Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bms42 t1_ixwv4ze wrote

Reply to comment by AnnieTheDog in How to best cover fiber cement dangling tiny fibers (carcinogenic)? by UsefulBeginning

The evidence is relatively obvious - the vast majority of mesothelioma cases over the last 30 years can be traced to long term repeated exposure. Yet in the 60s through 80s there was a ton of asbestos usage, which means many, many one time or infrequent exposure events for homeowners, handymen and contractors. Yet almost none of them developed mesothelioma. So few did that it's not worth worrying about, you're more likely to die in a car crash.

4

AnnieTheDog t1_ixxg79c wrote

Thank you random person on the internet! I did my doctoral thesis on this very topic and you are wrong.

Without a link to a credible source it's just an unsubstantiated comment.

2

bms42 t1_ixxn3dg wrote

I'm very open to being wrong about this. Can you provide some evidence that shows statistically significant mesothelioma cases from one time exposure? I feel like the burden of proof rests on the person making the more extreme, counter-intuitive claim here.

8

h0dgep0dge t1_ixxxv0y wrote

If you're telling people it's safe you sound have a pretty damn good reason, I would have thought, rather than your best guess or intuition

0

bms42 t1_ixxzy7z wrote

I'm not going around saying it's "safe", let's be clear. I'm saying that one exposure is very unlikely to kill you. It's obviously not good for you. But you're trying to say that one acute exposure gives you a not insignificant chance of developing mesothelioma. You should prove that, because I don't think most people find it reasonable.

One bad sunburn doesn't give you cancer. One bad radiation exposure does, and with extremely high likelihood. One bad asbestos exposure? Obviously it doesn't give everyone cancer. It clearly doesn't give most people cancer. So what percent of such cases lead to cancer?

Based on how many houses have asbestos in them and the length of time we spent handling it carelessly, I don't see a particularly significant number of cases. So show us your numbers. I can make my case pretty clear with general observations, but I will absolutely change my mind if actual research says otherwise.

5

AnnieTheDog t1_ixxwjee wrote

Do I just say, ~"common sense" like you did?

The onus is on you to provide evidence that acute exposure to asbestos is safe, per your initial comment. Hence my request for a source for your claim.

−3

B1ack_Iron t1_ixxzdne wrote

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/malignant-mesothelioma/causes-risks-prevention/risk-factors.html

Most people exposed to asbestos even in large amounts do not get meso. It’s loosely tied to the length and amount of exposure. BAP1 can make you more likely to develop so we do BAP1 testing to rule out genetic causes. I worked as a paralegal in meso law for about 10 years. Even in places with heavy exposure like asbestos mines and places with NOA (naturally occurring) meso rates are just not that high.

Yes the fibers are dangerous and permanent but it’s not like a few fibers are going to increase your risk above a reasonable threshold. Same as a few cigarettes aren’t going to have a measurable effect on your risk of lung cancer.

5

AnnieTheDog t1_ixzijhz wrote

Studies have tied acute exposure to deleterious effects, asbestos just takes 10-40 years to kill you. That means it used to not really matter if you were 30+ because by that point you were going to die from smoking, drinking, and a 1950's American diet. People live longer now.

It is not like smoking because inhalation of tobacco smoke constituents have removal pathways. Carcinogenic asbestos fibers stay in your lungs and cultivate cancer for 10-40 years until they kill you.

1

bms42 t1_ixxy4cd wrote

Hey you're the one that claims to have written a thesis on the subject.

Do you dispute that a huge number of people have had singular exposure events to asbestos without developing mesothelioma? I assume not. Therefore it's reasonable to conclude that one exposure is very unlikely to be problematic. You argue otherwise, so prove it. Your position is the counterintuitive one.

4