
EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing - okket
https://archpaper.com/2018/08/epa-asbestos-manufacturing/
======
nimbius
Im seeing a lot of comments on brakes containing asbestos.

As an automotive engine mechanic, I started my trade changing out brake pads.
As far as im aware, the last generation of asbestos containing brake pads in
the US were Ferodo Brake Pads ending around 1994. The pads were phased out for
a number of reasons

\- health, of course. as a mechanic, mesothelioma was your biggest risk
changing brakes all day. most shops douse the pad assembly in a mix of dawn
dish liquid or a basic degreaser liquid we called just called sauce, and send
it through a quick carwash after the job. It was also an easy way to please
customers and it kept friable dust to a minimum.

\- performance. compared to euro/japanese brakes arriving in the states in the
early nineties, companies like raybestos were at a serious risk of going
bankrupt if they didnt change. My first set of ceramic/ceramide pads was a
revelation. I recommended them to all my customers.

\- health scares. Your consumer risk of driving a car with brakes impregnated
with asbestos was minimal, but the CNN/60 minutes documentaries really did a
number on the industry. It got so bad that at one point, Raybestos included
big labels reading "CONTAINS NO ASBESTOS."

\- quality. As manufacturing for ceramic or exotic carbon pads got better,
they got cheaper. the only companies still cranking out asbestos had legacy
factories in Mexico or Indonesia that could not re-tool. They were just
cranking out cheap pads for fleet customers too lazy to change brands.

*update: checking with a buddy in the shop today It seems im wrong. Older Pierce brand firetrucks (pierce saber models she says) shipped with asbestos front and rear pads if they were not intended for airport duty.

~~~
jdietrich
OEMs have phased out asbestos, but there's a serious risk posed by aftermarket
pads, shoes and linings. Because asbestos brake parts are legal, there's
nothing stopping a parts distributor from shipping in a bunch of cheap Chinese
parts made with asbestos. If you operate on the assumption that modern braking
systems are all asbestos free, there's a greater risk of accidental exposure
if you do encounter asbestos. In many cases, there's no visible difference.

~~~
nimbius
Agreed! but they might be easier to spot than you think...

warped pads with low miles or pad material that laps the backplate are all
signs of a cheap chinesium aftermarket product. these cheap pads usually have
issues with fracturing, which scores the rotor and can cause pistons to seize.

\- weird pad discoloration with wear or rotor marking is a sure sign the pads
been impregnated with a cheap cyanoacrylate as a bonding measure.

------
nemacol
Having just lost a father-in-law to mesothelioma (June 2018), this makes me
incredibly sad.

I understand this is not an actual rule change and blah blah blah. 3,000
people are diagnosed with mesothelioma each year.

What a slow and horrific way to go. Slowly losing your breath. Lungs filling
with fluid and being rushed off to ER to drain. Endless breathing treatments.
Never sleeping more than an hour without waking up coughing. I am sure many of
you are aware the treatments can be just as painful as the illness itself.

The man I knew when through all of this and more spread over a decade. 2 lung
lobectomy surgeries. Chemo. Radiation. Misc corrective surgeries. Not to
mention the hassles of the American healthcare system, doctors, lawyers,
bills, and enough paperwork to fill a small office building.

3000 people a year.

I can only understand new deployments of asbestos if they are... "perfectly
safe" Saving thousands of lives There is no alternative.

~~~
dmix
It does say it's only being approved in special cases. I wouldn't expect the
building industry to suddenly start using it again.

How many of those 3000 are a legacy of the previous eras misunderstanding of
the chemical? I doubt any company would ignore that risk and produce a product
that put people at a direct and unknown risk, especially given the legal
liability since we now know the full risks of the chemical and the
alternatives the market has long ago developed in every category.

~~~
mrguyorama
>I doubt any company would ignore that risk and produce a product that put
people at a direct and unknown risk

Those companies did exactly that! Asbestos companies knew the dangers
internally. It's no different than cigarette companies suppressing the science
of how smoking is dangerous

~~~
adventured
Most of those companies were destroyed for it. That's why the parent is
speculating companies wouldn't do it now that the medical dangers are fully
understood and the matter has been turned into a vast, lucrative profit field
in the legal realm.

~~~
romwell
>Most of those companies were destroyed for it.

But how many CEO's were?

~~~
smolder
Ding ding ding, being a white collar criminal pays

------
base698
[https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-epa-allowing-
asbestos-p...](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-epa-allowing-asbestos-
products/)

The EPA has not changed anything about currently banned uses of asbestos, and
any new uses would first be assessed by the agency.

~~~
jdietrich
The EPA already allows asbestos to be used in a huge range of products. I
simply cannot see what justification could be made for allowing asbestos to
continue to be used in cement sheet, floor tile and brake pads. It might pose
no immediate hazard when installed, but it could become a serious hazard at
any point during its lifespan. Cement sheets crack and crumble, floor tiles
become worn and get replaced, brake pads are designed to wear down. When you
install any asbestos-containing material, you're setting a deadly man-trap.

[https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/us-federal-bans-
asbestos](https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/us-federal-bans-asbestos)

In the EU, there's a blanket ban on manufacturing or selling asbestos-
containing products under the REACH regulations, with an exception only for
replacement membranes in existing electrolysis equipment. Member states can
add specific exemptions where there is a valid justification; in the UK, those
exemptions apply only to used acetylene gas cylinders, heritage vehicles and
museum artefacts.

[https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/574c30dd-398d-b3ff-
cc...](https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/574c30dd-398d-b3ff-
cc67-e7e843c2b243)

[http://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/exemption.htm](http://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/exemption.htm)

~~~
xienze
The danger of asbestos to regular people is way overstated. Yes, if you work
around it every day for years without wearing a mask you'll regret it. If it's
in your floor tiles and one breaks, you'll be fine.

~~~
rescripting
"all levels of asbestos exposure studied to date have demonstrated asbestos-
related disease ... there is no level of [asbestos] exposure below which
clinical effects do not occur"

[https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/81-103/pdfs/81-103.pdf](https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/81-103/pdfs/81-103.pdf)

~~~
xienze
> However, in general, people who become ill from inhaling asbestos have been
> regularly exposed in a job where they worked directly with the material.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_impact_of_asbestos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_impact_of_asbestos)

> Asbestos can be found naturally in the air outdoors and in some drinkable
> water, including water from natural sources. Even nonoccupationally exposed
> members of the human population have tens to hundreds of thousands of
> asbestos fibers per gram of dry lung tissue, equivalent to millions of
> fibers in each lung.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_impact_of_asbestos#Envi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_impact_of_asbestos#Environmental_asbestos)

OMG we're all gonna get mesothelioma from the asbestos that is normally found
outdoors, unrelated to man-made activity!

Again, I stand by what I said. The risks of asbestos to ordinary people are
way overblown. It has to be loose and you have to be exposed to a lot of it
for a long period of time. Regular people are fine.

Edit: ya know people, you could respond to the specific claims instead of
pressing the "I disagree" button. Is asbestos a dangerous substance? Yes, in
certain circumstances. Are those circumstances something normal people need to
be concerned about? No, not unless you work with the substance every day and
without proper precautions.

~~~
RobertRoberts
There seems to be group think present even here on HN. I don't downvote
comments if that at least attempt to make a coherent argument with supporting
facts.

But, when I got rid of asbestos insulation around some water pipes I followed
every precaution. But many people seem to think chlorine isn't toxic because
it's so common.

Note: There is _no_ known antidote to chlorine poisoning. (an example of how
there is a toxin around us everyday, in our drinking water, in our pools, on
our clothes, cleaning products, etc...) Why is there no outrage over this?

[https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/chlorine/basics/facts.asp](https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/chlorine/basics/facts.asp)

More on asbestos many people may not know that I got from the same wikipedia
entry.

 _" Portions of El Dorado County, California are known to contain natural
amphibole asbestos formations at the surface. The USGS studied amphiboles in
rock and soil in the area in response to an EPA sampling study and subsequent
criticism of the EPA study. The EPA study was refuted by its own peer
reviewers and never completed or published."_

 _" Globally, samples collected from Antarctic ice indicate chrysotile
asbestos has been a ubiquitous contaminant of the environment for at least
10,000 years."_

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_impact_of_asbestos#Envi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_impact_of_asbestos#Environmental_asbestos)

~~~
amluto
> But many people seem to think chlorine isn't toxic because it's so common.

> Note: There is _no_ known antidote to chlorine poisoning. (an example of how
> there is a toxin around us everyday, in our drinking water, in our pools, on
> our clothes, cleaning products, etc...) Why is there no outrage over this?

There’s probably no credible outrage for two major reasons:

\- Chlorine in water is not actually a meaningful problem. Unlike, say,
asbestos, there are many, many chemicals that are problematic in high
concentrations and very safe in low concentrations. As extreme examples, water
and sodium chloride will both kill you if taken in excess. Chlorine at ~4 ppm
in tap water is a bit stinky but won’t hurt you even after a lifetime of
exposure. And Chlorine at ~3 ppm in a swimming pool with an appropriate level
of cyanuric acid added is barely perceptible.

\- There aren’t credible alternatives. We can chlorinate our water, or we can
add monochloramine, or we could let pathogens grow in our municipal plumbing.
The latter will sicken people on a large scale.

~~~
yorwba
> There aren’t credible alternatives.

Other countries (e.g. Germany) do not routinely chlorinate their drinking
water and seem to do fine.

~~~
amluto
After a bit of reading, it seems that this is mainly achieved by having a much
newer and better maintained water distribution system. It would be great to
have that in the USA.

~~~
kaybe
The local US army bases in Germany actually chlorinate their perfectly fine
tap water. What a waste!

But it is probably the perception of unchlorinated water as not safe, and you
will probably have a similar problem in the US itself if you switched the
water system..

------
rapnie
What is happening to the EPA in the US is really unbelievable. How low will
the bar get for the polluters in this country, one wonders?

~~~
gameswithgo
It is not unbelievable, it is the stated stance of the GOP to reduce
environmental and health regulations, and they are doing it. It is exactly
what we voted for.

~~~
smt88
The majority of us did not vote for this. Without gerrymandering or the
electoral college, Congress and the White House would be overwhelmingly
controlled by Democrats.

~~~
mhaymo
I think you're massively overstating the effects of gerrymandering.

[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026137941...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379416303201)

> while Republican and Democratic gerrymandering affects the partisan outcomes
> of Congressional elections in some states, the net effect across the states
> is modest, creating no more than one new Republican seat in Congress

~~~
blanderman
It has a more dramatic effect on state governments: "In 2000, 21 state
governments had governorships and state legislatures controlled by one party;
15 of those were Republican. But by 2010, 33 state governments were under one-
party control, 22 of them Republican."
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-
cage/wp/2018/04/2...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-
cage/wp/2018/04/26/yes-gerrymandering-is-getting-worse-and-will-get-worse-
still-this-explains-why/)

------
ChrisRR
This makes sense as asbestos only really causes harm when humans come into
contact with it. For applications where it is safely enclosed or mixed with
another material it may have its uses.

I think analysis on a case-by-case basis is the right way to go.

~~~
skummetmaelk
Leaded paint is only really dangerous if you pry it off the wall and swallow
it. Who would do that?

~~~
usefulcat
Or, much more likely, if you create a fine dust by sanding it.

------
swebs
>EPA is now allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

Wow, misleading headline of the decade. Asbestos was never completely banned
from manufacturing in the United States, only for certain items.

[https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/us-federal-bans-
asbestos](https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/us-federal-bans-asbestos)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos_and_the_law_(United_S...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos_and_the_law_\(United_States\)#Federal)

~~~
HillaryBriss
yes. that's right. it was the proliferation of costly lawsuits in recent
decades which diminished the use of asbestos in the US.

companies are _still_ trying to resolve all of these lawsuits.

what kind of incentives would need to be in place for a company to willingly
put that lawsuit target on its own back?

~~~
dbatten
I've heard people argue that a much more effective way to do environmental
regulation would be to basically not regulate and instead increase liability
standards for environmental/health damage.

Right now, in many cases, if a factory is dumping toxic sludge into a river
and they're within EPA limits, there's nothing anybody can do to stop it.

If you allowed farmers downstream to come after them for damaging crops (or
whatever), or allowed class action suits against coal-burning power companies
for cancer and such, imagine what that might do to incentive structures.

I'm not sure I buy it, but the asbestos case makes me wonder.

~~~
spiralx
How would you prove which power plant produced the particular molecules that
gave you cancer? What if the company that owns a power plant has gone bust?
How does this help you deal with cancer? What if you die before you make it
through the years and years such a court case would drag on?

------
CompelTechnic
I imagine that whether or not the asbestos is frangible will be strongly
considered during evaluation.

Incidentally, I have also seen a good amount of evidence that the fiberglass
we currently use to replace asbestos insulation is super bad for your health,
but likely not as bad.

~~~
yellowapple
Asbestos, stone wool, fiberglass, etc. all tend to have the same physical
properties, thus making them dangerous to inhale or ingest.

Unfortunately, these physical properties tend to be why these materials are so
effective as insulators.

~~~
yvdriess
Be careful not to conflate chemical and mechanical properties. They share
chemical properties, but do not share the mechanical property that makes
Asbestos carcinogenic.

Asbestos breaks down into particles of a dangerous size and shape. Glass and
rock wool fibres are shaped differently and do not break in the same way.
Glass/rock wool has been used extensively in practice and no link with cancer
has been found to date.

A quick search has found a quora post about the subject that goes into more
detail: [https://www.quora.com/How-much-of-a-health-hazard-is-
fibergl...](https://www.quora.com/How-much-of-a-health-hazard-is-fiberglass-
compared-to-asbestos)

------
acomjean
Ever seen an ad for "mesothelioma" and wonder what is that about? Its
generally law firms looking for people with asbestos related lung cancer
(edit: see replies for better description of the illness). The Asbestos
particles are so small your body's natural filters don't stop them from
getting stuck in your lungs, where they can cause cancer.

As this point I can't imagine the insurance liability to start using asbestos
again would allow this stuff to start proliferating widely again.

~~~
caf
I believe it is actually a cancer of the lining of your thoracic cavity rather
than your lungs.

~~~
vedtopkar
Correct, it's a pleural cancer.

That being said, asbestos poses an even bigger risk of "regular" lung cancer
compared to mesothelioma. It really is a formidable carcinogen.

------
EamonnMR
The risks have been known for years. At this point isn't not pollution or
negligence to use it, it's homicide.

~~~
s3m4j
120 years give or take 10 years.

But the free market is always right. Right ?

~~~
kpil
Yes, Adams Smith's invisible hand will always deliver the global maximum AND
_all_ local maxima _at_ _the_ _same_ _time_! So Say We All!

------
joecool1029
Probably should link the list of things banned and things not banned:
[https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/us-federal-bans-
asbestos](https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/us-federal-bans-asbestos)

As I understand this is a substance you really don’t want to break down and
get airborne, so felts made with it are super hazardous. Stuff like vinyl tile
with it really only poses a risk if you’re grinding/sanding it or its prone to
some form of decomposition (like from water damage)

------
tmaly
It has good material qualities, but do we really want to trade that for an
increase in lung cancer? The stuff is so costly to dispose of, it is not
really worth using.

~~~
WhompingWindows
Unless your environmental "protection" agency is not in the business of
protecting you. In which case, you don't have to pay the costs to dispose of
things properly, because businesses shouldn't ever be fettered by any kind of
environmental regulations, at least according to the current philosophy of the
"protection" agency.

~~~
HillaryBriss
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.

------
resters
This article is 100% political. The EPA did this due to political shifts.

What makes it eligible for the top spot on HN? Any detailed discussion of the
politics underlying why this happened will be censored within minutes.

What are we supposed to do, discuss the science of asbestos being toxic? This
is a perfect example of why the "no politics" zealots on HN need to be
stopped.

~~~
doubt_me
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/07/11/a...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/07/11/approved-
by-donald-trump-asbestos-sold-by-russian-company-is-branded-with-the-
presidents-face/?utm_term=.40d8ac9f345d)

Or we can get to the real reasons why and get downvoted and flagged
regardless.

~~~
resters
I want to read that, do you know of a good non-paywalled link?

~~~
doubt_me
Google it. No seriously. Multiple articles. It's all over Reddit.

------
k1ns
I believe I've found the SNUR in question [0] and it seems to state that the
EPA _will consider_ uses of asbestos in construction:

> Any Other Building Materials (other than cement): Examples include
> insulation, plasters, mastics, textured paints (e.g., simulates stucco), and
> block filler paints (e.g., for coating masonry).

It looks like they're wanting to open a pathway of discussion between
potential manufacturers/importers of asbestos and the EPA for new business
opportunities which apparently include new construction, the brake pads that
go onto your vehicles, and the floor tiles in your home.

This sounds insane to me. I don't want to live in a world where policymakers
with no scientific background get to decide how they personally feel about
proven carcinogens in my children's lives. They seem to literally be saying
that they want to consider asbestos in construction projects as a _significant
new use_ despite the fact that using it in construction was previously proven
to be unsafe.

The comment date is quickly closing, please let your voice be heard.

[0] [https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2018-0159...](https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2018-0159-0001)

EDIT: If I'm confused and have linked something irrelevant, please let me know
and I will redact.

~~~
makomk
I'm pretty sure that's the right rule. What you're missing is that previously
those weren't considered new uses of asbestos at all in the US because it had
been used for those purposes prior to 1989. As I understand it, without this
proposed rule it would in fact be perfectly legal for US companies to just go
right ahead and use asbestos in those building materials without any kind of
EPA pre-approval. Requiring them to seek out the EPA's approval first is
actually tightening the rules. (There are only five pre-1989 uses of asbestos
which were banned, and this isn't one of them.) The main reason no-one uses
asbestos for this is probably that it's a liability and PR disaster zone.

See in particular section III, which explains this all reasonably clearly.

~~~
k1ns
Very well said, thanks for the clarification. I read through it several times
and came away feeling two different ways about it simultaneously.

1) Like you said, I assumed this meant that they were installing themselves
via the law instead of relying on the honor system. I think that's awesome
news. 2) I don't trust them to act in the best interest of the masses when it
comes to which uses they green light and which uses they shoot down. But
that's 100% my opinion which is cynical in nature most of the time.

As long as the EPA uses this power for good, I'm all for it. I am skeptical
about their motives though (which is entirely subjective).

------
christofosho
My grandfather died due to asbestos in his lungs from when he was younger.
Let's hope this is not going to be affirmed.

------
rayiner
The reaction on here is disappointing. Asbestos isn't nuclear waste: it causes
harm in well understood ways, and the dangers of its use can be mitigated. A
case-by-case analysis of new asbestos products is absolutely a reasonable
approach.

The EPA is charged with regulating rationally. Costs must be weighed against
benefits. That balancing process is itself something that saves lives-- _e.g._
there are people who are dead because asbestos alternatives aren't as good for
fire proofing.

~~~
refurb
Considering HN probably has a high percentage of well educated people on it,
you can clearly see why politics is such a mess. People react emotionally to
these things, rather than examine the facts.

~~~
s73v3r_
Or maybe we have examined the facts, and still believe this is a terrible
idea.

------
acd
Because lobbyist do what is in the general publics health concern NOT!

I am quite concerned what industry with lobbying can achieve nowadays.

This used to be illegal to lobby and also be called something else corruption

The Forgotten Law of Lobbying
[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2383317](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2383317)

------
wiradikusuma
There should also be a law requiring the CEO of the companies that produce it
to receive a sample of each production batch, and they're required to install
it at their house(s).

If it's only used as part of manufacturing process, the CEO must have an open
office next to the machine and be there at least once a week.

"It's safe boss, you told me!"

------
roland35
It is exceedingly difficult for general consumers to figure out how to deal
with hazards like asbestos and lead in home building materials. I am currently
renovating our home and it turned out our floor tile had lead in it (not
asbestos too thankfully). There are very few resources available and there are
no clear rules on how to deal with the removal of hazardous materials. HUD,
EPA, CDC, and state rules are all different.

The best option as a homeowner, legally at least, is to not test anything if
you can and do whatever you want! My conspiracy theory is that the real estate
industry does not want people to know more about hazardous materials because
they just want people to buy more houses.

~~~
ethagknight
False on all accounts. Handling asbestos and lead is a well defined scope of
work in the construction industry, large projects or small. The fact that you
weren't carrying a budget for hot materials doesn't mean its a big conspiracy.
There are very clear rules. Its a pain in the rear, but its also a budget line
item just like mechanical, electrical, carpentry. Asbestos and Lead is a large
piece of Environmental Engineering. Granted, you don't know what you have
until you uncover it, but if your structure was built before a certain date,
go ahead and assume you will be removing or encapsulating some hot materials.

~~~
roland35
Maybe for the construction industry, but that is not my experience at least
for residential. I had to call at least 30 different contractors across the
state, and I recieved 30 different replies on the proper way to remove it. I
have not had much luck finding a safe replacement! At least with electronics
design I can check 'RoHs compliant' and see documentation from manufacturers.
Not the case with ceramic tiles. There is no information available out there
other than yes, lead can be in ceramic and yes, lead is bad in any quantity.
Who even knows if lead dust is even produced when tiles are destroyed during
removal? Maybe I am making a big deal about nothing but nobody can say for
sure.

And I have not had much luck with any testing procedure. XRF scanners seem to
work with paint but there is little I could find about its utility with other
materials like ceramic. Lab tests have fairly high thresholds of detection.
While you are correct in that there are some clear rules and regulations with
removing paint I have not been able to get any straight information on lead in
other materials. It has been frustrating!

~~~
ethagknight
A home builder or remodeler will have varying attitudes, ranging from full
compliance with best practices / law via hiring a certified abatement
subcontractor vs "just leave us the keys and someone will get it out
overnight." You should call a good local environmental engineer, who will give
you direction you need. Will cost a few grand.

Alternatively, if its a bathroom's worth of 'hot' ceramic tile (having
asbestos or lead), best, legal bet is to just call an abatement company and
have them rip it out on the assumption that its hot. You will spend more on
testing and research than just following protocol and sending it off to the
appropriate landfill. Or if you are tightly budget constrained, just leave the
tile in place and place new tile on top. Thats the easiest of all. Hope thats
helpful.

(edited with a few clarifications)

------
dfsegoat
Just a reminder that asbestos occurs naturally in many CA state forests. Was
recently offroading in McCloud, CA and it was all over the road - definitely
didn't want to kick up dust:

[https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/landmanagement/resourceman...](https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/landmanagement/resourcemanagement/?cid=stelprdb5363833)

[http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/hazardous_minera...](http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/hazardous_minerals/asbestos)

~~~
mrguyorama
Isn't this a non-sequitur? Nearly everything "occurs naturally" to some
degree. That does not mean we should be okay with extra exposure. Asbestos was
"banned" for a very good reason, why the step back?

------
throw2016
The problem with these kind of threads on regulations, nuclear power, the epa
is there is a lot of talk as if the commentators would live with their
families right next to a nuclear plant but its in the comments of those who
are personally affected where you see the concern, empathy and maturity.

A lot of these 'strong opinions' often give way to the fastest u-turn known in
history when people are personally affected. Empathy and maturity means you
don't wait to be personally affected to change your mind.

------
anonanon77
This piece heavily lifts from the Fast Company story that originally reported
it last week, I'd recommend you read that first:

[https://www.fastcompany.com/90208948/under-trumps-epa-
asbest...](https://www.fastcompany.com/90208948/under-trumps-epa-asbestos-
might-be-making-a-comeback)

------
Exuma
How long does it take for symptoms of asbestos to show up? I grew up in a 100
year old house where it probably had very old insulation and such... we did
all kind of house maintenance and now I'm terrified something in there had it.
I have lived in fairly modern apartments the last 15 years so I'm hoping I'm
OK?

~~~
maxxxxx
There is a very good chance you will have no problems. A lot of people have
been exposed to asbestos decades ago but only small percentage got cancer.
Your risk is probably higher than normal but I wouldn't worry about it too
much.

------
anonanon77
This story is nearly identical to the original article reported by Fast
Company:

[https://www.fastcompany.com/90208948/under-trumps-epa-
asbest...](https://www.fastcompany.com/90208948/under-trumps-epa-asbestos-
might-be-making-a-comeback)

------
dbg31415
But CA still has to have a 1.8 GPM shower head?!

Yeah, makes sense. =P

Pre-1994 all shower heads were like 6 GPM -- those were nice showers. Not sure
we've really saved any water by making people take longer, crappier showers.

Sydney is still 25 LPM... roughly 6 GPM. It's bliss.

I'm sure the EPA does some wonderful things, but they've totally ruined
showers over the last 30 years.

------
sandworm101
Am I living in a cartoon? Deregulation is a valid and understandable view, one
that is an established part of the political landscape. But inventing and
allowing new uses for asbestos? This is sort of evil plan belongs in an
episode of captain planet.

------
Imburr
My brother is a Marine and he states that some of the barracks they stay in
are still abestos. He claims that the military knows and it would cost them
more to address it versus fighting/paying for it later.

------
nneonneo
To shed some light on the “thinking from the top”, here’s a quote from a
related Snopes article ([https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/russian-asbestos-
trump_fac...](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/russian-asbestos-
trump_face/)):

> Trump once opined, in his 1997 book The Art of the Comeback, that efforts to
> reduce and regulate asbestos (a material he claimed was “100% safe” once
> applied) in building construction were part of a mob-lead conspiracy:

>> I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it
was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal. Great
pressure was put on politicians, and as usual, the politicians relented.

------
socceroos
Why??

~~~
rootusrootus
Because the guiding principle of this administration is to undo everything
that is either directly or at least philosophically tied to the last one.
Perhaps the most destructive case of butthurt ever.

~~~
smt88
I disagree that it's just spite. It seems to me to be a pro-business agenda.
It's literally the definition of crony capitalism.

------
sysbell
Give the EPA a break guys, they're doing asbestos they can.

~~~
prolikewh0a
Humor on HN? Is this allowed?

Upvote deserved.

------
patrickg_zill
Aren't there 2 kinds of asbestos? 1 kind is dangerous to humans due to its
particle size, and the other is larger and is filtered by your body...?

~~~
AngryData
All forms of it are potentially harmful, but some forms of it are more easily
broken down and go airborne making it easier to breath it in. It is nearly
identical to breathing in ceramic dust, the finer it is easier it is to ingest
it and the less likely your nose and throat will catch the particles before it
enters your lungs and can no longer be expelled.

~~~
HillaryBriss
i agree with you. i believe asbestos is unsafe and we should _not_ be
releasing more of into the environment by adding more of it to building
materials and other industrial products.

but, a perhaps surprising thing about our lungs is that they can expel _some_
of the inhaled asbestos fibers. but, in some people that's just not good
enough: they still get sick. (another risk factor, smoking, increases one's
chance of mesothelioma from inhaled asbestos fibers)

asbestos fibers are everywhere. a very substantial fraction of US residents
have some asbestos fibers in their lungs because of natural background levels
and/or contamination of the urban environment by industrial asbestos from past
decades. during the 9/11 attacks, significant quantities of asbestos became
airborne in NYC.

asbestos fibers are quite durable. they don't break down into safe substances
or disappear from the environment on their own.

------
mirimir
Wow. I mean, wow. I'm impressed. These idiots in government really only care
about their bribes. And the idiots who are bribing them only care about making
money. Everyone else can just fuck off and die.

But hey. The Reagan era was horrible too. I mean, eight fucking years! Plus
four more of Bush I. And then, all too soon, another eight years of Bush II.
...

Actually, I was going for optimism. But I just can't get it up. Clinton and
Obama were cool and all, for their two-term runs, but they were mostly
bullshit. The political center of the US has shifted so far that, in many
ways, Nixon (for all of his drunken paranoia) was more of a liberal than
either.

Edit: So hey, I went off the rails there. But seriously, this is insane. I
mean, look at the mesothelioma epidemic. So what's next? Taking the pressure
off tobacco marketing to children?

~~~
okket
Nixon created the EPA...

~~~
mirimir
Not only that, but (according to a former senior adviser, who I got to know in
the 90s) he was very close to supporting something like national minimum
income. To replace welfare. As I recall, it used the income tax system. Below
some minimum income, the tax rate became negative, increasingly so as income
dropped.

~~~
dmix
American politics was very centerist in the past. The toxic partisan nature of
it, which both sides are currently doubling down on, is largely a modern
invention.

The unending increase in size and scope of government has been largely
separate from this, and was a feature of both parties despite rhetoric for
much of the last century. Not just in the US but in every western country.

Saying that government has been stripped of power by x party simply doesn't
hold up to facts. If anything the power has consistently increased, or at most
occasionally plateaued or massively increased in other areas. But most
importantly only a few well connected individuals and companies are getting
exceptions to that rule, in special circumstances.

Which is exactly what this law change is about: it explicitly says it will
only be done in special circumstances. Their power to regulate asbestos has
not been diminished at all, they've merely further solidified cronyism and
legislation-by-special-favour into law.

~~~
dragonwriter
> American politics was very centerist in the past.

Not for most of its history it wasn't. Between the New Deal and the early
1990s, though, there was a long shift in party alignment that had both major
parties being ideologically incoherent big tents in transition between the
past (ideological and more so geographic) party alignment and a new
ideological, national alignment. This produced something that looked like more
centrist politics, but it wasn't really fundamentally so, and in any case it
was a manifestation of a transitory, inherently unstable, state.

> The toxic partisan nature of it, which both sides are currently doubling
> down on, is largely a modern invention.

No, it's not. See, the 1860s for a fairly vivid counterexample.

~~~
dmix
s/past/recent past

I'm not debating 19860s politics, I'm talking about the growth of the modern
state, largely post WW2. Which has rarely been partisan.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I'm talking about the growth of the modern state, largely post WW2. Which
> has rarely been partisan.

It's been intensely partisan and intensely sharply ideologically-divided, just
as today. What was different during the long realignment from the New Deal
through approximately the Contract With America (though definitely
progressively weakening during the last couple decades of that period) is that
the ideological and partisan divides were not in sync, because of the lack of
coherence due to the ongoing partisan realignment.

Because political power players had to manage both conflicts, the tension
between their interest in one vs. the other often served to moderate conflict.

------
jezfromfuture
Lmafao

~~~
sctb
We've banned this account.

------
wufufufu
Wow, this really shows the power of lobbying and possibly Trump's EPA. I would
not have thought this was possible. In my mind "asbestos" has as bad of a
media image as "Zika", "AIDs", "Al Qaeda", "ISIS". Obviously, it doesn't mean
everyone home built in 2019 will have asbestos in the drywall (it _sounds_
like the change is with reservations), but the fact that they could open up
anything on the topic without intense resistance is impressive.

I hope everyone who was a part of this lives in a home that was manufactured
with asbestos as part of the process.

------
mistrial9
.. in related news, only robots will be allowed to apply the material, and a
cousin of the second secretary of the EPA happens to have a new robot company.
Nothing to see here, please move along. </sarcasm>

~~~
52-6F-62
I know you're kidding, but:

 _‘Approved by Donald Trump’: Asbestos sold by Russian company is branded with
the president’s face_

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/07/11/a...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/07/11/approved-
by-donald-trump-asbestos-sold-by-russian-company-is-branded-with-the-
presidents-face)

