The Wonderful Uses of Asbestos (1942) [video]
youtube.com
youtube.com
Capital owners and governments could conceivably have used the substance in a responsible way without exposing workers and consumers to additional risk, but it would probably have lowered their appetite for spreading it all over the environment if they had borne the costs upfront.
Considering that they used to make vehicle brake linings out of the rotten stuff until the late 20th century, it’s clear that no such attempts were made. Even though the first documented death was in 1906.
I have a set of 1927 Arthur Mee encyclopeadia and it lists every single Asbestos related disease in detail.
We had knit asbestos gloves at our house when I was young, and chunks of chrysotile you could just peel for hours as a distraction. It had many wonderful uses.
Like mercury for poor people
I didn't realize that humanity has been using it for so long.
In Italy (where I'm from) it's called Amianto, but also Eternit, the name of a Swiss company that used to produce it. There was a big scandal and a lawsuit in the 80s against that company, and then the Asbestos was banned from use. [0]
[0]: https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/lawsuit-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola
> The drink's name refers to two of its original ingredients: coca leaves, and kola nuts (a source of caffeine).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca
> Coca is known for its psychoactive alkaloid, cocaine.
The short answer is the cocaine is used for medicine.
Didn't die, or anything, just as much as nearly all ex-USSR states population. That stuff was everywhere there.
I believe the stuff is largely benign depending on asbestos having larger fiber sizes, and being weathered, or painted over.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/october-2020-talc-lawsu...
I never understood why one might use talc over, say, chalk or corn starch.
https://www.wired.com/2014/08/fantastically-wrong-homicidal-...
I first learned about this doing background reading of _Fahrenheit 451_ where the firemen's logo is the burning salamander as well as their fire truck being called a salamander.
http://self.gutenberg.org/eBooks/WPLBN0100000519-Fahrenheit-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legendary_salamander_in_popula...
There's also a popular cooking appliance used in commercial kitchens which is basically a stand-alone broiler that's referred to as a salamander,
Huge negligence is alleged:
[Roger] Maddocks [a lawyer specialising in workplace injuries] said the Factory Inspectorate knew by the end of the 19th century that heavy exposure to asbestos carried the risk of life-threatening respiratory disease and that by the 1960s it was public knowledge that exposure to small amounts of the substance carried the risk of mesothelioma.
“Despite that people continued to be exposed, and in many cases heavily exposed, for years if not decades after the mid-60s,” he said.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jul/07/britains-dea...
- edited immediately after posting to use the word negligence insteaad of cover-up
There is some debate as to whether or not glyphosate presents a direct cancer risk, but certainly the more I learn about regenerative farming, biocides like this seem to cause more harm than good. Really I’m talking about the mass use of glyphosate in farming - the uses in this linked video aren’t that bad - but the confident and carefree voice over reminded me of the asbestos video.
Anyway in another 50 years time we may look back on videos like this the same way we look at the asbestos video.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6915086/
https://www.gmoscience.org/glyphosate-and-roundup-disrupt-th...
I'm happy to pay more for, say, beans which aren't soaked in glyphosate. It's really bonkers how Monsanto has succeeded in putting this shit everywhere.
The past is an interesting place.
For example, if a person did a brake job in the 50s once, Napa Auto Parts is in the lawsuit because they made brake pads with asbestos. But oh, they were boilermaker for decades, working around asbestos-lined systems? Well, Napa is probably off the hook or they'll chuck a few thousand at the person to settle, leaving the larger source more on the hook.
It's a game of subtraction and divvying up cost by contributing exposure mostly.
Source: spouse worked on these cases.
I get that one main reason we used asbestos was that it was cheap to produce (it's in the ground, it's plentiful) — but it also has some rather unique applications that are very hard to replicate (e.g. fire blankets.)
Is there yet a "synthetic asbestos" or "treated asbestos" that captures these benefits, without the drawbacks involved in asbestos production+remediation? Or are the benefits of asbestos inherently linked to its drawbacks, through e.g. its fine-scale shape, similar to carbon nanotubes?
You will only find out that something went wrong 30 years later and that is horrifying for people that still have asbestos in their homes and offices.
It also requires a pretty systematic exposure to the stuff, which is why mostly (factory) workers and the neighborhoods surrounding those factories were seeing the most severe cases. Plus the process takes years, which is why it stayed unnoticed for so long (minus the cover ups).
Health hazards aside it's a pretty remarkable product that was cheap at the same time. Exactly why it was used for pretty much everything.
Don't get me wrong, the stuff is bad, but I do think that some, if not most people react almost histerically when they know they are in the vicinity of asbestos. Living in a house with asbestos shingles for instance poses very little health hazards, on the condition that the shingles aren't being disturbed by anything that causes friction. Of course, you don't control your neighbor's roof...
If you have small quantities at home that you need to dispose of make sure it's wet and don't break or saw it.
We live in nano age, what are the chances that Graphene or any other nano material can have similar effect over long period of time?
Not protecting people in the entire product lifecycle was criminal negligence on an industrial scale. They knew.
Now you can read up about non-ionizing radiation as much as you like, for free, and discover that despite hundreds of studies done on it non-ionizing radiation does not cause cancer. Not to mention that the frequencies used by 5G have been used by other things for years and clearly never caused much controversy. Same about GMO - you can read up on it and educate yourself, you can discover real things you should be upset about(like GMO crops which can resist glycophosphates so that farmers can use roundup to dessicate plants before harvest - the problem isn't the plants, the problem is the farming practice).
So sure, we have the right to be wary - but that right should be followed by research, not by indulging in conspiracy theories about Billy Gates trying to control everyone with vaccines. That's just dumb.
Oh god, that was not my intention in the slightest. All I wanted to say was that right now we have access to an immense amount of knowledge we can use to help ourselves make decisions, unlike Romans or even just people 100 years ago.
yes I can see that. but GP didn't actually say "5G is deadly", but "there might be something we don't know that can turn out to be harmful"
> we have access to an immense amount of knowledge we can use to help ourselves make decisions
the older-generations in the examples by GP could have been thinking the same thing. we all know better than older-gens, and future-gens will probably know better than us
Anyway, just don't try to attacking too soon -- might hinder discussion / research-attempts / etc
I didn't bring up vaccines because they are used to prevent infectious diseases. Taking a vaccine or not is not only your business, because it affects people around you. They also use methods like horseshoe crab blood for testing and it convinces me.
I don't know where you live but around here food industry is chock full of additives, preservatives, and 'flavors identical to natural'. Food industry and chemistry can be used to do good, but often they're just used for greed. It's a constant arms race between consumer rights groups, testing various substances, and food industry coming up with a new one that hasn't been proven harmful _yet_. There are documentary movies like All That Sugar. Also, I know it's nasty but in some European countries we call sizes beyond XXL "American Size". American food is especially heavily processed. It used to be that only the rich were fat, now it's the opposite. The poor can't afford healthy food.
GMO is making changes in spaghetti code, except genetic labs are much more expensive than chemical labs. See above. Why would they use them to make food healthier when they can make it tastier and cheaper to make? More sales, bigger profits. Do you think they have unit tests and regression tests for genome? Look how much trouble there is with Roundup, pesticides and herbicides.
Consider plastics. There's an ungodly amount of propaganda and entire industry set up on systematic lies. Best case scenario for recycling plastics is 30% return, after careful segregation (there are over 100 varieties). Most of it ends up in landfills in Asia or Africa instead. Even if you do get some recycled plastic, it's of worse quality. The public has been manipulated into thinking recycling plastics helps a great deal. Coca Cola is one of the biggest polluters in the world, and it's actively sponsoring recycling efforts because it SHIFTS THE BLAME. Everyone bringing up plastic pollution has been ridiculed for DECADES.
Consider omnipresent sugar, and the campaign to demonize fats in food. Consider cholesterol or butter.
And you're telling me I should just jump at 5G with only a few years of studies? I don't need 5G, autonomous auto industry needs it.
I'll gladly be called a lunatic, idiot, paranoid and worse for being skeptical, patient and cautious.
I am missing the reference here, how do chairs and shoes compare to radium and lead?
I get that sitting an excessive amount of the day, or wearing shoes for all your waking hours, can be bad. Is that all you mean or is there something more?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/going-barefoot-is...
The biomechanical differences between barefoot and shod distance running: a systematic review and preliminary meta-analysis https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23996137/
Studies show being barefoot makes you smarter! https://www.yourmodernfamily.com/barefoot-kids/
https://breakingmuscle.com/fitness/the-pros-and-cons-of-bare...
As for sitting, there are countless studies showing it's bad for health, posture, even causing hemorrhoids. Just search for 'sitting harmful'. There's a lot more consensus on this than barefoot vs shod.
For running, you have to unlearn the heel strike type of stride that most people adopt when they use cushioned running shoes. You need to roll your feet as you land, just as if you were running barefoot.
I don't run much, but for walking I've preferred solid soles made from high durometer rubber for a while now, because they beat up my feet a lot less than a pair of cushioned sneakers for long walks, and it's a lot better than going barefoot in -5C weather :-)
My dad wore clogs for most of his working life. Not the old-fashioned carved wooden ones, but the type with leather uppers and a glued on anti-slip layer of rubber on thick wooden soles. He said they were the most comfortable working shoes for varied surfaces and uneven ground.
I use minimalist shoes, not true barefoot running. For pragmatic reasons. Broken glass, dog shit, rusty nails. Also, even nudists put a towel under them when they sit at a cafe because they care about basic hygiene. I don't want to leave my skin and sweat on floor. You need a very thin, flexible and uniformly flat sole. Isolation is not important for running because your feet are mostly in the air and exercise warms up the muscles. You may want to put on an extra pair of socks for walking in winter. Rain and mud are a bigger problem and I keep a backup pair of standard shoes for that. Cycling also doesn't benefit from barefoot so I use normal shoes.
A common argument I hear is that barefoot might work on dirt and soil. This is not true actually. It takes me less effort to run on pavement and sidewalk, because I quickly adapt to the steady surface and focus on other aspects. On a trail I need to constantly adapt to changes in slope.
The key change I noticed is that I no longer get ankle or foot pain after a long walk. I now need literally a couple of hours of walking for my knees to get sore.
Ancient romans were also aware it was bad for you (Vitruvius wrote about it in first century BC)
Similarly with radium, i dont know about your specific examples but many of the egregious unsafe commercial radiation things happened after scientists knew the dangers.
That's very different than 5g and GMOs where there is basically no evidence of risk despite much study.
Millimeter waves aren't "new" either. The "new" part is using mm waves for data. For decades now there have been tons of applications for mm wave radiation, and often at much higher power levels. All sorts of satellite communications, radar, etc...
This isn't a situation where some scientist discovers an entirely new mechanism as says "wow, this funny radiation that makes things glow in the dark might have some practical application". Instead, it's just a matter of VLSI digital radio circuitry finally reaching the point where we can utilise a very familiar part of the spectrum for high bandwidth data.
Most of the anti-5G commentary is by uneducated Facebook moms "just asking questions" and "worried about their kids".
If you want to reduce your personal risk from mobile phones, don't text and drive.
I lived in a place where people believed, or had very serious fear from the draft (light indoor "wind") and that it causes all kind of illnesses. Then, around mid of my life, all kind of jokes were made on that subject. But, using logically I concluded despite jokes that there can be some issues, as in sedentary life, outside tissue if it gets cooled, blood vessels will shrink causing the poor supply of oxygen and nutrients, during a prolonged time that can cause some serious "buildup" and issues. Now, later on, that logic was confirmed by studies and western science. Jokes were still there, and older people still have (now) justifiable fear, but non of two groups knows about the study.
It is not hard to say "I do not know", and you and I, we do not. Humans as a whole do not know much, we do not know does microwave with smallest quantities impact metabolic intake of let say vitamins, we do not know does some of the minerals has a resonant frequency that will prevent mineral being absorbed in the cells, we do not know it is there some kind of impact on skin cells or hair follicles, will any of the tissue behave as an antenna, we do not know much. Yes, it looks semi-logical that it is low-level energy and it can be stopped by a thin wall, but a wall is not live and does not care.
Our bodies are complex mechanism, still, in 21st century we are trying do neurosurgery with stone-age axes. And each period of history, we do the same, when we do not know something, we use humans Guinea pigs, and when things go wrong, then we try to fix issues. Each time is on a larger scale and each time is a more serious issue. Asbestos, forever chemicals (PFAS, PFOS and PFOA), endocrine disruptors, oil industry, plastic, leaded petrol, chlorine in the water ... and always the same pattern, there is an excess of something, there is "bright" idea, big money of course, and always do before the study, because at that time we find it "necessary". So, we convince the public that it is necessary, and they must follow...
And above all, dynamic of many human conversations is driven by "trying to be right" instead doing actual scientific study and action on facts.
One thing I agree 100% texting and driving does kill.
Individual ignorance doesn't counter a century of established science. It's not a matter of authority, or lack of evidence, or insufficient testing. There's a real weight to certain fields now, where literally thousands of textbooks have been written on surprisingly narrow topics, because of an intense interest both theoretically and practically for industrial purposes.
It's not even a matter of laboratory experiments. Sure, we haven't done a zillion tests specifically with 5G. That simply doesn't matter. Some things are effectively field tested millions of times over through simple everyday activity. We know gravity doesn't turn on and off randomly because we would notice!
Even for subjects that our ordinary everyday experience doesn't cover, vast industrial experience does. Literally millions of workers do their work every day with chemicals, machines, and electronics. They know how they work! They depend on that knowledge being accurate!
There simply cannot be such a thing as our knowledge of electromagnetic waves being this fundamentally flawed in the same manner as we cannot possibly have misunderstood chemistry to the point that we missed an element in between oxygen and nitrogen.
I just did some random Googling and found stacks of complaints sent to governments demanding a lower maximum 5G power level. Here's one quote from a paper: "The extraordinary sensitivity of the VGCC voltage sensor to the forces of the EMFs tells us that the current safety guidelines allow us to be exposed to EMF levels that are something like 27.2 million times too high." [1]
According to that guy's theory we're all already screwed, because the background radiation in all frequency bands has been waaaaaay higher than that since the 1950s! [2]
All of that just doesn't matter though, because simple and well-established physics shows that for both 26 GHz and 60 GHz, the penetration depth is less than 0.5 mm into the skin[3], which means that at most the new 5G frequency bands could cause skin cancer.
That hasn't stopped bloggers breathlessly repeating bad science where researchers take samples of cells from internal tissues and nuke them with high power RF sourcers for weeks on end in order to "demonstrate" the potential harm from radiofrequency radiation.
PS: Sabine has an axe to grind and seems to be grandstanding an awful lot. Her videos are mostly pop-science and full of ads. She's not an authority on anything other than an extremely narrow field related to quantum gravity, and even there most physicists do not agree with her stance.
[1] https://www.radiationresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06...
[2] https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanplh/PIIS2542-5196...
> Individual ignorance doesn't counter a century of established science.
I bet that in 18th century, physicians were saying beside on a century of established science, we conclude that bloodletting is best cure for all illnesses. Why is so hard to accept that "we do not know"?
Amazingly, at this point, there will be response, "but that is different", we know much more now? Do, we? Do, we really know? During this Covid-19 pandemic I just witnessed how much we really know, science was was changing opinions by the hour. If I could take a dollar for each of my developer in the team who said, don't worry that will work, I would have been a millionaire. Despite unite tests, test team, there is always something. So, I love when people tell me about physical world, which has few orders of magnitude of things that may go wrong, don't worry according established science... :) Should I just mention uranium glass?
> penetration depth is less than 0.5 mm into the skin[3], which means that at most the new 5G frequency bands could cause skin cancer.
That is not enough? Or risk is acceptable proceed to implement, we will have 7 billion test subjects, cost of progress? What if interferes vitamin D production, and then impacts all other issues connected with lack of vitamin D, like a depression, osteoporosis, weakened immune system?
I am not saying it does any of those things but I am for asking questions, and I would like if science would address those with data, not dogmatic beliefs.
You were the one who brought up that she was a physicist, and appealed to her authority. Whether or not she is the right type of physicist for this subject matter seems quite relevant. Ultimately though, appeals to authority are always weak arguments. They are better than nothing, but fundamentally, experts are people - you can probably find at least one expert who holds whatever view you want. A single expert (even if it was in the right field) in the entire world agreeing with you doesn't exactly mean much. Its much better to concentrate on the arguments that the experts give.
> During this Covid-19 pandemic I just witnessed how much we really know, science was was changing opinions by the hour
It was a brand new virus. The media was often overstating the certainty of what scientists were saying. Most of the time scientists were saying - this is our best guess at the moment, but this is new so its just a guess, and the media reported that as - Scientists 100% sure that X is what you should do.
> Should I just mention uranium glass?
What about it. Its generally considered safe if made correctly. (That's honestly a weird example, because there is so many radiation based products in the early 1900's that were ridiculously bad ideas. Uranium glass is probably not one of them, even if I would definitely prefer not to have uranium in my kitchenware)
> What if interferes vitamin D production, and then impacts all other issues connected with lack of vitamin D
What if it causes dinosaurs to resurrect back to life, and velociraptors eat us? Without a theory as to how or why it might possibly effect that, you're basically shooting blind and you could say the same thing about anything.
> Why is so hard to accept that "we do not know"?
"We do not know" is not a single category. By some standards we do not know anything (perhaps excepting "cognito, ergo sum"). We don't know if the sun will rise tomorrow, if cause preceedes effect, whether or not we live in the matrix, etc.
But just because we don't know anything for sure, doesn't mean we don't know some things more than others.
I think fundamentally, we are talking past each other because you are arguing "we don't know", where I don't think that's the relevant question since that is always true. We obviously don't know for sure. The question is, do we know enough that use of the technology is reasonable. I think your argument would be more convincing if you set goalposts for what would be enough knowledge, in your mind, for you to consider 5g "safe" (And those goalposts be consistent, so that the other things you consider safe, already meet those standards).
By evidence of harm, I mean some sort of peer review study that hasn't been refuted by subsequent studies. There are plenty of people on the internet claiming 5g causes covid, etc who are extremely uncompelling. I don't count that as evidince of harm or a plausible theory of how such a harm could come to be.
100% agree with that one.
> Any evidence of harm or a plausible theory of the mechanism for the harm
How would you create those? What is an usual way to find possibilities of harm?
Typically i would consider that the responsibility of the people advocating that 5g should not be deployed. In many ways the "how" doesn't really matter, what matters is how compelling the end product, the argument, is.
That said, generally speaking you would go about it by taking what we know about how cells work, and what we know about how non-ionizing radiation works, and putting together a hypothesis about how damage could occur.
Fundamentally, i think my issue with most of the anti-5g stuff is that the arguments tend not to apply to just 5g - they tend to be vauge enough that they would apply to almost anything. To be convinced, i would want an argument that applies to 5g but also objectively does not apply to say older cell phones or a space heater (unless the person was explicitly arguing that those other things are also unsafe).
If someone asked you the question: "if there is a possibility of harm from oak trees, how would you find it?" How would you answer that question? Is there any reasonable answer to such a question? Or for the sake of argument, how would you answer the question "If 1+1 = 3 how would you prove that"? I just don't see any reasonable answer to the question "assume a position you don't believe has any evidence for it, now provide the evidence for the position you dont believe in". If i was able to provide the evidence or even concieve of some way to obtain it, i wouldn't hold the view that the position is indefensible.
That's not to say its impossible in general. If you asked, "if arsenic has any harm, how would you find out" i could easily answer with, eat a bunch and see what happens. But i can't generally create evidence for something just because i assume the proposition is true in a thought experiment, and i firmly believe that the onus is on the proponent of a position to provide the supporting evidence and theories.
> thus it is impossible to find it Entrenching our selves in beliefs just makes us dogmatic, and dogmatic people do not ask questions, they do not doubt in anything, they "know". Same in times of Spanish Inquisition and same today. Just different subjects. The same attitudes have people who believe that Earth is flat. No evidence can help there. As for every evidence - they will come up with something more delusional to confirm their own belief that Earth is flat. If you say let me take you to this rocket, so you can see the Earth, they would say "you projected picture on my helmet it is not real".
Same goes with harmful things if you like meat you will believe that eating animals is good for them, that they do not suffer, do not have feelings etc.
When we develop applications, we do not say, hey this application is impenetrable, it is the safest application in the world ever, it does not need testing, just ship it (I do not know what is your line of work). But we constantly ask how can we destroy what we just built. Be sure, if you do not do it some hacker out there will do it for you, and it will hurt significantly more. Yes, it is true these analogies are not the same; nature is infinitely more complex, and our knowledge even smaller.
Issue is picking side. Scientist does not picks sides, s/he seeks questions and answers.
I am not saying in any way that "5G is deadly run for your lives"; but I do say, as I said from the beginning of this thread, we do not know, and we need to do long term and short term exposure studies, so we can get more data. As without data you're just another person with an opinion.
What to search? Many things, for every kind of molecule, compound, cell, tissue or body functionality, we should do a study. If that is too much, for a starter if we know that 5G penetrate skin for instance, than do all bits about the skin. Even if we do not find anything, we will probably learn something in the process...
When I asked you the question, I was hopping you will follow scientific method, and say: explore, think, ask questions, find answers, do the research...
In the end, something just 3 years ago. https://phys.org/news/2017-10-effect-electromagnetism-years....
I wish you all the best.
But we still live in the real world, and have to take action based on imperfect knowledge. The line between "this appears safe, we should make consumer products out of it" and "this appears questionable, we should hold off on it" has to be drawn somewhere. In my view the anti-5g crowd seems to be holding 5g to a different standard than pretty much everything else in the world. If they claimed that 5g lacked sufficient safety data, and foreswore 5g along with everything else that had a similar level of safety data, i would be able to respect that. But that generally does not seem to be the case.
As you say, in a very technical sense, this is not a question of science. Science can help us place bounds on the risk and inform the decision making. The actual decision making is a normative question. It is a question of values: what level of risk is appropriate? Science can't tell you what you should do, just at most what is likely to happen for a given choice. Fundamentally my objection to the anti-5g crowd is it seems to want to take a significantly lower risk tolerance for 5g relative to pretty much anything else, without a compelling argument for why a different standard should be in place for just this technology.
Doubting the safety of a material should lead you to devise experiments that prove your doubts. It should not be taken as truth or acted on as doubts.
If you are too lazy or incompetent to do the experiments yourself, you don't get to be listened to as a serious contributor.