Connect the dots

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

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.

That's why I added my last statement in my post.

[Moiraine]

Why does it seem like there is an army of people who don’t like Trump and didn’t vote for Trump but chastize people over every single critical comment they make about him and try to make it sound like he’s undeserving of the criticism/amount of criticism he gets? He’s not undeserving. He brings it all on himself by his words and actions. He has done multiple things that by themselves make him unfit for his office. We have a racist, mysoginist president and people complaining that other people don’t like what he’s doing because they don’t like him. I can’t fathom why that is what people spend time doing.

 

While there are plenty of good reasons to detest him and therefore any subsequent action he takes, it’s the actual actions themselves most people detest, regardless of his racism/misogyny.

 

Also, this is an awful example to use to try to call people out for their so-called hatred of him. Save it for complaints over his golfing or  hairstyle.

[funhusker]

3 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

Why does it seem like there is an army of people who don’t like Trump and didn’t vote for Trump but chastize people over every single critical comment they make about him and try to make it sound like he’s undeserving of the criticism/amount of criticism he gets? He’s not undeserving. He brings it all on himself by his words and actions. He has done multiple things that by themselves make him unfit for his office. We have a racist, mysoginist president and people complaining that other people don’t like what he’s doing because they don’t like him. I can’t fathom why that is what people spend time doing.

 

Also, this is an awful example to use to try to call people out for their so-called hatred of him. Save it for complaints over his golfing or  hairstyle.

Didn't there used to be a poster here that would hilariously go on and on about other teams uniforms and such?  I'm sure it was "character" account, but he/she was funny.  I'd like to see their response to Trump's hairstyle and other superficial things.

[Fru]

3 hours 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.  

 

Please explain why promoting the use of cancer causing chemicals is reasonable, and not wanting to use them is unreasonable. Also feel free to answer any of the questions I raised in my first response instead of ducking it entirely and coming up with some nonsensical and irrational hypothetical. 

[NUance]

5 hours ago, commando said:

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

 

Do you know this for a fact?  It sounds like something you're just making up.  

 

First, I was talking above about asbestos siding tiles and roof shingle tiles.  They are very hard, almost like ceramic tiles.  I never heard of these crumbling when they get old.  I've seen quite a few houses with this old siding and not ever noticed any that were crumbling.  Quite a few years ago when I worked construction I helped tear off a roof of asbestos tiles.  None of them were crumbling, and they were around 45 years old.  But perhaps there is some environmental conditions that would make asbestos shingles and siding tiles crumble.   It wouldn't surprise me.  But whether or not a material crumbles or breaks is a moot point.  Only materials that are friable are potentially dangerous.  

 

Second,   I've seen interior asbestos floor tiles crumble.  But just because something crumbles--like you said in your post--doesn't mean it releases airborne particles.  That's the part I think you are making up.  Friable substances like thermal insulation release particles into the air.  The worst ones are those old heat pipes insulated with asbestos and a cloth layer wrapped around.  Those are hazardous.  But I'm fairly certain it's not those type of materials that are being imported under the new policy.  

 

If you care to read up on the topic instead of simply making stuff up, here are a couple of decent places to start:  LINK1 (EPA site, from pg. 23 on),  LINK2 (Homeowner Message Board) 

 

 

[commando]

5 minutes ago, NUance said:

 

Do you know this for a fact?  It sounds like something you're just making up.  

 

First, I was talking above about asbestos siding tiles and roof shingle tiles.  They are very hard, almost like ceramic tiles.  I never heard of these crumbling when they get old.  I've seen quite a few houses with this old siding and not ever noticed any that were crumbling.  Quite a few years ago when I worked construction I helped tear off a roof of asbestos tiles.  None of them were crumbling, and they were around 45 years old.  But perhaps there is some environmental conditions that would make asbestos shingles and siding tiles crumble.   It wouldn't surprise me.  But whether or not a material crumbles or breaks is a moot point.  Only materials that are friable are potentially dangerous.  

 

Second,   I've seen interior asbestos floor tiles crumble.  But just because something crumbles--like you said in your post--doesn't mean it releases airborne particles.  That's the part I think you are making up.  Friable substances like thermal insulation release particles into the air.  The worst ones are those old heat pipes insulated with asbestos and a cloth layer wrapped around.  Those are hazardous.  But I'm fairly certain it's not those type of materials that are being imported under the new policy.  

 

If you care to read up on the topic instead of simply making stuff up, here are a couple of decent places to start:  LINK1 (EPA site, from pg. 23 on),  LINK2 (Homeowner Message Board) 

 

 

i've removed a ton of asbestos siding and a couple asbestos roofs.   I am still in construction.   

[NUance]

31 minutes ago, Fru said:

 

Please explain why promoting the use of cancer causing chemicals is reasonable, and not wanting to use them is unreasonable. Also feel free to answer any of the questions I raised in my first response instead of ducking it entirely and coming up with some nonsensical and irrational hypothetical. 

 

I thought I had explained it above.  But here goes again:  In some formats asbestos can be a dangerous carcinogen.  The old cloth wrapped steam pipes insulated with asbestos are among the worst.  Basically any form of asbestos that is friable--releases fibers into the air--is dangerous and should be banned. 

 

But some asbestos materials are safe.  Not all forms of asbestos are friable.  Asbestos roofing tiles and siding tiles are not dangerous.  They're not like fluffy asbestos insulation.  The roof tiles and siding tiles are hardened, like ceramic.  You'd need to cut a whole bunch of them up to get enough particles to be dangerous.  And you don't cut them to install.  You score and snap them.  Floor tiles really don't pose a danger either.  

 

I suspect a lot of the misinformation about all forms of tiles came during the asbestos litigations.  The EPA grasped onto this and overreacted by banning practically everything.   

[NUance]

2 minutes ago, commando said:

i've removed a ton of asbestos siding and a couple asbestos roofs.   I am still in construction.   

 

So you know what I'm talking about then.  Good! 

[Fru]

1 hour ago, NUance said:

 

I thought I had explained it above.  But here goes again:  In some formats asbestos can be a dangerous carcinogen.  The old cloth wrapped steam pipes insulated with asbestos are among the worst.  Basically any form of asbestos that is friable--releases fibers into the air--is dangerous and should be banned. 

 

But some asbestos materials are safe.  Not all forms of asbestos are friable.  Asbestos roofing tiles and siding tiles are not dangerous.  They're not like fluffy asbestos insulation.  The roof tiles and siding tiles are hardened, like ceramic.  You'd need to cut a whole bunch of them up to get enough particles to be dangerous.  And you don't cut them to install.  You score and snap them.  Floor tiles really don't pose a danger either.  

 

I suspect a lot of the misinformation about all forms of tiles came during the asbestos litigations.  The EPA grasped onto this and overreacted by banning practically everything.   

 

“Asbestos-containing ceiling tiles, floor tiles, undamaged laboratory cabinet tops, shingles, fire doors, siding shingles, etc. will not release asbestos fibers unless they are disturbed or damaged in some way.”

 

https://ehs.oregonstate.edu/asb-when

 

Wonder how all those 9/11 rescue workers feel about all of that safe asbestos. 

[Big Red 40]

Back to the OP i too wonder , as with most things Trump does, Why? You have a product that is dangerous, scares people, and was linked to many deaths, so it was banned, Why go out of your way to bring it back? Is there that big of a need for this specific chemical that we can go ahead and ignore any of  the dangers of it? Nothing else can be used that might achieve the same results more safely?

I would bet Trump is somehow profiting from this or he would'nt be doing it.  

 

[Big Red 40]

Russia is the worlds biggest producer of Asbestos? hmmm

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/9/17670942/donald-trump-asbestos-epa-ban-russia

[Making Chimichangas]

On ‎8‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 10:04 AM, 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 will listen to reason and common sense.  But I don't want anything that is a known carcinogen used to make my house.  What if one of those tiles crack?  Or several of them crack?  Things happen.  

 

So if these things being made with asbestos are "perfectly safe" then it is reasonable to assume Trump and all other conservatives will be using these products personally.  It's like the Republican who says that smelting plant won't pollute the air or poison the water, but doesn't want it put within 1,000 miles of where he lives.

 

It's "funny" how (?some? ?most? ?all?) conservatives seem to be okay with poisoning the environment as long it happens only in poor and non-white communities.

 

I know that's not what you're saying, but elected Republicans in general don't care about protecting the environment.  And not that I am some radical environmentalist, but I do believe that we, as human beings, should be good stewards and make sure the Earth is habitable and healthy for future generations.

[RedDenver]

5 hours ago, Making Chimichangas said:

 

I will listen to reason and common sense.  But I don't want anything that is a known carcinogen used to make my house.  What if one of those tiles crack?  Or several of them crack?  Things happen.  

 

So if these things being made with asbestos are "perfectly safe" then it is reasonable to assume Trump and all other conservatives will be using these products personally.  It's like the Republican who says that smelting plant won't pollute the air or poison the water, but doesn't want it put within 1,000 miles of where he lives.

 

It's "funny" how (?some? ?most? ?all?) conservatives seem to be okay with poisoning the environment as long it happens only in poor and non-white communities.

 

I know that's not what you're saying, but elected Republicans in general don't care about protecting the environment.  And not that I am some radical environmentalist, but I do believe that we, as human beings, should be good stewards and make sure the Earth is habitable and healthy for future generations.

Like when Rex Tillerson and Dick Armey sued to keep fracking out of their town.

[Landlord]

On 8/7/2018 at 2:22 PM, Moiraine said:

Why does it seem like there is an army of people who don’t like Trump and didn’t vote for Trump but chastize people over every single critical comment they make about him and try to make it sound like he’s undeserving of the criticism/amount of criticism he gets? He’s not undeserving. He brings it all on himself by his words and actions.

 

Maybe it's in part because we can get carried away like so, and it's important to hold ourselves accountable to accurate and non-pendulum swinging perspectives. Trump does not bring all of this on himself. We are addicted to Trump outrage, and the media is biased towards sensationalism and outrage as well. They know it sells, so they select for it, or even manufacture it, and we eat it up. People, especially those that disagree with you, don't take you seriously if you go too far or if you get sloppy in your inclination or habit of associating only bad things with person/team X and good things with person/team Y. 

[knapplc]

6 hours ago, Landlord said:

Trump does not bring all of this on himself.

 

Come on. He does things on a daily basis that would have been an outrage during any other presidency. His tweets alone would have been a massive scandal.

 

We're the country who freaked out when a president wore a tan suit.  We're the country who freaked out when some politicians failed to wear a lapel flag. We're the country who had a conniption when a president landed on an aircraft carrier.

 

Trump is no more a victim of artificial outrage than any other president. Think about where that narrative comes from.