The craftsman demolished asbestos on his own accord!

[Ohchips]

Well.... 12000 die every year due to smoking... Yet people smoke. You have to be a bit skeptical about the number 1000. Asbestos is not as dangerous as you want to believe. But sure it's not harmless. You belong to the category that truly believes asbestos is deadly.
I don't need to worry about my neighbor tearing down their asbestos cement panel, even if some pieces break. Everything spreads out in the wind.
If I mop the floor, the fibers don't spread the same way.
read up ?

Well.... 12000 die every year due to smoking... Yet people smoke. You have to be a bit skeptical about the number 1000. Asbestos is not as dangerous as you want to believe. But sure it's not harmless. You belong to the category that truly believes asbestos is deadly.
I don't need to worry about my neighbor tearing down their asbestos cement panel, even if some pieces break. Everything spreads out in the wind.
If I mop the floor, the fibers don't spread the same way.
read up ?

Could it be that more people smoke than are foolish enough to tear down asbestos without a mask?
If you combine smoking with asbestos handling, the risk increases by about 50%
What this even has to do with the topic.

 

[Bananskalare]

But what the hell. Are you starting again? What does smoking have to do with asbestos? You can't draw parallels between the two just because they are lung-based diseases/death.

You wrote in another thread that someone was a "troll" based on the fact that he had fewer posts than you.
But out of your thousand posts, it seems that the majority are just a bunch of junk.

wow, imagine you've managed to read through over 2000 posts. I'm impressed!
the troll you talked about... You must have been careless with your reading. but when you have read so much, it can be okay. I was accused of being a troll. Then I thought that since I had many more posts, it should be the other person who was a troll. But I had actually been "accused" of being a troll first.

 

[Bananskalare]

Could it be that there are more people who smoke than who are foolish enough to handle asbestos without a mask?
If you combine smoking with asbestos handling, the risk increases by about 50%.
What this even has to do with the topic, I don't know.

Well, it was kind of funny statistics when you throw in some numbers about how deadly asbestos is.

 

[Bananskalare]

But what the hell. Are you starting again? What does smoking have to do with asbestos? You can't draw parallels between the two just because they are lung-based diseases/deaths.

You wrote in another thread that someone was a "troll" based on the fact that they had fewer posts than you.
But out of your thousand posts, it seems that the majority is just a bunch of crap.

Well, if you start comparing different numbers, it's a bit funny. 12,000 die from smoking every year, but only 1,000 due to asbestos.
It’s much more likely that you’ll die from smoking than from asbestos. Especially if you're a private individual.

 

[Davidbagare]

Yes, well... if you start comparing different numbers against each other, it's kind of funny. 12000 die from smoking every year but only 1000 due to asbestos. The risk of dying from smoking is much greater than from asbestos. Especially if you are a private person.

Hahaha You understand that you're comparing apples to oranges, right? How many smoke? How many work with asbestos at home?

 

[Bananskalare]

Hahaha You understand that you are comparing apples to oranges, right?
How many smoke? How many work with asbestos at home?

The original question was about private asbestos exposure. The number 1000 was for tradespeople.
Yes, it's apples and oranges. But at the same time, there is a point where a comparison exists. Both tradespeople and private individuals smoke. Both can work with asbestos. It shows that there are things much deadlier than asbestos, and it's something everyone can relate to.
If you both smoke and deal with asbestos, it's bad... so apples and oranges, but still.

 

[CoNaana]

Because you don't demand "responsibility" and think about compensation from insurance companies as your first thought when, as a homeowner, you find some 7-year-old mortar and construction dust in the attic.

You take a little brush, sweep it up, and throw it away.

It's great that you can do that, can you talk about the pros and cons of recursive functions? No? It might be easy if you know it, but that doesn't mean you have to be a jerk when explaining it to someone who doesn't. Why not just be nice when someone asks?

 

[InsidersUnited]

You're absolutely right about that. However, I'm unbearably tired of people who, when they see a problem, immediately look around for someone else to solve it for them.

It's a childish behavior that doesn't work if you want to own something. If you're not willing to take responsibility for things and willing to pitch in when needed, you should live in a rental or perhaps stay with your parents.

It's a matter of mindset and perhaps a generational shift.

 

[Christer Törnros]

Your last statement is so grotesque and absurd that it doesn't even deserve a response.

.

What is more grotesque, taking the dangers of asbestos seriously or proclaiming how harmless it is? The example is in fact something that could happen even if the risk is very, very small. That asbestos is almost harmless, just go ahead, there's no truth in that whatsoever.

 

[Christer Törnros]

Interesting! And much supports my thoughts. People talk about asbestos. But they don't talk about the dust that arises when, for example, cars.

Not? Then you should read up. For example, at av.se.

 

[Bananskalare]

No? Then you should read up. For example, at av.se.

Yes? How many threads here on the forum are about the worry of them tearing down a concrete wall? How many threads are about them inhaling a lot of exhaust fumes? It's a good thing the health and safety inspectors are on top of things. But that wasn't what the question was about.
Try reading the post again.

 

[Bananskalare]

What is more grotesque, taking the dangers of asbestos seriously or proclaiming how harmless it is? The example is in fact something that could happen even though the risk is very, very small. That asbestos is next to harmless, just go ahead, there is no truth in that whatsoever.

You went off track and started involving children in it all. Since we're talking about the smallest fatalities, why don't you raise more awareness about smoking or car exhaust emissions? Both kill more than asbestos every year.
Then Kristina wrote that all deaths are terrible.

 

[Christer Törnros]

Accidentally clicked on this old thread and realize that some of my posts have been removed. That's probably fine, I probably broke some forum rules.

However, it raises the question, what responsibility does the forum owner have for the posts that are made? There are posts in the thread that completely reject and perhaps even encourage breaking Swedish law. Is that ok?