Frank Warner wrote:
In article x6rCg.14100$hj4.3429@trnddc03, F. H.
wrote:

Frank Warner wrote:

KittiKat wrote:

I need some advice,
I understand that *most* health problems have been linked to repeated,
prolonged exposure....
Not most. *All.* And that means heavy exposure to raw, airborne
asbestos fibers, such as you might find in a mining environment, eight
hours a day for 20-30 years with no respirator. You and all other
homeowners have nothing to worry about from asbestos floor tiles,
popcorn ceilings or Transite siding. Tear it out. Take it to the
landfill. Put new stuff in. That's all you have to do. You inhale more
and nastier stuff on a typical day at the beach.

The lawyers have really got you all scared on this issue. And they are
the only ones benefitting from it.
I'm sure you have a valid argument, up to a point. "Eight hours a day
for 20-30 years with no respirator" flies in the face of common sense
and common knowledge of public cases. We could ask Steve McQueen

but....... he's dead.

McQueen never worked an asbestos mine. He did, however, have a
four-pack-a-day Pall-Mall habit.

McQueen had been surrounded by asbestos all of his life. As a young
adult, McQueen was employed in the construction industry, where asbestos
was often present at job sites. While serving as a Marine, McQueen
worked at shipyards where he was responsible for stripping asbestos off
the pipes used in naval ships (asbestos was used in the insulation of
modern ships built before 1976). It has also been suggested that
McQueen, an avid car racer, may have been exposed to asbestos when
repairing the brake linings of race cars and/or wearing the protective
helmets and driving suits associated with the sport.
http://www.allaboutmalignantmesothel...es-mcqueen.htm

My uncle worked an asbestos mine. Was later a packer. Also smoked. It's
a toss-up what killed him (1970 or so). He was on pure oxygen the last
five years of his life, suffering from both emphesema and asbestosis.

Thats not the same as malignant mesothelioma, is it? That one person
might have a high resistance to environmental toxins is not a valid
argument against the impact on others.

There was little if any common sense about asbestos mining in the 40s
and 50s. Back then it was "one of the safest materials known to man,"
and you mined it without worry about health hazards. Concurrently,
doctors touted the health benefits of smoking. What's common sense now
is a bit different than it was back then.

What you posted (IMHO) is a tad beyond what would be called common sense
now.

You might be able to find an isolated case or two of a homeowner who
contracted asbestosis through exposure to products used in the
construction of his home, but I bet you won't be able to find very
many.

How many would be acceptable? As I understand it, malignant mesothelioma
caused by inhaling asbestos particles is *extremely* slow to develop.
That being the case, your "bet" is sort of a Relativist Fallacy. At any
rate, once (MM) hits, you are toast. That being the case, I would treat
*any* asbestos with a great deal of respect.