🚀 go-pugleaf

"Shawn Wilson" <ikonoqlast@cox.net> wrote in message 
news:Hkv9g.14949$QP4.9675@fed1read12...
>
> "Shawk" <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote in message 
> news:1147564745.19048.0@ersa.uk.clara.net...
>
>>>> 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?
>>
>> No over-riding reason 'to' use it either Shawn, unlike the DDT argument.
>
> Actually the argument is exactly the same- it's a better product in its 
> application than the alternatives.

Unlike DDT I haven't seen any proof of this whatsoever.

>> Parts of COSHH make sense... if there is a substance that has the same 
>> outcome but is less hazardous then use it... I have no problem with that 
>> provided there is a business (reasonably practicable) and health benefit.
>
> And yet no one has shown this mythical health benefit.  You can't show 
> dead people from the countries that use it, nor can you show them from 
> this country before it was banned.  Given its widespread use, if it was a 
> problem there would be a large number of casualties.  There aren't and it 
> isn't.

You're an intelligent guy so you probably know that such deaths were not 
tracked by your own government until 1999.  Once they started tracking it 
properly the rates they thought they had actually doubled overnight. 
Figures just for the US 1979 to 2001 are now thought to be around 230,000 
people.  Why do these dead people not count in your theory?  What do you 
term a large number of casulaties?

>> Asbestos can (and has) caused cancer.
>
> Tylenol causes death.  But you don't seem eager to ban it.

So does smoking and I'm not looking to ban that either.  Eat too many 
burgers you're going to die.  Drink too much alcohol you're going to die. 
Etc, etc etc.  You dont seem to see the difference between a personal choice 
(tylonol, smoking, eating too many burgers, drinking too much) and no choice 
at all (asbestos put in your workplace or home 40 years or more ago which 
may be damaged, flaking, putting fibres into the air and about which you 
personally can do nothing)

>>  Yes it is normally those that have some longer term exposure but there 
>> is no reason nowadays to put folk at potential risk if it can be avoided.

> Paranoid thinking.

No, common sense

>> Understand (and share) your apparemnt loathing of misinformation but not 
>> sure where you're coming from on this one.  Are you Canadian?
>
> Nope, USAn.

Ok, I remember Canada going to court with France when they had a complete 
ban, (Canada being one of the bigger producers of asbestos and biggest of 
chrysotile).  You may remember the WTO upholding France's decision after 
consulting a number of experts who all concluded chrysotile caused cancer