Asbestos is found in products such brake linings and gaskets.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday announced a comprehensive ban on asbestos, a carcinogen that kills tens of thousands of Americans every year but is still used in some chlorine bleach, brake pads and other products.
The final rule marks a major expansion of EPA regulation under a landmark 2016 law that overhauled regulations governing tens of thousands of toxic chemicals in everyday products, from household cleaners to clothing and furniture.
The new rule would ban chrysotile asbestos, the only ongoing use of asbestos in the United States. The substance is found in products such as brake linings and gaskets and is used to manufacture chlorine bleach and sodium hydroxide, also known as caustic soda, including some that is used for water purification.
EPA Administrator Michael Regan called the final rule a major step to protect public health.
“With today’s ban, EPA is finally slamming the door on a chemical so dangerous that it has been banned in over 50 countries,’' Regan said. ”This historic ban is more than 30 years in the making, and it’s thanks to amendments that Congress made in 2016 to fix the Toxic Substances Control Act,’' the main U.S. law governing use of chemicals.
Exposure to asbestos is known to cause lung cancer, mesothelioma and other cancers, and it is linked to more than 40,000 deaths in the U.S. each year. Ending the ongoing uses of asbestos advances the goals of President Joe Biden’s Cancer Moonshot, a whole-of-government initiative to end cancer in the U.S., Regan said.
“The science is clear: Asbestos is a known carcinogen that has severe impacts on public health. This action is just the beginning as we work to protect all American families, workers and communities from toxic chemicals,’' Regan said.
The 2016 law authorized new rules for tens of thousands of toxic chemicals found in everyday products, including substances such as asbestos and trichloroethylene that for decades have been known to cause cancer yet were largely unregulated under federal law. Known as the Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, the law was intended to clear up a hodgepodge of state rules governing chemicals and update the Toxic Substances Control Act, a 1976 law that had remained unchanged for 40 years.
The EPA banned asbestos in 1989, but the rule was largely overturned by a 1991 Court of Appeals decision that weakened the EPA’s authority under TSCA to address risks to human health from asbestos or other existing chemicals. The 2016 law required the EPA to evaluate chemicals and put in place protections against unreasonable risks.
Asbestos, which was once common in home insulation and other products, is banned in more than 50 countries, and its use in the U.S. has been declining for decades. The only form of asbestos known to be currently imported, processed or distributed for use in the U.S. is chrysotile asbestos, which is imported primarily from Brazil and Russia. It is used by the chlor-alkali industry, which produces bleach, caustic soda and other products.
Most consumer products that historically contained chrysotile asbestos have been discontinued.
While chlorine is a commonly used disinfectant in water treatment, there are only eight chlor-alkali plants in the U.S. that still use asbestos diaphragms to produce chlorine and sodium hydroxide. The plants are mostly located in Louisiana and Texas.
The use of asbestos diaphragms has been declining and now accounts for less than one-third of the chlor-alkali production in the U.S., the EPA said.
The EPA rule will ban imports of asbestos for chlor-alkali as soon as the rule is published but will phase in prohibitions on chlor-alkali use over five or more years to provide what the agency called “a reasonable transition period.’'
A ban on most other uses of asbestos will effect in two years.
The National Association of Clean Water Agencies, which represents 350 publicly owned wastewater treatment agencies, said before the final rule was announced that an immediate ban on asbestos would “almost certainly cause shortages and price increases for chlorine and other disinfection and treatment chemicals used by the water sector.’'
The American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry’s largest lobbying group, said a 15-year transition period is needed to avoid a significant disruption of chlorine and sodium hydroxide supplies.
A ban on asbestos in oilfield brake blocks, aftermarket automotive brakes and linings and other gaskets will take effect in six months.
The EPA rule allows asbestos-containing sheet gaskets to be used until 2037 at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site in South Carolina to ensure that safe disposal of nuclear materials can continue on schedule.
Scott Faber, senior vice president of the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy group that pushed to ban asbestos, hailed the EPA action.
“For too long, polluters have been allowed to make, use and release toxics like asbestos and PFAS without regard for our health,’' Faber said. “Thanks to the leadership of the Biden EPA, those days are finally over.”
Separately, the EPA is also evaluating so-called legacy uses of asbestos in older buildings, including schools and industrial sites, to determine possible public health risks. A final risk evaluation is expected by the end of the year.
___
Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at https://apnews.com/hub/us-environmental-protection-agency.
Read the original article
Comments
Mesothelioma from household exposure is very rare, nearly all cases come from industrial exposure, involving chronic exposure to concentrations of airborne particles millions of times higher than you would ever find in a residential setting, even during a renovation that disturbs asbestos.
I looked into this when I discovered some old asbestos paper in my basement that I had abated by professionals (which I always recommend). I was freaking out about my family being exposed to the fibers for years before that, so I went digging for hard numbers. To my surprise, there is almost zero good quantitative data on the risk of mesothelioma from residential asbestos exposure. The best info we have suggests about a doubling of the risk of MM from residential exposure, from about 1 per million person-years to 2.5 per million person years:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2...
> However, the chief interest from this study will be in the more than doubling of risk of mesothelioma in men who had lived in an affected house, compared with unexposed males (SIR 2·54, 95% CI 1·02–5·24). ... The background incidence of mesothelioma without exposure to asbestos is very low (highly age-dependent and roughly one case per million person-years), so any rise would be indicative of previous asbestos exposure
Other studies indicate that home renovations that disturb asbestos could increase the risk by about a factor of 5 from baseline, which sounds high until you realize that it means about 5 per million person-years. The base rate is very low! And there is no such thing as zero exposure to asbestos: there are a couple fibers, on average, in every liter of air you breathe. Everybody is constantly exposed to a very small amount of these fibers, and it's not the case that it gives everybody MM:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7721955/#:~:tex....
So the bottom line is: get your asbestos abated by professionals, but don't freak out if you have been living with the stuff. It's not the same as being an asbestos miner, your risk is higher but still very low.
By riverdroid 2024-03-1914:04 While most mesothelioma (a rare cancer) is known to be caused by asbestos and not other agents, asbestos is known to cause other cancers of the lung, larynx, and ovary, with limited evidence of some other cancers as well.
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/s...
These are more common cancers, and not usually possible to map to a precise cause when they occur.
By gwbas1c 2024-03-1911:20 > nearly all cases come from industrial exposure
That is how my grandfather got mesothelioma. He insulated ships in WWII and didn't have proper protection. He had a rather painful last year of his life.
At this point, I would only allow asbestos when there are no safer alternatives. I didn't know if any cases where asbestos is the only practical option.
While true, domestic use is super problematic and balloons any bill. E.g. our house in germany is from 1968. We where lucky and the builder did not use any asbestos so I could do most renovations myself. If you have asbestos, you need specialized equipment and procedures or involve experts. That is really expensive and can easily double or triple your estimated cost. You can ofc ignore it, but especially with small children it seems ill advised to do so. NTM there are fines if you expose the public.
By Sander_Marechal 2024-03-1914:11 In The Netherlands you can remove asbestos yourself and bring it to the local trash collection and recycling center for free. You do have to get a permit (free, but takes a few days) and follow some simple guidelines for handling and packaging. But, this applies only to private homeowners.
In my case, my house had a facade made of aluminium frames with prefab slabs slotted in. The slabs had a layer of asbestos on the inside. I just slotted the slabs out, packaged them in two layers of plastic and took them to the recycling center.
By speleding 2024-03-198:44 If you involve a specialised removal firm it's super expensive and stalls your project by weeks. I was advised by the builder I could just remove a few plates of asbestos myself, about half a day of work, most of which was spent getting the right plastic bags and then driving them to the correct dump, the actual removal of the asbestos plates took minutes. Used mask etc, but really a single exposure was a very acceptable risk for me to save on cost and time. (There's different types of asbestos, some more dangerous than others, so you should do a bit of research into what you're doing)
By wizerdrobe 2024-03-199:33 Meanwhile in America I am allowed to self-remove asbestos as a homeowner no verifications required. Whereas a commercial builder is required to have certifications.
Another “fun fact,” when the asbestos ban went into place builders were still allowed to use any remaining stock they held in their warehouses. No new product could be purchased. So homes could still be built years later with a now banned substance.
Fascinating bit of law there.
> Mesothelioma from household exposure is very rare
> To my surprise, there is almost zero good quantitative data on the risk of mesothelioma from residential asbestos exposure
Love it when comments state something so confidently, yet contradict themselves a few sentences later
By zachmu 2024-03-194:44 Rare but difficult to precisely quantify.
We know the rate of mesothelioma in people with no known occupational exposure, but we have very little quantitative data about how much a given amount of asbestos exposure might increase one's risk. The disease takes decades to develop after exposure.
By YeBanKo 2024-03-198:34 I think the point that are trying to make is that if it was more common, it would be noticeable and more quantifiable. Otherwise, most of the cases seems to have been tracked to industrial exposure.
Deducing that something is rare from limited evidence is really easy. If there is no good evidence regarding something, that default position should be that the thing is rare.
There’s a handy cliche: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In concrete terms a zero is different from a missing value.
By roenxi 2024-03-200:10 The cliche is wrong. The absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Not conclusive evidence.
There are an infinite number of things that don't exist and that we don't have any evidence of. It is nice if we can positively disprove them, but that is not necessary to justify disbelief.
My parents house (in the EU) was covered in plates of asbestos. As far as I know it only is dangerous when you install / remove it as these plates break and release chemicals to the air. I’m no expert though.
By sdwr 2024-03-1915:30 I believe the interaction with asbestos is material, not chemical. It breaks into tiny shards that are light enough to breathe, and sharp enough to cut up your lungs.
Which is why a single exposure will damage your lungs, but it takes lots of cycles of damage and repair to chance into getting cancer.
By pcchristie 2024-03-194:23 This is really interesting, thanks.
By happytiger 2024-03-1821:514 reply Leading the world in protecting Americans by following the lead of more than 50 countries. That’s my EPA. Good job!
In July 1989 the EPA issued the Asbestos Ban and Phase-Out Rule, which would have been a total ban on asbestos. The incredibly conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 1991 that ban was invalid in Corrosion Proof Fittings v. Environmental Protection Agency, because the EPA failed to show that it was the "least burdensome alternative" in regulating asbestos. The George HW Bush administration chose not to appeal the ruling.
Over the past three decades the EPA believes it has finally done the work to show that this ban is the "least burdensome alternative," but there is no guarantee that the courts will agree this time either. The politicization of the judiciary is not new, certainly, but seems to have gotten worse over the past three decades.
According to the article, this ban is "thanks to amendments that Congress made in 2016 to fix the Toxic Substances Control Act".
Wouldn't a change in law override the judges? (Unless the judges based their ruling on the constitution, which doesn't sound like the case here.)
By happytiger 2024-03-1921:24 To be clear, hell yea it would.
By sidewndr46 2024-03-192:58 In this case, likely yes
> 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
Ah yes. Well-known for its general view that the United States is a diktat-by-judge, and that mere laws are irrelevant.
By EasyMark 2024-03-194:54 The 5th circuit has become a joke over the past decade or so. I'm sure all the other circuits refer to it as a way on how not to conduct themselves.
By hackernewds 2024-03-197:52 what the hell is wrong with specifically the 5th Circuit Court? they're in the news now too because the SC is fed up with their right leaning rules
yeah, we vote in people, regularly, whose mission it is to dismantle the EPA/FDA/CDC/etc. in the name of "progress"
The basic premise of political conservatism is not progress, it is literally to “conserve” the current status or restore the recent past.
Isn’t the basic premise of political conservatism is to minimize public intrusion in private lives? Conserving the primacy of the individual rather than the collective?
With any global term/movement there will be variations, but it generally started with support for maintaining monarchy and aristocracy.
2 points to make on that:
1) "Conservatism" these days would arguably be a US phenomenon as leading democracy in the Anglophone world. They certainly didn't get started supporting a monarchy.
2) And it is really interesting to note that, while I think monarchies are stupid, it was a remarkably good strategy. As far as I know (my history might be about to betray me) the UK didn't have an equivalent of the Terror after the French revolution or the period where the French killed off people like Lavoisier. To say nothing of the debacles in places like Russia (Communists) or Germany (Nazis) when they moved away from monarchism.
The UK probably should get rid of the King; but in hindsight a slow transition is arguably the cleverer path. It is a complex topic; the aristocrats in Europe are systematically underwhelming.
By gattilorenz 2024-03-197:151 reply Italy and Spain kept their king while being a fascist and sort-of-fascist country respectively, so I’m not sure the theory is correct.
The UK didn’t have the Terror, but afaik it did have at least a civil war because of the monarchy, a few centuries ago.
Rather than the monarchy in itself, I suspect it’s the monarch(s) that make it or break it…
By fuzztester 2024-03-199:381 reply >The UK didn’t have the Terror, but afaik it did have at least a civil war because of the monarchy, a few centuries ago.
Cromwell.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell
By lokar 2024-03-1914:32 Yeah, ask an English catholic…
At this point its hard to understand the premise of conservatism. It seems to just be outrage and pretty much anything and everything.
I'll avoid suggesting the root is racism, but more and more its becoming harder to do that. Between the pretty blatant racist rants of the leader, to the embrace of far-right fundamentalists, it seems like a common thread.
As for public intrusion of private lives, even that seems hazy. Where does public intrusion end and private life start? For example are private medical choices a matter of public policy? Are the choices about which books to read at the library public or private?
In a two party system many voters can be left without a home when their preferred party swings off in a different direction. And while no voter is going to always be happy with their chosen group, the risk of homelessness goes up as the preferred choice swings away from traditional premises.
For many conservatives (small c) the current direction of Conservative Leaders (big C) is not ok. But changing allegiance is mentally traumatic.
I think your premise can be both accurate, and currently invalid. It sure doesn't seem like "minimal public intrusion" right now. If you had to decide which party represents "live and let live", which party wants personal freedoms, which party prioritizes individual choices, well, I'd argue it's not the nominally "conservative" one.
I concur with everything you said, and to be clear, I wasn’t specifically referring to big C Conservatives, GOP or otherwise, which I agree are straying from small c conservative values. I was referring specifically to political conservatism which I understood to be about minimal intrusion in private affairs. It would appear no mainstream political parties still stand for this.
By bruce511 2024-03-195:12 Im thinking Libitarianism is perhaps more into "individual freedoms" than conservatism, but there's certainly overlap.
If I had to put a fence around it, I'd suggest the root of conservatism is more "govt working in the interests of the rich/aristocracy/establishment." The "people in power before there was a vote".
Charitably described as "keep things the way they are", or less charitably as "return to when our group had riches and power".
So "labor" is getting govt to work for the masses, "conservative" us getting govt to work for those already established, and libitarianism is scaling govt back, and letting people do whatever they like.
Political parties try and be all things to all men.
In some countries (where there are more than two parties) there's more likely to be different parties to cover these bases.
By Georgelemental 2024-03-195:452 reply No, that's libertarianism. Libertarianism and conservatism often overlap, especially in the US (which has a long tradition of limited gov't to conserve), but are not the same thing.
As a self-identified conservative, if I had to give as short a summary as possible of what it means to me: we (US, other developed nations) have a pretty good thing going. The least well off 10% here live better lives than the top 10% of a large number of places. That didn't happen by magic or accident, it happened because the people who preceded ud, over centuries of history, made some very good choices. We should figure out what they did right, and then keep doing it.
By yau8edq12i 2024-03-197:131 reply > The least well off 10% here live better lives than the top 10% of a large number of places.
You're absolutely blind if you think that. Tell me, in what place do the top 10% live worse life than the bottom 10% in the USA? Keep in mind, the bottom decile of income in the USA is $10k/year - think about how a person that earns that lives.
By Georgelemental 2024-03-1920:111 reply > the bottom decile of income in the USA is $10k/year
That's before taxes and transfers. It's much more than that once you account for them.
Meanwhile, around 50% of the world's households make less than $10,000/yr: https://news.gallup.com/poll/166211/worldwide-median-househo...
By yau8edq12i 2024-03-2014:11 1. Now try to figure out how well people can live on $10k a year in most places.
2. We're talking about comparing with the top 10%. Try to follow the context before replying.
By YeGoblynQueenne 2024-03-1910:441 reply >> We should figure out what they did right, and then keep doing it.
Slavery, settler colonialism modulo a bit of indigenous genocide, toppling democracies and supporting dictators all over the place, exploiting the natural world until it cried "mommy" and then keeping at it until we now have a gigantic environmental and climate crisis, and let's not forget investing more than anyone else on the world's most powerful military which was then used to invade agrarian societies armed with their grandparents' hand-me-down pea-shooters, and of course dropping two atom bombs and killing a couple hundred civilians in one of the worst atrocities of the worst war in history just to show who's boss.
etc etc etc.
Edit: as a matter of fact, the US did get something very right that everyone else keeps getting wrong: it invested in human capital by keeping its borders relatively open during at least some periods of time, so that people could keep coming in that eventually became the most dynamic sections of society. Very few others have done that, and almost nobody got it as right as the US. And yet, it is the "conservatives" today in the US that try their damnedest to kick the door shut against the windfall of human capital that keeps dropping in their lap, even as they keep outsourcing the US' most productive industries to one of its biggest competitors, China. That's not conservative, it's reactionary and completely idiotic to boot.
>and of course dropping two atom bombs and killing a couple hundred civilians in one of the worst atrocities of the worst war in history just to show who's boss.
It'd be helpful if you read about historical events before adopting an opinion on them:
https://www.amazon.com/Hell-Pay-Operation-Downfall-Invasion/...
By YeGoblynQueenne 2024-03-1923:352 reply I read the blurb on the page you linked me to and I don't understand why you say that. Could you please clarify why you linked me to that book so I don't have to guess?
By happytiger 2024-03-201:48 It’s quite easy to get a summary of a book. Open minds create futures.
By YeGoblynQueenne 2024-03-2015:12 I said a few things, as you quoted from my comment:
>and of course dropping two atom bombs and killing a couple hundred civilians in one of the worst atrocities of the worst war in history just to show who's boss.
Is the book saying that:
a) two atom bombs were not dropped,
b) that they didn't kill a couple hundred civilians,
c) that it wasn't one of the worst atrocities in WWII,
d) that WWII was not one of the worst wars in history, or
e) that it didn't show how's boss?
or all of the above? To be honest I can't see any of the points above discussed in the summary of the book on Amazon. Explain?
By pastacacioepepe 2024-03-1913:22 [dead]
By nojustNo 2024-03-191:36 [flagged]
By waveBidder 2024-03-190:481 reply Establishment Democrats and Republicans are the conservative parties in this sense. Tea party and their anarcho-capitalist descendants aren't really conservative.
By boplicity 2024-03-191:04 Either party is not a monolith -- this has become increasingly clear. We can and should support candidates in primaries who are more aligned with us.
By notfed 2024-03-192:34 I suspect that a lot of people who say they want to do this have a delusion that at some point in the past the whole country/world was aligned with the fantasy envisioned in their head.
Not sure what purpose the snark serves – the way you phrased your comment seems to imply someone involved claimed they are "leading the world", but that isn't the case.
By spiderfarmer 2024-03-1822:433 reply He’s making fun of the fact that a majority of the US population assumes the US is leading in, quite simply, any area.
I don't think that majority assumes that.
Quite contrary, majority believes US falls back behind on almost everything (as it should be statistically).
You're right, if you include people living outside the US. To those outside its easy to see the flaws.
But I belive the original snark, and explanation, wete referring to the majority of people living inside the US. From that perspective there's an implicit understanding that the US leads the way (in every field) and their approach to society is best (in all contexts.)
This is of course evidenced by the number of people who desire to live there, and hence the immigration issues. (Immigration issues being a uniquely US phenomenon.)
By ninjanomnom 2024-03-197:58 I'd wager the majority inside the US knows that it's behind in many fields but don't know exactly which ones. We learn to disregard people speaking blanket praise but don't learn enough about other countries from our media and schooling to argue against them. From the outside then this looks like most of our population thinks we're the best in every respect, but on the inside there's a very large and growing sentiment of dissatisfaction and pessimism.
By deepsun 2024-03-1919:26 No, I mean exactly US residents.
I live in US. I keep hearing stories how everything is better in Europe (they tend to cherry-pick good stories from different EU countries). The only areas where we get a consensus that US leads the way are probably gun rights and large pickup-trucks.
By lukas099 2024-03-197:44 [dead]
By eyelidlessness 2024-03-191:221 reply Their usage of “any” is clearly different than yours: “any [and all]” versus “any [at all]”.
Their usage is improper. If that was their intention, it should have read “every area”.
By eyelidlessness 2024-03-193:041 reply Their usage is fine, and I couldn’t have imagined interpreting it any other way until I saw your misunderstanding. But if you’re more interested in correcting arbitrary grammar rules than gaining a better understanding of the conversation you joined, that’s my cue to drop it and go do something better with my time.
By pb7 2024-03-1916:31 It's not my misunderstanding, it's their inability to communicate clearly. I already explained why it's wrong so there's nothing to understand.
Is he making fun of the actual fact or just the majority of the US population? If it's the latter, wouldn't it be more worthwhile to make fun of whatever institutions cause them to believe this simple flattery?
Trying to nudge the conversation into a more productive direction than misleading snark. First rule[1] of the HN comment guidelines.
Yet regardless of your nudging, the conversation moved into a productive and importantly curious discussion, which is one of the most important things when it comes to HN comment sections.
By fastball 2024-03-205:26 How do you know it is regardless of my nudging?
By hexo 2024-03-190:25 This helps nothing and you started whining about it.
The US is actually the leader here, but typical of the discourse on HN, people love to promote their own ideas above facts.
This ban eliminates immediately all use in the US, including chlorine plants.
The 2005 EU “ban” on asbestos has an exception for chlorine plants. This will eventually be phased out in 1 July 2025.
Jeeze EU, get with the times! Why does the US have to demonstrate the right path before you take it? /s
https://chemycal.com/news/e6b71d43-1892-454c-80a9-740207f556...
By naet 2024-03-194:59 The new ban does not immediately eliminate all use in the US, it allows up to twelve years from now (depending on number of facilities) for companies to phase out their usage, including chlorine plants.
Australia also probably has some of the worst deployments of asbestos in the developed world. Drive around even nice neighborhoods in Sydney and you’ll see plenty of cracking and breaking “fibro”, a cement asbestos sheet. Canberra is full of asbestos. They had to completely remove an asbestos mining town (Wittenoom) from the map because it was so contaminated.
There is a ton of asbestos currently in Australian households. Plenty of aussies drink water collected in tanks off of asbestos cement roofs.
Yes - unfortunately we have a lot of leftover usages of asbestos.
Historically, it was used a lot. My father even remembers playing around in the bush as a kid, and using asbestos for chalk a bunch of time to mark stuff on trees. My friends dad also remembers coming home covered in asbestos after work a bunch of times too.
I'm not sure I agree with your assessment about seeing asbestos in nice neighbourhoods. It depends how you define nice.
Asbestos was banned in 2003,but hasn't been used in housing since the 80s, so it's only going to be in older developments that you'll really encounter it.
Your wording regarding "plenty of Aussies" is also unclear to me. The numbers as a percentage are going to be very low, but it undoubtedly is a thing.
By stevejb 2024-03-1915:06 I was visiting a relative in their $3M+ house in Bronte and saw plenty of it. Not in the front facades of the homes, but drive through the back alleys, and you can spot some in < 1 min. I remember an uncle there who's neighbor had a fibro cement mail box which was built into some stone work.
I agree my usage of "plenty" was more in absolute terms. It is probably thousands to tens of thousands, which is small in percentage terms. I also spent a lot of time on Australian farms, and they have lots of asbestos sheets buried in places. Most farmers would rather pile it up or bury it then pay the costs of having it removed properly.
By happytiger 2024-03-201:50 We’re both wrong. Apparently Australia is the actual leader.
Not that I care about downvotes, but it’s interesting that posting actual facts, correcting a highly upvoted false comment, gets you down-votes.
By KingOfCoders 2024-03-197:187 reply Sometimes the US is suprising to me. The EU has done that 2005, getting 25 countries on board. Germany in 1993.
Then again, in a free market, why regulate at all? I understand the regulation in the EU, but with all the free market fundamentalism, why is the US regulating this? Shouldn't people decide if they want to buy stuff with asbestos or live in an asbestos home? Or get a job with asbestos exposure?
If you believe in free market fundamentalism, why regulate anything? Just label things.
By savanaly 2024-03-1915:52 Are you trolling, or what? The US has mountains and mountains of regulations about every possible thing. You can't even receive money to cut someone's hair without a certification. Just because other countries have yet more doesn't mean it's surprising that one more thing is banned.
Can’t tell whether this is ironic or not.
In case it isn’t: the US has the best politicians money can buy.
So things that are bad for the general public but good for a certain minority of wealthy individuals take longer to take effect than in other countries. But most eventually do pass.
EPA isn't run by politicians but by normal workers also known as buerocrates.
By wholinator2 2024-03-1911:31 While I'm no expert, I'm under the impression that the leadership of most 3 letter agencies can participate in the "revolving door", where bought and paid for politicians can extend their own benefits and the benefits to their owners by taking high paid, leadership roles in certain agencies. This leads to most agencies having the same kind of "is someone paying me not to do this" culture around actually fixing things.
If government isn’t protecting the people it represents, why have one?
It's not like the people are asked, or have a choice on the matter of having a government
By the_other 2024-03-2212:48 Lots of things pre-date their users: plates, wheels, farming, aeroplanes. The lack of choice in the matter isn’t in itself a reason to discount the phenomenon. The nature of the phenomenon is more important. In the case of government (or lack), its nature should inform its form and behaviour.
My earlier point was more like “what is this government doing if not looking after those it represents?” If its not doing as it should, we should change it.
(I’m open to ideas of anarchistic self determination. Most “good” implementations seem to have some form of coalition and/or committee-with-sphere-of-responsibility which looks like government if you squint so I’m a bit hazy how you do it. Happy to learn)
By hadlock 2024-03-1916:54 Asbestos is a wonder material, and insanely cheap. They put it in everything from roads to siding for homes to insulation for ventilation ducts, and everything inbetween. And it's "totally safe" for these purposes - so long as it is never touched again. Once a housing siding tile is cracked or broken by say, a baseball, it degrades and starts being released into the local environment.
So you have a highly toxic material, but it's encapsulated and totally safe for 30 years, well past the average age of home ownership. "It's somebody elses problem"! So the result is, every house built in 1940-1970 has asbestos in it, and while their children weren't directly exposed to asbestos, now it is breaking down and our generation (and future generations, asbestos sticks around for a very, very long time - that's part of it's "wonder material" story) now have to deal with the problem.
So yes, just label it "hey this stuff is crazy toxic, but not for your family, and not the family after, so there's no risk to you, and no economic downside since it won't impact your property value" so it ends up being purchased as both the best and cheapest building material, but now you're building 250,000 houses that double as toxic waste dumps for future generations
Just labeling asbestos as toxic and letting the market decide, in this specific situation, is peak boomerism.
> If you believe in free market fundamentalism, why regulate anything? Just label things.
I'll answer like you're not sarcastic.
In the free market, things won't be labeled. Why? "Just don't buy the products without labels!". What if 100% of the available products isn't labelled, because you have no one in position of power (those who sell those products or houses) that benefits from it. You have to buy homes anyway, it's not something you can skip.
Also, realistically, no actor in the free market has 100% of the knowledge in existence at any moment. Some (and probably most TBH) people will not know that asbestos is carcinogen.
Now, I believe you were sarcastic, because I can't think you imagined that there are no power dynamics at play.
By KingOfCoders 2024-03-1912:143 reply I'm not sarcastic, why would I? I really don't understand how you can be for free market fundamentalism and for regulation of asbestos at the same time.
From watching the US from the outside and from several visits, it looks like a huge amount of people in the US are free market fundamentalists. People did label me socialist for suggesting market regulation.
You're right. I haven't thought that one through.
Consumers could band together and pay labs for lists of products, or subscribe to a labeling service.
Or if there is a market, companies will label their products for a segment.
(If it isn't clear, I'm no free market fundementalist)
By xzjis 2024-03-1917:22 People in favor of the most free market possible will always blame individuals for making bad choices. You're in a bad health, because you're overweight? It's your fault.
But I don't believe in that. I believe it's structures fault. I believe that there are already people who are more powerful than others, because they're shareholders, they already have money or their parents do, they own physical properties such as lands or houses, etc. And those people in power, if you make the market even more free, they will just increase the power they have over others. Some other will randomly (because they're lucky) also aquire wealth sometimes, and become more powerful, but it's highly unlikely according to many scientific studies.
And I didn't even talk about other kind of things that can lead to more inequalities, such as the skin color, your gender, whether you're trans or not, etc. It has been shown (in the US) that even well born black people are disavantaged at school compared to white people. So being rich alone isn't enough. You just have to check the top 10 of richest people in the world, and see how similar they are: cis, white, men.
So that's where I believe they're wrong: the "free market" isn't free (or as they say meritocratic) if you don't first do a big reset, and make everyone equal first. Which can't happen realistically.
By lobsterthief 2024-03-1915:031 reply > From watching the US from the outside and from several visits, it looks like a huge amount of people in the US are free market fundamentalists. People did label me socialist for suggesting market regulation.
Honestly there’s a very loud vocal minority here on things like this. Most people in the US are not free market fundamentalists.
There are still things sold in the US that are harmful for you. Look at cigarettes. Smoking in the US is at an all-time low; part of that is e-cigarettes, but a large part is the constant education and reminders here that it’s bad for you. If it were up to the free market, as it used to be, cigarette manufacturers would not label their products at all. That’s what they used to do, and far more people smoked back then—sans forced education and labeling.
By isleyaardvark 2024-03-1915:42 And the so-called free market fundamentalists rarely follow free market principles.
By specialist 2024-03-1915:521 reply Yes and:
Open markets require rules. And some referees.
Fair rules and impartial referees are anathema to the plantation class. They prefer incumbency protection enforced by the government at the expense of everyone else.
Regulation is a scary word for rules.
Socialism is a scary word for collective action.
"Free markets" is doublespeak for might makes right; with the "freedom" to act without consequences.
By veson 2024-03-3017:37 Hey. I'm sorry for bothering you in this thread. I found your old comment about your business processes built around literate programming and I can't reply there: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35988792
Is this approach documented anywhere? Honestly, this would be a cool blog post. I'd love to know more. I use org-mode for literate programming, but jupiter would do as well I guess.
So, my question is more about the business side of it.
By blitzar 2024-03-197:28 Forcing companies to label things is government over-reach.
By hackernewds 2024-03-197:502 reply [flagged]
And this isn't even limited to Biden. The Trump presidency enacted a variety of protectionist measures.
Protections is not the same as buying votes by paying off someones student debt with tax payers money.
By TechnicalVault 2024-03-1913:24 Protectionism buys campaign contributions for your next election. All those companies whose market is protected by a tariff suddenly magically decide to contribute to the politician they asked nicely for it at the next election or they find he flip flops on it.
By cqqxo4zV46cp 2024-03-199:41 You could classify any government action that actually benefits people as “buying votes”. This a thought-terminating do-nothing argument.
By specialist 2024-03-1915:54 Should governments not set policy backed with incentives?
