Busy Mr Trump

lol about that bridge…i never got your bid.

Busy Mr Trump…and his administration is busy revising old rules and bans. He is now considering using asbestos again.
In his book he apparently says that it is “100% safe once applied”…yeah? So not safe for those who produce, transport, and work with it then, but no hazard to those who sit in boardrooms.

Check your own preferred browsers for info on what the “stable genius” is considering now.

its been known for decades that it is the fibers that are dangerous. Once it is in a solid form there is no issue. Take proper precautions and the risk is eliminated.

or do you want to ban flour mills? The production of that is far more dangerous and expensive. Same with custard powder and all sorts of things.

In one sense, everything is safe if handled correctly. But as you also suggest nothing is safe if handled incorrectly..
Which gets us nowhere.

ASbestos after it is installed in a building is OK. But during mining, production, trnsport, fitting manintence accidental damage, demoloition, etc is an increased risk. And since alternatives exist to asbestos, those risks can be reduced or eliminated.

Really?
5,000 asbestos related deaths in UK 2024. How many deaths do you reckon were from flour?

probably none because it is manufactured in a safe way with spark arresters and all the other cobblers. A quick google says that 400-500 grain processing plants (flour mills) explode every year

those 5,000 deaths wernt from dealing with asbestos in 2024 they were from dealing with it 20+ years ago.

i know of a first war army hut that was moved in around 1922 the walls were made of asbestos it stood at the bottom of the llyn peninsular getting battered with salt air for nearly 90 years plus however long the army used it. The only thing that decomposed was 20 quids worth of roofing felt blew off in a storm.

when it was demolished 2 guys came in with suits and masks and bagged it up and took it away. no fuss no drama no kittens were harmed

Poor effort Frangers :smile:

Looks like he is on a mission to overturn every piece of Biden Legislation. The particular form of asbestos under concen is Chrysotile Asbestos.

From the EPA Press Release in March 2024

"Chrysotile asbestos is found in products including asbestos diaphragms, sheet gaskets, brake blocks, aftermarket automotive brakes/linings, other vehicle friction products, and other gaskets. "

“The chlor-alkali sector uses asbestos diaphragms to make sodium hydroxide and chlorine, a critical use of which is to disinfect drinking water and wastewater. There are other ways to disinfect water and other ways to produce chlorine; in fact, two-thirds of the chlorine produced in the U.S. is produced without using asbestos. While there are only eight chlor-alkali plants in the United States that still use asbestos diaphragms, EPA must still ensure that the eight facilities have a reasonable transition time for the phase out of asbestos that does not inadvertently adversely impact drinking or wastewater purification efforts.”

“EPA is banning the import of asbestos for chlor-alkali use immediately to close the door forever on the use of asbestos by this sector. The eight remaining facilities that use asbestos must transition to either non-asbestos diaphragms or to non-asbestos membrane technology, and the final rule ensures that six of the eight will have completed this transition within five years, with the remaining two to follow.”

As far as householders in this country are concerned it is the degradation of roofing tiles containing asbestos on their property which is likely to be a worry.

As you pointed out, damage and harm from asbestos exposure will become apparent years later, not on the day of exposure.

Asbestos is here with us. Accidental creation of dust and fibres is a constant risk. So is the risk of fibres by incorrect handling etc.
Why increase that risk by producing more when alternatives to asbestos are available?
Apart from profit, why avoid the safer products?

Yes it looks that way.

Wow ! A picture of Trump smiling.
An absolute logical tour de force and an irrefutable argument for…? ?something I suppose? .

handle it correctly and it is fine for 100’s of years. As you your self agreed it is only dangerous when handled or used incorrectly.

should we go round and distroy all crops of belladona (deadly nightshade) or heres one… how about tobbacco or how about bricks we can build with sticks and mud or have bedouin tents

asbestos is an excelent insulator it lasts. there is nothing else like it on the market. All these insulators that have come on the market to replace it have been proven with time to cause more damage.

Yes. Equally true of uranium, dynamite, handguns and knives.

Risk is not an absolute, it is relative.
Asbestos poses an unnecessary risk because safer alternatives exist.

Interesting. So where is this proof that alternatives are more damaging please?

heard of grenfell?
heard of all the pollution caused from creating and recycling and disposing of polystyrene
heard of all the houses that are making people sick due to an inadequate air flow so mold and other things grow?

i can go on if you wish

most people cant get hold of uranium and has tremendous benefits in nuclear medicine. same with dynamite. guns have their use having grown up next to a farm there are all sorts of pests that need to be controlled properly rather than donning a silly top hat and red coat tails chasing the poor fox for miles till it cant run any further and gets torn apart by dogs.

tell you what i know you will like this one… what we will do is import a load of people that rush round stabbing and shooting one another and to stop them we will ban all knifes and guns. that way the indigenous people will die out because they wont be able to use them for what they are intended. any sensible person doesn’t cry and shout ban knives they shout jail the criminal.

if someone is too thick to understand they shouldn’t play with asbestos or teach their kids they shouldn’t then that is their look out.

Yes.
70 people died 8 years ago. 5,000 are dying every year because of past use of asbestos.

No one has said that alternatives to asbestos are zero risk.

You have claimed that alternatives are worse. Where is the evidence for that?

and there is more than 34,000 house fires a year in the uk alone. not just one that only made the news because it was full of non english majority of which were here illegaly

go get ya grandchild to explain this to you. ts really this simple… people die of asbestosis because 30-50 years they handled it incorrectly because the slight dangers were not known at the time.

It is a safe product if handled correctly

children that grow up in these poorly ventilated buildings with all the modern alternatives are getting sick now. need treatment now.. not 30 years time

is that clear enough now… or is it a case of if starmer said it thats ok but trump has said it so it must be bad…

I take it that you have the evidence to support that claim. Fine if it’s true but if not then it’s (in my opinion) quite scurrilous.

if you could get your hands on 166,000 in compensation and all you had to do was show you had a right to live there wouldnt you do it… yet the majority didnt because of “legal complexity”

even one of the council do gooders in the area said that they may be too frightened to come forward incase they are deported.

According to a friend who lives nearby it was an open secret Dennis. Of course he said/she said doesn’t cut the mustard with certain people, but quite frankly their opinions don’t matter.

Just asking about the veracity of the statement Maoster as I wasn’t aware of this. I like to consider myself as open minded on things like this, and indeed on most things, and try not to make knee jerk reactions. Interesting what you say though but that doesn’t necessarily translate into all, or any, of them being here illegally. I remember at the time it being mooted that a lot of the leaseholders/renters (whatever the arrangement was) had sub-let their flats in breach of the tenancy agreements they had. Perhaps that’s why so many people who could have claimed compensation were unable or unwilling to do so as it would expose them to breaking some rules or laws. Whatever the arrangement was it was a tragic outcome.