Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
Asbestos is super cheap, effective insulation, that doesn't require a lot of special equipment to use or transport. It's amazing at what it does, but it does have the cancer risks. Some countries have decided that's okay, ether because of grift or sheer inability to do better with their current economies. It's sad, but it happens.
It was banned for a reason. It causes more than just cancer. And it's just another way for rich cunts to harm poor folk and make more money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestosis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestosis
You really don't need to convince me. I'm simply pointing out that there are reasons it used to be used... and sick, unfortunate reasons it still gets used today.
Last edited:
Asbestos is like cyanide and chlorine gas. Worse than sulfuric acid and gasoline, but not as bad a uranium.
Blanket bans for dangerous, toxic substances aren't useful (see: war on drugs) and there exist corporations who will ignore, intentionally or accidentally, such bans.
Further, there are valid, reasonable uses for some toxic substances. DDT is still allowed under very limited circumstances, and in very tightly controlled conditions, though it's largely banned for most uses.
Material science and cancer research have made significant advances since the early bans which restricted new uses. Not just a few years, but nearly 30 years.
But we're going to have to push the EPA to make sure that adequate testing and regulation is done, so the issue I have with it is the limited testing required.
Blanket bans for dangerous, toxic substances aren't useful (see: war on drugs) and there exist corporations who will ignore, intentionally or accidentally, such bans.
Further, there are valid, reasonable uses for some toxic substances. DDT is still allowed under very limited circumstances, and in very tightly controlled conditions, though it's largely banned for most uses.
Material science and cancer research have made significant advances since the early bans which restricted new uses. Not just a few years, but nearly 30 years.
But we're going to have to push the EPA to make sure that adequate testing and regulation is done, so the issue I have with it is the limited testing required.
They've literally said in the article I posted last page that they will no longer be testing for asbestos in air, soil or water risk assessments.
Yes, and that's the problem I have with the current situation.
You may want to reword this. It sounds like you are arguing that it's OK if people get cancer from asbestos because we have treatments for cancer. We have treatments for broken bones as well, that doesn't mean I get to go around breaking people's legs.
What exactly do you want them to test for? "Yep there's asbestos here. That was a conscious decision by the builder because it's legal now. Pack it up, boys."
Ah, yes I didn't intend for it to imply that.
Now that we better understand the mechanisms of cancer (not perfectly, but better) then we know in what ways we can use the material that won't put people at risk.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the problem with asbestos that it causes cancer if inhaled? How do you mitigate that kind of risk? It seems nigh impossible to monitor every single construction project to ensure all asbestos is safely contained so that no layman will ever be able to disturb it and cause risk to themselves and others. Who would even monitor that if the EPA isn't going to? What's to prevent under the table dealings where a safety inspector is bribed to look the other way? If that scenerio comes to pass, what do we say to the people who got cancer before the unsafe environment was discovered?
It's just baffling to me that in 2018 we are talking about whether or not asbestos , of all things, should make a big market return. Are they going to allow lead back into paint next?
Probably gasoline first, they're already working on undoing all of California's climate laws on air pollution and fuel efficiency, why not put lead back in the gas while we're at?
Native Antarcticans we'll soon find have been living under the ice all this time.
Nah, at that point they'll already be pissed enough to invade because we fucked up their biodome....
So, are they gonna be led by Cobblepot or Ozymandius?
There's way too much misinformation here. It seems like people are under the impression the EPA deregulating asbestos and that everyone is going to get cancer. I'm done trying to fight FUD, let's go the other direction:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171106132018.htm
There, now you know carbon nanotubes are as dangerous as asbestos. I hope you're calling your congresscritters to have all carbon nanotubes banned from the US, and I hope you enjoy eliminating the next possible leaps in computing and battery power, because so many of you apparently believe it's impossible to use toxic substances safely.
Also google "gray goo scenario" and ban all nanomachines and nanomaterials. And while you're at it, look at AI doomsday scenarios, it's fun and you'll want to ban all AI research after that.
Better to eliminate any potential threat than to learn how to live with it safely and utilize it.
I'm going to invest in bubbles, from this discussion I think everyone will be living in one soon.
(also I really enjoy the people who are claiming the government can't regulate toxic substances properly but then turn around in other discussions and claim the government is a safe place to control our health care.)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171106132018.htm
There, now you know carbon nanotubes are as dangerous as asbestos. I hope you're calling your congresscritters to have all carbon nanotubes banned from the US, and I hope you enjoy eliminating the next possible leaps in computing and battery power, because so many of you apparently believe it's impossible to use toxic substances safely.
Also google "gray goo scenario" and ban all nanomachines and nanomaterials. And while you're at it, look at AI doomsday scenarios, it's fun and you'll want to ban all AI research after that.
Better to eliminate any potential threat than to learn how to live with it safely and utilize it.
I'm going to invest in bubbles, from this discussion I think everyone will be living in one soon.
(also I really enjoy the people who are claiming the government can't regulate toxic substances properly but then turn around in other discussions and claim the government is a safe place to control our health care.)
Coming in 2019, lead paint, it's not just for children's toys!
True, i mean, there's no reason to think this administration isn't 100% devoted to a safe and clean environment!
And I'm confident the next group of politicians will only make good choices too, which means it's never been safer to give them more and more power and control over our lives!
I'll PM you my account number for the wire transfer.
We just replaced our fridge because the old one froze. Not because it was broken, you understand, but just because we had an opportunity to get a newer one that requires less upkeep and at a nice discount.
The new one actually pulls more power than the old one (though it does not pull it as often, so its net usage is lower).
We have no idea how old the old one really is. The manufacturer website doesn't recognize the model number. Google doesn't even recognize the model number. All we know is that it uses R-12 (Freon), which means it must've been built prior to 1996 (which is when Freon was banned).
--Patrick
It's highly unlikely they would rip out the existing insulation just to replace it with something else.
But you should keep an eye out regarding any new construction, though...kinda like the whole Chinese drywall thing.
--Patrick
I see.
figmentPez
Staff member
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque
Just because something else is dangerous does not make asbestos safe. People should be worried about using carbon nanotubes, and they should be careful. If someone wanted to use carbon nanotubes as building insulation, they should be stopped.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
Heavy metals are still regulated. The EPA tests for them. They are considered hazardous waste and there are limits to how they can be used. It's not just open season for these materials.
Once again, you're towing the party line by throwing out strawman arguments that do not at all represent the situation at hand. Asbestos is an extremely dangerous chemical that needs regulation, and removing all monitoring of it is grossly negligent. If there were some amazing advance in technology that made it safe to use, then an exception could be added to legislation that allows for that. However, there is no such safe use, and you have provided no evidence there is.
Your advocacy here is morally reprehensible. Your continued use of logical fallacies to argue your points is extremely disrespectful. You are exemplifying the absolute worst that the Republican party has to offer; namely: you are putting on a facade of calm reason while what you are saying is fallacious, harmful, and the pinnacle of incivility.
GasBandit
Staff member
figmentPez
Staff member
Incivility
"rude or unsociable speech or behavior. " "a rude or discourteous act "
Let's go ahead and Google how many deaths asbestos is responsible for...and Jesus Christ!
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+deaths+is+asbestos+responsible+for
Currently sitting at 11-15,000 deaths per year in the US. It's Canada's number one cause of workplace fatality.
DEREGULATE!
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+deaths+is+asbestos+responsible+for
Currently sitting at 11-15,000 deaths per year in the US. It's Canada's number one cause of workplace fatality.
DEREGULATE!