Trump and Pruitt are going to make asbestos great again!

[glenn1]

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.

Then please elaborate on the very strong nexus of asbestos floor tiles in houses to how the chemical plants use asbestos diaphragms in its chlorine manufacturing process which is where asbestos is mainly used today. I'm sure spending time studying how grandpa's brake pads on his 1953 Chevy affected him is really super relevant to that use.

 

[fskimospy]

Then please elaborate on the very strong nexus of asbestos floor tiles in houses to how the chemical plants use asbestos diaphragms in its chlorine manufacturing process which is where asbestos is mainly used today. I'm sure spending time studying how grandpa's brake pads on his 1953 Chevy affected him is really super relevant to that use.

No weasel words, my friend! As we've said numerous times in this thread if it's not relevant to a certain application then there's no reason to think it would be included. The EPA's action here is to prevent consideration regardless of whether it's applicable or not. I for one am down to allow the experts to make that decision. You and Scott Pruitt have apparently decided you know better based on your personal feelings.

I don't know how many times I need to say this, but it's just common sense to let the experts make that choice.

 

[glenn1]

No weasel words, my friend! As we've said numerous times in this thread if it's not relevant to a certain application then there's no reason to think it would be included. The EPA's action here is to prevent consideration regardless of whether it's applicable or not. I for one am down to allow the experts to make that decision. You and Scott Pruitt have apparently decided you know better based on your personal feelings.

I don't know how many times I need to say this, but it's just common sense to let the experts make that choice.

Probably because you've said multiple times in this thread that you're actually seeking research on what to do with asbestos in place now which has jack shit to do with whether we should approve an unrelated future 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?

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.

 

[fskimospy]

Probably because you've said multiple times in this thread that you're actually seeking research on what to do with asbestos in place now which has jack shit to do with whether we should approve an unrelated future use.

I most certainly am not, you're making things up again. I am in favor of allowing the experts to use whatever knowledge is necessary to make a determination and if they conclude that additional research is required to acquire the knowledge necessary I'm in favor of that too. You, on the other hand, want to prevent them from doing that because reasons you just made up in your head.

We all know why Pruitt wants to do it, it's because he's comically corrupt. You appear to want to do it out of rage and spite.

 

[glenn1]

I most certainly am not, you're making things up again. I am in favor of allowing the experts to use whatever knowledge is necessary to make a determination and if they conclude that additional research is required to acquire the knowledge necessary I'm in favor of that too. You, on the other hand, want to prevent them from doing that because reasons you just made up in your head.

We all know why Pruitt wants to do it, it's because he's comically corrupt. You appear to want to do it out of rage and spite.

So you truly fear that corporations are going to start making asbestos floor tiles and brake pads again and this is part of some grand Trump plot to enable that?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Maybe it’s just a coincidence...

Russia, which is the largest country in the world in terms of land mass, also leads the planet in asbestos production. In 2000, production reached approximately 700,000 metric tons, much more than Canada and China. In 2008, mining in Russia produced more than 1 million metric tons of asbestos. In 2013, the country produced 1,050,000 metric tons.

https://www.asbestos.com/mesothelioma/worldwide/

 

[glenn1]

Maybe it’s just a coincidence...

https://www.asbestos.com/mesothelioma/worldwide/

I've already stated here in the thread that asbestos continues to receive some amount of usage in typically industrial applications where no real substitute exists. Where it comes from isn't really material, the market is so small as to be basically irrelevant at a geopolitical strategy level (e.g. doing this as a "favor" to Russia). What does make sense is to not turn an application for an improved filter system to make chemicals into a fishing expedition for the effects of asbestos consumer products from decades ago. A chemical factory filter has nothing in common whatsoever with a brake pad and it's ridiculous to study the later as a condition of approving the former; there's no pending applications for new consumer uses anywhere on the horizon so why would you spend money studying something which isn't in the pipeline nor would it ever expected to be?

 

[IJTSSG]

When you have TDS, everything is a grand plot for President Trump to do something bad.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I've already stated here in the thread that asbestos continues to receive some amount of usage in typically industrial applications where no real substitute exists. Where it comes from isn't really material, the market is so small as to be basically irrelevant at a geopolitical strategy level (e.g. doing this as a "favor" to Russia). What does make sense is to not turn an application for an improved filter system to make chemicals into a fishing expedition for the effects of asbestos consumer products from decades ago. A chemical factory filter has nothing in common whatsoever with a brake pad and it's ridiculous to study the later as a condition of approving the former; there's no pending applications for new consumer uses anywhere on the horizon so why would you spend money studying something which isn't in the pipeline nor would it ever expected to be?

Hey I’m with you man, as I said earlier asbestos has some real good qualities to it. I wonder if it could be made safer somehow.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So you truly fear that corporations are going to start making asbestos floor tiles and brake pads again and this is part of some grand Trump plot to enable that?

Judging from the lack of response...it appears that his answer to your question is "yes".

 

[Fanatical Meat]

When you have TDS, everything is a grand plot for President Trump to do something bad.

But People are saying....

Your Boy started this, he can take it too

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...b6c1998b7a0_story.html?utm_term=.9377bada03b6

 

[fskimospy]

Judging from the lack of response...it appears that his answer to your question is "yes".

The answer to his question was 'this is so stupid it does not merit a response'. Apparently wanting the experts to utilize all relevant information is a partisan issue now.

The brain rot of modern American conservatism is truly amazing to behold, isn't it?

 

[glenn1]

The answer to his question was 'this is so stupid it does not merit a response'. Apparently wanting the experts to utilize all relevant information is a partisan issue now.

The brain rot of modern American conservatism is truly amazing to behold, isn't it?

Yes, because experts need any and all completely irrelevant information. I know that when I choose floor tiles, a very important part of my selection process is reviewing the specs of Chlor Alkali diaphragm membranes containing asbestos so that I can know how much it costs to mix up a couple tons of sodium chloride after I lay the tiles. Likewise it's very important to the Dow Chemicals of the world to have detailed information about my floor tiles so the EPA can approve their new filters; makes perfect sense.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, because experts need any and all completely irrelevant information. I know that when I choose floor tiles, a very important part of my selection process is reviewing the specs of Chlor Alkali diaphragm membranes containing asbestos so that I can know how much it costs to mix up a couple tons of sodium chloride after I lay the tiles. Likewise it's very important to the Dow Chemicals of the world to have detailed information about my floor tiles so the EPA can approve their new filters; makes perfect sense.

You're right, it does make perfect sense for the experts to decide what information is relevant to them instead of relying on people like you and Pruitt who have no idea what they're talking about.

That's so obvious I can't believe it even needs to be said.

 

[glenn1]

You're right, it does make perfect sense for the experts to decide what information is relevant to them instead of relying on people like you and Pruitt who have no idea what they're talking about.

That's so obvious I can't believe it even needs to be said.

Or you could be more honest and just say you're looking for an excuse to enable more asbestos litigation. The entire reason why we have appointed heads of agencies is to make political decisions like this, we don't leave them to "experts" for a reason.

 

[fskimospy]

Or you could be more honest and just say you're looking for an excuse to enable more asbestos litigation. The entire reason why we have appointed heads of agencies is to make political decisions like this, we don't leave them to "experts" for a reason.

Where do you conjure up these insane theories about my motivations from? I couldn't care less about asbestos litigation one way or the other. I do care about effective governance though and there is no logical reason to prohibit EPA scientists from considering relevant data. It's dumb.

If we were being more honest though I imagine you would admit that you're just arguing to avoid admitting you were wrong. I sincerely doubt you think America is better served by prohibiting scientists from considering relevant data.

 

[glenn1]

Where do you conjure up these insane theories about my motivations from? I couldn't care less about asbestos litigation one way or the other. I do care about effective governance though and there is no logical reason to prohibit EPA scientists from considering relevant data. It's dumb.

If we were being more honest though I imagine you would admit that you're just arguing to avoid admitting you were wrong. I sincerely doubt you think America is better served by prohibiting scientists from considering relevant data.

Why stop at asbestos then? Surely everything conceivably relevant should be provided to experts without question. Why not just get data on asbestos use from Graeco-Roman days, after all if a few decades of data is useful to the approval process then certainly a couple millenia worth is even more useful. What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow? Might be relevant to approving a new filter application. Who cares if the experts request several hundred billion dollars worth of data for their approvals, it's just money right?

 

[fskimospy]

Why stop at asbestos then? Surely everything conceivably relevant should be provided to experts without question. Why not just get data on asbestos use from Graeco-Roman days, after all if a few decades of data is useful to the approval process then certainly a couple millenia worth is even more useful. What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow? Might be relevant to approving a new filter application. Who cares if the experts request several hundred billion dollars worth of data for their approvals, it's just money right?

Are you fucking kidding me.

 

[glenn1]

Are you fucking kidding me.

A lot of states experts are saying they need the data from photo IDs to be able to approve voters, are you OK with signing off on those experts' wishes or would you prefer that be a political decision? Substitute "information needed to approve (welfare, refugee status, etc.)" or any other governmental decision if you prefer.

 

[Thebobo]

Why stop at asbestos then? Surely everything conceivably relevant should be provided to experts without question. Why not just get data on asbestos use from Graeco-Roman days, after all if a few decades of data is useful to the approval process then certainly a couple millenia worth is even more useful. What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow? Might be relevant to approving a new filter application. Who cares if the experts request several hundred billion dollars worth of data for their approvals, it's just money right?

Count to 10 before you post, well in your case make it a thousand.

 

[fskimospy]

A lot of states experts are saying they need the data from photo IDs to be able to approve voters, are you OK with signing off on those experts' wishes or would you prefer that be a political decision? Substitute "information needed to approve (welfare, refugee status, etc.)" or any other governmental decision if you prefer.

No, the experts say we don't need photo IDs in order to approve voters. It's the politicians who insist on it in the face of all expert opinion to the contrary as everyone who knows anything about voter fraud knows voter ID laws are irrational. Thanks for providing such a good point in my favor.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Looks like the Russian asbestos providers approve.

The reported translation.

Donald is on our side!

The Factory ” Uralasbest ” released an unusual batch of chrysotile: on the package of palletov with the mineral, the stamp ” approved by Donald Trump, the 45th President of the united states “. in such an unusual way, the workers of the asbestoobogatitelʹnoj factory of the factory thanked us President Donald .
He supported the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Scott Pruitt, who stated that his office would no longer deal with the negative effects potentially derived from products containing asbestos. Donald Trump supported a specialist and called asbestos “100 percent safe after application”.
” we have come out with the initiative – to support our hrizotilovuû industry in this way and to remind that our ” Mountain Len ” is an important mineral for the world. Management Approved!”,-told at the factory.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/

 

[hal2kilo]

I most certainly am not, you're making things up again. I am in favor of allowing the experts to use whatever knowledge is necessary to make a determination and if they conclude that additional research is required to acquire the knowledge necessary I'm in favor of that too. You, on the other hand, want to prevent them from doing that because reasons you just made up in your head.

We all know why Pruitt wants to do it, it's because he's comically corrupt. You appear to want to do it out of rage and spite.

I personally think this is a personal agenda of Trump's. You know he thinks he 's the great builder of world and I'm sure he's run into these issues with asbestos over and over again when rehabilitating existing properties. He just wants the regs gone.

 

[Jhhnn]

I personally think this is a personal agenda of Trump's. You know he thinks he 's the great builder of world and I'm sure he's run into these issues with asbestos over and over again when rehabilitating existing properties. He just wants the regs gone.

Likely true.

 

[hal2kilo]

Likely true.

Found what I was looking for. Yea, he has a history.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/...organization-titan-environmental-cleanup.html

Trump Firm Loses Bid to Limit Cleanup Liability for Property