Trump and Pruitt are going to make asbestos great again!

[Fanatical Meat]

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?

There already is real good evidence it’s best to leave existing asbestos in place and seal it with plastic or something airtight.
Sealing it = having a professional licensed person do the sealing. It does not = wrap a trash bag around it with duct tape.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

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

The choice is release the particles now when the building is occupied or release the particular at a future renovation/tear down date

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

That's not really true. Asbestos wasn't banned until 1989 & that was partially overturned in court. It's still used in limited applications where substitution has been difficult.

 

[fskimospy]

There already is real good evidence it’s best to leave existing asbestos in place and seal it with plastic or something airtight.
Sealing it = having a professional licensed person do the sealing. It does not = wrap a trash bag around it with duct tape.

So to be clear you're saying the harms of asbestos in existing structures is so completely understood that any further evaluation of it should not be avoided?

I personally find this unlikely as apparently we don't even have a good understanding of what structures it's in but I'm willing to be convinced.

 

[glenn1]

So to be clear you're saying the harms of asbestos in existing structures is so completely understood that any further evaluation of it should not be avoided?

I personally find this unlikely as apparently we don't even have a good understanding of what structures it's in but I'm willing to be convinced.

No we're saying that "understanding the harms of asbestos in existing structures" is mostly irrelevant to the question of "should we allow limited use of asbestos in this completely unrelated product today." The risks and controls involved with mitigating an asbestos floor tile installed into a house in 1968 has basically nothing in common with the risks, controls, and needed mitigation if the FDA was to allow use of asbestos to manufacture a chemical in 2018. I'm not making the argument we can't fund studies for the 1968 floor tiles but it seems ridiculous to conflate that study with a study to approve a current-day use application. We don't do that for the same reason we don't mandate inclusion of studies about dangers of tobacco in studies for a new drug to treat cancer today, the two aren't related enough to comingle in the same study.

 

[fskimospy]

No we're saying that "understanding the harms of asbestos in existing structures" is mostly irrelevant to the question of "should we allow limited use of asbestos in this completely unrelated product today." The risks and controls involved with mitigating an asbestos floor tile installed into a house in 1968 has basically nothing in common with the risks, controls, and needed mitigation if the FDA was to allow use of asbestos to manufacture a chemical in 2018. I'm not making the argument we can't fund studies for the 1968 floor tiles but it seems ridiculous to conflate that study with a study to approve a current-day use application. We don't do that for the same reason we don't mandate inclusion of studies about dangers of tobacco in studies for a new drug to treat cancer today, the two aren't related enough to comingle in the same study.

The EPA is saying it will evaluate new uses for asbestos generally, not purely in unrelated products, so it certainly seems possible that some products will have uses that reasonably relate to asbestos in place in existing structures. Electing not to consider that even when it is appropriate makes no logical sense.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

So to be clear you're saying the harms of asbestos in existing structures is so completely understood that any further evaluation of it should not be avoided?

I personally find this unlikely as apparently we don't even have a good understanding of what structures it's in but I'm willing to be convinced.

why does it always end with debate

 

[Ottonomous]

The problem with asbestos is the immense variation of responses among individuals. Minimal exposure for a short time in one person could be far worse than long-term heave exposure in another. It could take 20 years before the characteristic pleural plaques begin to appear after those fibrous crystals or deposited, and it can run all the way to eating up your lungs fibrotically to pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma

The dumbest part of this obvious concession to the industry isn't that they won't review legacy use, but won't outright ban the importation and future use of it for companies.

The EPA did say that it would take unprecedented action on asbestos by requiring new manufacturers and importers of asbestos to receive EPA approval before importing or processing the chemical. Reinstein, however, said that this is not a ban and that the largest users of asbestos will continue to use it.

 

[Ottonomous]

I remember Pence using the same relativist arguments to ease on smoking, he came out with 'it doesn't kill' then cited accurate statistics showing the difference in exposure/risk of developing lung cancer (generally 10-15 percent). Then of course claimed mass hysteria and overly aggressive anti-tobacco legislation

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mike-pence-smoking/

 

[glenn1]

The EPA is saying it will evaluate new uses for asbestos generally, not purely in unrelated products, so it certainly seems possible that some products will have uses that reasonably relate to asbestos in place in existing structures. Electing not to consider that even when it is appropriate makes no logical sense.

OK let's say for sake of argument that a company wanted to manufacture asbestos floor tiles today. If their manufacture, installation, and abatement controls for while in situ and removal are completely different now than they were in the 1960s then why would we examine the 1960s tiles as a comparison? The EPA doesn't require car makers to conduct studies of the health effects of emissions from their 1950s cars to approve the import of a 2018 Honda Fit today, so why would they for asbestos products?

 

[SMOGZINN]

The choice is release the particles now when the building is occupied or release the particular at a future renovation/tear down date

If we find it and remove it now we can take steps to limit the amount of it that escapes. If we wait 30 years and let the lowest bidder tear the building down it is likely to be forgotten and escape.

 

[fskimospy]

OK let's say for sake of argument that a company wanted to manufacture asbestos floor tiles today. If their manufacture, installation, and abatement controls for while in situ and removal are completely different now than they were in the 1960s then why would we examine the 1960s tiles as a comparison? The EPA doesn't require car makers to conduct studies of the health effects of emissions from their 1950s cars to approve the import of a 2018 Honda Fit today, so why would they for asbestos products?

So they are completely, 100% different today with literally no common elements whatsoever? We need to be clear here, you're saying that literally no aspect of prior asbestos installations could be informative to how it affects us today in even the slightest way. That seems preposterous to me.

The EPA isn't requiring anyone else to do any studies, it's simply stating that it will not consider existing installations in understanding the dangers of asbestos under any circumstances, even if they are relevant. This is a transparently dumb idea, almost certainly driven by the fact that the EPA has been a victim of regulatory capture.

 

[Ottonomous]

The EPA doesn't require car makers to conduct studies of the health effects of emissions from their 1950s cars to approve the import of a 2018 Honda Fit today, so why would they for asbestos products?

Because A - The car manufacturers aren't going to use the same emissions standards going on like the EPA with asbestos in their importation/use statements, B - asbestos has severe long-term cumulative effects and is within the immediate vicinity of occupants C - Good point on older vehicles, should the DMV or whatever American institution address that? Don't think the EPA will care much about it anyway under the current administation

 

[Thebobo]

I worked in a gas station out of HS and the mechanics would be using the air hose to blow out the brakes, we would see a explosion of black soot coming out of the bay doors and they just stood in it.

A friend at our flying field died from mesothelioma, pretty harsh thinks he got working at a factory in the UK where the did something with asbestos.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

If we find it and remove it now we can take steps to limit the amount of it that escapes. If we wait 30 years and let the lowest bidder tear the building down it is likely to be forgotten and escape.

I disagree, you are assuming the best case scenario vs the worst case scenario.
This is an opinion type thing I assume neither one of us is a certified asbestos abatement expert.

For example there are houses that have been gutted to the studs and replaced with something modern. The process of gutting to the studs released so much lead that the new owners got lead poisoned. Sometimes leaving it alone is the smart thing to do, but it’s always smart to trust the professionals.

 

[Genx87]

Sounds like Cousin Eddie may finally get his job back at the Asbestos factory. Thanks Trump!

 

[glenn1]

So they are completely, 100% different today with literally no common elements whatsoever? We need to be clear here, you're saying that literally no aspect of prior asbestos installations could be informative to how it affects us today in even the slightest way. That seems preposterous to me.

The EPA isn't requiring anyone else to do any studies, it's simply stating that it will not consider existing installations in understanding the dangers of asbestos under any circumstances, even if they are relevant. This is a transparently dumb idea, almost certainly driven by the fact that the EPA has been a victim of regulatory capture.

I'd rather just have the EPA not bother to approve any products containing asbestos then. It won't hurt my feelings and the public can enjoy getting silicosis instead of mesothelioma.

 

[fskimospy]

I'd rather just have the EPA not bother to approve any products containing asbestos then. It won't hurt my feelings and the public can enjoy getting silicosis instead of mesothelioma.

Haha, I was waiting for the spite to show up!

 

[glenn1]

Haha, I was waiting for the spite to show up!

It's not spite, if you're going to insist on a standard of "prove it's 100% safe" you end up with a situation like Europe with its bans on GMO foods. It's easier to simply say don't bother approving new products if the standard requires you to study completely unrelated legacy products. We don't require EPA approval for renewable energy products like solar panels to first do studies on the hazards of mercury in CFL light bulbs because the solar panels might contain trace amounts of mercury in them, yet that's the ridiculous standard you want to apply to asbestos. Should we mandate mercury studies before approving your Nissan Leaf?

 

[fskimospy]

It's not spite, if you're going to insist on a standard of "prove it's 100% safe" you end up with a situation like Europe with its bans on GMO foods. It's easier to simply say don't bother approving new products if the standard requires you to study completely unrelated legacy products. We don't require EPA approval for renewable energy products like solar panels to do studies on the hazards of mercury in CFL light bulbs because the solar panels might contain trace amounts of mercury in them, yet that's the ridiculous standard you want to apply to asbestos. Should we mandate mercury studies before approving your Nissan Leaf?

No one has insisted on 'prove it's 100% safe' so you're just making things up now. People are insisting on 'allow professionals to use all appropriate information'.

Common sense.

 

[glenn1]

No one has insisted on 'prove it's 100% safe' so you're just making things up now. People are insisting on 'allow professionals to use all appropriate information'.

Common sense.

I thought you were the cost benefit guy who insisted that hypotheticals weren't the basis for spending taxpayer money and repeatedly using this JPG. Why the insistence on spending money studying the risks of completely unrelated products?

 

[senseamp]

Happy Mesothelioma and Black Lung to you, Republicans.

 

[Amused]

One question for the people saying it's best to leave it alone:

Can emergency responders mark every property that contains asbestos?

And then refuse to respond in case of fire, earthquake or structural failure allowing you to die inside because you thought leaving it in place was the best bet?

Of course, that too would require inspections and evaluations of existing installations.

Just a little food for thought.

 

[fskimospy]

I thought you were the cost benefit guy who insisted that hypotheticals weren't the basis for spending taxpayer money and repeatedly using this JPG. Why the insistence on spending money studying the risks of completely unrelated products?

They wouldn't spend money studying the risks of completely unrelated products. Remember, you just made that part up and then tried to have us all pretend it was true. They would use that information if/when it was relevant to their work. The perfect intersection of costs and benefits, only use something when it's useful! I imagine you're a big supporter now, right? Again - Common. Sense.

This does say a lot about why you have such a hard time grasping that voter ID laws are irrational though, haha. The equivalent here would be if the EPA decided to enact regulations that required substantial additional requirements for a product despite all evidence stating it was completely safe. When it was pointed out that additional requirements were pointless the response would be 'well you should do this pointless thing anyway because I imagine it will be easy to comply with based on my personal feelings.'

Reals, not feels is probably the defining difference between liberals and conservatives these days. Conservatives demand we treat their feelings as facts and become enraged when we refuse.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

One question for the people saying it's best to leave it alone:

Can emergency responders mark every property that contains asbestos?

And then refuse to respond in case of fire, earthquake or structural failure allowing you to die inside because you thought leaving it in place was the best bet?

Of course, that too would require inspections and evaluations of existing installations.

Just a little food for thought.

No but we can ensure their masks are asbestos compliant
Removing all of it is a Pandora’s box. Tons of unknowns