🚀 go-pugleaf

"Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message 
news:YIF9g.28$z97.3133@news20.bellglobal.com...

>> > 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...
>
> Paranoia?  You accepted that some people are more vulnerable to asbestos
> exposure than others.  If you were one of those people, and didn't know 
> it,
> would you want to take the extra chance of exposure?


*Everyone* is vulnerable to being hit by a car, are you going to ban cars?





>> > 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.
>
> Wow, THAT'S a scientific measure ...


Yes, it is.





>> >  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?
>
> Now you are either just being irrational or trolling.  I never claimed 
> that
> there would be any such piles, as you can read above.


Ah, so it would only kill a few people..

Cars kill a lot of people, by your argument cars should be banned before 
asbestos because they present a greater risk.





>> > 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?
>
> Because it doesn't just affect THEM ... it affects anyone who may buy that
> house or even visit it in the future.


Yes, and when you drive a car you may kill someone else...






>
>