• HauntingScience@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    I’m sorry my response came out pedantic, it was not my intention. But I stand by my comment. Asbestos hasn’t been fully banned in USA.

    Notice how much work the “new uses” is doing in that sentence.

    Some articles on it:

    Even though asbestos is known to cause deadly diseases, the U.S. still allows companies to import hundreds of tons of the raw mineral. It is primarily used by two chemical manufacturers, OxyChem and Olin Corp., in the production of chlorine

    The EPA has missed some legislative deadlines to enact the ban but says it will finalize the regulation by October.

    (Deadline they missed, again)

    https://www.propublica.org/article/asbestos-ban-poisoning-workers-factories

    • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Asbestos hasn’t been fully banned in USA.

      Right, but are we assuming that a ban on nicotine would ban all commercial uses of it, or just the sale of it as a consumable?

      Nicotine has plenty of non-consumable applications as well such as its capabilities as a pesticide.

      used by two chemical manufacturers, OxyChem and Olin Corp., in the production of chlorine

      Yes, as a reagent that doesn’t come in contact with the general public. They aren’t selling asbestos, they’re selling a byproduct of one of its chemical reactions.

        • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Haha, no reason to turn it into a contest or anything. Just two people exchanging different perspectives for educational purposes. Though I do commend you for your mental plasticity. Not many people possess the mental flexibility to change their opinions based on newly introduced information anymore. Cheers.