- Status
I have written that I accept the arguments that it was not dangerous in this case. You can see that if you read my responses. But of course, I take someone who responds seriously more than someone who compares asbestos to sugar or carrying their own child. All such comparisons are completely irrelevant, even though I understand that they are made with good intentions to calm and make comparisons.
There are 400 people per year who die from mesothelioma, a direct result of having inhaled asbestos. Beyond that, many suffer, without direct attribution to asbestos as the direct cause, from common lung cancer, pleural plaques, and COPD. Many of these also due to asbestos. As you know, the diseases lag by 20-30 years on average. This means that many have time to die of something else before they die from asbestos.
READ CAREFULLY here now: I know that these deaths are 99% comprised of people who have worked with it daily. Therefore, I accept the argument that in this case, the risk was very low.
How many deaths per year because a person ate 1kg of sugar in 1978? Zero. It may be bad for public health, but that is a COMPLETELY different discussion.
How many children die from being dropped by a parent? Don't know, but presumably zero, possibly a freak accident once a year.
Why do people take questions about asbestos so personally? This mineral divides people more than the immigration issue does. Completely crazy! In every thread about asbestos, the asbestos supporters appear and lecture people about how their grandfather ate asbestos for breakfast and cyanide for lunch, and he lived to 94 years! The reasonable stance is that asbestos IS dangerous and should be treated with great respect and caution.
My attitude is also exaggerated, I admit it! I have also written this in the thread. That is the reason I wrote this thread.
Please READ this entire post before you start typing away.
There are 400 people per year who die from mesothelioma, a direct result of having inhaled asbestos. Beyond that, many suffer, without direct attribution to asbestos as the direct cause, from common lung cancer, pleural plaques, and COPD. Many of these also due to asbestos. As you know, the diseases lag by 20-30 years on average. This means that many have time to die of something else before they die from asbestos.
READ CAREFULLY here now: I know that these deaths are 99% comprised of people who have worked with it daily. Therefore, I accept the argument that in this case, the risk was very low.
How many deaths per year because a person ate 1kg of sugar in 1978? Zero. It may be bad for public health, but that is a COMPLETELY different discussion.
How many children die from being dropped by a parent? Don't know, but presumably zero, possibly a freak accident once a year.
Why do people take questions about asbestos so personally? This mineral divides people more than the immigration issue does. Completely crazy! In every thread about asbestos, the asbestos supporters appear and lecture people about how their grandfather ate asbestos for breakfast and cyanide for lunch, and he lived to 94 years! The reasonable stance is that asbestos IS dangerous and should be treated with great respect and caution.
My attitude is also exaggerated, I admit it! I have also written this in the thread. That is the reason I wrote this thread.
Please READ this entire post before you start typing away.
No exactly, it's for children that you use baby powder. I have consciously chosen not to.kulle said:
Not for your child either?
Member
· Västernorrland
· 12 029 posts
Sure, it's as you say TS, but look at it this way. Would it have been better if a real professional company had removed the neighbor's roof? They probably would have done approximately the same as the neighbor did, but it's still handled "correctly." The problem with asbestos is that those who are afraid of it think that sanitization means zero fibers are left. They've filtered everything, type. It doesn't work like that, and such demands don't exist. You do what you can, and those who work with it protect themselves to minimize the risks, not because it's known that one asbestos fiber automatically causes cancer.
Asbestos is very much a public health issue as well. Asbestos is not a poison that makes you sick directly or where a potential future illness is directly proportional to some past exposure - Just like sugar, where lifelong overconsumption causes problems for some people.G greenhouse said:
So I maintain what others have written; If you are as worried about asbestos as you obviously are, you have completely missed the proportions of all the dangers you are exposed to daily.
Good pointS Stefan1972 said:
No, no person died because they ate 1kg of sugar in 1978, that's absolutely right. But to link it to your pet peeve of relevance, it's completely irrelevant and not something anyone in the thread has claimed. I would bet my entire month's salary that everyone in the thread - both those who mentioned sugar and those who didn't - understands that the comparison is about your child's sugar intake over their lifetime being more harmful than both the exposure to asbestos that the neighbor subjected them to and the "natural" exposure during the child's lifetime combined. You are probably the only person who, for some reason, chooses not to interpret it that way. So yes, the comparison with sugar intake is highly relevant. Several other comparisons too.
Sugar is not good for us, not in the amounts we consume. And it's not just the teeth that suffer, it's the entire body. But don't take my word for it, find out the facts yourself. Perhaps by starting a thread on a suitable online forum...?
That you feel you are being treated badly and only getting strange comparisons is just nonsense. I just read through the first 12 posts and all responses - except for 2-3 that were more about the natural presence of asbestos in the air - gave clear, reassuring, correct, good, and polite answers. Then someone came up with a comparison involving baby food and gravel roads, which you immediately jumped on. Even though the comparison is completely relevant. The baby food and the gravel road pose greater risks to your child during their lifetime than your neighbor's roof replacement does. Completely relevant and completely correct comparison. Yet you reacted. Is it surprising that people get a bit irritated? Especially considering that you apparently started 9 other threads with basically the same question and the same answers. No, take in the information you get, and ask if you don't understand a comparison, and be grateful that there is so much knowledge on the forum that you can access for free.
Sugar is not good for us, not in the amounts we consume. And it's not just the teeth that suffer, it's the entire body. But don't take my word for it, find out the facts yourself. Perhaps by starting a thread on a suitable online forum...?
That you feel you are being treated badly and only getting strange comparisons is just nonsense. I just read through the first 12 posts and all responses - except for 2-3 that were more about the natural presence of asbestos in the air - gave clear, reassuring, correct, good, and polite answers. Then someone came up with a comparison involving baby food and gravel roads, which you immediately jumped on. Even though the comparison is completely relevant. The baby food and the gravel road pose greater risks to your child during their lifetime than your neighbor's roof replacement does. Completely relevant and completely correct comparison. Yet you reacted. Is it surprising that people get a bit irritated? Especially considering that you apparently started 9 other threads with basically the same question and the same answers. No, take in the information you get, and ask if you don't understand a comparison, and be grateful that there is so much knowledge on the forum that you can access for free.
I recall when the association I lived in ordered new sand for the sandboxes in the area. From the truck, a person jumped out and wore an FP3 filter half-mask while unloading the new sand into the boxes. I had to ask why, and he mentioned silicosis as the reason, that quartz dust wasn't so pleasant to get in the lungs. Didn't feel too thrilled about letting the kids play in the sandbox after thatuseless said:
.But playing in a sandbox doesn't create clouds of stone dust, it disappears after a rainstorm or two. So it's a relevant comparison too, that working with unloading gravel trucks can quite quickly create stone dust in dangerous amounts, but not playing in a sandbox.Bowser said:
I remember when the association I lived in ordered new sand for the sandboxes in the area. A person jumped out of the truck wearing an FP3 filter half-mask while unloading the new sand into the boxes. I had to ask why, and he mentioned silicosis as the reason, saying quartz dust wasn't so nice to get into the lungs.
One didn't feel so amused to let the children play in the sandbox after that
But when the kids go wild like high-powered mine-clearing machines in the sandbox, there's quite a bit of dust as well. Plus, they keep their noses at optimal height.
Staffan
Staffan
Sandbox was the word.Staffan2000 said:
Absolutely, it was just the comic in the picture when you were standing there on site.Anna_H said:
Well.... silicosis was the word.G greenhouse said:
OP, why are you personally so afraid of asbestos exposure? Thread after thread about asbestos, something that is likely to be a minimal risk in your life. Society has defined the risk and successfully managed it through legislation. It is a closed chapter in our material history.
I live with a woman who also has an utterly irrational fear of what the children might be exposed to. I recognize TS's behavior. It doesn't matter how much information you provide, the fear is always there, and in an irrational way, it makes the minimal risk (if there even is a risk in some cases) take on enormous proportions.
I think the discussion can be ended. TS has gotten all the answers she needs, there is no risk in this case, and it won't make any difference, she'll still be terrified.
I think the discussion can be ended. TS has gotten all the answers she needs, there is no risk in this case, and it won't make any difference, she'll still be terrified.
Good question, although I seem not to be alone in this fear.Claes Sörmland said:
It is probably based on asbestos's tricky danger and the small doses needed to be at risk. As with all fears, it is not logical. In the '80s-'90s, people were afraid of getting AIDS even though they were not homosexual intravenous drug users. It is not logical to be afraid of spiders or snakes either, yet people are. Very rarely are we afraid of statistically significant dangers.
Asbestos is present everywhere in our houses and vehicles, among other places, and is by no means a closed chapter. You see renovation programs on TV where, without protection in sweaty eagerness, they tear up asbestos flooring just to reveal the desired wooden floor. It exists at my work and in my property. If I tear into the wrong material, I could unintentionally expose myself and my surroundings. If mechanics at work tear into brakes and use compressed air, they could spread asbestos (old vehicles).
The fibers cannot be seen, so it is probably based on my need for control. Dangers I can see, I can avoid and control. If my neighbor releases an asbestos cloud (I'm not saying that's the case here), my family and I could be exposed.
But this is not a therapy thread. It has derailed more than a comment section on Facebook.