08-11-2018, 03:54 AM
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
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
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves