Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Thanks for the link. Seems strange that this industry would be singled out considering that asbestos exposure seems really limited.


sort by: page size:

thank you for pointing this out. it should get more attention here.

for the last forty or more years, the biggest pressure against the use of asbestos has been lawsuits, not government regulation.

many, many US companies were forced into bankruptcy by class action asbestos lawsuits which attached huge liabilities to them, even though their use of asbestos may have been quite limited.

the asbestos lawsuit proliferation was such a strain on US industrial businesses that, in the early 2000's, the Senate almost created a huge asbestos trust fund, administered by the government, funded by these companies (and probably also government) to offload the liability from companies so that they could avoid bankruptcy and continue doing business, employing people, etc. (the legislation never passed).

bottom line: companies would want more than just EPA approval to start cranking out loads of new asbestos products. EPA approval does little to protect them against these expensive lawsuits. what they would need is a rock-solid lawsuit shield.


> We (the US) still allow asbestos in certain scenarios

Very few scenarios allow it and there's active lobbying to remove it even in those usecases. The guide you linked to primarily cites old products still in circulation and not new products.


There is a Vice documentary from 2016 about asbestos - Why the Deadly Asbestos Industry is Still Alive and Well (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy3piCUPIkc).

That article barely touches on the different types of asbestos or the relative dangers after different kinds of processing. It's not much of an answer to the question.

> There are forms of asbestos that are really not all that dangerous to the general public

Source?


"there is no 'safe' level of asbestos exposure for any type of asbestos fiber." [https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/asbestos/]

Asbestos is not currently banned in the US and is still in use in products today at regulated levels

also factor in the costs to these companies of the lawsuits they will inevitably attract by introducing new asbestos products. EPA approval does not shield them.

It certainly doesn't help that (supposedly) only some types of asbestos are dangerous.

Who has supported the asbestos industry? Has there ever been a company that actually promotes asbestos?

Sure. And asbestos is safe if handled correctly. But it never works out that way. Costs are cut. Companies want to make more profit.

And who pays? The low paid workers.


That's unfortunate but again, I was talking about the danger of asbestos to people who don't work with it for a living.

Interestingly some uses of asbestos aren’t actually banned, which is very surprising to me: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-epa-allowing-asbestos-p...

That seems like a pretty dodgy metric. Lots of successful construction projects used asbestos, but it is still widely considered a mistake.

> nearly all cases come from industrial exposure

That is how my grandfather got mesothelioma. He insulated ships in WWII and didn't have proper protection. He had a rather painful last year of his life.

At this point, I would only allow asbestos when there are no safer alternatives. I didn't know if any cases where asbestos is the only practical option.


I don’t really know it, but I think most asbestos applications in buildings are not very dangerous as long as you don’t to construction work.

How does medical industry avoid asbestos contamination in talc then? Or is overlooked just as in cosmetics? Kinda doubt it.

Asbestos is still manufactured and sold in some countries. Crazy I know.

Woah, TIL: https://www.asbestos.com/blog/2012/09/17/why-isnt-asbestos-b...

Here in the UK if traces of asbestos are found the entire building is quarantined while a team of workers in hazchem suits and breathing apparatus removes it!

next

Legal | privacy