Punatalk
Punatalk
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ | Donate
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Punaweb Forums
 Building in Puna
 EPA Allows Asbestos Back Into Building Products
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Next Page

Please note: All postings, business listings and advertisements are made available here, without charge, as a public service by Punaweb. No recommendations or endorsements of any specific posting, business listing or advertisement are made or implied by Punaweb.

Author Topic
Page: of 2

HereOnThePrimalEdge
Punatic

South Sandwich Islands
6387 Posts

Posted - 08/07/2018 :  10:57:41  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Keep an eye on construction materials if you're building a home or remodeling in Puna (and everywhere else) in the future.

...on June 1, the EPA authorized a “SNUR” (Significant New Use Rule) which allows new products containing asbestos to be created on a case-by-case basis.

Why the change? The EPA:
will “no longer consider the effect or presence of substances in the air, ground, or water in its risk assessments.”

As far as regulating and disclosing if a product contains asbestos:
it will largely be the responsibility of local and state governments, as well as companies and informed consumers to counter these new federal moves.

Edited to add link: https://archpaper.com/2018/08/epa-asbestos-manufacturing/

Edited by - HereOnThePrimalEdge on 08/07/2018 17:39:15

terracore
Punatic

4974 Posts

Posted - 08/07/2018 :  16:39:47  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
http://www.iflscience.com/policy/what-do-the-epas-changes-to-asbestos-regulations-actually-mean/

"You may have heard the news that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is now allowing new asbestos products to enter the market. That’s right, asbestos – a family of minerals that has been linked to several nasty diseases, including asbestosis and various types of cancer.

However, as Snopes has clarified, the policy change won't affect any of the current bans on asbestos, including on flooring felt, rollboard, and commercial paper. What's more, any proposed new uses of asbestos would have to undergo various EPA assessments before being permitted.

It is also worth noting at this point that asbestos is not currently banned across the board. While its use has been restricted, it is still used in roof coatings, cement pipes, and even clothing among other things..."

[SNIP]

Recycled asbestos (the type that is removed from buildings for health reasons) is recycled into silicate glass for use in porcelain stoneware tiles, porous single-fired wall tiles, ceramic bricks, and other products.

All that being said, I haven't done any research into the EPA change in rulemaking, I only know that people have been promoting the proposed changes for their political agendas.

So as not to be accused of editing the news, the IFLscience article above does go on to weigh against the proposed rulemaking... but only by abandoning science and listing a bunch of opinions of the article writer:

"As with the HONEST Act, this will likely mean piles of important and relevant data concerning public health will be dismissed and, as the New York Times points out, the final risk assessment will be flawed with the EPA deciding there is a lower risk level than there is in reality.

This may be good news for chemical companies, but it's less good news for the public's health."

Not sure how this is good news for chemical companies, as asbestos litigation is the longest, most expensive mass legal liability in the history of the USA.
Go to Top of Page

HereOnThePrimalEdge
Punatic

South Sandwich Islands
6387 Posts

Posted - 08/07/2018 :  18:46:14  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz on the EPA proposal which would allow new products containing asbestos:
Trump’s EPA is bringing back asbestos... This the worst administration in modern history for our environment.

Some of the products that may now involve asbestos in the manufacturing process include adhesives, sealants, pipeline wrap, and several others.
Health advocacy groups are especially against the new proposal. Interview and quotes at the link:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/could-epa-proposal-could-lead-new-uses-cancer-causing-asbestos-n898546

“Generalized intelligence and mental alertness are the most powerful enemies of dictatorship and at the same time the basic conditions of effective democracy.” - Aldous Huxley
Go to Top of Page

Hunt Stoddard
Da Kine

395 Posts

Posted - 08/08/2018 :  13:37:52  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by terracore
Not sure how this is good news for chemical companies, as asbestos litigation is the longest, most expensive mass legal liability in the history of the USA.



Unfortunately you can't rely on the possibility of lawsuit to keep industry in line. "If there's a profit to be made today, then damn tomorrow" has been proven time and again. That said, any company that adds asbestos to a building product has to have its head examined, since if word gets out sales would tank.
Go to Top of Page

ElysianWort
Kamaaina

USA
968 Posts

Posted - 08/08/2018 :  15:34:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Another brilliant move by our government. No doubt Trump is behind it.
One step forward, two steps backwards.
Go to Top of Page

tada
Kamaaina

710 Posts

Posted - 08/09/2018 :  18:03:16  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Should have used asbestos for the Grenfell tower in London.
Go to Top of Page

HereOnThePrimalEdge
Punatic

South Sandwich Islands
6387 Posts

Posted - 08/09/2018 :  19:22:36  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Should have used asbestos

It wasn’t the lack of fire retardant materials which caused that fire to spread, it was the use of highly flammable sheathing on the structure. Solid asbestos dry wall wouldn’t have helped the victims. And the survivors would get mesothelioma.

Lose-lose.

Up until 1972, General Motors blended whale oil in transmission fluid for its cars. -Spying on Whales
Go to Top of Page

tada
Kamaaina

710 Posts

Posted - 08/10/2018 :  07:38:22  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Die now or die later. But I'm not a lawyer.




https://canadafreepress.com/article/how-the-asbestos-hysteria-led-to-the-grenfell-tragedy
Go to Top of Page

HereOnThePrimalEdge
Punatic

South Sandwich Islands
6387 Posts

Posted - 08/10/2018 :  10:36:27  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Asbestos could be added to two commonly used products, adhesives and sealants in the near future and then sold in Hawaii. These substances are often applied with a tube, and a caulking gun. The person applying the material often will use his hand to smooth an edge or a lump or a corner, then wipe his hand on his clothing. Can you think of a better way to transfer asbestos fibers from a job site to everywhere that worker travels? Sticky asbestos fibers now end up where he sits in a restaurant for lunch, on the money he touches, on a loaf of bread he takes off the shelf, but puts back because he decided 12 Grain might be more healthy than 10 Grain, and then finally at the end of the day his asbestos coated clothing is thrown in the washing machine, along with his kid's play clothes, mixing not only asbestos fibers throughout the washing machine, but sticky adhesive asbestos fibers, which could potentially cling to anything else in that load of laundry.

The keiki are our future, if they can make it that far.


As far as isolated instances of burning buildings withstanding a fire - - if only they were coated with asbestos, I would like to see the statistics that show older buildings constructed with asbestos will not burn. Are you saying there were few if any building fires before asbestos was outlawed? Would you argue there were few if any deaths from building fires when construction techniques allowed homes and high rises to be made from materials that contained asbestos? Because that's what is implied when an argument is made that "oh, if only that building was made of asbestos, this tragedy could have been entirely avoided." That argument is a fallacy.

I'm glad construction in Puna hasn't used asbestos since the 1970's, I hope that doesn't change.

Edited by - HereOnThePrimalEdge on 08/10/2018 13:11:50
Go to Top of Page

gogould
Da Kine

USA
203 Posts

Posted - 08/10/2018 :  11:06:19  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Remember how a short time ago a Koch brother was railing against the present administration? The Koch organization owns Georgia Pacific. When they bought that company the sale included what has become literally hundreds of thousands of asbestos lawsuits. It was a great deal except for that pesky problem. Cash talks. And a
big stick.
I first encountered the "good asbestos" safety meeting talk for the construction crew in 2008 on a maintenance job on a BP oilfied project. Quite a reversal in a a few short decades.

Edited by - gogould on 08/10/2018 11:21:24
Go to Top of Page

kalakoa
Motormouth

10849 Posts

Posted - 08/10/2018 :  11:36:23  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
the "good asbestos" safety meeting

Yes, modern "good asbestos" can be used to build things like the new "clean coal" plants.
Go to Top of Page

tada
Kamaaina

710 Posts

Posted - 08/10/2018 :  13:43:27  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
"It wasn’t the lack of fire retardant materials which caused that fire to spread, it was the use of highly flammable sheathing on the structure. Solid asbestos dry wall wouldn’t have helped the victims."



I agree. Any post mortem of the Grenfell fire points to the flammable cladding on the outside of the building. But I disagree with the last sentence. It only makes sense to me that a fire retardant like asbestos would not have burned as extensively and possibly saved lives.

The problem with asbestos is it causes lung disease. So I would think that means handling asbestos isn't so much of a issue as breathing it.
Go to Top of Page

MarkP
Punatic

2039 Posts

Posted - 08/11/2018 :  02:40:37  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
There is of course the risk of oversimplification but it is the dry floaty kind of asbestos that causes problems. The sticky kinds are not the problem. I do wonder how a caulk with asbestos would change over time. In 100 years it might turn into a powdery dust.
Go to Top of Page

tada
Kamaaina

710 Posts

Posted - 08/11/2018 :  07:04:20  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I think the cfp article is very enlightening probably because it reaffirms my libertarian thinking. Convinced me asbestos rendered harmless if in a discrete solid form. Beyond that I don't know. Fodder for the lawyers. Maybe even for good reason???
Go to Top of Page

HereOnThePrimalEdge
Punatic

South Sandwich Islands
6387 Posts

Posted - 08/11/2018 :  07:54:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
the cfp article is very enlightening probably because it reaffirms my libertarian thinking.

That article was written by a man who was fired by Scripps Howard because he failed to disclose his previous employment at The Hudson institute as a paid shill for Monsanto. He was libertarian in his belief that he should have the freedom to accept money without revealing it may affect the point of view taken in his articles. He is now generally considered a failed and flawed journalist, although he still finds small web sites that will publish his controversial work.


the risk of oversimplification

Yes.
Asbestos is less likely to be inhaled when bonded to another substance, however, look at workers engaged in any type of asbestos removal. They wear moon suits, uncomfortable, bulky protective gear simply due to any detectable presence of asbestos in any form.

What is also a simplification is to say:
* A building burned down.
* If it had been constructed of materials containing asbestos it would not have burned down, an unknown and unprovable assertion. In order to prove that point, a portion of the building in question would need to be constructed using asbestos materials, or a model, or even computer modeling, normally only the first step in analyzing fire proofing. None of these have been attempted. It’s just a guy pointing to unrelated examples, which are not necessarily true. (Did asbestos coated ships all fail to burn or sink? If not, what was the percentage?)
* The highly flawed and unsubstantiated conclusion by the author of the CFP article, that we should allow asbestos back into additional products is based on nothing, other than his personal opinion gathered from unrelated and disassociated implications.

Keep asbestos out of Puna, keep it out of America.

“We have knowledge that beyond the border there is a wonderful beauty, a space for beauty, for greatness […] if perhaps you can believe in it, if you have such an experience, your life is a little bit changed.” - László Krasznahorkai

Edited by - HereOnThePrimalEdge on 08/11/2018 10:33:38
Go to Top of Page

MarkP
Punatic

2039 Posts

Posted - 08/11/2018 :  13:22:25  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Based on my admittedly incomplete internet research, the point to be made about the Grenfell tragedy is that the exterior cladding greatly contributed to the spread of the fire. This cladding material incorporated a petroleum-based insulation and put simply it was pretty darn flammable. Here's the tie-in with asbestos: the flammable cladding was a replacement for the original asbestos based material that was removed because 'asbestos'. Lots of people died because they breathed in burning petroleum based insulation or other fire related cause that the rapidly burning petroleum based insulation aggravated. Given the choice and an impartial assessment of the respective risks, most if not all of them would probably have opted to take their chances with the asbestos which depending on the nature of the material might never have posed an exposure risk and would definitely not have contributed to the spread of the fire.

In the case of the Grenfell, it literally is the case that 'the asbestos wouldn't have burned' rather than the idea that asbestos would protect against fire. The asbestos replacement was the fire.

Edited by - MarkP on 08/11/2018 13:27:13
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Punatalk © 2003 to 2014 Punaweb Go To Top Of Page
Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.06