Whatever it's called. When we talk of 'the risks of exposure to asbestos' it's 'the risks' we are interested in, not the asbestos itself. ;-)
When I took the roof of my old garage I contacted the Council to check what I should do re disposal. They basically told me to leave it where it was not to handle it again and they would send someone to collect it for free.
A closed van turned up and a guy got out and donned a suite, mask and gloves, carefully bagged it all up and took it away (to Bristol or some such, we are in Nth London!).
We were later sent a report that stated that it was 'Corrugated cement fibre with an asbestos content of .2%' (or some such). It may have also mentioned the asbestos type / colour.
People don't understand that. apparently around 70% of cancers are 'just bad luck' But people want certainties where none exist.
Did CFCs cause the ozone hole? Jury is still out...Does the ozone hole matter? Jury is still out. Was banning CFCs a world shattering problem. No. It wasn't. There are alternatives.
So the cost benefit analysis comes down in favour of the band. Its the same with asbestos. You don't actually need to use asbestos for anything so why not ban it.
When it comes to things like creosote and glyphosate, and sodium chlorate however, these are cheap cheerful and pretty harmless things that have been used for years with no noticeable side effects and are to be banned it seems out of ideology or for the purposes of making money out of something else.
Then ones start to asks awkward questions.
And when its down to banning fossil fuels, for which no economic alternative currently exists, on the complete lack of real evidence that they have any adverse effects at all, one gets angry.
Watch 'Dr Mary's Monkey' and you will find that the high count of current cancers came from the 350 million bottles of Polio vaccine of the 50's.
The Ozone hole(not Ozone depletion) was discovered when the Hubble stopped functioning at times. The latest reasoning is, it is caused by the South Atlantic Anomaly.
Now, I'm going to Troll; I was told fibre is good for you?
As I have said earlier, Such as Glyphosate may not appear to do harm. But, it destroys (some of)the bacteria that line the gut. These bacteria convert food(real food, pre 60's)into the forms that strengthen us. Without them out immunity lowers.
The signs may well be ignored as colds and aches, etc. But, the lower the immunity gets the worse conditions become. Scurvy is a fine example of undernourished gut bacteria. And, it is this condition that is a Syndrome of Acquired Immunity Deficiency. Not a disease, a condition.
Being totally untrusting of anything the West produces, yes, many questions. Oh, and because I know many of you will make instant assumptions, I'm White, born and bread Manchester.
After all, if I was to go out and buy a used car would I accept the sellers description? Would I be happy with the results of the 'independent'(smirk) opinions of the sellers choice?
Oh, the alternatives do exist but, as Patents. As a single example; Tesla may have spent the last years of his life in a hotel room deep in depression but, it will not have been choice.
No serious big business wants a smart arse producing something that will drain the business of it's 'life blood'.
Did I misunderstand the line in the previous post to Chris Hogg who replied to my statement to which you added, 'Assume its Prods Weed nymshifting again'?
Scurvy has nothing to do with the gut bacteria. It's caused by a lack of vitamin C, which humans, apes, and guinea pigs cannot synthesise in their bodies (unlike other mammals).
Personally I don't drink glyphosate, so there is no chance of it getting into my gut and damaging gut bacteria.
The trouble with modern testing methods is that they're far too sensitive. Something only has to be 'identified' in something and there's uproar from the usual quarters, regardless of whether the level detected is in any way harmful. From one of those links ?An adult would have to drink around 1,000 liters (264 US gallons) of beer a day to ingest enough quantities to be harmful to health.?
Oh dear! How many people, in this otherwise very informative group, do not realise that without the good germs of the gut, you will die?
Yes, it is caused by lack of vitamins. And, yes, real food provides these vitamins. So what do you think synthesises the food? Simply rubbing 'food' on the outside of the skin will not metabolise to the essential nutrients. It has to be done by other life forms.
How absolutely sure are you that you do not take in Glyphosate? Monsanto, being the people friendly(uninterested in profit) organisation it is, provides enough of the stuff to cover a few continents. In fact, due to their concern for us, they go to the lengths of spending millions persecuting those farmers that would otherwise grow organically. So nice of them!
Look up Corn fed animals. Tests done independent of Monsanto. Kids today are likely to loose teeth at a very early age; develop tumours and, all sorts of allergies. Veg, Meat & fish and, the handling of, these days, is frightening.
While indeed the developed West has some amazing surgery and fixes, if you have a health problem, look to natural remedies found on line and backed up with conformational comments. You will find they give you natural foods as a remedy. The West, on the other hand, will treat you with a refined part of the same which is out of balance and causes all sorts of side effects.
Each of the doctors and nurses do care but, they have to follow the doctrine and PRACTICE they are taught. To see differently and to announce a better method will get you struck off and deemed a quack. After all, it's a business and, as you will be well aware, a cure is not profitable.
So do you use a mobile phone? The scientific evidence as to whether they cause brain tumours is not clear. Do you have mains electric cables in your or your children's bedrooms? The scientific evidence as to whether they might cause health problems is not clear. We could on this basis ban almost everything.
This came from a court case some years ago where a judge determined that there was no minimum exposure level which could be considered safe. That does not mean that a single fibre _will_ kill you. Asbestos follows a pretty standard dose/exposure path. The more you are exposed and the greater the time of exposure the greater the risk. Which is quite fortunate as there are typically 10 asbestos fibres present in a cubic meter of country air. That is about 10 fibres per hour you are breathing. Cities are about 10 times that amount and the London Underground is off the scale.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.