🚀 go-pugleaf

"Shawk" <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote in message 
news:1147600610.6890.0@ersa.uk.clara.net...

>>>> 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.


Then you didn't look.  People choose to use asbestos.  They aren't doing so 
because it's inferior.



>> 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?


Show me casualties in a country where the claim isn't associated with large 
lawsuit rewards.




>>> 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)


You don't have a choice about what home you buy?

Try dealing with reality now...





>>>  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


Nope, paranoia.  If you want to avoid all "potential risks" then you need to 
stop consuming everything, including air.  Of course driving and even going 
outside would have to be eliminated, because those present a potential risk.




>>> 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


As a rule international organizations are corrupt and full of shit and can 
never be trusted.  If asbestos is a problem why is there no pile of dead in 
Canada?   In fact Canada has a greater life expectancy than the US does.