I built Acoustical treatments for dummies (me)

[Johnd]

Schadenersatz-Klagen in den USA

That's your source? You have to be kidding. I'm happy to have a serious discussion with you when you get off whatever you're drugs you're on Highfi.

You wrote "they are identical" (asbestos and fiberglass). That is an untruth. Plain and simple. If you meant they both appear identical to an untrained eye under a microscope, that is an entirely difeerent matter. But that is not what you wrote, is it?

And it is not "a load" to reference studies of humans...unless you are not a human. The study you reference is flawed in the way that the fibers were impregnated on the walls of the rats' lungs. Your reference fails to mention that important fact.

I never wrote "You've posted that you see no reason why people should avoid a known cancer causing agent".

I did write "I see no problem with using fiberglass, provided it is safely handled and permanently encapsulated."

Plainly different things. Why must you misquote me? You must realize flawed tactics only weakens your position. You are also dead wrong in your rather flippant declaration that fiberglass is "a known cancer causing agent".

Please tell me you have something better than Schadenersatz-Klagen in den USA . Mein Kampf!

 

[highfihoney]

Plenty of other good info out there john as you well know,if you want to quable over "untrained" eye nonsense we can all day long but thats not the point,the point is that fiberglass is a cancer causing agent plain & simple & no amount of manufacturer saftey guidelines can hide that.

Speaking of being on drugs what kind of drugs are you taking where you reccomend using a known carcinogen in the home but strongly disagree with not wearing a helmet on a bicycle,fiberglass is safe but make sure you wear a helmet on your bike

I'll not spend my entire Sunday tracking down links to show the dangers of fiberglass,the burden of proof is on you, if you dispute my claims that fiberglass is deadly than you post some links showing "medical studies on humans" on how safe fiberglass is,until then you have no arguement at all.

 

[Johnd]

the burden of proof is on you, if you dispute my claims that fiberglass is deadly than you post some links showing "medical studies on humans" on how safe fiberglass is,until then you have no arguement at all.

No. To establish that fiberglass is "deadly", and even "carcinogenic" as you have declared, the burden is upon he who purports.

I have no "medical studies on humans on how safe fiberglass is". Firstly, it usually works in the reverse manner: studies are performed to establish how unsafe a thing is...this is true even for drugs.

I'm simply declaring that you (as the one who has purported these "facts") have proffered absolutely no proof, medical or otherwise, that fiberglass is "deadly" and "carcinogenic". You can maintain your positition, it is just unfounded, and as far as the scientific method goes, simply untenable. Peace.

 

[highfihoney]

No. To establish that fiberglass is "deadly", and even "carcinogenic" as you have declared, the burden is upon he who purports.

My training is not as a scientist,im just a lowely self trained construction supereintendant who builds buildings,but i am on the business end of fiberglass removal & installation on a daily basis,more & more every day architects are not allowing the use of friable fiberglass products in their designs, schools & hospitals are treating the removal of friable fiberglass just as asbestos,your veiws are not shared by those who teach & certify people like myself in the abatement feild.

You are correct that the burden of proof WAS MINE but it is no longer mine,i posted 3 links in my first post showing the dangers of fiberglass & a fourth link in another post,ive showed what i consider to be proof,each time you've contested my proof with no evidence of your own to back up your stand point.

The way it works is that if you plan to challenge a point where evidence is presented you should be prepared to present facts to support your position,not just personal thoughts,so far you've presented zero facts to support your position.

I'll stand on this one point alone,OSHA has declared fiberglass to be a cancer causing agent & that warning labels must be placed on all friable fiberglass products,prove OSHA wrong with facts.

 

[bpape]

One should certainly not inhale fiberglass dust - it's certainly not good for you. However, it is not a carcinogen. There is not one single study that says it is and many have been done - all have come back negative.

The links posted above are hardly professional, scientific, or even particularly believable.

I'd love to see the OSHA official declaration that fiberglass is a carcinogen (especially since they don't make those kinds of declarations). Now, can they mandate masks and gloves - absolutely. Is that a good idea - absolutely. Do you see people putting on full enviro-suits and completely walling off 'clean' areas and safety washes when installing or removing fiberglass - no. If it was like asbestos and was a carcinogen, they would be.

I'm not interested in getting into a heated debate about this - only presenting the facts. The facts are that fiberglass and mineral wool have not been found to be cancer causing and not for a lack of trying.

A quote from the American Lung Association site. This is a timeline of the research:

* 1994- NTP listed fiberglass as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen" based on animal data.
* 1998- The American Conference of Govern- mental Industrial Hygienists reviewed the available literature and concluded glass wool to be "carcinogenic in experimental animals at a relatively high dose, by route(s) of administra- tion, at site(s), of histologic type(s) or by mechanism(s) that are not considered relevant to worker exposures".
* 1999- OSHA and the manufacturers volunta- rily agreed on ways to control workplace exposures to avoid irritation. As a result, OSHA has stated that it does not intend to regulate exposure to fiberglass insulation. The voluntary agreement, known as the Health & Safety Partnership Program includes a recom- mended exposure level of 1.0 fiber per cubic centimeter (f/cc) based on an 8-hour workday and provides comprehensive work practices.
* 2000- The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reported that epidemiological studies of glass fiber manufacturing workers indicate "glass fibers do not appear to increase the risk of respiratory system cancer". The NAS supported the exposure limit of 1.0 f/cc that has been the industry recommendation since the early 1990s.
* 2001- The IARC working group revised their previous classification of glass wool being a possible carcinogen. It is currently considered not classifiable as a human carcinogen. Studies done in the past 15 years since the previous report was released, do not provide enough evidence to link this material to any cancer risk.

Full Page - http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35439

Bryan

 

[Grantc79]

Updated:

I cut the stuff without a mask and am yet still living.

Oh wait......

 

[Johnd]

Updated:

I cut the stuff without a mask and am yet still living.

Oh wait......

Haaaaa!

No. It's not possible. Say it ain't so!

Just don't let Schadenersatz-Klagen in den USA get a hold of this "development."

It's good to hear that you've survived the ordeal Grant.