What is this material? Help me identify.

[C.Lundin]

Staffan

That you try to make fun at my expense is sad, but not knowing the seriousness of the danger with asbestos is frightening. There are incredibly easy-to-read and well-evidenced documents about the dangers of asbestos, and the work at the factory in Lomma is a very dark chapter full of ignorance and lack of knowledge.
Fibers from asbestos are incredibly light and can linger in the air in a windless room for an incredibly long time. This is exactly the basis of the concern about whether one can inhale asbestos fibers when the material is no longer intact or encapsulated. Asbestos contained in a material that is not porous and does not release the fibers is therefore not dangerous at all, as long as you do not influence it by sawing or otherwise affecting the material.
If I understand correctly, you mean that asbestos is no more dangerous than smoking and/or only dangerous in connection with smoking?!
I can only feel sorry for you in your reasoning. On the other hand, it is not your fault that you do not understand.

You don't need to worry about possibly inhaling asbestos fibers; you definitely have, considering it is in all the air you breathe.

Smoking is considerably more dangerous than inhaling the air with the asbestos content that we usually encounter in Sweden, yes. However, that was not what Staffan meant, but since you brought it up.
What he meant was that essentially only those who smoke frequently are severely affected by asbestos; it's a very small number of non-smokers who have been significantly affected. As far as I know, not a single report tells of someone who hasn't smoked and has been severely affected.
Then, of course, one understands that it is obviously the case, but the fact that it is not present in various papers says a lot.

I'm not holding an updated figure, but a little over a hundred people die from asbestos-related diseases annually. The figure is quite easy to look up. Compare that with traffic accidents, for example. So, with your logic, you should not let those close to you and whom you care about be in traffic.

 

[Strontus]

The amount of "grus" that comes out of the screw holes is not particularly sexy.

How often do you unscrew the screws then? Because it doesn't continuously trickle out of the screw holes, does it?

 

[Rickard.]

what are you basing this fact on?

https://www.arbetsmiljoforum.se/nyheter/mer-kunskap-ska-stoppa-doedligt-damm/

(just one example of many)

The climate in Lomma I primarily base on a P3 documentary, hence I wrote what I wrote.

 

[Jimmy Andeblom]

There is a bit of a difference between working at an asbestos factory for several years without protective equipment and being in a house with some windowsills with asbestos bound in cement. It's a bigger problem to live on a busy street in the city where the air contains about 1000 fibers per cubic meter around the clock all year round.

Sure, there's a difference, but that argument is kind of like saying you can try drugs without worrying about risks since the mortality rate is higher for drivers to die percentage-wise!?

 

[Jimmy Andeblom]

[link]

(just an example of many)

I base the climate in Lomma mainly on a P3 documentary, hence I wrote as I wrote.

what you linked does not mention evidence-based comparisons between regular construction dust and asbestos. Please show me if I'm wrong.

 

[Jimmy Andeblom]

How often do you unscrew the screws then? Because it doesn't continuously flow out of the screw holes, does it?

if during cleaning you often find gravel and dust under the windowsills, then it's enough to claim sufficient reasons without a fool's persistence

 

[Jimmy Andeblom]

[link]

(just an example of many)

The climate in Lomma I base primarily on a P3 documentary, which is why I wrote as I did.

not a good example, give me another

 

[Jimmy Andeblom]

You don't need to worry about possibly having inhaled asbestos fibers; you definitely have, considering it is present in all the air you breathe.

Smoking is significantly more dangerous than inhaling the air with the asbestos level that we usually encounter in Sweden, yes. That's not what Staffan meant, but since you brought it up. What he meant was that, in principle, only those who smoke frequently are severely affected by asbestos, and very few non-smokers are significantly affected. As far as I know, not a single report tells of someone who didn't smoke being severely affected. Then one understands that it obviously is so, but the fact that it doesn't appear in various papers says a lot.

I don't have an updated figure, but a little over a hundred die from asbestos-related diseases annually. The figure is quite easy to look up. Compare that to traffic accidents, for instance. So with your logic, you shouldn't let those you care about be present in traffic.

Smoking is harmful, we can establish that. Is it more dangerous than asbestos? How should one compare? Is it reasonable to compare one of the world's biggest health problems, which is prevalent worldwide and still occurs almost everywhere, with a substance that is now strictly regulated by clear legislation and regulations? Asbestos is not handled in the same way and to the same extent today as before. It's like saying in a study that unvaccinated people born in the early 1900s have a 100% mortality rate compared to the unvaccinated born in the 2990s.

 

[C.Lundin]

Smoking is harmful, we can establish that. Is it more dangerous than asbestos? How should one compare? Is it reasonable to compare one of the world's biggest health problems that is prevalent worldwide and still occurs almost everywhere with a substance that is now heavily regulated by clear legislation and regulations? Asbestos is not handled in the same way and to the same extent today as before. It's like saying that in a study, unvaccinated people born in the beginning of the 1900s have a 100% mortality compared to unvaccinated people born in the year 2990.

But shouldn't we still base it on today's truths and conditions? Very few die due to the asbestos level in the air nowadays being quite low considering it has stopped being used in everyday materials and products.

To make a comparison meaningful, you have to compare it with something else deadly, then it's reasonable to take, for example, traffic fatalities or smoking. But sure, we can take examples of quartz dust which is also regulated today but still continues to cause fatalities.

The point is anyway that everyone constantly inhales asbestos fibers. Extremely, extremely few will ever have the slightest problem, but those few who do are most likely frequent smokers.

 

[Jimmy Andeblom]

But one must still start from today's truths and conditions, right?
Very few people die because the asbestos content in the air is now quite low considering that it is no longer used in everyday materials and products.

For a comparison to be meaningful, you must compare it to something else deadly, so it's reasonable to take, for example, traffic-related deaths or smoking. But sure, we can take the example of quartz dust, which is also regulated today but still continues to cause deaths.

The point is, after all, that everyone constantly inhales asbestos fibers. Very, very few will ever have the slightest problem, but those few who do are most likely frequent smokers.

Exactly, that's exactly what I mean. The comparison must be made with current facts. Asbestos is not present to the same extent anymore, whereas the deadly stone dust occurs in much greater quantities. The difference between the impact of stone dust on the alveoli and bronchi in the lungs compared to asbestos is clear. Asbestos attaches like a barbed hook and creates inflammation in the cells. The gas exchange therefore cannot function as it should, and lung capacity is permanently impaired.

 

[Staffans2000]

[link]
This is the factory mentioned on the label, but could it still be stone?

Here is the link you requested.

Staffan

 

[Jimmy Andeblom]

Here is your requested link.

Staffan

Thanks for the link! I didn't realize that I had referred to it before. Of course, you can tell me if I'm wrong.
However, using Wikipedia as a source is a questionable method; you know that anyone can suggest changes there, right?
The link also doesn't mention anything evidence-based that speaks to the connections. Give me something that supports what you're pointing out. According to you, there are plenty of links and examples. I am completely open to being convinced but require that it is done with facts.

 

[Staffans2000]

However, using Wikipedia as a source is a questionable method, you do know that anyone can make suggestions for changes there?
The link also does not mention anything evidence-based that says something about the connections. Give me something that supports what you're claiming. According to you, there are loads of links and examples.

Since it was a page you referenced yourself, I used the same one.
I do not doubt that there are "loads of links" that show a connection between smoking, asbestos, and asbestos-related diseases. But I have not claimed that.

Listen to the P3:documentary you mentioned again, and you will hear that they also point out the connection between smoking and asbestos lung, and we're not talking about a bit of dust under a windowsill, but decades of daily exposure in a constant asbestos haze.

Staffan

 

[KnockOnWood]

if during cleaning you often find gravel and dust under the windowsills, that's enough for one to claim sufficient reason without stubborn insistence

How do you actually clean?
And what do you have on the windowsills?
Maybe earthy, sandy pots with flowers and other herbs/plants.

Because I find it hard to believe that dust and gravel rain down from the bench's screw fittings.
There is no reason for that to happen, otherwise, the windowsills would loosen and fall to the floor.

 

[Jimmy Andeblom]

How do you actually clean?
And what do you have on the window sills?
Maybe earthy, sandy pots with flowers and other herbs/plants.

Because I find it hard to believe that dust and gravel rain down from the benches' attachments with screws.
There's no reason it would happen; the window sills would come loose and fall to the floor.

It's not very difficult to explain, and the reason it was the worst was that there was a door right next to it that caused it to rattle. 30 years of rattling creates some crumbs.