At least using asbestos has some value. If we had not found alternatives we would still be using it. One reason measures were taken to improve safety in manufacturing rather than just banning from the get go was lack of alternatives. What im trying to say is pro-asbestos is not as coocoo crazy as anti vax and such.
You simply ban abortion and sex education which increases the birth rate and therefore it doesn’t matter that a few babies die from preventable illnesses.
Asbestos is not dangerous when it is in a solid form and left alone, which is the vast majority of the use cases. It becomes dangerous when it is damaged, since that lets the fibers into the air. That is why in residential areas we leave it alone, but if it needs to be removed then hazmat type safety equipment is required. We leave it alone, which is the normal use, because removing it is the unsafe situation.
Asbestos should be banned for anything other than extremely well regulated industrial situations that may need it like any other hazardous material.
These kinds of nuanced scientific assessments don’t do well with the far left in the Fediverse. They’ll take you to be a shill for Big Someone. One day, we’ll live in a world free of chemicals!
Risks and benefits. There are very few severe adverse reactions to vaccines. Yet some will die after receiving one. Do we now allow infectious disease to kill and maim instead? No, we weigh the risks.
If we can get the same benefit with lower risks, like asbestos replacements, we do that. Still better than dying in a fire, though.
yeah exactly what I was getting at. While we did not have good alternatives we kept allowing its use with regulation to make it as safe as possible but then as alternatives became available its usage was increasingly curtailed which is why it took so long to ban. Although just in time since I would not be surprised if todays health agencies recommended adding it to breakfast cereals.
I’m full of microplastics but I keep buying food and drink packaged in plastic _(--)/
Sometimes there’s just no realistic alternative. As nice as it would be to only buy fresh, unpacked food I don’t have the time, money or energy to deal with that
EDIT: oh no, the Lemmy markup has ruined my shrugging face :(
You know, there’s a certain amount of gold in everyone’s body, some think of ways that could be harvested after we die, they’re thinking way too small. I’m going for the recyclable plastics!
At least using asbestos has some value. If we had not found alternatives we would still be using it. One reason measures were taken to improve safety in manufacturing rather than just banning from the get go was lack of alternatives. What im trying to say is pro-asbestos is not as coocoo crazy as anti vax and such.
We do have alternatives to vaccines though:
You simply ban abortion and sex education which increases the birth rate and therefore it doesn’t matter that a few babies die from preventable illnesses.
Damn, take my vote in any presidental election.
It’s still pretty bonkers to know something will kill you if you use it, and we just ignore all the science.
That would be tobacco.
Asbestos is not dangerous when it is in a solid form and left alone, which is the vast majority of the use cases. It becomes dangerous when it is damaged, since that lets the fibers into the air. That is why in residential areas we leave it alone, but if it needs to be removed then hazmat type safety equipment is required. We leave it alone, which is the normal use, because removing it is the unsafe situation.
Asbestos should be banned for anything other than extremely well regulated industrial situations that may need it like any other hazardous material.
These kinds of nuanced scientific assessments don’t do well with the far left in the Fediverse. They’ll take you to be a shill for Big Someone. One day, we’ll live in a world free of chemicals!
You must be a shill for Big Shill!!
It’s the top of the shill ladder.
Water will kill you if you don’t use it with care, but everybody older than a baby uses it despite clear science on how deadly it is.
The relevant question is can we mitigate risk enough.
Risks and benefits. There are very few severe adverse reactions to vaccines. Yet some will die after receiving one. Do we now allow infectious disease to kill and maim instead? No, we weigh the risks.
If we can get the same benefit with lower risks, like asbestos replacements, we do that. Still better than dying in a fire, though.
yeah exactly what I was getting at. While we did not have good alternatives we kept allowing its use with regulation to make it as safe as possible but then as alternatives became available its usage was increasingly curtailed which is why it took so long to ban. Although just in time since I would not be surprised if todays health agencies recommended adding it to breakfast cereals.
100% of people who have come into contact with water will die.
I’m full of microplastics but I keep buying food and drink packaged in plastic _(--)/
Sometimes there’s just no realistic alternative. As nice as it would be to only buy fresh, unpacked food I don’t have the time, money or energy to deal with that
EDIT: oh no, the Lemmy markup has ruined my shrugging face :(
You know, there’s a certain amount of gold in everyone’s body, some think of ways that could be harvested after we die, they’re thinking way too small. I’m going for the recyclable plastics!