Law Critics outraged over EPA's proposal on asbestos

  • 🔧 Issue with uploading attachments resolved.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epa-proposal-on-asbestos-critics-outraged/
Critics are speaking out against a proposal put forth by the Environmental Protection Agency under President Trump that could allow for new uses of asbestos, which is heavily restricted because of its links to cancer and other diseases.

In June, the EPA under Scott Pruitt's leadership proposed a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) "for certain uses of asbestos (including asbestos-containing goods)." The rule would require importers and manufacturers to get approval from the EPA before resuming or starting asbestos manufacturing, importing or processing, according to a June 1 news release from the agency.

While the EPA framed the proposal in a positive light, calling it "the first such action on asbestos ever proposed" and part of an "important, unprecedented action on asbestos," critics said it fails to recognize the dangers of the fibrous mineral, which has been associated with lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis.

According to the nonprofit Environmental Working Group, the EPA also announced it will not review exposures from abandoned uses of asbestos. Documents the EPA released in June indicate that the agency will "dramatically scale back its safety evaluations for 10 chemicals under the revamped Toxic Substances Control Act," says the Environmental Working Group.

In a June statement, the group accused the EPA of "doing the bidding of the chemical industry by giving it the green light to continue business as usual, and by signaling that even the most dangerous chemicals are unlikely to be restricted or banned."

The EPA, however, says press reports on the matter are incorrect, and the EPA's proposal would keep companies from manufacturing, importing or processing for new uses of asbestos without EPA approval.

"The press reports on this issue are inaccurate," EPA spokesman James Hewitt said in a statement. "Without the proposed Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) EPA would not have a regulatory basis to restrict manufacturing and processing for the new asbestos uses covered by the rule. The EPA action would prohibit companies from manufacturing, importing, or processing for these new uses of asbestos unless they receive approval from EPA."

Linda Reinstein, president and co-founder of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, said that while an estimated 15,000 Americans die each year due to asbestos-related diseases that are preventable, "raw asbestos imports and use continue."

"It is incredulous to know that the EPA has ignored the science, the history, and the carnage that asbestos has caused throughout the nation each year," Reinstein said in a June statement. "From the World Health Organization to the Office of the U.S. Surgeon General, there is global consensus that there is no safe level of asbestos exposure or controlled use of asbestos."

Chelsea Clinton echoed that safety concern in a tweet Tuesday. "No amount of asbestos is safe," she said. "Yet, the Trump administration is #MAGA or making asbestos great again."

The proposed rule for asbestos use is available for public comment until August 10.
Click to expand...
 
Click to expand...
This is a dumb move but I highly doubt Trump himself was sat at his desk and thought 'I love asbestos. Best chemical - very safe! I want it back now.'
 
Vrakks said:
This is a dumb move but I highly doubt Trump himself was sat at his desk and thought 'I love asbestos. Best chemical - very safe! I want it back now.'
Click to expand...
I've seen video of him saying asbestos is good actually. Someone here that doesn't like Trump can probably find it. It was long before he was president but he was talking to congress about something. it was along the lines of him claiming that its cost effectiveness and flame retardant properties made it worth it if you handled it carefully and didn't expose people to it. No idea if that's true or not but I've heard the argument before from other people.
 
asbestos in fire retardant, chemically stable foam insulation, gaskets, and rubberized silicon putties are not the same as fibrous asbestos that can get into the air.

it's not like it's solidified HIV or a container of phosgene.

your modern car has about 20lbs of the stuff (about ~8lb if it's an electric car, around 26lbs if it's a large truck, the average passenger vehicle is around 5-6lbs).

where is it? gaskets, seals in the fuel system, brake pads/liners, and woven into nonburning fabrics and firewalls. the "wool" liner? mostly recycled fiber, but it also has a quantity of asbestos sealed in with an FR polymer backing because it'll give you that much longer to escape a burning wreck.

edit, clarification/grammar
 
Last edited:
Tranhuviya said:
They ought to be. This is insane.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Look blanket bans on things are rarely good. And this piece is pure ideological propaganda. Yes abestos is dangerous and should not be a consumer use product. But like a lot of dangerous materials that should not be in our homes, it does have some clear specialized industrial uses where it is the best material for the job. Being able to review such proposals and decide on a case by case basis if the substance in question solves a problem, without in any way endangering public health isn’t insane. In fact it is a common sense approach to things. Step away from the “won’t anybody think of the children” ravings of the article. Nobody wants to line schools with it for fireproofing. But say it was wanted to be used as a shielding or breaking component of a deep surface drill head. Using it as a material reduces costs equipment downtime and materials failures. It’s use is a thousand feet below ground with no human contact? Is such use insane or a crisis? How many good solutions to problems have we walked off behind absolute and often insane prohibitions over the years? I think the one that has been a long standing cause on the left is Hemp. How is this any different?
 
Club Sandwich said:
asbestos in fire retardant, chemically stable foam insulation, gaskets, and rubberized silicon putties are not the same as fibrous asbestos that can get into the air.

it's not like it's solidified HIV or a container of phosgene.

your modern car has about 20lbs of the stuff (about ~8lb if it's an electric car, around 26lbs if it's a large truck, the average passenger vehicle is around 5-6lbs).

where is it? gaskets, seals in the fuel system, brake pads/liners, and woven into nonburning fabrics and firewalls. the "wool" liner? mostly recycled fiber, but it also has a quantity of asbestos sealed in with an FR polymer backing because it'll give you that much longer to escape a burning wreck.

edit, clarification/grammar
Click to expand...
It's used in the exhaust systems, too. I repaired an older bike exhaust with an asbestos based sealant.
 
If asbestos is good enough for Cave Johnson, it's good enough for all of us! In fact, we need more asbestos in houses. Wanna know why there's all those Commiefornia wildfires? Because of those liberal environmental regulations forcing houses to not be built out of flame-retardant asbestos. If we were allowed to build houses out of asbestos, all those fires would do jack shit. Checkmate libs!
 
Randall Fragg said:
If asbestos is good enough for Cave Johnson, it's good enough for all of us! In fact, we need more asbestos in houses. Wanna know why there's all those Commiefornia wildfires? Because of those liberal environmental regulations forcing houses to not be built out of flame-retardant asbestos. If we were allowed to build houses out of asbestos, all those fires would do jack shit. Checkmate libs!
Click to expand...
And what about asbestos clothing?

Fireproof people, guys.
 
Club Sandwich said:
asbestos in fire retardant, chemically stable foam insulation, gaskets, and rubberized silicon putties are not the same as fibrous asbestos that can get into the air.

it's not like it's solidified HIV or a container of phosgene.

your modern car has about 20lbs of the stuff (about ~8lb if it's an electric car, around 26lbs if it's a large truck, the average passenger vehicle is around 5-6lbs).

where is it? gaskets, seals in the fuel system, brake pads/liners, and woven into nonburning fabrics and firewalls. the "wool" liner? mostly recycled fiber, but it also has a quantity of asbestos sealed in with an FR polymer backing because it'll give you that much longer to escape a burning wreck.

edit, clarification/grammar
Click to expand...
I would like to point out that, just because the asbestos used in vehicles isnt the insulation variety, doesnt mean it is SAFE.

The asbestos in brakes turns to dust when the brakes are used, and that dust sticks to the brakes. What do you think happens when you inhale that dust? Right, the same thing as when you inhale fibers from decaying asbestos insulation. Mechanical shops will often have a special asbestos vacuum specifically to get rid of the dust before a brake change to minimize exposure.

Same goes for the headliner. You are supposed to wear masks when ripping that stuff apart for the same reason. That dust can still get into your lungs and screw you up if you work with it regularly.
 
Of course "critics" are overreacting when the blanket bans and establishment of the EPA were reactionary in the first place. If asbestos is effective and nothing else works, it should be legal where safe, albeit regulated. It's the same with chemicals like DDT, which worked eradicating bed bugs from the country, but thanks to not enforcing immigration and letting in millions of brown people, it's an issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom