“Asbestos should be banned from all new products sold in the United States, according to a draft study from a panel that included doctors, business and government experts and union representatives.
The use of asbestos, a heat-resistant mineral put in insulation, roofing tiles and brakes, has fallen drastically since the early 1970’s, when it was conclusively linked to lung and other cancers. Asbestos mining ended in the United States last year.
Still, more than 26 million pounds of asbestos, mainly from mines in Canada, was added to brakes, roofing materials and other products in 2001, compared with 1.5 billion pounds in 1972. An additional 90 million pounds of cement that contained asbestos was imported from Mexico or Canada in 2001, according to the study.
…..
In 2001, Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, introduced legislation to ban asbestos and create a mesothelioma registry. The bill did not make it out of committee, but Todd Webster, Senator Murray’s spokesman, said she planned to reintroduce the bill in coming months.
“Senators, like most Americans, think asbestos was banned long ago,” Mr. Webster said. “Asbestos is still not banned, and still not safe.”
…..
A secretary at the Asbestos Institute, a Montreal group that promotes the use of asbestos, said no one at the institute was available to comment on the report.”
From The NY Times, registration required: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/10/business/10ASBE.html
Replies
If you want to totally ban asbestos, get ready to pay two or three times as much for some products.
Most people are not aware that asbestos exists naturally in almost any soil with mineral content. It is not quite as common as silica (sand) but neither is it a rare item in the ground.
So the question arises, if you bann it from your life, what will you walk on?
Clouds?
Excellence is its own reward!
Yeah, I realize that. It is particularly common in some places and I read a report that seemed to indicate people living in places with high naturally occuring asbestos in the soil didn't seem to have more lung problems than in other places.
However, I think I read someplace else (can't find it now) that the bill was intended to outlaw only ADDED asbestos. I think that was the point of the article that it is still being purposely dumped into a lot of things. I don't recall any comments about taking out the naturally occuring stuff. But your right, it will probably drive up the cost of some things, although buying buying oxygen bottles in your old age isn't cheap either...
When I first went to work doing planning on fire sprinklers, I toured an insulation plant in Pittsburg, CA, and I remember that it was just like a snow storm in the building with the asbestos flying around. I probably got my lifetime exposure from just walking though that building. And this was in 1964, long after someone should have known what the stuff was doing.
I recall that it was more how the asbestos was refined/milled that was the problem, not so much that it exists. I can tell you for certain that the PEL (permissible exposure limit) is "zero". Not sure who decides such things (OSHA?) but I think that says all I need to know. It only takes one tiny fiber to ruin your year. The problem is, why do some people seem to have no tolerance to it and others seemingly do. A lot of questions still unanswered as far as I`m concerned.
"The problem is, why do some people seem to have no tolerance to it and others seemingly do."
Funny you say that. I think the people who are sensitive to it is actually smaller than the publicity would imply. My father grew up near an asbestos quarry and they used to play in it. They'd break off chunks and throw it at each other like snowballs. Needless to say he breathed a whole lot of it, and he's 76. He also smoked for 50 years, so his lungs certainly were abused enough that you'd think the asbestos would have done something. No signs of any lung disease yet.
I knew it was about added asbestos and I argue with the law and such - not with you personally.
But if we talk about added Asbestos - let's compare the baby powder that has dangerous levels of asbestos fibres as a naturally occuring ingredient of the talcum with the asbestos that has been added to brakes.
The asbestos in the brakes is only a noticable danger to the brake specialist who works on them all day long and he can wear protective equiptment. Removing asbestos fromn the brakes results in noisier, less safe, brakes that don't last as long, possibly contributing to more highway accident deaths than the removal law saves of lives in the brake service industry.
But the poor infant who is relieved of his odor and chaffed skin by liberal doses of talcum baby powder is exposed to damaging doses of asbestos fibres which are allowed because they occur naturally.
the law needs a diaper.
Excellence is its own reward!
I just got back from celebrating my last spanish class and spanish test ever, should have been studying for psych test tomorrow but oh well
Point you ask? Some might say I am walking on clouds right about now
also in reference to your merlot being superior to other wines, how do you feel about Cab's, I like them better then merlot personaly, though tonight was a bud light kinda night.Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark, Professional build the Titanic.
As best as I know (teehee) Therae aint no asbestos in cabernet.
But there is in Budwiper.
Mr T
Do not try this at home!
I am an Experienced Professional!
thats why you have to drink the Light, less asbestos *G*
Much clearer head this morning, off to school...Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark, Professional build the Titanic.
Cab Ok but not exciting for me.
The case of merlot is empty and I can't/won't buy french wine so what is my next choice for washiung down the asbestos fibres?
I've got a bottle of Shipyard Export Ale sitting open and empty here now. Guess I'll reload while this page does the same..
Excellence is its own reward!
Well then cheers! if you can accept my lowly Bud, to touch your fancy ale Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark, Professional build the Titanic.
Cheers.
Excellence is its own reward!
I really can't see what if any good would come from a total ban on asbestos use. I can see lots of harm caused by forcing people to use and pay for less viable substitutes. The numbers you stated show the US is only using 1-2% as much asbestos as was used 30 years ago. What they don't state is that we are also much more careful in how it is used. There are very strict standards to use asbestos, and it is quite expensive to make anything with asbestos in it.
The items that still use asbestos do so because it is a much superior choice of materials then other options. Most items that do use asbestos use only a tiny fraction of what those items used to use.
It's interesting that the article simply mentions that no one at the asbestos institute was available for comment. Lazy journalism, or they simply only wished to show one side of the argument.
http://www.asbestos-institute.ca/specialreports/specialindex.html
A real journalist would have read what the institute puts out on their website and presented the other side of the issue.
One quote from the institute: "Those knowledgeable of the asbestos issue understand that the Ban Asbestos movement is one led by extremists, who do not fully comprehend present day uses of asbestos and the ultimate impact of their actions on society. Their position reflects a simplistic view of the issue, one which is totally out of step with the latest policy developments on asbestos in buildings and the latest risk assessment evidence on chrysotile asbestos and alternative fibres and products.
Blind pursuit of the Ban Asbestos manifesto (Le Livre Noir de l'Amiante) will result in costly, unnecessary premature removal of in-place friable asbestos insulation materials, which, if improperly carried out, could put workers and the general public at risk. Moreover, if successful, Ban Asbestos will force the substitution of one substance, which is stringently regulated, by others which are not. This is a cause for concern since many of the alternative fibres and products present similar, and in some cases greater, health risks than chrysotile asbestos. The folly of such action is exacerbated by the fact that many of the substitutes for chrysotile asbestos are more costly and do not have equivalent technical performance."
Comparative Risk Estimates*
Lifetime increases in cancer risk
(premature deaths per 10,000)
__________________________________________________
Occupants of buildings (with asbestos-containing materials) : 0.04
Indoor radon : 2 to 5
Environmental tobacco smoke : 5 to 20
Other lifetime risks:
being struck by lightning : 0.3
eating one charcoal steak/week : 0.1
smoking : 2190
I have read reports in other places that the WTC buildings were initially to have had the steel insulated with spray on asbestos insulation. This was banned during construction. They only insulated this way for 67 floors or so. The cheif architect many times throughout his life stated and wrote that if a fire broke out above this level the buildings would collapse. This total ban on asbestos use in New York was based more on hysteria then science. Wet insulating with asbestos is quite safe. The substitute used above that level in the WTC obviously wasn't as good as the original, which was to have withstood a major fire for 4 hours. It's entirely possible that without this ban the WTC would have remained standing, or at the very least many less people would have died.
Knee jerk movements to ban dangerous substances (all substances are dangerous in some dosages or uses) often do more harm then good.
> They only insulated this way for 67 floors or so.
Both planes hit above this level, the lowest floor hit was 78 or 79. But the impact knocked the gunnite off of the steel, which is what exposed it to the heat.
-- J.S.
Probably true. The article I read quoted the building designer from a book he wrote, he felt the substitute insulation they used was totally inadequate and it was a huge mistake to build the building as it was. Just his opinion, but he never believed the gunnite was adequate or that it provided anywhere near the protection asbestos would have. It was only done that way because due to new rules, approved after the building was already started, they weren't allowed to finish the job the right way. They were forced to do the best they could with the inferior substitutes available.
Would the buildings have lasted longer with asbestos, or perhaps survived entirely? We'll never know. I just know the principle designer thought they would. I have to assume he knew what he was talking about.
I personally believe the highjackers were well aware of his statements that the building wouldn't withstand a fire above the 67th floor, and deliberately targeted the planes above that point to maximise the chance that the buildings would fail. The gut instict thing would be to hit the buildings as low as possible to try to trap and kill as many people as possible. They didn't do that.