Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

phrobot t1_ixutukk wrote

Asbestos, fiberglass, stone dust, etc is carcinogenic from large exposure over many years. A one-time small job isn’t a big deal. That being said, you can still protect yourself perfectly well and get the job done. The spray primer idea is great. Then if needed you can spray with water to keep dust down and sand by hand, wear a mask for good measure.

6

Pinewold t1_ixuzkp3 wrote

Is this new? When I bought my house, we had all asbestos removed because it was said a single dose once is sufficient. It was more of a risk of how much was enough so many exposure dramatically increased the odds.

12

UsefulBeginning OP t1_ixv10lu wrote

That was my understanding too, that a single exposure event is risky. But I dunno.

3

Orway2000 t1_ixv49k5 wrote

For asbestos they are microscopic glass toothpicks that penetrate to the smallest reaches of the lung and get stuck. They are not cleared and will form a unique type of lung cancer. Theoretical cancer models, one hit hypothesis, is what your hearing about. Its theory. The suggestions to encapsulate are good ones. The approach to not disturb/sand etc. is also the best way to reduce an exposure risk. Wear PPE and you’ll be fine. Note the asbestosis lawyer commercials, they were occupational exposures without PPE.

19

Pinewold t1_iy3x4l4 wrote

If the fibers were left after an asbestos removal project, they may not be asbestos. The asbestos removal folks who worked on my house removed a bathroom floor because the tile had asbestos in it. The bathroom was not even on the list of items to check. They found the stair treads to the basement had asbestos and several other obscure tile patches under the water heater and a washer. They really tested everything!

The most impressive part of the cleanup was the clean room approach, they used zip walls to create plastic rooms around all exposure point and sealed second chambers to get in and out. All air circulation was completely filtered with special filters. The room had to be washed down and the air filtered until a air quality meter showed a safe level of particulates for an extended period of time.

Best $1500 (1993) I spent for my family and my mental health of not having to worry any more.

1

DarthDannyBoy t1_ixv58bt wrote

That is not true of asbestos. One time exposure is dangerous.

10

shifty_coder t1_ixv8og1 wrote

One time exposure is probably not too detrimental, but the problem with asbestos is that the fibers are so small and so light that they will float around in the air for a relatively long time. If you disturb asbestos and kick up fibers, you may have exposure over hours or days, in the area around it. That’s what makes it so problematic.

4

AnnieTheDog t1_ixw35p6 wrote

Do you have a source indicating that acute exposure to asbestos is "not too detrimental"?

I am interested in researching that further because it goes against pretty much everything I've heard and read. It might not be that bad for the elderly as they will generally die before complications, but for everyone else...

7

bms42 t1_ixwv4ze wrote

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

splinterandsawdust t1_ixyjzdl wrote

Asbestos can absolutely kill you painfully after a single exposure and regularly does. Do not assume that you will probably be fine if you are not exposed for long. It can and will kill you. Asbestos kills more people in the UK every year than cars do. More than 5,000 people A YEAR die in the UK from breathing in asbestos dust at some point in the past. It's not like filling your pocket with sand, where a little bit isn't noticeable, it's more like putting a lit firework in your pocket. 1 lit firework is better than 10, but 1 will still absolutely fuck your day up.

−1