4 ms·

Also the danger of asbestos is specifically when it is breathed in over extended periods of time. There are forms of asbestos that are really not all that dange

Also the danger of asbestos is specifically when it is breathed in over extended periods of time. There are forms of asbestos that are really not all that dangerous to the general public, but people freak out when they hear the word. If there are suitable alternatives its good to ban it and move on.

jijijijij 3y ago
> There are forms of asbestos that are really not all that dangerous to the general public Source?
- frud 3y ago
  Any form that doesn't have loose fibrils, microparticles, or dust. I'd compare it to wood from walnut trees, which is perfectly safe to handle and use in dining tables, etc., but dust from its' woodworking is toxic.
  - jijijijij 3y ago
    > Any form that doesn't have loose fibrils, microparticles, or dust. Encasement breaks, materials erode, have to be manufactured and disposed. That's not a valid argument at all. > I'd compare it to wood from walnut trees Well, then you are very uninformed. The toxicity characteristics are nothing alike. If you want to point to a similar hazard, I'd suggest beryllium compounds.
- nostrademons 3y ago
  Bedrock, for one. Asbestos occurs naturally in many common rocks. A map of asbestos-containing bedrock includes many population centers in the U.S: https://www.mindat.org/photo-1146434.html https://www.mindat.org/photo-1146434.html Basically any situation where the asbestos is not shedding dust or fibers into air that'll be breathed by humans is pretty safe. Contact with asbestos causes virtually no health risks; it really has to get into the lungs to do damage.
  - jijijijij 3y ago
    That's not a source at all. For some places with naturally occurring exposed asbestos minerals (e.g. Turkey) you do find a significantly higher incidence in specific lung cancers. That's also true for areas around mines (e.g. Canada). It is hard to establish a mesothelioma baseline, because fibers can be found in the air everywhere at all times, but it is believed to be a specific disease caused by exposure, more or less always. > not shedding dust or fibers into air Which they all do, at some point in time. Even short exposure has been linked to mesothelioma and there is no safe exposure levels for any type of asbestos. > Contact with asbestos causes virtually no health risks; it really has to get into the lungs to do damage. This is not true. It is suspected to cause cancer and other issues upon ingestion and it does cause skin disease too.
- steviedotboston 3y ago
  Floor tiles in your home. Lots of homes in the 50s/60s had asbestos floor tiles installed. These tiles aren't going to kill you. You can leave them alone, cover them with another layer of tile. If you remove them, you can hire an abatement company which takes a tremendous level of precuation, but when you consider the tiny amount of asbestos in the tiles, the fact that its not really breathable, and your exposure is not over an extended period of time, removing tiles yourself with some basic precaution should be fine. The sorts of asbestos you find around the house that you absolutely don't want to mess with would be things like pipe insulation. That stuff is loose, lightweight and can easily be breathed in. Basically just use some common sense and understand what makes asbestos dangerous.
  - jijijijij 3y ago
    Yeah, no source... Every asbestos product erodes at some point. Yes, you can cover or encapsulate it - that's trivial. Ultimately someone has to deal with it tho, and that's when it is always gonna be dangerous. A new home owner may also not know about your cover-up. Your prior statement is misleading. You are talking about mitigations, not inherent risk.
    - serf 3y ago
      > Yeah, no source... I don't get the snark, but I do get the point -- but i'd be remiss not to point out that a lab or individual seeking funds to try to prove the sensibility and health benefits of asbestos, in any form, would be laughed out of town. So, when asking 'for source' regarding niche topics with controversial opinions, well, it's not strange that the study or source is nowhere to be found; but it's more complicated than just "source doesn't exist, so premise must be false.". I agree, however, that due to the unstable and ever changing nature of entrapped asbestos that it should be avoided wherever possible. One nit: there are PLENTY of materials in use that degrade to a more dangerous thing over time, and it hasn't really kept us from using them. Carbon black dust is famously dangerous and we are pumping out more carbon fiber than ever before, it's nearly unrecycable and degrades terribly both structurally and potentially chemically depending on the matrix that binds it. We are only hard-fisted against asbestos at this point in time because we have sensible alternatives.

jijijijij 3y ago

> There are forms of asbestos that are really not all that dangerous to the general public Source?

frud 3y ago
Any form that doesn't have loose fibrils, microparticles, or dust. I'd compare it to wood from walnut trees, which is perfectly safe to handle and use in dining tables, etc., but dust from its' woodworking is toxic.
- jijijijij 3y ago
  > Any form that doesn't have loose fibrils, microparticles, or dust. Encasement breaks, materials erode, have to be manufactured and disposed. That's not a valid argument at all. > I'd compare it to wood from walnut trees Well, then you are very uninformed. The toxicity characteristics are nothing alike. If you want to point to a similar hazard, I'd suggest beryllium compounds.
nostrademons 3y ago
Bedrock, for one. Asbestos occurs naturally in many common rocks. A map of asbestos-containing bedrock includes many population centers in the U.S: https://www.mindat.org/photo-1146434.html https://www.mindat.org/photo-1146434.html Basically any situation where the asbestos is not shedding dust or fibers into air that'll be breathed by humans is pretty safe. Contact with asbestos causes virtually no health risks; it really has to get into the lungs to do damage.
- jijijijij 3y ago
  That's not a source at all. For some places with naturally occurring exposed asbestos minerals (e.g. Turkey) you do find a significantly higher incidence in specific lung cancers. That's also true for areas around mines (e.g. Canada). It is hard to establish a mesothelioma baseline, because fibers can be found in the air everywhere at all times, but it is believed to be a specific disease caused by exposure, more or less always. > not shedding dust or fibers into air Which they all do, at some point in time. Even short exposure has been linked to mesothelioma and there is no safe exposure levels for any type of asbestos. > Contact with asbestos causes virtually no health risks; it really has to get into the lungs to do damage. This is not true. It is suspected to cause cancer and other issues upon ingestion and it does cause skin disease too.
steviedotboston 3y ago
Floor tiles in your home. Lots of homes in the 50s/60s had asbestos floor tiles installed. These tiles aren't going to kill you. You can leave them alone, cover them with another layer of tile. If you remove them, you can hire an abatement company which takes a tremendous level of precuation, but when you consider the tiny amount of asbestos in the tiles, the fact that its not really breathable, and your exposure is not over an extended period of time, removing tiles yourself with some basic precaution should be fine. The sorts of asbestos you find around the house that you absolutely don't want to mess with would be things like pipe insulation. That stuff is loose, lightweight and can easily be breathed in. Basically just use some common sense and understand what makes asbestos dangerous.
- jijijijij 3y ago
  Yeah, no source... Every asbestos product erodes at some point. Yes, you can cover or encapsulate it - that's trivial. Ultimately someone has to deal with it tho, and that's when it is always gonna be dangerous. A new home owner may also not know about your cover-up. Your prior statement is misleading. You are talking about mitigations, not inherent risk.
  - serf 3y ago
    > Yeah, no source... I don't get the snark, but I do get the point -- but i'd be remiss not to point out that a lab or individual seeking funds to try to prove the sensibility and health benefits of asbestos, in any form, would be laughed out of town. So, when asking 'for source' regarding niche topics with controversial opinions, well, it's not strange that the study or source is nowhere to be found; but it's more complicated than just "source doesn't exist, so premise must be false.". I agree, however, that due to the unstable and ever changing nature of entrapped asbestos that it should be avoided wherever possible. One nit: there are PLENTY of materials in use that degrade to a more dangerous thing over time, and it hasn't really kept us from using them. Carbon black dust is famously dangerous and we are pumping out more carbon fiber than ever before, it's nearly unrecycable and degrades terribly both structurally and potentially chemically depending on the matrix that binds it. We are only hard-fisted against asbestos at this point in time because we have sensible alternatives.