🚀 go-pugleaf

"tilvios" <toxaristhrasoe@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1147470135.645277.55510@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

>> 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.


I have a piece of graphite that's been in my hand for about 30 years and is 
likely to stay there until I die.

Your body can deal with that.

Your body can deal with some exposure to asbestos.  It is only when exposure 
is high enough to swamp your body's coping mechanism that problems occur.

And in the real world, asbestos just sits there on the pipes or whatever.




> That's enough science for me.


Problem is that that isn't science, and people like you can't tell the 
difference.  Asbestos was widely used for a long time, if it was harmful in 
low exposures the data would be there.




>  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.


Irrational paranoia.




>> 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.


Except that Tylenol actually kills people on a regular basis.  We don't (and 
never did) see asbestos deaths from low exposure.

You complain that asbestos is deadly stuff, so is Tylenol.  Why should 
asbestos be banned when Tylenol isn't?





>> >> 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.



And so therefore *all* forms of asbestos should be banned for all uses?  Not 
all foms of asbestos are linked to cancer, and many uses of asbestos do not 
allow for it's release into the environment.

Many countries still use asbestos ona  large scale, and they aren't seeing 
the efffects you're predicting.

Like I said- paranoia.