Jim T mentions:
> In the book we've been discussing this week, Wildavasky mentions that
> when bans of substances such as asbestos occur, there may be
> unforeseen public health risks and consequences, just as there are
> indeterminate risks involved with the substances themselves. Somehow
> the 'radical contingency of existence' comes to mind when I think of
> the WTC being built in that period of transition from an asbestos to
> a non-asbestos world . . . . fwiw.
>
> -j
Can you provide a single example? Asbestos related lung cancers are an
economic cost are they not? Did Wildavsky provide an analysis which would
support your thesis?
The interesting thing is that there are better and cheaper substitutes for
asbestos which do not require any mining and processing. One material is
silicon made into ceramic panels which have an R-value of 20 and are only 16
mils in thickness (16th of a thousands of an inch). These panels can be used
to replace all kinds of 'unsustainble' products like wood shingles, vinyl
siding, sliding siding made from wood wastes, et ctera.
There is a lot of prattle here on all sorts of environmentally harmful
substances and processes but a complete lack of analysis and authentic
discussion, especially in Wildavsky.
The WTC was not built to withstand a jet liner with 70,000 gallons of jet
fuel (kerosene) crashing into it. Any engineer probably would confirm that
without even any complex analysis. Had the building been filled to the sky
and brim with asbestos, then the problem of cleanup, and the exposure of
those firemen, would have been a vertiable nightmare. It would be relatively
easy to cleanup an old school building with asbestos 'insulation' but
cleaning up thousands or perhaps millions of tons of asbestos contaminated
materials is really problematic, since where do you put the asbestos? In
dump trucks and dump on Stanton Island letting the wind blow the dust
around?
chao
john foster
|