Wait, We JUST Banned Asbestos? 

so true :D

Same can be said for a lot of elements tbh

Mercury is natural. Lead is natural. Arsenic is natural...

snake venom is natural

Uranium is natural

You should start eating radium clock hands, they are much healthier

plutonium I hear is tasty

@@AaronGeoI’ve heard it’s even better to lick the paintbrushes you paint the hands with

It's the bestos after all.

@@Chaotic-Toast mmmmm radium

I feel like military equipment makers probably get to do whatever works best cheapest going off of what I've seen

Thanks for this

The connection between asbestos and mesothelioma was discovered and researched a hundred years ago in the UK. There's not enough lipstick in the world to make this deadly pig look good.

​@@colonagray2454IIRC, there are laws requiring that the military goes with the lowest bidder (to some extent). Might have something to do with it.

@matthewchandler7845 if you don't mind me asking, how do you test for asbestos in those cases where it is a gypsum impurity? I'm assuming the impurities would be too small to be seen with the naked eye. Thanks for the insight!

👁️👄👁️ well at least your ceiling won't catch fire 😂

@@Catastropheshe next doors outdoor barn and porch are clad with 1/4 inch thick asbestos sheets,, our old porch used to be clad with it also..

And everyone freaks out about it like it's Plutonium. As per first sentence of this video, problems come from industrial exposure to asbestos.. as in working with it every day for years.

​@@incandescentwithrageor living with it every day for years. Sure, dust is the major issue, but you're always going to have some, and avoiding contact with carcinogens that are relatively easily avoided just seems like not a bad idea.

@@incandescentwithragereal story A guy in the UK decided he would replace his garage as the old one was made from asbestos sheeting. By the end of the summer he had a lovely new garage. By the end of autumn he had mesothelioma and he died four days before Christmas. Don’t underestimate how deadly exposure to asbestos can be.

That is horrifying

That is horrifying

HAHAH Dorthy was a SMOKER too.......WHEW!!!! probs everyone was back then..also they probs smokes cigarettes with Asbestos filters build into them... google it... it was REAL!!!!

I heard that too, i think it was Amosite if i’m not mistaking

@@shelby6 AND the main protagonist was CONSANTLY on meth or molly... and got molested after filming. The Tin men need to go to the hospital because of the poison in the paint he used.

Ceramic pads are pretty darn good. You're telling me asbestos pads are better? If so, how is it that newer cars have way shorter stopping distances than older cars? I'm curious.

​@@AlexandarHullRichterlarger brakes, and abs

Manufacturers beefed up the pads because of the mass of modern vehicles. Plus better tire design. Not a fan of cars but the engineering is interesting.​@@AlexandarHullRichter

​@@AlexandarHullRichteran additional explanation is that newer cars are generally lighter.

Ceramic brakes need time to heat up or they do not work, they are more durable but for everyday normal they cannot stop as good as a normal brake pad when cold.

Lol.

I guess they didn't educate them about safe sanitation practices either...

Who else works for less than minimum wage and is small enough to crawl in all those tight places? Sounds like a win-win-win situation to me!

I laughed... so hard !

Yess indeed xDD

Again nothing wrong with using mercury if it is being used correctly.

mercury < asbestos < teflon (with PFAS) at least it's getting LESS harmful?

@@eklectiktoni Are we sure teflon is less harmful?

the walling off is literally what kills you 😂😂😂

Weird. I was a freshman in 09, and I think we knew some middle school asbestos was bad. Maybe later that it was a fibrous rock

How old was your text book. I graduated long before that and we new perfectly well back then.

When geology textbook sponsored by asbestos manufacturer.

​@@jerbear7952Some textbooks are just straight up bad. The version of the US Civil War that is told in textbooks is not remotely close to the consensus opinion of actual historians active since the 80s

intact asbestos is safe. Its only when it becomes friable (loose) that it is even remotely dangerous. it is acceptable to cover or wrap it without removing in most cases.

The house we bought was built in the 50s and had asbestos tiles in the basement. This is common in houses built before the 70s. We were assured they were safe as long as we didn’t smash the tiles, but my partner wanted to get rid of them anyway. Thankfully, it was relatively cheap to do since they’re just tiles. You could hear the loud popping whenever they’d remove a tile from outside. And then those abatement guys will be able to sue for asbestos exposure and continue the cycle.

turn their asses in to your local gov btw

The pipe insulation is one of the worst forms too.

@@ferretyluv I'm an accredited asbestos inspector and site supervisor in South Carolina, Minnesota, and a few other states that I won't mention to avoid giving away too much personal information.It's highly unlikely that the abatement guys will sue for asbestos exposure. When you become an accredited asbestos worker, you're trained to follow OSHA 1926.1101, which provides adequate safety against airborne asbestos fibers during removal. It would kind of be like saying "I had to clean up a biohazard, so I wore a HAZMAT suit, but I was exposed to the biohazard." Technically true, but it's very unlikely you'll suffer any of the ill effects, you know?

right but you only get so many cost effective options.

Corporations who do this sort of thing don't care about it being safe, only establishing the false pretense that is safe because it is safer than an alternative

NOTHING is completely safe. But some things are much more dangerous than others. Exposed asbestos is pretty dangerous.

Sure but that applies to everything. Nothing is truly safe. Not even air or water. So yes "safer" is relevant. You simply have to properly plan, design, educate, and train to mitigate as many factors as possible.

Less obvious than you might think. There’s a large number of people who insist that a thing can only ever be safe or not safe, and that safe and safer are perfect synonyms.

Or lack of alternatives

capitalism moment

It's often lack of alternatives or simply overwhelmingly superior performance. There was a mercury switch in my thermostat in a rental duplex I was in. Had been there since knob and tube wiring and functioned quite well. It worked well because it was an optimal design given the knowledge of the time and, arguably, is superior to modern implementations of the same, as those will fail long before that mercury switch will in its designed application. Nature is a bit cruel. Lead is an absolutely amazing material in terms of chemistry and physics. In biology... It likes to replace calcium and become deadly. Asbestos is an excellent insulator and fire retardant. That is why it was used and only recently have there been materials which can touch it in terms of performance, and even then.... As my dad used to say when I asked him why something was banned: "because it worked." While that is a cynical view, and he recognized the risks associated with those materials, many of those newer materials to replace them were banned for similar reasons - which reinforces the idea that nothing should be seen as safe and should always be handled with regard for consequences. And ... Ultimately, one has to ask whether or not our vision of safety is moral. For example, let's say that lead perovskites could form the basis of a battery or related power storage/conversion technology which would realize an economical means to implement "smart grids" and dispersed power generation (be it solar, wind, or micro nuclear/fusion). Is it ethical to look at such an outcome and grow squeamish because lead is a core component? I live in Missouri, abandoned lead mines are everywhere - lead mining is not without its toll and even with precautions, there will be the inevitable errors, abuses, etc which occur at some scale. Right now, a lead apatite derived material is demonstrating signs of one dimensional room temperature superconductivity. It's a confusing time because everyone has a big head, but the results are reproducible and computer models back up the idea there is something going on in this lead based crystal to keep looking into. If lead turns out to be the key to room temperature superconductors, is it moral to say "but it's toxic" and bury it behind law? Personally, I don't think so. Our ancestors got us to where we are by taking risks, staring into the sun, etc. That said, lead fuels were certainly an example of what to seek to prevent. There's a difference between accepting the management of risk and denying the risk. Denying risk comes in two forms - the familiar one where everyone pretends there is no risk, and the just as common, but more discrete form where no risk is accepted.

capitalism is the death of humanity

Like Covid vaccines?

Aren't we all... I'm thinking of all the times I've been exposed to asbestos, and people doing stupid things with it. It was used to lag the pipes in a building where I worked, and for weeks I walked under one pipe that was being stripped of asbestos lagging. Another time, an angry competitor (loser) began kicking the walls of the sport's centre changing rooms. I came into that centre for tea breaks/change work clothes/clock in and out - while tufts of asbestos lagging was hanging out of the wall, people 'still' using the changing rooms, the council taking forever to get round to fixing it. A garden centre - two lads cutting up asbestos sheets in windy conditions, with a circular saw. Went to view a house around 25 years ago. The massive workshop out back - all asbestos sheets. The extension - all asbestos board and sheet. The drainpipes and downpipes - all asbestos. My former neighbour's stupid teenage son - took an axe to the old asbestos sheet chicken house, smashed it into little pieces, where it stayed for a while until the mother picked up what she could see - which, of course, means she never picked up what fibres she couldn't see. Farmers around here casually dump asbestos sheets they don't want into the main river. If the government of any country allows asbestos removal to be put out to private contract, and those contractors then make removal so ridiculously expensive because they in turn have to pay special fees for it to be disposed of - then people will dump it. There's probably loads blowing around every city/town dump and landfill site. And I used to live next door to a notoriously badly managed landfill site.

it's called sensationalizing. all the young kids are into it.

@@harpsealSF And so is nearly everyone else.

I am getting "have never said anything original" vibe from this comment and I am here for it

Mmmhm.

The main problem is the permanence in the lungs, and its nasty tendency to break out of the biological fibers its encapsulated in and keep damaging lung tissue. Also, whichever site that has fibrosis loses its capacity for gas Exchange..

Blue asbestos (amosite) is the straight version, and it's very sharp. Breaking it down just makes more sharps bits. White asbestos (the curly stuff) is considered "safer" because it doesn't do that as much.

Not to mention tissue damage, irritation, and foreign materials create inflammation. And excess inflammation can cause cancer​.

I'm guessing their lifespan makes their exposure level not such a big deal.

​@@joshmnkyThe old selection shadow at work.

No excuse at all? Quite an extremist stance. You know, people are daily dying from exposure to electricity... Let's ban it... It is always a calculation of risk vs. reward... How good is it vs. how harmful it is. Saying there is no excuse sounds childish, because we make that risk/reward analysis with most tech every day.

Appalling but sadly not surprising.

​@@SioxerNikita "asbestos is bad and should be banned" is the opposite of an extremist view, tf are you on about? XD

@@Jitterbuck It is an extremist view, because bananas can kill people. Are bananas bad? There are uses for asbestos, so just banning them is extremist.

​@@SioxerNikita Bananas aren't fukkin asbestos bud XD Banning or restricting of extremely harmful materials isn't extremism or oppression :p

My dad probably did too 😮

I grew up in buildings in the 1990s that still had asbestos wrapped pipes.

@@Toadaboticus Many buildings still do. It's not a hazard until it's removed - then you have to bring in remediators.

Still have thousands of old asbestos cement water pipes in use in water reticulation, which is a really good reason to have a good filter on the drinking water supply to your house.

@@TroIIingThemSoftly Yes still plenty of "temporary" prefab buildings all around, which are still there a century later on. They in many cases outlived the permanent structures built afterwards, and are still in use today. Even more fun is that some are declared monuments, so you cannot demolish them, cannot remove the asbestos, and also cannot use them either.

Sound like Quebec. They'd do that kind of thing. Meanwhile Swastika, Ontario still going strong.

I had a quick look for Asbestos Canada, it's crazy that people still live there, given it was a giant asbestos mine. It must be super contaminated there. Honestly seems irresponsible to rename it, what if some poor unsuspecting tourist goes there and gets mesothelioma? They should have shut the whole town down.

There’s a town in Russia still named “Асбест”, or “Asbest” for its asbestos industry, and as far as I know it still produces asbestos for use by nations around the world.

@@katherinebotand the people there all believe it is completely safe. The dangerous thing, in their mind, is "capitalist pigs."

Actually this ^, chemical engineers really have had outsized influence on the course of recent history if you think about it…

Add to that how much dumber we all are from the higher CO2 levels!

@@brianwelch1579 Not one iota.

​@@brianwelch1579or just from reading miserable takes in the comments

@@Sonny_McMacsson Actually high CO2 levels do make you dumber. Needs to be 3-4 times higher than current levels though, and that's easily achieved by having long meetings in small rooms with people who just go on and on and on... Now you know why so many companies make dumb decisions!

Honestly the asbestos filter was still probably less cancerous than the cigarette 💀

It went too well (for the cigarette company). The asbestos “over filtered” the cigarette, making it more like breathing air, so nobody bought them.

@@ShadowEclipse777it definitely wasn’t, crocidolite asbestos that was used in cigarette filters is orders of magnitude more likely to cause cancer than cigarettes, and mesothelioma is a more aggressive cancer than small cell carcinoma.

"it kills you now AND later!"

They probably figured the smoke would kill you faster.

we better make all the sand and rocks and statues illegal

SNY?

Silicosis has killed many hard rock miners in the past, and is now killing people in the engineered stone industry due to poor dust suppression. But nobody else Asbestos is killing people still now unfortunately due to it simply existing in our society. It is a terrible legacy 😢

@@mirzaahmed6589 Took me a few more reads to realize that was a typo for "any".

Flesh is weak, machine is alright, and we need something better eventually, The true solution would be stem celling replace everything every 5 years lol

Never, we will never control it it is too deep in the world now. Even if we eliminate all plastic use now. It would take the release of bacteria that can digest it (there are some but they are not fast), world wide and who knows what problems that will cause.

I currently throw plastic in the garbage so it doesn't end up in the ocean or a 3rd world landfill with no regulations. Only 10% thats collected is recycled anyways.

@@nikkiewhite476 COMMON NATURE!!!! FIND A WAY DAMNITTT!@!!!!

The PFAS one mentioned in the video too, which can be from the chemical breakdown of some of those. Replaces fatty acids, and thus can have a negative effect on fertility. Basically the little swimmers needed to make more animals end up starting out with a dead battery.

Your parmesan cheese was doing WHAT now?

​@@callmevbuck4054Classic parmesan behaviour

Is spontaneously combusting Parmesan cheese a regular problem for you?

​@@lmostWait, that ISN'T a problem for you?!

@@nonasuomi282 Nope, can’t say it is. You might wanna switch to a different brand, friend.

They are still on today. If you watch local channels that show old shows during the day, it's the exact same commercials for mesothelioma lawyers and Medicare enrollment.

In my Google Maps, I even have Street View (from 2008) of that town, nothing blacked out.

Basically 3 types. Blue is the straight sharp nasty stuff, white is the curly not-quite-as-bad stuff, and brown somewhere in the middle. If you're poking around and see something that looks like dryer lint, stop poking it. That's the blue stuff.

The issue with this "0.01 % of application that need it" still need an industry to support them. And we haven't found a way to mine this stuff that doesn't mean the workers will slowly destroy their lungs. Just because now only 100 Workers get lung cancer instead of 100.000 doesn't mean these guys have a particularly good time. We would need a hazardous material procedure to mine and process the material, do a complete decontamination for each and every step and process, put the workers in plastic suits for every work step to ensure the safety and then repeat the process whenever a part or subassembly containing the asbestos is worked on. At this point, the alternatives become economically viable, and the usage of asbestos is no longer feasable. So why ban it? To prevent those with financial interest (speak old investments) to try to muddy the strict guidelines or find workarounds to get profits at the cost of the health of the workers. That's why.

@@GermanTopGameTV We definitely do have sufficient skills in PPE to mine the stuff on the teeny scale that may needed. It also could be chemically synthesized instead. In the past year the US imported around 100 tons of the stuff. I am suggestion wording the regulation so that less than 10 tons worldwide are used per year, primarily for small scale laboratory usage as standards for exposure monitoring. The rest would only be for use in extreme niche situations. The cost would go up a lot as well as the difficulty of getting the permit to be involved. In the end the market should be in general be killed back so much that it's not really an industry. This is not enough of an engagement to do more than support a small number of highly skilled workers with gear to handle the material. This is very different than former uses where the stuff got plastered everywhere as a fire retardant or insulation. Another important consideration is that asbestos is an environmental hazard that is not unique to artificial environments. Continued monitoring and development will require some hazardous materials handling and sensing expertise.

We already know fiberglass sticks in your skin so... Well actually Iunno, cause that's actually a lot bigger than your alveoli 🤔

Honestly, this sounds like a class action lawsuit that should have already happened. I hope the former students who did end up getting diagnosed with mesothelioma later can get justice.

I hope you were exposed to just enough to be eligible for a fat check but not enough to do any damage 😂

@HadenBlake I'd have to look into it, actually. It was built in the late 60s/early 70s if I remember right and was recently torn down due to the asbestos. Time to do some digging lol.

It has to be airborne to do damage.

@@abigalanderson7494 He did say there were holes from fight so the chance it got airborne is not zero

Fortunately, if you recovered, it's likely due to other Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) issues than an asbestos-related disease. You'd know if you had lung cancer or mesothelioma (because you'd be symptomatic and probably dead by now), so that leaves asbestosis. It's classified as a scarring of the lungs due to asbestosis specifically, and it's permanent damage; if you got asbestosis when you were young (very highly unlikely, the latency period is around 10 years) then you would have a consistent level of sickness from then to now. If you recovered, you're very likely in the clear.

I see your lead pipes and raise you asbestos pipes

Where are you that they have asbestos water pipes. I rum into asbestos sewers once in awhile. But leads water piping an every other day occurance. (Im on the east coast)

Do you guys have any lung issues😮?

i had one too. came in some kind of collection of 10 different rocks. to go with my chemistry set (im sure that was dangerous too) early to mid 70's. yes it was fun to pull apart.

i bought a souvenir as a kid at the science center. it was asbestos rock in a little plastic box that flipped open. i used to play with it and pull it apart a bit . about the same age but about 1973.

@@casjean8904 yup

I received a starter rock collection as a kid in the 60's. It came with samples of maybe a dozen different minerals, including a little swatch of woven asbestos fabric/yarn. I can still remember how it felt heavy and cool to the touch.

Mexico has entered the chat lol

essential was probably the wrong word, "strongly recommended" is probably better, im not a fan of getting cholera, and without chlorine in the water, it (sometimes) grow bacteria that cause severe infections

The whole of the EU: you sure about that? (Yes yes i know there are countries that use it, but still, you can drink straight from the tap in basically any EU country)

Here in Germany, you might hear that they will temporarily put chlorine in the water if it's contaminated but other than that we have pretty much among the safest and cleanest drinking water in the world and it's relatively cheap at like 5€/m³ (1000liters/~264US Gal) it can be more expensive depending on where you live tho.

@@LastWish90 not all water in the USA is chlorinated either, it's based on the source, water from lakes and streams tend to get chlorinated pretty hard compared to groundwater or post-treatment water, it's easier to always chlorinate high risk water rather than wait for contamination to add chlorine.

Like lead. Abundant, easy to mine, so many use cases. But so very incompatible with humans.

Glad they haven't find any problem with iron. Yet.

The only way that would be harmful to you is if you took apart the breaks and/or clutch and broke off pieces of the pads. It's really not something the average person would ever be exposed to.

@@TroIIingThemSoftly eh, clutch and brake parts wear off so that dust comes free as you use it.

@@TroIIingThemSoftly look at your wheels. they're covered in brake dust. If you're someone who would change your own parts, they you're exposed.

@@___Bruh__ The dust blows off, so just walking past the vehicle exposes you to the fine dust. The dirt on the floor of the parking areas is almost always contaminated heavily with it, plus of course also lots of lead from the fuel as well. Unleaded fuel is allowed to have up to a certain amount of lead, simply because the refineries did not want to replace all the tanks and piping, which also use asbestos as packing in glands, and as gasket material as well, long with tons of it used as floating lid seals as well, blended in with rubber to make a resiliant and UV proof seal.

Remember the car brake company RAYbestos... that was the selling point......

for whatever it's worth, the main danger in those products is to the people making them. once asbestos is sealed in a material like plastic or asphalt, or whatever, where it can't become airborne, it's no longer dangerous.

I don't drive on public roads either.

and, there are a few things worse than Asbestos.

Oh dang i posted this before watching the whole thing. I didn't know it was still used in filtration lol

asbestos is somewhat like lead in a way. you always think "well now we can get rid of it" but na, not realy, you can just push it into the corner a little more.

Yeah that's the problem Were it not such a massive health hazard when rendered airborne (a very frequent and easy thing to do), it truely would be a miracle mineral

Not only good performance to price, but just... Best performance in many places

Don't worry, young generations will create their own problems to take the vacant space

No it's not like arguing explosives. It takes repeated exposure over years to asbestos fibers to see any issues. People living or working around asbestos are unlikely to see any problems, unless it is being disturbed constantly. So yes it would be like comparing explosives to combustibles, if it took several years to ignite, and only made you somewhat uncomfortable.

Meanwhile, one arrangement of hydrocarbons is sugar, while another is jet fuel. 🤷‍♂️

Asbestos is just a subtype of a much larger family of crystalline silicate minerals. Almost all of these minerals can cause lung cancer if inhaled. And yet, most of these silicate minerals are SAFER than asbestiform silicates, so we've decided to keep them. Cement (and anything made from it like concrete and mortar) contains crystalline silica. This silica is dangerous is exactly the same way as asbestos, but at a somewhat lower level. So we've decided to keep building with concrete. Bricks are made from clay which contains crystalline silica. This silica is dangerous in exactly the same way as asbestos, but at a lower level. So we've decided to keep making bricks. Stone (both natural and engineered stone) contains crystalline silica - in some cases spectacularly high amounts. This silica is dangerous in exactly the same way as asbestos, but at a somewhat lower level. So much so that some countries around the world have started to ban certain engineered and natural stones as not worth the risk. However, we've decided to keep making counter tops out of granite or quartz or whatever. For the time being at least. Point is, we are still arguing that some crystalline silica minerals (ie asbestos) are too dangerous to allow, but also arguing that other kinds of crystalline silica mineral are SAFER (but still dangerous), so let's continue to use them. We've got a long way to go in this discussion.

​​@@UGNAvalon they didn't get into the actual chemistry that makes it safer. It's because chrysotile has only Mg and not Fe in it. All the other asbestos minerals have more Fe which causes the immune system to freak out way more which causes the cellular damage that leads to the cancers. Grinding any silicate mineral or inhaling the dust, even quartz, will damage the lungs, no surprise there, chrysotile is only slightly more dangerous than silica dust, compared to the massively more dangerous Reibeckite and other so called "blue" asbestos

After getting older, I realize that the world largely runs on a 'throw everything at the wall and see what sticks' approach

it's not a priority as the fibres aren't as bad when not breathed in.

I sometimes get samples of asbestos pipe in my lab! Nasty stuff, I don't like the thought of such pipes still carrying our water

Yup, that's the nature of youtube addiction, an ongoing stream of novel information

My grandparents had maze games that used drops of mercury.

I'm glad you're safe but most wouldn't

Tobacco companies: "it ain't much, but it's honest work. 🤑🤑🤑"

I guess the difference is that, theoretically, it's people putting themselves at risk by purchasing an using a product widely known and labeled as cancer causing, vs employers putting employees at risk. Of course, it's more complicated than that, what the complication of second hand smoke effecting those who don't voluntarily choose to smoke (albeit, to a lesser extent than those who actually smoke cigarettes/cigars/etc.), not to mention the addictive nature both of nicotine as a drug and the social component smoking has for some people, which of which can make quiting incredibly difficulty, if not impossible for some people, without proper support. All that said, unlike with something like asbestos, where no one was purposely exposing themselves to it in order to manage cravings the only way they know how, I'm not convinced banning smoking outright is a good solution, for exactly the same reasons so many other drug laws are criticized -- that they're both ineffective and counterproductive at actually stopping the sale and use of dangerous drugs, just as the prohibition against alcohol only made things worse by driving people to sell and drink in secret and effectively prevents any regulation that might have actually reduced the risks. Of course, the risks of regularly drinking alcohol, at least in small-moderate amounts, aren't nearly as high as that of regularly smoking or consuming certain other types of more danger drugs, so there's arguably a greater public duty to mitigate the risks of tobacco use compared to alcohol overuse. The question is whether outlawing it is actually an effective way of doing that while also causing the smallest amount of unnecessary harm in the process. I haven't personally done any kind of study into the research that's been done on the effects of various drugs and how they compare to the effects alcohol prohibition in the 1920's, let alone how reasonable it is to extrapolate such research to make predictions about the effects of a potential ban of the sale of tobacco products, so I can't really say definitely if it's a good idea or not. But my instinct is that, as harmful as smoking is, an outright ban would likely to have similar counterproductive effects as prohibition and other widely criticized drug laws. What I _do_ think would perhaps be a good idea would be a complete ban on _advertising_ the sale of tobacco products, or at least much stricter regulations on how how, when, and where, such advertising can be done. Last I heard (and this may be outdated information), while it was technically illegal to aim tobacco at minors, companies got away with it anyway by _saying_ in the ads, basically "Don't smoke. It's bad." while at the same time _showing_ teens partying and having fun while smoking. Though don't quote me on that. I'm just going by memory of a video I watched years ago.

I think it was just one person speaking lol

@@abigalanderson7494 Yep! One person presents in this video, and their name is Savannah.

​@@SIsaacKher

@@wtice4632 their

Aw, look at you two being obtuse. Aren't you cute.

I actually thought it was very poor. It was obvious that she had come to a conclusion about asbestos, and was out to push her narrative, instead of providing a balanced view of the situation. She failed to really mention where or why some forms of asbestos are still in use, and what their alternatives (and their risks) are. For a science channel, this was far from scientific or really informative. It was really just venting.

@@jaredwilliams8621 I meant the way she talked, not what the video was about. There is a difference between how someone presents and what someone presents

UV light and chlorine both disinfect water at the water treatment plant. Chlorine's advantage is that it keeps water disinfected all the way to your faucet. It's only a tiny disadvantage since most water is out of a city's system within a day or two.

Yeah were it not so dangerous when rendered airborne, it truely would be a miracle material It can do so much so well

But the count isn't over yet: people are still dying from it.

Yes, it's benefits should be considered against the damages.

Won't somebody please think of the millionaires....

I agree 100% I love the videos that she presents

corporations are people too!

It's sad it's so dangerous as otherwise it truly is a miracle material. Cheap, yet incredibly useful and effective

its not so much that its cheap, but that it was a near miracle product. at one time it was the only fireproof fiber that was known about, and a lot of lives were saved by it. and as the host stated its still the best option for chlorine.

It seemed more like a vent, than educational content from a science channel. I thought it was poorly done. She never really addressed why asbestos would still be used today and what might change if it were removed.

Blue asbestos is the amosite variety. In Australia there was a company called Mr Fluffy that would blow blue asbestos into your roof & walls to insulate them. Worked great! Ah yeah, we don't do that anymore. There's also a town where most of the blue asbestos came from that no-one really visits these days. Aside from a few RU-vidrs looking for clicks.

Blue asbestos is crocidolite, so that's probs what you saw! Fun fact: here in Australia, a town was forcibly abandoned due to its proximity to naturally occurring crocidolite hills that sickened the residents. Hope you get better...

I first read this as "I killed my grandfather" and had a completely different reaction. >

​@@veryberry39 Hahaha

Abortion bans racking up in a failed attempt to keep the pleb pipeline running! They'll do anything *but* make the planet liveable for us 😂

That's the type of "out of the box" thinking we're looking for! Give that man a raise!

@@MageSkeleton Thank you. A little poem that I like - The working class can kiss my ass, I've got the foremans job at last. 😉

It takes decades for the cancer to show up. Those workers were due for replacement by then anyway.

Ya know what... Replacing dead workers from electricity fires and direct exposure is cheaper than banning electricity...

On earth most rocks and soil contain 3ppm uranium. it is always with you

Same. I don't remember uranium, but there was a little swatch of woven asbestos yarn. I still remember how it felt heavy and cool to the touch.

@@captsorghum back in the day table cloth or dining towels for the ultra rich was made form asbestos

Uranium is practically everywhere in the ground as a trace element. Only gonna be a problem if you decide to enrich it and eat it.