, many reports of “penny checks”). It’s an environmental disaster we should learn from and not repeat, but I don’t have a lot of hope reading this thread. https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/CurSites/cadminrecord.cfm?id=0604095&doc=Y&colid=3048 https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/CurSites/cadminrecord.cfm?...

GenerWork 3y ago

I'm curious as to why they banned the use of asbestos by the chlor-alkali industry. It seems that the asbestos is relatively inert (i.e. it's not going anywhere), perhaps they had some evidence that there were asbestos fibers getting into the final products?

whatshisface 3y ago
That stuff almost always gets into the lungs of the workers making it. Oftentimes stuff gets banned because nobody can handle it properly. Its actually kind of like nuclear power. The electricity isn't more dangerous to consumers, but observation of the mortal nature of man lead to the conclusion that it'd be better to keep corporations away from it.
- smallmancontrov 3y ago
  If we had kept up the pace of nuclear construction, we would have finished decarbonizing our electric grid by now. Instead, we've barely started. Was it worth the extra 100Gt of CO2 in the atmosphere?
  - Filligree 3y ago
    Yes. Extra CO2 and global warming is far less likely to scuttle your reelection attempts, and voter deaths don't matter if they're diffuse enough no-one will point their finger at you.
    - contravariant 3y ago
      Diffuse isn't the most important bit, the main point is that they happen during the next election cycle.
  - jajko 3y ago
    People clearly prefer slow silent mass death (and messing up world for good for grandchildren) over few-per-century bigger accidents (when literally everybody in the world takes notes and massively improves). Similar to car massive amount of death (not even going into secondary and tertiary effects) and nobody bats an eye, even if they know personally somebody who died like that. Yet every single plane crash and tons of folks are getting panic attacks. Human psychology fascinates me, but at the same time makes me outright sad. So much potential often wasted on utter stupidities, and even worse - its trivial for skilled people to manipulate masses into literally shooting off their own feet with 12 gauge shotgun buckshot, just play the fear tune well enough for long enough.

palla89 3y ago

[flagged]

blackbeans 3y ago
Many European countries already banned it in the '90s. That was decades ago and the EU is currently discussing making it obligatory to replace old asbestos materials in existing constructions.
- jijijijij 3y ago
  Could you link some source? Do you know, if it's all buildings? I have a hard time imagining Eternit roofing on garages and barns going anywhere soon. I mean, would be really great, but asbestos is still all over the place.
  - pskinner 3y ago
    Here you go: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/asbestos-properties-incident-management-and-toxicology/asbestos-general-information https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/asbestos-properti...
    - jijijijij 3y ago
      Not EU related as far as I can see.
ars 3y ago
Not true. https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/13166/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/13166/attachments/1/... And https://www.etui.org/sites/default/files/ez_import/Asbestos_derogation_chrysotile_diaphragms.pdf https://www.etui.org/sites/default/files/ez_import/Asbestos_...
- rsynnott 3y ago
  Did you read that document? It relates to a _single_ authorised usecase (electrolysis diaphragms used in chlorine production), plus some national laws which allow second-hand sale of existing things (generally buildings and old cars) which contain asbestos. It amounts to a ban.

throwitaway222 3y ago

Are they going to ban tiger's eye

mkl95 3y ago

My building still has some asbestos pipes. Removing that stuff can be expensive and annoying, so it is usually delayed again and again.

Sharlin 3y ago
They're essentially harmless as long as they're in there. Removing the stuff is the dangerous part.
- elromulous 3y ago
  Harmless, until some contractor accidently disturbs it, and people have to have their home vacated (just happened to a friend of mine). That story might just be an anecdote, but the US has really normalized the "it's ok to live with poison, just don't awaken it". Same with lead pipes, lead paint, etc. Government remediation is long overdue. This is a price we pay as a society, we should treat it as a society.
  - anonuser123456 3y ago
    Pretty harmless to the building occupants. The contractor is at risk it they are doing it everyday for a decade.
    - wtfwhateven 3y ago
      no, it's dangerous for everyone, not just contractors.
      - alex_lav 3y ago
        Care to explain?
        usrusr 3y ago
        If it's dangerously unknown to the contractor, chances are inhabitants won't know better. The contractor only exposed for a few hours, inhabitants live there.

dukeofdoom 3y ago

It's still in schools in Canada, especially older grade schools, many of which still don't have AC. I sometimes wonder where all the taxes went to.

morkalork 3y ago
I'd wager it's in most institutional sorts of buildings built in the 50s and 60s.
asdff 3y ago
It's not an issue until you demo the building

grogenaut 3y ago

Are they banning it in safety gear like bunker gear?

gtvwill 3y ago

Product shouldn't be on market and should have global bans on its sale and installation/use. It's everywhere in building, and because it has dangers when removed or worked on, nobody wants to pay to get that work done correctly. Resulting in situations like we now have asbestos fibers found in mulch distributed across sydney. From kids playgrounds to the local council garden bed. All because someone wanted to avoid a fee whilst holding the perspective of "It's not that dangerous". Have pulled raw asbestos when drilling from like 300m+ down. Stuff is crazy pretty but is a pita to handle and keep safe. Looks almost like spicy fairy floss.

anonuser123456 3y ago
The reason no one wants to pay the fee is because the exposure standards are so unreasonably low, that remediation costs huge $$$. And since we’ve made everyone terrified of the stuff, only specialized dumps handle it. Reasonable precautions that prevent 95% of exposure could be had at a fraction of the cost if people were more reasonable about the stuff.
- gtvwill 3y ago
  You ah wanna go roll that dice for that 5 percent exposure risk? Or are you just willing to pay me to roll that dice? Because if it's the latter we'll guess what I value my life fairly highly so you can pay up the high rates. I find most of the folks whinging about the costs are rarely involved in doing the work or taking the risk.
  - anonuser123456 3y ago
    Yeah, I will roll those dice. I am steeped in the literature of asbestos demolition, exposure, health hazards etc. The current policy around ACM and its handling makes you _LESS_ safe because everyone looks the other way. It could be easily, cheaply disposed of by relaxing a number of protocols on how it’s handled during demolition. But because everyone has to follow the crazy moonsuit protocols, which improves the safety of the general public by absolutely zero, contractors just go find unknowing immigrant labor to blitz in and tear shit up.

ryanisnan 3y ago

The US has in my opinion the exact wrong approach to regulation here. The deny-list approach of regulation may very well foster innovation, but it also fosters lawlessness and exploitation. If a company can get away with not needing to really care about the negative side effects of their products, they will most certainly do that. The entire model needs to be inverted.

zeroonetwothree 3y ago
Modern technology wouldn’t exist if we had this philosophy 200 years ago. I hardly think it’s a worthwhile trade off.
- ryanisnan 3y ago
  With respect, I don't entirely agree. I do think you're right in sentiment; things would look very differently. If given a choice, I'd rather live in a slower-paced society where development was held to higher standards. What we have now is a complete shit show.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  > Modern technology wouldn’t exist if we had this philosophy 200 years ago This is a really bad line of thinking - 200 years ago humanity was small and helpless. In year 1788 Britain, the centre of industrial revolution, produced 32,000 tons of iron. Today we produce billions. Our ships weigh more than all the fish in the ocean combined. The chickens we eat weigh more than all the wild animals left on the planet. 200 years ago we did not have the ability to create completely new synthetic chemicals that last thousands of years, today we have put so much plastic in the ocean, it will soon outweigh all the fish. We didn't have to care about the planet because we couldn't break it- now we can
ryandrake 3y ago
The deny-list model is fine if 1. You deny quickly and decisively, 2. Actually deny, without loopholes, grace periods, or grandfather clauses (which will all be abused) and 3. Actually enforce, rather than just throwing a law over the wall and ignoring violators. The US is pretty slow with #1, absolutely terrible and ineffective with #2, and uneven/spotty with #3.

failuser 3y ago

How long will EPA survive? Trump promised to bring asbestos back last time. Will probably do it again if re-elected.

declan_roberts 3y ago
If he didn't bring it back last time why would he bring it back the 2nd time? He'll probably do it right after he mandates lead piping in all schools.
- failuser 3y ago
  He kept it legal. https://apnews.com/article/ea3d87fb8ef741c3bc255f1921892c9d https://apnews.com/article/ea3d87fb8ef741c3bc255f1921892c9d
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

animatethrow 3y ago

An EPA ban can't do anything about natural mineral asbestos that occurs near many residential areas. Floods continue to contaminate residential areas with natural asbestos and have done so for millennia. Recent report from Washington state: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfbedUVOxCU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfbedUVOxCU California's state rock is serpentinite, which is known for its often beautiful green coloration, and for containing chrysotile asbestos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpentinite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpentinite There's an outcrop near the Golden Gate bridge (scroll down for photo): https://www.nps.gov/goga/learn/education/serpentinite-faq.htm https://www.nps.gov/goga/learn/education/serpentinite-faq.ht...

dangus 3y ago
What's your point? Just because natural dangers exist doesn't mean we should go ahead and create human-made dangers of our own. Under this logic we shouldn't have structural engineering standards because rock falls happen all the time in nature.
- animatethrow 3y ago
  I never said the EPA ban was bad. My point was to point out that natural asbestos sources remain a threat. I was quickly massively downvoted though because readers assumed I was criticizing the EPA when I in fact was not. I will have to be more careful in the future to understand that many readers don't carefully read what one actually writes, but rather read what they think someone might be implying.
  - dangus 3y ago
    Are you sure that the multiple people who are assuming your implication and downvoting as a result are wrong? I think it’s quite clear and obvious that your comment’s intention was to downplay the importance of the EPA’s ban and frame it against or redirect it toward the topic of naturally occurring threats. If that’s NOT what you were doing, then your comment was essentially irrelevant.

happytiger 3y ago

Leading the world in protecting Americans by following the lead of more than 50 countries. That’s my EPA. Good job!

fastball 3y ago
Not sure what purpose the snark serves – the way you phrased your comment seems to imply someone involved claimed they are "leading the world", but that isn't the case.
- hexo 3y ago
  Not sure what or who your comment serves, at all.
  - fastball 3y ago
    Trying to nudge the conversation into a more productive direction than misleading snark. First rule[1] of the HN comment guidelines. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - hexo 3y ago
      This helps nothing and you started whining about it.
    - Freedom2 3y ago
      Yet regardless of your nudging, the conversation moved into a productive and importantly curious discussion, which is one of the most important things when it comes to HN comment sections.
      - fastball 3y ago
        How do you know it is regardless of my nudging?
- spiderfarmer 3y ago

seanp2k2 3y ago

Given sentiments about regulations and government agencies these days, I fully expect a new TikTok trend of snorting lines of asbestos to pop up very soon.

fransje26 3y ago
It would be a bit like washing your hands in tetraethyllead to show that it's totally safe.

shmerl 3y ago

Finally. Corruption prevented it from happening more than 30 years ago.

fransje26 3y ago
Here here. Lobbying has nothing to do with corruption. It's here to counterbalance over-zealous regulators who are detached from business reality. Please think of the shareholders.

zachmu 3y ago

Mesothelioma from household exposure is very rare, nearly all cases come from industrial exposure, involving chronic exposure to concentrations of airborne particles millions of times higher than you would ever find in a residential setting, even during a renovation that disturbs asbestos. I looked into this when I discovered some old asbestos paper in my basement that I had abated by professionals (which I always recommend). I was freaking out about my family being exposed to the fibers for years before that, so I went digging for hard numbers. To my surprise, there is almost zero good quantitative data on the risk of mesothelioma from residential asbestos exposure. The best info we have suggests about a doubling of the risk of MM from residential exposure, from about 1 per million person-years to 2.5 per million person years: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(17)30200-1/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2... > However, the chief interest from this study will be in the more than doubling of risk of mesothelioma in men who had lived in an affected house, compared with unexposed males (SIR 2·54, 95% CI 1·02–5·24). ... The background incidence of mesothelioma without exposure to asbestos is very low (highly age-dependent and roughly one case per million person-years), so any rise would be indicative of previous asbestos exposure Other studies indicate that home renovations that disturb asbestos could increase the risk by about a factor of 5 from baseline, which sounds high until you realize that it means about 5 per million person-years. The base rate is very low! And there is no such thing as zero exposure to asbestos: there are a couple fibers, on average, in every liter of air you breathe. Everybody is constantly exposed to a very small amount of these fibers, and it's not the case that it gives everybody MM: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7721955/#:~:text=The%20standard%20asbestos%20concentration%20in,)%20%5B12%2C%2013%5D https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7721955/#:~:tex.... So the bottom line is: get your asbestos abated by professionals, but don't freak out if you have been living with the stuff. It's not the same as being an asbestos miner, your risk is higher but still very low.

hanniabu 3y ago
> Mesothelioma from household exposure is very rare > To my surprise, there is almost zero good quantitative data on the risk of mesothelioma from residential asbestos exposure Love it when comments state something so confidently, yet contradict themselves a few sentences later

cat_plus_plus 3y ago

I would rather not categorically ban anything. I don't want lots of arsenic in my food, but arsenic also has unique industrial uses where it can be prevented from leaching into the environment. Maybe asbestos turns out to be the only thing we can think of to enable exploration of other planets, or heat storage of zero carbon energy. Or maybe in time asbestos can be treated to prevent release of airborne fibers. I certainly wouldn't use asbestos in residential buildings or consumer products barring unforeseen breakthroughs to make it safe. But treat each use case separately, there could be rare ones where it's worth the risk.

KingOfCoders 3y ago

Sometimes the US is suprising to me. The EU has done that 2005, getting 25 countries on board. Germany in 1993. Then again, in a free market, why regulate at all? I understand the regulation in the EU, but with all the free market fundamentalism, why is the US regulating this? Shouldn't people decide if they want to buy stuff with asbestos or live in an asbestos home? Or get a job with asbestos exposure? If you believe in free market fundamentalism, why regulate anything? Just label things.

blitzar 3y ago
Forcing companies to label things is government over-reach.
the_other 3y ago
If government isn’t protecting the people it represents, why have one?
- coldtea 3y ago
  It's not like the people are asked, or have a choice on the matter of having a government
  - the_other 3y ago
    Lots of things pre-date their users: plates, wheels, farming, aeroplanes. The lack of choice in the matter isn’t in itself a reason to discount the phenomenon. The nature of the phenomenon is more important. In the case of government (or lack), its nature should inform its form and behaviour. My earlier point was more like “what is this government doing if not looking after those it represents?” If its not doing as it should, we should change it. (I’m open to ideas of anarchistic self determination. Most “good” implementations seem to have some form of coalition and/or committee-with-sphere-of-responsibility which looks like government if you squint so I’m a bit hazy how you do it. Happy to learn)
hackernewds 3y ago
[flagged]

cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago

I don’t know what I’m more surprised-but-not-actually-surprised by: the fact that the US is this far behind the rest of the world, or that the comments are packed full of American debating the merits of this ban as if they’re in some sort of vacuum. When it comes down to it, the typical born-and-bred American truly cant help but engage in some good old fashioned American exceptionalism. This is great news, worldwide. Presumably the US was a major buyer of some of the asbestos products that were up-til-now legal to sell. As that market gets smaller, there’ll be less of a chance of asbestos-laden products fraudulently making their way into other markets with more same asbestos bans. As a resident of one of those countries, thank you for getting your act together, I guess.

wutwutwat 3y ago

In another life I sandblasted heat exchangers in power plants and oil refineries - the first refinery I ever worked in had pipes overhead wrapped in asbestos insulation. It was all very well marked and had plenty of warnings to not go near it unless authorized and properly protected. Honestly though, I was crawling into a hole I could barely fit my body through to blast out thousands of pipes which flow liquid sulfur through them, with a grit that should the blast hose split was under enough pressure to inject sand straight through your heart, while wearing a sensor on my hard hat that I was told if it starts to beep I had 60 seconds to climb up out of the hole before I’d be dead. Asbestos exposure wasn’t a worry I had in those places, because everything else was trying to kill me too but much more urgently.