🚀 go-pugleaf

"Shawn Wilson" <ikonoqlast@cox.net> wrote in message
news:YvM9g.15003$QP4.9377@fed1read12...
>
> "Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:YIF9g.28$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?

As you say below, it is generally only human error -- or a defective car -- 
that causes people to get hit by cars.  Asbestos exposure that may affect
some people more than others does NOT occur by human error alone.  We do not
ban human stupidity.

Plus, there's the whole "benefit/risk" thing, and so far you have given no
reason for anyone to think that using asbestos is that much better than
anything else.  As I said, they don't put it in Canadian homes anymore.

>
>
>
>
>
> >> > 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.

Smoking is proven to kill people, yet I don't know of any government that
has banned it.  You should be able to see now how that is not a scientific
measure.

>
>
>
>
>
> >> >  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..

Those who were more at risk for it, yes.

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

Dealt with above.