Connect the dots

[knapplc]

Trump never does anything without getting something in return.  So we'll try to connect the dots for Trump's actions and what he's getting out of it here.

 

For example:

 

 

 

Why would Trump want to allow cancer-creating asbestos in building materials again?

 

 

[commando]

i wonder how much trump is gaining from this?

[Fru]

Honestly, any Trumpers out there, come defend this. Come tell us how this is good for the people. Would love to hear it.

[NUance]

Sure asbestos causes cancer.  If you saw it up creating airborne particles, and then breath the particles.  But in some formats there just isn't much of a danger.  The old tile-like asbestos shingles and wall tiles are perfectly safe.  Unless you take them off a building and saw them up.  Those old house siding tiles are fireproof and they last forever.  

 

I think the EPA overreacted back in the 70s and 80s when they banned nearly all uses of asbestos.  They should have selectively allowed some uses.  Perhaps they could have required some sort of marking on asbestos products to prevent people from inadvertently using it in a dangerous manner or improperly disposing of it.     /jmho 

 

/ducks and runs.  Because the people posting in this thread won't listen to reasoning or common sense.  

[commando]

there might be an upside to this.  trumps prison cell could be built with asbestos.   

[commando]

Just now, NUance said:

Sure asbestos causes cancer.  If you saw it up creating airborne particles, and then breath the particles.  But in some formats there just isn't much of a danger.  The old tile-like asbestos shingles and wall tiles are perfectly safe.  Unless you take them off a building and saw them up.  Those old house siding tiles are fireproof and they last forever.  

 

I think the EPA overreacted back in the 70s and 80s when they banned nearly all uses of asbestos.  They should have selectively allowed some uses.  Perhaps they could have required some sort of marking on asbestos products to prevent people from inadvertently using it in a dangerous manner or improperly disposing of it.     /jmho 

the old asbestos shingles and siding also start to crumble and flake when they get old....releasing asbestos into the air.

[Fru]

1 hour ago, NUance said:

Sure asbestos causes cancer.  If you saw it up creating airborne particles, and then breath the particles.  But in some formats there just isn't much of a danger.  The old tile-like asbestos shingles and wall tiles are perfectly safe.  Unless you take them off a building and saw them up.  Those old house siding tiles are fireproof and they last forever.  

 

I think the EPA overreacted back in the 70s and 80s when they banned nearly all uses of asbestos.  They should have selectively allowed some uses.  Perhaps they could have required some sort of marking on asbestos products to prevent people from inadvertently using it in a dangerous manner or improperly disposing of it.     /jmho 

 

/ducks and runs.  Because the people posting in this thread won't listen to reasoning or common sense.  

 

 

Should've ended it there. 

 

Really? Based on what? 

 

Why?

 

Couldn't you say the same for people arguing for the use of a product that causes cancer?

 

Really some remarkable mental gymnastics there. The folks that don't want the cancer causing product to be used anymore are the ones not listening to reason or common sense. 

 

[knapplc]

24 minutes ago, NUance said:

Sure asbestos causes cancer.  If you saw it up creating airborne particles, and then breath the particles.  But in some formats there just isn't much of a danger.  The old tile-like asbestos shingles and wall tiles are perfectly safe.  Unless you take them off a building and saw them up.  Those old house siding tiles are fireproof and they last forever.  

 

I think the EPA overreacted back in the 70s and 80s when they banned nearly all uses of asbestos.  They should have selectively allowed some uses.  Perhaps they could have required some sort of marking on asbestos products to prevent people from inadvertently using it in a dangerous manner or improperly disposing of it.     /jmho 

 

/ducks and runs.  Because the people posting in this thread won't listen to reasoning or common sense.  

 

I think you're missing the forest for the trees.

 

A person using reasoning and common sense might notice that - once again - a Russian company benefits from a Trump policy change.

[funhusker]

6 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I think you're missing the forest for the trees.

 

A person using reasoning and common sense might notice that - once again - a Russian company benefits from a Trump policy change.

Especially if a person takes into account that American business aren't going to start using asbestos in their products because I would imagine the next president is going to restrict it almost immediately.  I mean, I'll believe it when I see it that our companies will invest in re-configuring product lines and supply chains for a brief window of opportunity.  And, to add, they would have to deal with the negative connotations of asbestos.  "Overreaction" or not, asbestos is a bad word in the American public.

[JJ Husker]

Not to derail the thread but NUance has a point about asbestos. I know a fair amount about asbestos, abatement and fiberglass insulation. Asbestos is no more dangerous than fiberglass yet one was portrayed as the devil incarnate and banned while the other is still in widespread common use. Neither is good for you to breathe the fibers because their structure is such that they embed in your lungs and they do not decay or get absorbed by your body. So yes, they both are bad for you but apparently the fiberglass industry had/has a lot more pull with the powers that be and somehow avoided the stigma and benefited greatly at the expense of the asbestos industry. I suspect they paid off the correct politicians. I’ve always found it somewhat comical that people tend to think of asbestos as instant death and highly dangerous yet they think nothing about wallowing around in fiberglass. Both can be used safely and both are a health danger.

 

But yes, the bigger take away from this particular story is that a Russian company is benefiting from yet another Trump action. I only ask that people keep the whole asbestos thing in perspective. It’s not as evil as you’ve been led to believe and there are other things just as bad for you that have not been banned.

[NM11046]

58 minutes ago, NUance said:

Sure asbestos causes cancer.  If you saw it up creating airborne particles, and then breath the particles.  But in some formats there just isn't much of a danger.  The old tile-like asbestos shingles and wall tiles are perfectly safe.  Unless you take them off a building and saw them up.  Those old house siding tiles are fireproof and they last forever.  

 

I think the EPA overreacted back in the 70s and 80s when they banned nearly all uses of asbestos.  They should have selectively allowed some uses.  Perhaps they could have required some sort of marking on asbestos products to prevent people from inadvertently using it in a dangerous manner or improperly disposing of it.     /jmho 

 

/ducks and runs.  Because the people posting in this thread won't listen to reasoning or common sense.  

Thanks for this NUance, I actually went looking for info cuz I didn't realize the different applications and risk.  

 

I guess my question/comment is, at some point, whether at installation or renovation or natural accident etc, even the least dangerous applications would be volatile, why would you risk that?  Is there such a cost savings that it's worth the danger?  In my world the answer is no, but I'm curious who would think the benefit outweighs the risk?  

 

And what about those who would manufacture any item including asbestos?  They're at risk during that time, would companies look at increased insurance coverage for a lifetime for the people they're exposing?  Would it be worth it?  Data shows that an employee working in an environment brings home dust on their clothing, then exposing his/her family, so it's not just the workers.

 

[knapplc]

4 minutes ago, Comfortably Numb said:

Asbestos is no more dangerous than fiberglass

 

Science does not support this. It's like saying a .50 caliber round and a .22 are the same level of dangerous. Obviously you don't want to be shot by either, but one does far more damage than the other. 

[JJ Husker]

Just now, knapplc said:

 

Science does not support this. It's like saying a .50 caliber round and a .22 are the same level of dangerous. Obviously you don't want to be shot by either, but one does far more damage than the other. 

Actually it is not like that at all. I did not say one was slightly dangerous and then equate them. They are both equally dangerous. The only difference is that one of them has received a lot more attention and thus a lot more blame. I think you would find that science supports this claim, problem is one of them has not received any where near the level of scrutiny as the other. Don't let what you think you know (have been told) change the facts.

[commando]

1 minute ago, Comfortably Numb said:

Actually it is not like that at all. I did not say one was slightly dangerous and then equate them. They are both equally dangerous. The only difference is that one of them has received a lot more attention and thus a lot more blame. I think you would find that science supports this claim, problem is one of them has not received any where near the level of scrutiny as the other. Don't let what you think you know (have been told) change the facts.

are you are saying that since both are dangerous we should be using both of them?

[knapplc]

7 minutes ago, Comfortably Numb said:

They are both equally dangerous.

 

They are not both equally dangerous. Science does not support this contention.