EPA Allows Asbestos Back Into Building Products

[kalakoa]

the "good asbestos" safety meeting

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

[tada]

"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.

[MarkP]

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.

[tada]

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???

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

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

[MarkP]

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.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

the exterior cladding greatly contributed to the spread of the fire

Yes, that’s correct.
The original cladding was cement-asbestos.
The replacement was petroleum based as you noted.
However, there were other replacement options that were non flammable, but they were not selected because they cost more.
It was not either-or, there were multiple choices of materials available to clad the building.

Just like here in Puna. You can use 1/2” drywall, or for more fire protection, there is 3/4” drywall. You can use adhesive in a tube without asbestos in the construction of your home, most likely with no loss of fire protection. We are only limited by what Home Depot or HPM choose to carry in stock, but usually there are choices. Unfortunately for the consumer, not all building materials have ingredients listed on the label as grocery items do.

I just looked at a tube of silicone caulk. One entire side of the tube has a list of cautions and warnings in approximately 3 point type. Nearly illegible. I’d rather asbestos stay out of these products than have to bring a magnifying glass with me every time I shop for home repair products.

“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

[Hunt Stoddard]

Lots of the older condos, hotels, office buildings here have popcorn ceilings. A certain percent of some of them contained asbestos. Even though technically asbestos use ended in the 70s I believe some of it snuck its way into construction into the 80s. The only way to know is to sample some of the, often flaky, ceiling material and send it to a lab. I've been in condos where basically every crack, corner and crevice of the floor is covered with powder from the ceiling. I wonder about the health of the residents.

[terracore]

" A little background: In 1989, the EPA tried to ban asbestos outright, under a 1976 law called the Toxic Substances Control Act. The phased prohibition was overturned by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1991, and the agency succeeded in halting only six then-obsolete uses of asbestos, including corrugated paper and flooring felt.

So the June rule ensures that any U.S. companies who want to use asbestos in all its nonbanned uses—products like reinforced plastics, millboard, floor tiles, and roofing felt—are subject to EPA review. As the EPA points out, without the June rule, any company could start importing or processing asbestos for floor tiles whenever it wanted. "

"What explains the cratering in asbestos use, even as the EPA had its hands tied by the 1991 court ruling? Health and liability issues. Because asbestos is so indisputably linked to cancer, asbestos lawsuits are a multibillion-dollar industry. Approximately 100 companies have been forced into bankruptcy by asbestos litigation, to the extent that Congress had to amend the Bankruptcy Code to allow special asbestos trusts. Plenty of noncarcinogenic substitutes are readily available, and even the chloralkali industry is slowly changing its ways. "

https://slate.com/business/2018/08/the-t...estos.html