>>9247086. PB

sorry anon, but you're on the wrong side here, and your own numbers ought to make that obvious. J&J paid out $750M to FOUR cancer victims? FOUR??? out of 7 billion people? and you think asbestos is a "risk" we need to worry about? maybe take some time to educate yourself on the real science, not the MSM hype! or do you believe in global warming, too?!?

in the first place, the word asbestos refers to a family of minerals, much like the word sugar refers to a family of compounds, and just as not all sugars are created equal, not all asbestoses are created equal. secondly, asbestos is ubiquitous in nature. go anywhere you like, the place you believe has the most pristine environment, and if you test the air there, you will find asbestos. it's in virtually every mineral, and as a result of natural abrasion, it's in the air everywhere.

if it were as deadly as you IMAGINE, don't you think people would have noticed enormous clusters of asbestos deaths near towns where it's been mined for hundreds of years? they have NOT, because there AREN'T any such clusters. asbestos is as benign as anything else. did you know, for example, that workers in flour mills who breathe in large quantities of flour dust for decades are prone to a condition called "white lung," and they ultimately die of lung cancer? does that mean that wheat flour "causes" cancer? should we therefore ban wheat? outlaw flour?

OR…. maybe chronic exposure to dust of ANY composition is unhealthy when inhaled into the lungs. maybe… we should assign some (or all) of the responsibility to stubborn and/or stupid workers who refused to wear proper protective equipment (dust masks) when they worked in high dust concentrations. maybe… OCD people who are uncomfortable with their own bodies and shove mass quantities of talcum powder into their vagina, or any other bodily orifice, share at least some (or all) of the responsibility for the consequences.

testing talc for asbestos makes about as much sense as testing apple cider for water. of course you will find it, they are both in the same family of minerals. if asbestos really was all that carcinogenic, then pure talc would be, too! we've ALL been exposed to talcum powder repeatedly in our lives. the only thing notable is the LACK of cancer cases "caused" by talcum powder. the REAL tragedy is the trillions of dollars of tax money squandered on "asbestos abatement" which in virtually EVERY instance had the ironic effect of releasing MORE asbestos into the environment than would have occurred had they simply left the asbestos in place.

before you go off ranting and raving and REPEATING and perpetuating the MSM narrative that's been spoon-fed to you all your life, maybe you should educate yourself? and if you're going to get defensive and start asking questions like why and who would be behind such a massive lie, the answer is always the same…. follow the money! maybe the ultimate irony is that the "asbestos time bomb" known as the WTC twin towers needn't have been blown up by their owner larry silverstein in the most outrageous FF in history, because there WAS NO risk in leaving the asbestos in place.

are there forms of asbestos that are more dangerous than others? of course. but those are hardly used. and asbestos is as essential to our technological world as steel. perhaps we would be better off physically and spiritually if we returned to a purely agrarian low-tech existence, but we both know that's not going to happen because essentially no one wants that. the fleas come with the dog. learn the risks and take care of yourself accordingly. those that do not will win a darwin award, and maybe that's a good thing.