Hacker News Reader

Comment by aresant | Hacker News Reader

Build on this even in 1942, just prior to the discovery of the link to Mesothelioma, we were busily figuring out every use case we could for asbestos - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC8L8ooBSgQ&t=1m8s

Despite the recognition of Mesothelioma in the early 1900s it took almost 40 years to associate the disease with Asbestos.

My understanding is that this was due to the 10 - 40 year average post exposure timeline for Mesothelioma to show up.

If Asbestos was discovered today would our contemporary understanding of materials science & safety prevent us from spinning up factories and use cases like this?

(1) https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/asbestosis/sy...

View on HN

At least we think about it. The miracle material, graphene, has properties that could potentially cause problems when breathed in [0]. So at least we know what to look for and can mitigate.

That said, who knows what other material might come about that causes problems 40 years later in a different way. We will learn when it comes but at least we’re starting to be more aware of potential problems.

[0] https://www.materialstoday.com/carbon/articles/s136970211270...

Somewhat related: carbon nanotubes have been shown to cause mesothelioma, just like asbestos

That sounds amazing and seems like a huge set-back to certain envisioned application areas of carbon nanotubes. Do you have a link to a study?

Here you are: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4243371/

Interesting thanks.

If this guy is to be believed, asbestos and other "amphiboles" are different from nanotubes insofar as they have small metal/iron content, which you can imagine reacting with oxygen in the lungs in a harmful way that something made from pure carbon may not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuHL7hiFTnc

Now, on the other hand, if those carbon nanotube particles were all as sharp as tiny diamonds, you could imagine them being pretty bad to inhale.

If you really want to freak out - think xenoestrogens.

If we know that certain materials have certain negative repercussions, can we extrapolate any of that learning to new materials to see if they have similar properties?

That is why it is safe to chew on pencils but not putting them too deeply into your nose.

Could be though, finding materials that are believed to be harmless and turn out deadly a lot later seems to occur quite regularly.

The crazy thing is that Pliny and Strabo were writing about the effects asbestos had on the slaves that processed it, ~2000 years ago.

This sounded interesting so I looked it up; it seems it might be a popular misconception?

> The term asbestos is traceable to Roman naturalist Pliny the Elder's manuscript Natural History and his use of the term asbestinon, meaning "unquenchable". While Pliny or his nephew Pliny the Younger is popularly credited with recognising the detrimental effects of asbestos on human beings, examination of the primary sources reveals no support for either claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos#Early_uses

I've found many references to Pliny and Strabo around the web, but as the Wikipedia fragment implies yet no actual quotation about its dangers. It seems like a very specific myth to just come up though; my interest remains. Do let me know if you know more about this.

De re Metallica 1500's on the other hand mentions dangers to workers and environmental harm that mining caused. I've also seen references to the Romans banning lead smelting in Italy. Better to force slaves to do that work at the fringes of the empire than give up productive farmland close to Rome.

> De re Metallica 1500's on the other hand

Er, auto-correct error?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_re_metallica was published in 1556, but there do seem to be words missing from that sentence somewhere.

Or punctuation:

De re Metallica (1500s), on the other hand, mentions [the] dangers to workers and environmental harm that mining caused.

Thank you, being unfamiliar with that work, I couldn't parse that sentence.

Sorry should have included a link.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38015/38015-h/38015-h.htm

Scroll down to page 9 and you find:

"But besides this, the strongest argument of the detractors is that the fields are devastated by mining operations, for which reason formerly Italians were warned by law that no one should dig the earth for metals and so injure their very fertile fields, their vineyards, and their olive groves. Also they argue that the woods and groves are cut down, for there is need of an endless amount of wood for timbers, machines, and the smelting of metals. And when the woods and groves are felled, then are exterminated the beasts and birds, very many of which furnish a pleasant and agreeable food for man. Further, when the ores are washed, the water which has been used poisons the brooks and streams, and either destroys the fish or drives them away."

>> If Asbestos was discovered today...

I don't think it would. Asbestos is a totally natural product. It would probably bypass many of our testing standards.

I don't like it, but I think I agree with you. Examples that come to mind include the use of copper sulphate as a more-or-less unregulated pesticide in organic farms, mutagenic breeding as the "safe and natural" alternative to gene splicing, and a whole host of other natural (and therefore obviously safe and beneficial) practices.

I would disagree. We have a lot more information about the hazards of inhaling fine particles. When I worked in a lab, we were clearly made aware of the need for protection against fine silica (sand).

We may not be aware of the mesothelioma risk, but I would imagine we’d be aware of the hazard of inhaling asbestos particles and avoid exposure.

Remember, having asbestos in your home is not a risk as long as it’s encapsulated. It’s really the mining and manipulation of asbestos that’s the risk.

Disagree. Silica and many types of wood are severe irritants to our respiratory system and also natural.

I think nearly anything that leaves noticeable particulate in the air would get scrutiny, especially if newly discovered.

It would get tagged as an inhalation hazard almost immediately.

We understand silicosis much better than we used to.

There is some concern about carbon fiber and carbon nanotubes, they share some of the physical properties with asbestos fibers. So I do think that we would be on it pretty quickly but whether we would change course before the symptoms appeared is a different matter.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041008X1...

If asbestos was discovered today we'd likely use the hell out of it because we'd know it causes cancer ahead of time and we'd take precautions (like not building it into things likely to release dust) the same way we do with all sorts of crazy molecules that get used in modern chemicals. It would be in your Ove Glove, not in your floor tiles. Tons of people wouldn't get cancer (because we wouldn't release the dust everywhere) and it would never be able to become a BadThing(TM) in the public's mind. It would just be another boring industrial compound nobody knows about. Same goes for lead paint.

If any of the people who disagree would like to share why that would be great.

> It would be in your Ove Glove, not in your floor tiles

Would people buy oven gloves that had to be treated as hazardous waste? You’d likely have to build cost of eventual disposal into the sale price, a la WEEE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Electrical_and_Electroni...

> Same goes for lead paint

Where would you see this being used?

>Would people buy oven gloves that had to be treated as hazardous waste?

You kind of answered your own question with the reference to e-waste. If the product confers some benefit and isn't hazardous in the form in which the users will use it then people will have no problem buying it.

>Where would you see this being used?

Things that very cost sensitive and aren't gonna see much human contact and will almost certainly enter a recycling stream before the paint wears off. 55gal drums come to mind.

Perfectly good oven gloves are already available, though, and they don't have a hazardous waste disposal charge tacked on. You also don't have to call in specialists to decontaminate the kitchen if you damage one.

> Things that very cost sensitive and aren't gonna see much human contact and will almost certainly enter a recycling stream before the paint wears off. 55gal drums come to mind.

People work around those all day. And lead wasn't added to paint to make it cheap, it was added mostly to increase durability. So you probably don't really want it for short-lived products.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com