🚀 go-pugleaf

"Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message 
news:Hso9g.18010$M31.243870@news20.bellglobal.com...

>> > People with practically no known asbestos exposure have died from
>> > mesothelioma.  But believe what you want.
>>
>>
>> People with huge long term asbestos exposure have never developed
>> mesothelioma.  What's your point?
>
> What it sounds like is that some people are more vulnerable to the effects
> of asbestos exposure than others.  Now, if we put this in all houses --  
> like
> they did in the past -- would you want to take the chance that some crack 
> or
> some damage might cause some exposure, and that you'd happen to be one of
> the people who is vulnerable to asbestos exposure?  Over the entire 
> lifespan
> of a house (mine's over 50 years old)?


Right, paranoia...





>> In countries where asbestos is still used there is no epidemic of
>> mesothelioma.  You're just being paranoid.
>
> You chided other people for not being "scientific", but the fact that you
> throw this out as if it means something kind of puts you in that spot.
> First, what do you mean by "epidemic", as in what rate would of 
> mesothelioma
> would you call an epidemic?


They don't think it's worth banning.





>  Second, how IS it used (as you mentioned
> earlier that it makes a difference)?  How much exposure have people had
> where it is used?  How likely is it that things like age may increase the
> risk of exposure?  How long has this been happening, so that we can 
> measure
> the long term effects of small exposures?  What are the effects on young
> children who may have this exposure, as opposed to adults?  Etc, etc.


Where are the piles of dead people you claim using asbestos would cause?



> If there is no overriding reason to use asbestos and take this chance, why
> take the chance?


If there's no overriding reason *not* to use asbestos why restrict people's 
choice in the matter?