I'm not trying to suggest that asbestos is harmless, clearly it is a dangerous substance, but that doesn't mean that there are no uses for it that wouldn't cause harm. Just saying the word asbestos conjures up knee jerk fears that may not be warranted in certain context.
Svpernaut and Astrodome are going to shocking lengths to support their leader, Mr. trump, and his administration. They are going as far as making excuses for this incredible effort by trump and his people to bring back the use of a proven killer, asbestos. What it says about Svpernaut and Astrodome is not pretty, or if it is pretty, it's pretty sickening. They should both be ashamed of themselves, in my humble opinion. There is no effort too bizarre for trump to take, or an action too dangerous to the American people for Astrodome and Svpernaut to support or make excuses for, apparently. If nothing else, one would think that the two would care about their children, if they have any, or for the children of other Americans. Both would do well to read Upton Sinclair. Sinclair's world is the world trump is attempting to revive. Svpernaut and Astrodome may look forward to returning to that world, but I suspect that most Americans do not.
He actually wrote this. HAHAHA. Companies would so do that. They can keep people in court for decades and eventually pay settlements with the the interest they've made with their billions. Look at Big Pharma!
Eh, I see it differently this time. The points made on OSHA are good points. I don't expect the proposed changes to bring asbestos back into problematic contact with citizens. While it fits a broader clear trend of "screw the consumer" from 45's cabal, I think this is a tempest in a thermally insulated teapot. Just my two cents, of course, but I've been involved with a lot of construction projects and related regulations. (For example, San Francisco ground is full of serpentine, a rock that includes a sort of natural asbestos, and the extremes to which a crew has to properly abate this naturally occurring rock is impressive, all based on federal guidelines. It can double or triple the time allotted to a simple excavation of a construction site.)
And I have to disagree. I think that it reflects the concerted efforts of the trump administration to roll back regulations created after decades of effort in an attempt to protect the American people. As for San Francisco and their rocks, I love the city. Small wonder that it's so expensive!
Very true. The word has been demonized much like the word "Benzene" has. People would be shocked to know how much Benzene, the simplest Aromatic hydrocarbon, is used in industry.
https://ehs.oregonstate.edu/asb-when When you inhale asbestos fibers, they stay in your lungs until you die and rot away around them. I'd sooner Flint tap water every day than spend any time around exposed asbestos. It is a problem, because it flakes to dust so easily, is so completely inert, and seems just like normal dust.
So what are the new uses for asbestos? From the article it said asbestos is currently used to make chlorine for PVC or vinyl plastics. Also, what are the other 9 chemicals that were reviewed?
Sorry Deckard you are wrong on this one, and I agree with you 95% of the time. This decision happened before Trump took office. And it's not about using Asbestos in building materials or bringing it back - it's about doing research around it and it's safety in different uses. That's not a bad thing to do. We shouldn't be afraid to let scientific research happen. Sometimes things that seem good turn out to be awful, and sometimes things that are awful turn out to have some important uses that benefit humanity.
This is generally my take as well. I'd want to understand the application being considered and not just kneejerk an opposition. If it was Obama's EPA, I'd trust them automatically. And while Trump's EPA is recalcitrant on the environment, they seem less so about things like this. So I'd be wary but not automatically distrustful. Now I would not put my trust in OSHA (who knows what Trump deregulation fervor is at play there right now) or in court liabilities. But I'd like a more specific criticism of the EPA than asbestos is bad mmmkay?
OK, lets go to the folks at the EPA... EPA staff objected to Trump administration's asbestos plan, emails show http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/401230-epa-staff-objected-to-asbestos-plan-emails-show
Thanks for posting that. It's nice to know that my complaints about the current EPA's approach towards asbestos wasn't without opposition within the EPA. I do not stand alone! Seriously, a relative of a friend of mine while growing up suffered from exposure to asbestos, so perhaps that colored my reaction a bit. It's a terrible problem affecting a lot of people and their families, all the more so as there is no real answer to its impact on the human body, that I know of, short of preventing exposure to the substance. I lean towards an over abundance of caution with regard to this topic.
My Number one thing is .. . we seemed to be doing ok without it . . .. so .. why bring it back? Rocket River
Asbestos is only harmful when it becomes friable. The danger comes from breathing the dust as it crumbles and becomes powdery. That is why keeping asbestos wet to eliminate dust is an essential part of any abatement project. You can touch and be around asbestos that isn't friable all day everyday without worry. Any application that eliminates the chance of asbestos becoming friable removes the hazard.
How about tons of contaminted asbestos waste particles stirred by Harvey that penetrates to the air you breath or water you drink,mixed with thousands of other biopersistance fine fibers !
