Connect the dots

[Moiraine]

5 minutes 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.

 

 

I’m honestly curious. Do you have any links showing they’re “equally” dangerous? If one has been studied a lot and the other hasn’t it could either be what you’re claiming (which is believable because I think that s#!t happens all the time in politics) or it could be that initial studies on fiberglass weren’t as alarming because it’s not as dangerous. I did find one study that fiberglass might be linked to ovarian cancer but it was iconclusive.

[RedDenver]

25 minutes ago, Comfortably Numb said:

Asbestos is no more dangerous than fiberglass

 

10 minutes 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.

No, not from anything I've seen. (And I was trained in asbestos abatement but many years ago.) The reason is that asbestos tends to flake apart into very, very fine fibers but fiberglass does not. At least for the types of glass used in fiberglass these days. Asbestos comes from a particular, naturally-occurring mineral, so it can't be changed to use a formulation that doesn't flake. But fiberglass can be made from thousands of different types of glass, and we choose to make the fibers from glass formulations that don't pose anywhere near the health risks of asbestos.

https://home.howstuffworks.com/home-improvement/household-safety/dangerous-insulation1.htm

Quote

 

While asbestos is a natural material and fiberglass is man-made, the two materials are often compared because they're both fibrous. This quality made fiberglass a good substitute once the health effects of asbestos became apparent. It also has the heat-resistant qualities that made asbestos so desirable for insulation.

 

It also has some worried that the fibers from fiberglass are just as dangerous as asbestos -- it's sometimes referred to negatively as "man-made asbestos" or the asbestos of the 20th century. But while early research on rats in the 1970s stated that "fibrous glass of small diameter is a potent carcinogen," more modern research isn’t as sweeping in its findings [source: Montague]. The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, on the other hand, claims fiberglass is "Not Classifiable as a Human Carcinogen," meaning there isn't even data to say whether or not it causes cancer in people [source: Yeshiva University]. The U.S. National Toxicology Program issued its 13th Report on Carcinogens in fall of 2014, and while its entry on Certain Glass Wool Fibers (Inhalable) states that they are “reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens,” it also goes on to say that there is so much variation in production that full assessments must be made on a case-by-case basis [source: NTP].

 

 

If there's additional data to support your claim, then I'd reconsider but I'm only seeing supporting claims (with little to no evidence) from the same websites that say vaccines are dangerous.

[NUance]

1 hour ago, Fru said:

 

 

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. 

 

 

Because people like you hate Donald Trump so much that no matter what he does, it is wrong in your mind.  If he single handedly cured cancer you would call him the devil for putting all of those poor cancer doctors out of work.  

[RedDenver]

Just now, NUance said:

 

Because people like you hate Donald Trump so much that no matter what he does, it is wrong in your mind.  If he single handedly cured cancer you would call him the devil for putting all of those poor cancer doctors out of work.  

It's just as true as if we said you love Trump so much that no matter what he does, it is right in your mind. If you can't win the argument, accuse the other side of something. Points for cancer hyperbole.

[commando]

6 minutes ago, NUance said:

 

Because people like you hate Donald Trump so much that no matter what he does, it is wrong in your mind.  If he single handedly cured cancer you would call him the devil for putting all of those poor cancer doctors out of work.  

in the case of asbestos...it is the polar opposite of a cure.

[Danny Bateman]

14 minutes ago, NUance said:

 

Because people like you hate Donald Trump so much that no matter what he does, it is wrong in your mind.  If he single handedly cured cancer you would call him the devil for putting all of those poor cancer doctors out of work.  

 

I put my allegiance to my country above that of my allegiance to the president.

[NUance]

23 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

It's just as true as if we said you love Trump so much that no matter what he does, it is right in your mind. If you can't win the argument, accuse the other side of something. Points for cancer hyperbole.

 

Just so you know, I did not vote for Donald Trump.  I happen to think the man is a buffoon.  

 

But I don't necessarily think something is bad just because Trump supports it.  

[NUance]

15 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

I put my allegiance to my country above that of my allegiance to the president.

 

+1.  Well said.  

 

The problem is, there are some folks who put their hatred of Donald Trump above all else.  Including reason.  

[NUance]

Okay, I guess I sort of got this thread off on a tangent about asbestos, and the differing risks depending upon its form and use.  

 

The real point of this thread is that once again Donald Trump undertakes a policy that benefits Russia.  Carry on. 

[JJ Husker]

41 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

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

 

39 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I’m honestly curious. Do you have any links showing they’re “equally” dangerous? If one has been studied a lot and the other hasn’t it could either be what you’re claiming (which is believable because I think that s#!t happens all the time in politics) or it could be that initial studies on fiberglass weren’t as alarming because it’s not as dangerous. I did find one study that fiberglass might be linked to ovarian cancer but it was iconclusive.

 

10 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

 

No, not from anything I've seen. (And I was trained in asbestos abatement but many years ago.) The reason is that asbestos tends to flake apart into very, very fine fibers but fiberglass does not. At least for the types of glass used in fiberglass these days. Asbestos comes from a particular, naturally-occurring mineral, so it can't be changed to use a formulation that doesn't flake. But fiberglass can be made from thousands of different types of glass, and we choose to make the fibers from glass formulations that don't pose anywhere near the health risks of asbestos.

https://home.howstuffworks.com/home-improvement/household-safety/dangerous-insulation1.htm

 

If there's additional data to support your claim, then I'd reconsider but I'm only seeing supporting claims (with little to no evidence) from the same websites that say vaccines are dangerous.

 

I'm going to clarify my claim that they are equally dangerous. Restated, all things being equal, the health hazards are the same. I guess "equally" could be interpreted inappropriately. I am basing my position on health studies I saw 30ish years ago that showed the fibers will cause the exact same problems when lodged in your lungs. There are a lot of factors that can contribute to how likely that is. And yes, asbestos does have a tendency to flake more than fiberglass. I am not sure what technologies have improved in the fiberglass industry due to the asbestos thing. My guess is they have tried to improve binders etc. to help prevent the small barb shaped fibers from breaking loose. That is an opportunity not equally afforded the asbestos industry. I may have used "equally" a little wrongly but I do firmly believe when broken down to the molecular level that the danger is the same for both products but yes, it may be more likely to occur with asbestos. So in that regard asbestos could be considered more dangerous than fiberglass. The larger point is one has been exhaustively studied and demonized while the other has been given an advance to go card. Just do yourselves a favor and wear respiratory protection when handling fiberglass. IMO it is really the same as handling asbestos and most people will avoid one like the plague and think nothing of the other.

[RedDenver]

6 minutes ago, NUance said:

 

Just so you know, I did not vote for Donald Trump.  I happen to think the man is a buffoon.  

 

But I don't necessarily think something is bad just because Trump supports it.  

But in this case, asbestos is a known carcinogen and there's direct connections to lifting regulations on it helping Russian companies connected to Putin. That's not at all the same as just thinking it's bad because Trump endorsed it.

[Fru]

20 minutes ago, NUance said:

 

Because people like you hate Donald Trump so much that no matter what he does, it is wrong in your mind.  If he single handedly cured cancer you would call him the devil for putting all of those poor cancer doctors out of work.  

 

Wow dude. You’re truly beyond the pale. 

 

People like you are more concerned with hypotheticals about Trump curing cancer, than you are when he and his ilk are promoting the use of known and banned carcinogens. 

[Danny Bateman]

3 minutes ago, NUance said:

 

+1.  Well said.  

 

The problem is, there are some folks who put their hatred of Donald Trump above all else.  Including reason.  

 

I agree. It's even becoming sort of a counterargument for the Republicans, with some of them beginning to make reference to Trump Derangement Syndrome. 

I think, separate from their policy agenda, if people think Donald Trump the human being is taking a country already divided enough and tearing it apart at the seams, they're kidding themselves. The guy doused our country in gasoline and lit the match.

 

What I do know, vis a vis the asbestos, is I NEVER want a president or administration this awash in business/corporate interests again, both foreign and domestic. I want future presidents/administration officials to divest their holdings properly, like they should. That way we don't have to second guess if they're green lighting stuff like this for personal gain. 

I guess we're slowly learning that putting a businessman in charge of things isn't a great idea if you don't know their motives. There is a very real sense that we're as a people being massively screwed over for the interests of Big Business... like, more than usual. And "usual" was already most of the time.

[BigRedBuster]

15 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

I guess we're slowly learning that putting a businessman in charge of things isn't a great idea if you don't know their motives. There is a very real sense that we're as a people being massively screwed over for the interests of Big Business... like, more than usual. And "usual" was already most of the time.

 

I don't agree with this.  Just because one self proclaimed great business man is voted into office and is a total disaster, doesn't mean a good business man can't be a good President.

 

And...anyone we put into office that we don't know their motives....is dangerous.

[knapplc]

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

 

I don't agree with this.  Just because one self proclaimed great business man is voted into office and is a total disaster, doesn't mean a good business man can't be a good President.

 

I feel like you're reading the part about businessman and not including the part about their motives. Without that qualifier, I agree with you. But with that qualifier Clifford is right, and the same could be said about any person.

 

An actor became governor of Californiaand then president. He turned out all right. A businessman could do the same, we just need to vet them better.