> “For too long, polluters have been allowed to make, use and release toxics like asbestos and PFAS without regard for our health"
Criticizing politican-speak about science is almost pointless, but this is a ridiculous conflation of two wildly different things: asbestos, which is a specific mineral, and for which the link to lung cancer in humans is indisputable; and "PFAS", which is a hazy conglomeration of things for which the scientific link to harm is weak, and mostly based on animal studies or bad observational data.
I'm not really clear on the asbestos risk. Everything I've read and heard seems to indicate that the panic around asbestos might be overblown. Asbestos is unsafe but it is a matter of degrees. In certain cases like loose-fill insulation or certain situations where workers grind/cut asbestos regularly, it seems to cause a meaningful level of risk. Especially for those who are already smokers.
But having gone through a remodel in a house with asbestos, I have been blown away at the extreme level of regulations, the meticulous procedures that remediation companies have to follow, the tens-of-thousands spent on remediation and repeated testing, and the tens-of-millions being thrown around in courts whenever Asbestos comes up.
As best as I can tell, the risk is close to zero for minor and occasional exposure in otherwise healthy individuals. I'm open to seeing hard evidence to convince me otherwise.
> As best as I can tell, the risk is close to zero for minor and occasional exposure in otherwise healthy individuals. I'm open to seeing hard evidence to convince me otherwise.
Asbestos is interesting in that the mechanism of carcinogenicity is very well-studied and well-understood. The fibers get into the lungs; the body can not get them out of the lungs; they cause persistent cell-damage as they mechanically rupture lung cells; and then the resulting chronic inflammation eventually causes cancer.
Because it's so well understood, we also know how to protect against asbestos. If the fibers are never airborn, they can't get into the lungs. If you're wearing an N95 mask or respirator, they can't get into the lungs. If you can cough them out in the moment, they don't stay in the lungs. Once they're in the lungs, you're pretty well screwed. It's a sliding scale of how screwed, with more exposure causing more cancer risk, but the fibers are not coming out and will continue rolling cancer dice while they're in there.
Having asbestos in your walls or ductwork is not going to kill you - the asbestos fibers aren't in the air. Doing a DIY reno on your asbestos-containing walls absolutely can kill you, and there have been cases of mesothelioma linked exactly to that.
> the fibers are not coming out and will continue rolling cancer dice while they're in there
This is rather alarmist. The truth is more nuanced. This resource [1] lists a variety of biological mechanisms that work to remove asbestos fibers from the lungs beyond simply coughing them out, such as via "alveolar macrophages".
> Doing a DIY reno on your asbestos-containing walls absolutely can kill you
This is true, but if this made any readers anxious, it's important to note that "light, short-term exposure rarely causes disease" and that it is "not uncommon for homeowners to do a renovation and then realize afterward that they disturbed asbestos products. Fortunately, the risk from this is low." [2]
My advice is that if you are going to renovate your home, unless it is quite new and you have good reason to believe there is no risk of asbestos contamination, you should assume that materials like tiles, plaster, drywall, insulation, etc., may contain asbestos, and get them tested before commencing. However, if you have renovated in the past and are anxious about exposure, chill out. You can't change anything now, and unless you were renovating regularly, you'll very likely be fine.
Remember that if you live in a rural area, you can be exposed to asbestos via natural weathering of rock. If you live in an urban area, you have likely been exposed to asbestos via construction and demolition work taking place nearby.
> If you're wearing an N95 mask or respirator, they can't get into the lungs
A random N95 mask is not gonna save a random Joe from asbestos. If you study how masks and respirators work, you will find that you need to be clean-shaven, the respirator must match the shape of your face and have a good seal, etc. People who work with hazardous substances spend a good amount of time on this.
NHS had to discard huge number of masks during COVID because they weren't the right shape and weren't forming a seal.
In some cases, that's good enough - general dust, woodcutting, etc. For highly toxic substances, it won't save you.
Lots of non-banned substances are more dangerous to breathe than asbestos. I understand the risks because I spent 20 years working in a building containing asbestos, and received annual notifications and warnings. It's been banned for use in construction for over 30 years, so I don't see how the EPA ban will make much difference.
No. Because of their needle shape, they wander deep into the tissue. The notoriously associated cancer is found in the mesothelium, a layer around the lungs.
It probably could[0] be done, but good luck getting an FDA approval.
[0]Speaking of smokers specifically, it is entirely possible to 'breathe' oxygenated liquid per fluorocarbons ('PFAS') which would very likely dissolve and 'wash out' tar from the lungs.
It's also under-appreciated how risky many common substances are when ground or cut. Cutting concrete, for example, can cause silicosis of the lungs[1] if precautions aren't taken. Wood dust is also potentially carcinogenic[2].
Then there's stuff like metal fume fever[3], which seems to be temporary but who knows what long term effects we'll discover in the future.
> Everything I've read and heard seems to indicate that the panic around asbestos might be overblown. Asbestos is unsafe but it is a matter of degrees.
Oh definitely. Like, if you ask the EPA, they'll tell you that there's "no safe level of exposure"...which is true at a population level (and completely understandable for a regulatory body to say), but terrorizes the kind of people who panic at the idea of chemicals.
You don't want to be breathing the stuff when it's floating in the air, but people absolutely freak out over the idea of being near anything containing asbestos, even if the stuff is sealed in plastic or ceramic -- tons of old floor tiles contained it, for example. That's pretty obviously harmless, unless you grind it up and aerosolize it, but it triggers the same level of response as fraying asbestos pipe insulation.
Part of what we're dealing with here is that asbestos present in a home harms not only your health but... potentially the perceived $$ value of your home. Your biggest financial investment.
I'm not just talking about homes. Plenty of schools, museums and other public places spend huge amounts of money removing otherwise undisturbed asbestos.
That said, it's more-or-less the same thing with old homes -- the "we found asbestos; give us a discount" thing is not really about rational perceptions of risk. If you buy an old home, you basically have to assume that it's going to have asbestos in it.
Banning asbestos prevents people from using asbestos in new houses / remodels. We bought a house, and only later found out that the materials used in its post-2000 remodel contained asbestos.
Believe it or not, that isn't even correct. The original ban allowed the usage of existing stocks of materials in all forms of construction until depleted. There is no tracking of all materials containing asbestos that were ever imported. Somewhere today there are still new builds going in with asbestos in them as a result.
> spend huge amounts of money removing otherwise undisturbed asbestos.
I mean, the legitimate concern here is that someone accidentally disturbs it, and in a stupid way, and now your kids are exposed.
Even floor tiles, I assume if you cut into them with the wrong kind of saw in the wrong conditions could be spreading fine particles. Maybe.
In any case, people don't behave rationally around risk. Nor do they understand statistics (evidence: lottery tickets get sold). But at the same time, overall it doesn't really hurt to get rid of this stuff, if done properly.
My dad died of it some years ago, and we never knew where his lungs came into contact with the stuff. He never worked in construction, but sometimes near it. There is typically about 30 years between the contact with asbestos and getting ill.
It's a very depressing diagnosis, there is no remedy and you just get gradually worse over a year or so until you die.
It always amazes me that for every type of potentially hazardous substance or situation there will be people state 'Everything I've read' or 'From my own research' and the downplay or dismiss the concern.
There are a LOT of people that have worked with asbestos that went on to develop severe lung disease.
I feel very disappointed in many of people commenting here. Because it looks like - as long as I'm not the one hurt, who cares that it's their health and life at risk.
Probably not. Fiberglass has been studied for carcinogenicity specifically based on the experience with asbestos: https://connect.mayoclinic.org/discussion/fiberglass-insulat... ("Fibers deposited in the deepest parts of the lungs where gas exchange occurs are removed more slowly by special cells called macrophages. Macrophages can engulf the fibers and move them to the mucous layer and the larynx where they can be swallowed. Swallowed fibers and macrophages are excreted in the feces within a few days.
Synthetic vitreous fibers deposited in the gas exchange area of the lungs also slowly dissolve in lung fluid. Fibers that are partially dissolved in lung fluid are more easily broken into shorter fibers. Shorter fibers are more easily engulfed by macrophages and removed from the lung than long fibers.").
We also have been unable to find clear evidence of health harms in longitudinal studies of fiberglass manufacturing workers: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp161-c2.pdf ("Studies of workers predominantly involved in the
manufacture of fibrous glass, rock wools, or slag wools have focused on the prevalence of respiratory
symptoms through the administration of questionnaires, pulmonary function testing, and chest x-ray
examinations. In general, these studies reported no consistent evidence for increased prevalence of
adverse respiratory symptoms, abnormal pulmonary functions, or chest x-ray abnormalities; however, one
study reported altered pulmonary function (decreased forced expiratory volume in 1 second) in a group of
Danish insulation workers compared with a group of bus drivers.").
They'll exist for a lot of nanotech like carbon nanotubes too. Pretty much any rigid nanostructure has potential for same effect on the lungs as asbestos since it's caused by mechanical damage.
Asbestos repeats the injury, endlessly, with near immunity to any chemical decomposition. Mechanical decomposition just makes it more dangerous, as it cleaves into sharper, tinier needle like structures. Other nanostructures aren't nearly as chemically stable, especially inside the body, and can be metabolized or expelled from the body through natural processes. Asbestos sticks, shatters, and all the jagged little needle pieces stick where they are.
Fiberglass, dust, and so forth can be expelled by the body and don't represent nearly the same level of harm as asbestos. The material's mechanical and chemical properties make a huge difference in how dangerous they are. Asbestos is chemically robust and mechanically fragile in a way that makes it more dangerous and sticky over time.
A nanotube that damages a few cells, then gets metabolized or oxidizes, and then expelled, is far different from a slowly exploding needle bomb that will reside in your body for decades, endlessly killing the cells it contacts, resulting in infections, inflammation, cancer, and sometimes even dead septic chunks of tissue.
Asbestos is, on balance, a terrible, horrible thing, and the harm it does can't be justified by the potential for good uses. Fiberglass insulation or carbon nanotubes aren't good for your lungs, but the dangers they pose can be reasonably considered against their benefits. these materials present a very different scale and magnitude of harm, especially over time.
It depends on bioaccumulating, i’ve read. Inert things can’t have bonds broken by macrophages, etc, labeling them with an ion. Carbon chains i supposemight break down biologically , but maybe won’t.
Also things like the asbestos house siding and floor tiles that were ubiquitous for a while. If you have an older house there's a decent chance you either have it or it's lurking underneath what you do have when people just covered it up.
Getting rid of it is a huge hassle because it qualifies for full asbestos remediation. But yet it's nowhere near the danger to get rid of than the loose-fill insulation.
It takes one asbestos exposure to get a fiber hooked in your lung. It's worth some hassle. It's not just about you, but also the people who handle it downstream in the waste disposal pipeline, people who are involved in unrelated construction, etc. Asbestos killed a lot of people.
Yes. Specifcally, anything that is an observational epidemiology study (which is much of it) is extremely low credibility. Observational epidemiology is historically terrible, low-quality research that gets lots of hype but doesn't stand up to rigorous analysis.
> That PFAS are very unreactive is meaningless. They still occupy volume and therefore affect kinematic rates and occupy reaction sites.
They're surfactants so they can interfere with basic processes in the intracellular matrix like cells sticking to each other and forming tissue. The long term epidemiological effects and in vitro studies are just getting started understanding the effects.
> They're surfactants so they can interfere with basic processes in the intracellular matrix like cells sticking to each other and forming tissue.
You know what else is a surfactant? Soap.
Literally every surfactant "interferes with basic processes in the intracellular matrix" -- they disrupt lipids (fats). That's how they work. They're not inherently dangerous as a category of chemicals. You slather yourself in them daily.
This discussion is veering into "the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide" territory now. You can make pretty much anything sound scary if you try hard enough.
PFAS are different from soap in that your body can't break them down or excrete them well, so they bioaccumulate. Eating soap is absolutely not good for you, and if it also built up in your body people would be really worried about small exposures to it.
> I wouldn't go around drinking a pint of, say, methanol another polar solvent.
Yes, exactly: saying "it's a solvent, therefore it's dangerous" is equally dumb in both directions: you wouldn't drink a pint of methanol, and you wouldn't be scared of a pint of water. Likewise for "surfactant", and a ton of other terms you see on this comment thread.
In chemistry, details matter. The folks who run around parroting sciencey-sounding technical terms like "steric interference" to scare people are, unfortunately, often effective, because it takes ten times as many words to explain why they're talking gobbledygook as it does for them to make a ridiculous claim.
PFAS are a special set of surfactants because, being perfluorinated, evolution is unlikely to have endowed us with effective ways to neutralize them. Im not afraid of ingesting traditional fat soap because my bile will break it down. Dishwasher detergent freaks me out.
I think our (the anti PFAS crowd) concern stems from being able to identify many chemical pathways that can make these very dangerous and therefore believe that they should be proven safe by studies (including long term) as opposed to assumed safe of the common dismissal "no studies have demonstrated <insert noun here> are dangerous"
> PFAS are a special set of surfactants because, being perfluorinated, evolution is unlikely to have endowed us with effective ways to neutralize them.
I mean...maybe? That's a huge statement without any evidence. There are tons of other organic fluorines in common use, so while I'm not rushing out to bathe in firefighting foam, if I got hit with some while escaping a burning building, I'd be OK with it.
> I think our (the anti PFAS crowd) concern stems from being able to identify many chemical pathways that can make these very dangerous and therefore believe that they should be proven safe by studies
That's not how empiricism works. You can't prove that something has no bad effects. That's called "proving a negative", and it's an infinitely high bar. Remember: millions of people die from dihydrogen monoxide exposure every year! We must ban it until proven safe!
Also, this:
> stems from being able to identify many chemical pathways that can make these very dangerous
...is pseudoscience. Everything is resting on the "can make" part of that sentence. There are so many "chemical pathways" (most of which we know nothing about) that any claim about a particular chemical triggering a particular pathway to negative human outcome absolutely must be backed by solid empirical evidence, and not just speculation or theory.
See also: "the dose makes the poison." Even completely innocuous -- or beneficial! -- chemicals are harmful if you consume too much of them. There are "chemical pathways" that can absolutely kill you if you take too much Tylenol, or drink too much alcohol, or eat grapefruit when taking certain statins, or a large number of other innocent things.
My current summary of the state of evidence around PFAS is that there's a constellation of weak/bad studies suggesting that the water-soluble variants might have bad effects in some animals. Bioaccumulation clearly occurs, and therefore caution is warranted (particular with certain manufacturing processes or pollution), but the people who are extending that to egg pans and sandwich wrappers are way out over their skis.
Aren't the concentrations of concern down in ppt range? Surely that can't be the explanation for why so low a concentration would affect much of anything.
So your argument is basically observational epidemiology study = low quality hence we cannot make conclusions? It would be a fair point if this were a single observational (non experimental) study. However when you look at a dozen studies on humans which all exhibit the same pattern where high PFAS in blood correlates with higher cancer rates then the burden of proof shifts to prove that PFAS is safe, not the other way around.
Theoretically it's conceivable that there is a separate, common factor in all the studies that causes the illness (e.g., people who are prone to cancer are somehow attracted to working with PFAS) but I think after the n-th human observational, plus experimental animal studies that at least show hormone disruption - we probably should on a go forwards basis operate with the assumption that PFAS are likely very toxic for humans, unless proven to be mostly safe.
I see this kind of argument so often from PFAS apologists - "we don't have conclusive proof yet that it's harmful so we should keep producing and using this substance which is known to bioaccumulate and never break down". Shouldn't the onus be on those who want to use it to prove that it's safe? If the studies we have are truly as inconclusive as they claim, doesn't that just mean that we don't have good evidence they're safe?
PFAS were released into environment in massive quantities. They are now, basically, impossibly expensive to remove. Same for microplastics.
Suppose tomorrow we come up with indisputable evidence that they are toxic. Now what? Will the companies that put them into environment be able to pay for a global cleanup effort that cost more than those companies are worth? Should we allow someone to make 1 million, knowing that remediation will cost $10 billion and they won't be able to pay for it?
My suggested alternative is doing good, well-controlled science.
No, you don't need to deliberately expose people to toxins to do that. That's a straw man, when much of what passes for observational epidemiology is loaded with obvious uncontrolled confounders (like poverty).
I could describe any number of study designs. But the burden is not on me, it's on the people who are in the research area to do good science.
More to the point, my ability (or lack) to come up with an experiment is not an excuse for you or anyone else to cite bad science with impunity. Likewise, if a study design is bad, it's bad regardless of my ability to correct it.
This line of questioning always goes to the same place: it's not about educating the OP of better ways to do science, but them attempting to argue with me about whatever suggestions I make. I'm not getting sucked into it. My ability to do a "better" study is not relevant here.
If you want to think I'm "wrong" because I don't, then you're more than welcome to do so. But it doesn't change the fact that most observational epidemiology is riddled with bias, and is of low quality.
You of course cannot determine how others will respond to you, as I cannot determine how you'll respond to me.
If, however, you do answer in good faith, credibly, and substantively to a specific question or request, you'll know, and fair-minded readers will generally recognise, that you've done so.
Or you could, say, contribute over a half-dozen responses within the thread with roughly a quarter of them explicitly withholding or defending the withholding of that substantive contribution.
I think the burden could be on the chemical producer: do “good science” to show this material is safe, or don’t use it at all. That conservative mindset seems very reasonable to me.
Asbestos is dangerous, mostly for people who work with it, but other than that, it is just rock, and it occurs naturally. After a few years of not using it and disposing of the decaying remains of stuff made with it, it is unlikely to stay a problem.
PFAS on the other hand are not natural, we are putting out tons of stuff that can last for thousands of years and is very hard to get rid off. Maybe it is a problem, or maybe not. If it is not, then we are lucky, but if it is, then our grandchildren and their own grandchildren who may only remember asbestos from history books will be left with a major problem to deal with.
Also the danger of asbestos is specifically when it is breathed in over extended periods of time. There are forms of asbestos that are really not all that dangerous to the general public, but people freak out when they hear the word.
If there are suitable alternatives its good to ban it and move on.
Floor tiles in your home. Lots of homes in the 50s/60s had asbestos floor tiles installed. These tiles aren't going to kill you. You can leave them alone, cover them with another layer of tile.
If you remove them, you can hire an abatement company which takes a tremendous level of precuation, but when you consider the tiny amount of asbestos in the tiles, the fact that its not really breathable, and your exposure is not over an extended period of time, removing tiles yourself with some basic precaution should be fine.
The sorts of asbestos you find around the house that you absolutely don't want to mess with would be things like pipe insulation. That stuff is loose, lightweight and can easily be breathed in.
Basically just use some common sense and understand what makes asbestos dangerous.
Every asbestos product erodes at some point. Yes, you can cover or encapsulate it - that's trivial. Ultimately someone has to deal with it tho, and that's when it is always gonna be dangerous. A new home owner may also not know about your cover-up.
Your prior statement is misleading. You are talking about mitigations, not inherent risk.
I don't get the snark, but I do get the point -- but i'd be remiss not to point out that a lab or individual seeking funds to try to prove the sensibility and health benefits of asbestos, in any form, would be laughed out of town.
So, when asking 'for source' regarding niche topics with controversial opinions, well, it's not strange that the study or source is nowhere to be found; but it's more complicated than just "source doesn't exist, so premise must be false.".
I agree, however, that due to the unstable and ever changing nature of entrapped asbestos that it should be avoided wherever possible.
One nit: there are PLENTY of materials in use that degrade to a more dangerous thing over time, and it hasn't really kept us from using them. Carbon black dust is famously dangerous and we are pumping out more carbon fiber than ever before, it's nearly unrecycable and degrades terribly both structurally and potentially chemically depending on the matrix that binds it. We are only hard-fisted against asbestos at this point in time because we have sensible alternatives.
The snark comes with annoyance about the "asbestos really isn't that bad" contrarian talking point, which tends to be sourced in hearsay from other online "hasn't killed me" edgelords.
> So, when asking 'for source' regarding niche topics with controversial opinions...
Are you kidding me? The health dangers are known since the 30s or something. If anything, scientific consensus on asbestos dangers had to fight decades of well-funded industry resistance and lobbying. Look at the regulatory history in Canada...
> there are PLENTY of materials in use that degrade to a more dangerous thing over time, and it hasn't really kept us from using them.
The question is about severity of health impact, persistence and quantity of emission, to compare health hazards here. Cured meat and plutonium are both class I carcinogens, but their dangers are vastly different. Many bad substances can be detoxed by the liver, their ROX-burden blunted by antioxidants within cells, to some extent. There are NOT PLENTY of materials with similar hazard characteristics as asbestos.
I do agree, some carbon fiber products may be the "new asbestos". Looks like their different crystal structures pose different risks, and some erode to asbestos like particles - which altogether really does raise the question why they are not more thoroughly investigated and regulated. However, I suspect a mesothelioma association would probably have shown by now. Although bio-persistent and of similar shape, CF-particles may interact differently with the immune system.
I do absolutely cringe about carbon fiber usage in e.g. 3D-printing. I think, something like CF-rods/rails in the Bambulab printers may be a really bad idea in a living room space, and some people even casually mention acute eye and skin irritation symptoms when printing CF-filaments...
Basically any situation where the asbestos is not shedding dust or fibers into air that'll be breathed by humans is pretty safe. Contact with asbestos causes virtually no health risks; it really has to get into the lungs to do damage.
That's not a source at all. For some places with naturally occurring exposed asbestos minerals (e.g. Turkey) you do find a significantly higher incidence in specific lung cancers. That's also true for areas around mines (e.g. Canada).
It is hard to establish a mesothelioma baseline, because fibers can be found in the air everywhere at all times, but it is believed to be a specific disease caused by exposure, more or less always.
> not shedding dust or fibers into air
Which they all do, at some point in time. Even short exposure has been linked to mesothelioma and there is no safe exposure levels for any type of asbestos.
> Contact with asbestos causes virtually no health risks; it really has to get into the lungs to do damage.
This is not true. It is suspected to cause cancer and other issues upon ingestion and it does cause skin disease too.
> Any form that doesn't have loose fibrils, microparticles, or dust.
Encasement breaks, materials erode, have to be manufactured and disposed. That's not a valid argument at all.
> I'd compare it to wood from walnut trees
Well, then you are very uninformed. The toxicity characteristics are nothing alike. If you want to point to a similar hazard, I'd suggest beryllium compounds.
When you're gonna compare two things and say one is indisputable and the other is weak, cite some claims.
PFAS are real, test your water from your tap today. Any carcinogen is detrimental to health but depends on exposure, same goes for PFAS.
The thing about PFAS to me is it is a build up over time. So it's like heart disease as a silent killer. You can live with it for a long time before you start to notice the effects
The worst part is that it doesn't really degrade either. There's literally no way around it, the world just gets increasingly polluted by it.
Smoking causes cancer? Stop smoking, and prevent people from smoking near bystanders. Asbestos causes cancer? Ban it in new products, and mandate secure removal for existing stuff. It's not that hard to deal with: just stop using the harmful thing and it'll be fine.
PFAS causes cancer? Permanently condemn all contaminated land, kill all wildlife trying to get out, mandatory cremation for all humans who lived there, and a total ban on breastfeeding for mothers who lived there.
PFAS might not yet be definitively proven to be harmful in limited quantities, but the bio-accumulation is bad enough that we just cannot take that risk.
> Any carcinogen is detrimental to health but depends on exposure, same goes for PFAS.
I think you can emphasize your point by noting two categories, those which bioaccumulate and those which don't, but the exposure of things bioaccumulated is, to your point, endlessly extended.
Asbestos is also naturally occurring and as a result there's an ambient level of asbestos in the air regardless of how hard you regulate.
I find asbestos to be such fascinating substance. As a kid I thought it was cool as hell ("a fluffy rock!?") and even now I think it's pretty neat in its natural form. Because asbestos has so many useful properties - ridiculously insulating and non-flammable - many of the substances that replaced the asbestos are the PFAS this sentence is complaining about. As far as I know there's still not a good non-PFAS substitute in many cases.
"How bad could they be?" You ask. "They're incredibly unreacitve!"
Enter steric interference.
Also, there's a very good reason we do animal studies; because, unless there's a really good reason why something (say burnt food -> we've coevolved with cooking) wouldn't affect humans, if it kills animals, it kills us.
Criticizing politican-speak about science is almost pointless, but this is a ridiculous conflation of two wildly different things: asbestos, which is a specific mineral, and for which the link to lung cancer in humans is indisputable; and "PFAS", which is a hazy conglomeration of things for which the scientific link to harm is weak, and mostly based on animal studies or bad observational data.