What's your point? Just because natural dangers exist doesn't mean we should go ahead and create human-made dangers of our own.
Under this logic we shouldn't have structural engineering standards because rock falls happen all the time in nature.
Under this logic we shouldn't have structural engineering standards because rock falls happen all the time in nature.
I think it’s quite clear and obvious that your comment’s intention was to downplay the importance of the EPA’s ban and frame it against or redirect it toward the topic of naturally occurring threats.
If that’s NOT what you were doing, then your comment was essentially irrelevant.
It’s in the very first sentence: “An EPA ban can't do anything about natural mineral asbestos that occurs near many residential areas.”
You’re saying an EPA ban can’t do something. That’s a place where you’ve pointed out a weakness of the ban, right in the first sentence. None of the remainder of your comment mentions any redeeming value to this EPA policy, so we have to assume that your main objective is to criticize it. After all, your very first sentence is a criticism of the policy’s effectiveness.
If you recall persuasive writing from grade school, we put our overarching opinion/objective right in the first sentence/paragraph as an introduction and then follow it up with supporting evidence throughout the rest of the piece. That’s exactly how your comment was structured.
It’s not some kind of flaw of human nature to assume that your main objective was to criticize the merit of this EPA policy, because you essentially directly stated that it was.