🚀 go-pugleaf

Shawn Wilson wrote:
>
> Mother Nature isn't incompetent, and the human body is desiged to deal with
> occasional exposure to bad things.  Just because chronic high level exposure
> is injurious doesn't mean that low level exposure causes any harm at all.

The difference is with asbestos your body can't eliminate it.  There is
also a proven link to a very deadly cancer.  The properties that made
it a wonderful material for fire-proofing and what make the almost
indestructible fibres permanent in your tissues.

That's enough science for me.  It's known to cause a deadly cancer, and
it can't be eliminated from the body.  No more study of levels and what
not is needed as far as I'm concerned.  It's deadly stuff and shouldn't
be used.


>
> Case in point- Tylenol.  Tylenol is toxic.  If you take enough (about one
> bottle) it *will* kill your liver and you will die a very slow (a week or
> two), painful, inevitable death (it would take a liver transplant to save
> you, and attempted suicides don't get transplants).  But that doesn't mean
> that taking a little causes proportionately less damage to your liver.
> Staying within the recommended dose doesn't damage your liver at all.  (but
> if you have liver problems they will tell you to stay away from Tylenol)
> The means is saturation of the mechanism that flushes toxins.  So long as
> the amounts are within the range the body can handle there's no problem at
> all.  Outside that range the effects start building, and if you regressed a
> line it would pass through the origin.

Tylenol is a transcient ingredeint.  Not even comparable to asbestos.

>
> >  It embeds in your tissues and is there until
> > you die.  If you want this stuff in your home, please do all home
> > repairs yourself so you don't expose any contractors to this stuff.
>
>
> Yeah, right...
>
> So tell me, are you going to stop taking Tylenol?

Nonsequitar.

> >>
> >> Because otherwise inexpensive and highly effective solutions might be
> >> used
> >> instead of expensive and less effective ones?
> >
> > Whatever.  The material was banned for a reason.
>
>
> Yes, that reason was paranoia, not science.  DDT was banned because of
> paranoia too, an the tens of millions of dead since then have shown that
> paranoia kills, it is not the 'safe' path.

No the reason is the link to deadly cancer and the permenancy of the
material once imbedded in tissues.