Trump and Pruitt are going to make asbestos great again!

[IronWing]

What exactly do you want me to defend?

I rest my case.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I rest my case.

For the sake of humanity...please don't breed.

 

[brycejones]

Where have I defended Trump on this issue? You're hallucinating again...time to take your meds.

And here is the "Who me?" post.

DSF at least a huge thank you for finally exposing your true colors in the picture thread as an ignorant defender of racists.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I've explicitly stated that I haven't yet formed an opinion on this issue. If you somehow construe this as defending Trump, you're about as fucking brain dead as they get.

 

[IJTSSG]

Read more than the fucking headline.

 

[UberNeuman]

I've explicitly stated that I haven't yet formed an opinion on this issue. If you somehow construe this as defending Trump, you're about as fucking brain dead as they get.

I love how you thought you were tossing a pipe bomb into this topic and it blew up in your face. Lol.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I love how you thought you were tossing a pipe bomb into this topic and it blew up in your face. Lol.

Pipe bomb? Really? I've already explicitly stated why I posted the link.

What color is the sky in that little 'alternative reality' bubble of yours?

 

[mect]

Read more than the fucking headline.

I did. Content seemed to support the premise of the headline. What did you read?

 

[brycejones]

I did. Content seemed to support the premise of the headline. What did you read?

He was too busy reading the content on CNS and FoxNews.

 

[Amused]

I've explicitly stated that I haven't yet formed an opinion on this issue. If you somehow construe this as defending Trump, you're about as fucking brain dead as they get.

Then why the fuck would you post in this thread? Why the fuck would you take a contrarian stance? Why the fuck would you try, so desperately, to make it look like the issue is being misrepresented when it is clearly not?

Especially since Trump is on record with believing Asbestos dangers are a "mob conspiracy" and now his EPA appointees are dropping evaluations of existing asbestos installations putting millions at risk. Asbestos is one of those rare substances in which every medical study points to there being no acceptable minimum exposure. Zero. That alone is significant.

Why? Concern trolling for Trump. That's why. We all know it. It's transparent as fuck. Yet when called out on it, you attempt to turn it around on everyone else and portray them as "crazy" or off their meds.

Every.
Single.
Fucking.
Time.

 

[HomerJS]

Then why the fuck would you post in this thread? Why the fuck would you take a contrarian stance? Why the fuck would you try, so desperately, to make it look like the issue is being misrepresented when it is clearly not?

Especially since Trump is on record with believing Asbestos dangers are a "mob conspiracy" and now his EPA appointees are dropping evaluations of existing asbestos installations putting millions at risk. Asbestos is one of those rare substances in which every medical study points to there being no acceptable minimum exposure. Zero. That alone is significant.

Why? Concern trolling for Trump. That's why. We all know it. It's transparent as fuck. Yet when called out on it, you attempt to turn it around on everyone else and portray them as "crazy" or off their meds.

Every.
Single.
Fucking.
Time.

I'm sure that was lost on DSF

 

[glenn1]

Context from article huh?


Maybe concerned citizens can start shipping boxes of asbestos to Pruitt's office

Good thing for him then that its use was banned in 1977. If you guys want to make a bunch of trial lawyers rich by fastracking their ability to sue companies for goods sold 40-80 years ago then I guess you'll need to wait until you win back Congress and perhaps the presidency. If OTOH you want to earmark some money to fund its removal from homes of poorer Americans I'd be open-minded to that.

 

[IJTSSG]

A developer/building contractor was bitching 20 years ago about how much it cost to do asbestos removal?

OMGOMGOMGOMGOHMYFUCKINGGOD!

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I do wonder if there is a way to make it safer or still use it in responsible and limited ways.
It’s is a good insulator, it is very fire resistant, it does last a long time. Those are real good qualities to have. Seems like nobody bothers with making it safer because it’s a no go to do that.
I feel the same way about DDT, with all the bug viruses making a comeback maybe it’s time to figure out a limited and safe way to use it again. That stuff worked, just bad side effects.

 

[HomerJS]

Good thing for him then that its use was banned in 1977. If you guys want to make a bunch of trial lawyers rich by fastracking their ability to sue companies for goods sold 40-80 years ago then I guess you'll need to wait until you win back Congress and perhaps the presidency. If OTOH you want to earmark some money to fund its removal from homes of poorer Americans I'd be open-minded to that.

You are not going to be able to earmark money without a study. Republicans don't care to spend money on poor people. They will claim, meh, its been there for years anyway so why to we have to remove it? Trump himself downplayed that need.

 

[glenn1]

You are not going to be able to earmark money without a study. Republicans don't care to spend money on poor people. They will claim, meh, its been there for years anyway so why to we have to remove it? Trump himself downplayed that need.

Well considering "don't fvck with it" is the typical strategy recommended instead of removal for most non-commercial instances that's probably not the worst thing. If you have asbestos in non-friable flooring or such you're better off leaving it most of the time. We've already had studies to show this including one from the Congressionally-charted National Institute of Building Sciences.

"There is some evidence to indicate that removal of asbestos-containing building products from schools and other facilities may be counterproductive. Whether the removal process involves dry or wet disruption of the in-place asbestos, data shows that a substantial quantity becomes resuspended and recirculated throughout the building. Following removal, weeks and sometimes months must pass before ambient air levels of friable (crumbling) asbestos fiber drop below acceptable levels."

For structures where asbestos fibers are being actively released (or there is real risk of it) then yes I don't think it's a bad thing to have taxpayers help subsidize removal costs even though when governments (or utilities for that matter) subsidize things like this it ends up being a huge boondoggle where a handful of contractors get overpaid.

 

[glenn1]

I do wonder if there is a way to make it safer or still use it in responsible and limited ways.
It’s is a good insulator, it is very fire resistant, it does last a long time. Those are real good qualities to have. Seems like nobody bothers with making it safer because it’s a no go to do that.
I feel the same way about DDT, with all the bug viruses making a comeback maybe it’s time to figure out a limited and safe way to use it again. That stuff worked, just bad side effects.

Asbestos isn't completely banned anymore (an appeals court struck down the total ban in the early 90s) but its modern use is extremely limited for obvious legal liability reasons.

 

[fskimospy]

Well considering "don't fvck with it" is the typical strategy recommended instead of removal for most non-commercial instances that's probably not the worst thing. If you have asbestos in non-friable flooring or such you're better off leaving it most of the time. We've already had studies to show this including one from the Congressionally-charted National Institute of Building Sciences.

"There is some evidence to indicate that removal of asbestos-containing building products from schools and other facilities may be counterproductive. Whether the removal process involves dry or wet disruption of the in-place asbestos, data shows that a substantial quantity becomes resuspended and recirculated throughout the building. Following removal, weeks and sometimes months must pass before ambient air levels of friable (crumbling) asbestos fiber drop below acceptable levels."

For structures where asbestos fibers are being actively released (or there is real risk of it) then yes I don't think it's a bad thing to have taxpayers help subsidize removal costs even though when governments (or utilities for that matter) subsidize things like this it ends up being a huge boondoggle where a handful of contractors get overpaid.

That sure sounds like an area with a lot of uncertainty where further study would be warranted.

Nahhhhhhhh. Haha.

 

[glenn1]

That sure sounds like an area with a lot of uncertainty where further study would be warranted.

Nahhhhhhhh. Haha.

What studies do you need? If you suspect you have asbestos in your house that's become friable then you test and if the test is positive you proceed to remove otherwise you don't fvck with it. Are you looking for a study about whether we should allow more limited asbestos use to re-litigate its use in the mid 20th century?

 

[fskimospy]

What studies do you need? If you suspect you have asbestos in your house that's become friable then you test and if the test is positive you proceed to remove otherwise you don't fvck with it. Are you looking for a study about whether we should allow more asbestos use?

No, I'm looking for a better determination of what we should do with the asbestos in place. Your study said there is 'some evidence', which would hardly be sufficient for any competent public health agency to declare no further study would be needed.

This is just common sense, no?

 

[glenn1]

No, I'm looking for a better determination of what we should do with the asbestos in place. Your study said there is 'some evidence', which would hardly be sufficient for any competent public health agency to declare no further study would be needed.

This is just common sense, no?

Which would be a completely different type and nature of study from the one in the OP story which is discussing whether we should allow limited new uses of asbestos in 2018.

 

[fskimospy]

Which would be a completely different type and nature of study from the one in the OP story which is discussing whether we should allow limited new uses of asbestos in 2018.

No, it would not. From the OP:

The Environmental Protection Agency will not consider the health risks and impacts of asbestos already in the environment when evaluating the dangers associated with the chemical compound, Scott Pruitt, the agency's head, quietly announced last week.

If you aren't evaluating the dangers of what's in place you cannot evaluate what to do with it. Again, this is common sense.

 

[Greenman]

His article already mentioned they were only ignoring already installed asbestos.

I assume we can all agree that’s an insanely bad idea?

That depends. Non friable asbestos is harmless. Most asbestos is safe if you leave it alone.
The removal and disposal process is well established, safe, and expensive. In residential settings asbestos removal is often done illegally because of the cost of proper removal and disposal. Asbestos contamination is everywhere you chose to look for it. It's the state rock here in CA and as a naturally occurring mineral it can even be found in our water supply. All of the issues with asbestos occur when it's machined or abraded.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I do wonder if there is a way to make it safer or still use it in responsible and limited ways.

There are a few extremely limited ways it can safely be used. But for the most part it is just too hazardous to mess with.

I feel the same way about DDT, with all the bug viruses making a comeback maybe it’s time to figure out a limited and safe way to use it again. That stuff worked, just bad side effects.

DDT is being used again, just in very controlled ways. We can't just spray it everywhere like we used to, it has to be applied to targeted locations and only used when other less harmful pesticides are not applicable.

This is how we handle such things in general. When we find out something is harmful we ban it and give the science time to learn about it. Then as we feel confident that we know how to use it in a less destructive way we start to allow its use again under controlled conditions. Then we monitor that use to see if we successfully managed to minimise its negative effects to an acceptable level while making use of its positive qualities.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Non friable asbestos is harmless. Most asbestos is safe if you leave it alone.

This is the problem. We never leave it alone permanently. It will eventually get removed because even buildings are not permanent.