Imagine if when building a house you needed to shape every single brick for it’s actual load. Sure you end up using less materials, but you lost economies of scale and suddenly need vast quantities of computing power for minimal gain.
Using uniform bricks and banning stuff may seem wasteful, but it enables efficiency elsewhere.
Rather than focusing on the safe use of a material, we instead lean towards removing it all together. Older materials with known faults (such as wood being flammable) are deemed acceptable simply due to having known weaknesses in a period where we didn't care about safety. If we found out wood causes cancer, we'd still use it in building and furniture because we've always used it in building and furniture.
It's not an economies of scale problem.
When you get right down to it, the people that got mesothelioma from asbestos pretty much universally directly worked with it (usually in the form of doing things like blowing it in lose form for insulation).
Yet we spent an ungodly amount of money and time stripping asbestos from buildings that had been there for decades not causing any problems. Ironically, directly exposing people to asbestos in the process (more than you'd ever be exposed to it was left undisturbed).
If the rate was high enough I bet we'd phase it out. Don't underestimate the importance of the size of the effect.
I dare say, wood smoke has caused more cancer than asbestos ever did. [1]
[1] http://www.familiesforcleanair.org/wood-smoke-pollution-kill...
And there are whole programs designed to reduce worldwide deaths from smoke, precisely because it is a major problem. It's something we're actively working on because it's so serious and plausibly fixable.
So what on earth are you trying to say?
wood burning stoves are absolutely required to be updated now with certified emissions stoves. all four wood burning stoves/fireplaces in our cabin had to be replaced before we could finalize the purchase. also it would have been considered uninsurable if the stoves were not updated to meet the new wood burning standards.
these weren’t like antique stoves either, if i’m remembering correctly they were new in like 2000ish.
honestly, the region of our cabin is noticeably more pleasant to be in since they started requiring this—when i used to go there as a kid, the air was just awful to breathe when everyone was using the previous gen wood burning fireplaces.
Your link is talking about indoor fires. Outdoor fire pits wouldn't concentrate the smoke in the living area. I have no idea what the total effect would be for outdoor fires, but it isnt' the same as the indoor burning biomass stoves
We (the US) still allow asbestos in certain scenarios in an attempt to keep the baby and the profits. https://www.maacenter.org/asbestos/products/. Talc especially has had a lot of attention in the last year or so.
I think there is also a pretty big difference between how people view a material with undesirable qualities such as electric causing fires, or wood being flammable, compared to asbestos damaging the individual.
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.
If you have to do such a thing every time you are rebuilding something it is not going to economic.
That's not all or the only way asbestos can be packaged. Which is my point. If you bind asbestos to vinyl, for example, you get a lot of the same insulation benefits with none of the problems of becoming a health hazard.
That's the problem. Yes, loose blown asbestos IS a problem and a major health hazard, but it's not the only form asbestos can take. Hence, baby thrown out with the bath water.
Maybe asbestos binded to vinyl is literally not a health hazard in any of these cases, but this needs to be shown in a positive way. The reason it's regulated/nearly banned is because the default way we treat materials is that they are assumed safe until data shows otherwise, and we obviously can't treat asbestos as a default material.
Wear a mask. But also, you likely aren't going to be affected. The risks are primarily for people working heavily with the stuff. Similar to how you could get silicosis cutting concrete but you likely won't get silicosis because you don't do that enough daily.
> if the house catches on fire
The neat thing about asbestos is it doesn't burn. That being said, the fumes from a fire are toxic without the asbestos so it's not exactly like it's making it more dangerous. (perhaps cleanup is what you're referring to?)
> or floods
Getting asbestos wet keeps it from Aerosolization. In fact, it's recommended to do that anyways if you are removing asbestos. (though, water isn't good enough to make it completely safe, it's better than nothing). [1]
> The reason it's regulated/nearly banned is because the default way we treat materials is that they are assumed safe until data shows otherwise, and we obviously can't treat asbestos as a default material.
The reason it's regulated/nearly banned is because the asbestos industry hid the dangers of it and got exposed in a very public way which generated heavy public outcry. We treat it like this not because it's rational, but because of public outrage. Asbestos has become synonymous with unsafe, no questions asked. [2]
Mercury and lead have similar more well known public health problems, yet purchasing CFLs and lead water pipes remain everywhere. Why? because there's not nearly the same level of outrage.
I recently learned that in the mid 20th century there was a huge scandal when it came out that TV game shows were rigged. The public was outraged and a law was passed prohibiting the fixing of "purportedly bona fide contests of intellectual knowledge or intellectual skill". You can go to prison for up to a year for this.
Because we need to be protected from that. ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/509 )
Fixing a purportedly bona fide professional wrestling match was and remains completely legal, of course, because that's not a contest of intellectual skill. Fixed quiz shows are a scourge upon the public, but fixed sporting events are just good fun.
Asbestos is only prohibited where there are practical alternatives.
The problem with asbestos is it was used where there was no rationale for its use beyond profits as a bulk material.
Those profits were only available because the health costs were externalized.
The existence of practical alternatives is the reason asbestos abatement is possible. The cost of abatement is almost entirely the removal and disposal, the cost of replacement materials is not a major factor.
Yeah, cause they often (as I understand) were not using proper protective measures to keep from inhaling the dust particles. A common thing I have seen on construction sites of all sorts, is the workers refusing to use some thing or the other, because it makes them uncomfortable, or harder to see (but still can) or harder to breath (but still can) or some other jackanapes idea like that.
> Yet we spent an ungodly amount of money and time stripping asbestos from buildings that had been there for decades not causing any problems. Ironically, directly exposing people to asbestos in the process (more than you'd ever be exposed to it was left undisturbed).
This is where things get real fun. When moist or absolutely damp/wet, asbestos is basically harmless (to the lungs) because it's almost impossible to breath it in at that point. If you somehow manage to breath that in, you have to basically be trying to do it. When it is dryer than chalk on a hot summers day with 0% humidity though, then yeah it can cause all sorts of problems. But even then, people removing it tend to do the thing that the other prior mentioned construction workers (often) won't do.
They wear gloves, have masks on; and even are running some form of proper ventilation. And so much of the issue is averted.
Then comes the media and government. They take edge case scenarios like these, and hype them up; whilst mixing in the prior construction workers into the data. This makes things look worse than they really are.
It's not just Asbestos you can find this sort of thing with them. You can find media and government doing this with many things if you look carefully.
But that being said, none of this is to say that Asbestos isn't a problem at all. It's just to say that Asbestos gets the treatment it does for the same reason we have warning labels on nearly everything.
We placate and protect the stupid... stupidly.
And for what? In 99% of the uses of asbestos domestically and commercially there are safe products that can do just as good a job, perhaps just requiring things to be slightly thicker to get the same insulating value... Sure there are some niche industrial and scientific applications where it's still potentially the best performing option but so much of what it was used for, it just didn't need to be...
Yes, it can cause all sorts of havoc. But my point was that it generally only causes that havoc, when improperly handled. This doesn't mean I don't have any empathy for those people however. I just want to make sure people understand that just like anything else in life; misuse = malaise and debilitative disease, etc.
For instance: Sulphuric acid. Dangerous stuff if handled wrong. Potentially deadly.
But, when you wear the proper protective gear, and are careful with it; it's "safe" to handle.
I used to have to handle the stuff. There was no issues with me handling the stuff, when I was in charge of the safety equipment. The moment they had someone else take over the night time position and swapped me to mornings due to internal politics at work; the safety went down. Why?
Because the guy in charge of the safety equipment being properly maintained at night to ensure the morning person didn't arrive to unusable equipment without a full cleaning, etc; wasn't doing his job.
This led to a new person dropping acid all over the floor, that had to be neutralized and cleaned up. A giant safety hazard. Somehow, I got the blame. Why?
Because the new person who took over that work, said I didn't tell him to do this.
A bold faced lie. I was the one who got my supervisor out of that position, because he would do dumb stuff like handled it bare handed, and say "It's just fine".
But again, internal politics prevailed. People wanted to be lazy, and stupid, with a dangerous substance. They didn't like being held accountable or responsible for their actions and the consequences that come with it. So I was pushed out of the company, citing "cultural issues".
Now, back to asbestos.
It's the same, damn, thing. If handled correctly, it is generally safe. (Safe as in it's not going to do anything, cause no one is messing with it.)
But construction workers are generally not being safe in almost any job. The few who are, are the ones who tell me the kinds of horror stories they come across, because of employing stupid people.
And home renovations aren't exactly performed by geniuses either. People start tearing apart walls and ceilings, thinking "oh this is fun, everything is fine".
And then they develop cancer, because they didn't bother to wear the proper safety gear to do something like that. And no, those stupid f'n white mask things are not the proper mask. You need something more along the lines of a P100 mask to do the job right. But who knows to do that, right? Not many people, since they think any ol mask will do.
Just like how construction workers wearing a bandana over their face think its just fine.
Just like how my old supervisor would handle the acid without gloves, cause he never got burnt so it "must be fine".
So I apologize if I come off as brash and rude, but I do not like how we placate and accommodate stupidity in society. And asbestos... while very dangerous if not handled correctly; is also a perfect example as to why many people should NOT be doing the things they are doing to stay safe.
Without looking at any studies, I almost guarantee you that almost all those people who developed cancer or mesothelioma in Australia, Canada, America, and otherwise, when it comes to home renovations only; did it improperly.
It's not like we didn't know it was bad for people to do it wrong.
What we didn't know was just how many people would do it wrong.
And yes, there are 'safe products' out there. But then again, they also aren't 'safe'.
How so?
Toxicity once flammable. None of these replacements are actually 'fire proof'. Not anywhere near like how asbestos is. They are fire resistant at best. And what's worse is that many of the things we fill our homes with to replace many of these old materials... end up being more deadly in some ways.
How so?
Take a look at this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87hAnxuh1g8
This is just one such video that shows a point I am trying to make here.
Many of these materials we have replaced in our homes, were better at keeping us safe from the dangers of sudden fire and smoke. In a 'synthetic' home, your chances of survival are extremely low in these kinds of scenarios.
This is part of why house fire deaths have risen, at least according to my knowledge.
Here is a chart that pertains to Canada, in regards to unintentional deaths; like smoke inhalation: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220616/cg-b0...
it comes from this page: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220616/dq220...
It's part of why having a working smoke alarm on every floor of the house, along with carbon monoxide detectors is so damn important now.
Problem with this whole thing though, is that there is so much debate that goes on around what causes these fires, that people forget to look at what is being burnt when it goes up in flame. So they look at the fire, and not the smoke.
What I have been told and have read from firefighters is that often the people they go in to save, are already dead from smoke inhalation. Hence why I focus on it.
And guess what would have saved them...
Older style materials, that contain things, like asbestos. Ironically enough.
You just can't win. You either use the 'safer' synthetics and risk smoke inhalation, which can cause cancer too... or your risk 'dangerous' asbestos and other such things, but they can cause cancer too...
Personally, I'm not really sure where I stand on this, since no one wants cancer obviously. But I personally don't mind having things like asbestos in things I won't ever be touching, or breathing around. I also don't mind having synthetics in areas where fire is least likely. (Like the bathroom perhaps, where a fire sprinkler wouldn't be a terrible idea.)
But again, this all goes back to my issue with society being over all kind of dumb.
And I think we need to stop serving the stupid. It's costly on society to keep them safe and in some cases, alive. It's not a favorable opinion for many, but that's kind of a them problem, and not a me problem at that point.
It's the same with healthcare and people who expect free healthcare while doing everything they can to ruin their body. It shouldn't be allowed. But then, we also shouldn't be stomping on peoples freedom to do what they wish with their own body.
But I am a believer in proper consequence for actions taken. Hence my position on this matter.
If scientists and such can find a way to make asbestos safe or safer, I'm all for it. Because it means less people will die from accidental fires that were not anyone's particular fault. It also means less need to make these synthetics which are often petroleum based in some way, or some other toxic chemical that when heated off gasses nasty byproducts that kill the inhabitants. That's before we mention the environmental effect of even making them in the first place.
See what I mean when I say we just can't win on this?
We're damned if we do, damned if we don't.
So I'd rather we use what we know works, in the places we know it can work safely. For homes, maybe asbestos isn't the best option. But the alternatives are often not much better in their own ways, which is my main point on that matter. So... what to do?
Make something better?
Sure, let's get on that. But until then, what to do?
I'll leave that there.
Again, I have empathy for those who are harmed by asbestos; but mostly only for those who weren't doing dumb things and got harmed by it anyways. The rest who were being dumb... I have a lot less empathy for.
I think I'm done with this site.
I make plenty of comments knowing people will downvote them based on content and still ended up so much positive karma it would take serious effort to burn it all.
So, sorry, but while I didn't downvote you, I do disagree with you; entirely. Validly.
https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented/issues...
______________
> TL;DR: apparently this can happen due to an account being "rate-limited". Rate-limited accounts can post a max of five posts within 24 hours.
See : https://hn.nuxtjs.org/item/15507821
Specifically this bit:
dang 1018 days ago
That's a sign that your account is rate-limited. We rate limit accounts when they repeatedly get involved in flamewars or regularly break the site guidelines or post lots of low-quality (for HN) comments. It's a crude tool but one of the few we have to prevent such things from overrunning the site.
The thread also has interesting discussions on other mod tools: shadowbanning, IP bans, and the like.
Apparently the way to un-rate-limit an account is to send in an email and mention that you will "stick to civil, substantive comments that scrupulously follow" https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Some amount of convincing prostration may be required, as a sort of high-level turing test. There does not seem to be a way to do this while not giving away your email address (which was not required at signup).
The moderator mentioned something about repeated, human-written warnings before rate-limiting, but this does not seem to be the case now (2020) - rate limiting seems to be a milder, less-known variant of the shadowban.
________________
Downvoting, flagging, and moderator actions are three different things.
Posting something people disagree with isn’t the same as a flame war. Keeping things civil is a requirement, which trips people up.
Prior to that, I wasn't rate limited. After that, I was. Make of it what you will.
I'll still use it to see what people think, but that's about all its good for in the comments section now; just like Reddit, Twitter, and others.
But at least the links are still interesting.
P.S. I'm mostly only commenting still right now because
A: I haven't made my decision yet and
B: It would be rude to ignore those who did reply to me kindly.
It’s just not worth having in any building you want to ever make any alterations to… And the only reason to have it would be just to have the same insulation value with a slightly thinner panel than what we’ll replace it with!
No you don't want to drill the asbestos tiles, but you can install poles standing on the floor with lights and wifi access points.
There's nothing special about old buildings requiring compromise. Asbestos is just particularly costly. It sucks, and often it's more benefit in the long run to just rip that band-aid off now rather than live with suboptimal compromises for decades to come.
In IT we see this when information is lost (no backup policy), or information is leaked (no security policy). Using technology with no policy/process is almost always a risk factor for business. If said posts team had created a policy and process it's very likely the incident would not have occurred in the first place.
With products control is very rarely tightly held. There is a supply chain from where it's mined out of the ground all the way to destruction of the product which may be decades or even centuries away. Trying to ensure that your customer use a product intelligently over that long of time frame is too risky for most businesses.
with public health risks, strong reaction is absolutely fine, and I wish we had more tendency towards it, not less. let’s do something drastic about micro-plastics!
That's not a way to run health policy. I'd certainly like more action against PFAS, for example. At very least, more science done to know exactly how harmful it is (especially given how it's permeated so much of the public drinking water).
But, would I ban PFAS all together? Heck no. Rather I'd want to have a better understanding of where they should and shouldn't be used and how we should treat PFAS chemical outputs.
https://www.propublica.org/article/asbestos-poisoning-chemic...
https://web.archive.org/web/20121022215630/http://www.epa.go...
> EPA does NOT track the manufacture, processing, or distribution in commerce of asbestos-containing products. It would be prudent for a consumer or other buyer to inquire as to the presence of asbestos in particular products.
Shocker, that's slow.
Except you can. The Toyota Mirai is available and quite heavily subsidized. Whether buying one is a good idea is a different question, although the main issues with owning one don’t involve safety as far as I know.
You could (for instance) argue that once the product exists, and is in place, it poses no further risk to anyone - this is a common suggestion but is demonstrably, dangerously false. It’s a rock, it never breaks down. Its state never changes over mortal timescales. Eventually a building, or a rocket, or a train will be refurbished or scrapped - and when that happens people in the area are at no less risk than they ever were.
It could even lower the net asbestos on earth :) (not /s, though I attempting to add humor)
Plus toxic materials are very much still in use in the space industry, including asbestos. They're used as separators in fuel cells, insulation for missiles, etc
Asbestos was banned for buildings not for the space industry. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/decades-after-proof-of-its...
It will be replaced slowly as better materials become available.
And, to be fair, if you could use aerogels, you should use aerogels. They are way better at insulation than asbestos. They are simply cost prohibitive in most cases.
Despite what it may look like, I'm not trying to shill for asbestos :D. I just think it's a microcosm of a problem with society.
The author's point being we not only purge it physically, but also culturally and thus intellectually. (I feel like there's a meta point around this thread being de-railed by discussions about how bad asbestos is.)
I don't think this has anything to do with the OP. It is focused on the process of knowledge being lost simply through the raw fact that nobody remembers it. This is applied to everything:
> We have lost more than 50% of all feature films made before the 1950s
The message of the piece is that we've forgotten the asbestos because, when you go to look at the preserved rockets today, it isn't there.
...probably because it was removed for aesthetic and health reasons.
Asbestos was widely adopted because it was a very cheap material, they did know that it was dangerous but that fact was hidden by the companies selling asbestos containing materials for profit. There is no reason to use it.
Not only asbestos, for example in the past they used to put radioactive material in daily life object, such as clocks, dials, etc to illuminate them in the dark. Obviously it was not a good idea, since the risk it poses didn't justify the purpose. Same thing with smoke detectors, now we are no longer using radioactive particles in them, basically because we have better electronics that not only can replace radioactive material but can be more effective in detecting a fire.
There is actually a good reason for this: the slippery slope is not always a fallacy.
The context of when and why (and to who) asbestos causes cancer is simply ignored.
This sort of problem exists everywhere. If something bad happens or is caused by something (politics, economics, etc) we are simply too quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
From a tech standpoint, I see this a lot. Postgres at my current company got banned because one team one time had a bad experience with it (after they misused it).