[HN Gopher] Paul Brodeur, journalist who exposed asbestos hazard...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Paul Brodeur, journalist who exposed asbestos hazards, dies at 92
        
       Author : bookofjoe
       Score  : 138 points
       Date   : 2023-08-13 14:34 UTC (8 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.washingtonpost.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.washingtonpost.com)
        
       | andrewl wrote:
       | After I saw the movie _The Stunt Man_ I read Brodeur's book by
       | the same name, on which the movie was based. Both are worth your
       | time. The movie was underrated in my opinion.
        
         | bookofjoe wrote:
         | Concur. The movie is fantastic, Peter O'Toole scintillating.
        
       | PeterStuer wrote:
       | As a student in the 80's, I had sidejob as an enqueteur. The
       | worst campaign I remember was for asbestos roof tiles. It was a
       | completely inane questionaire the goal of which was to get people
       | to agree to a 2 hr (sales) follow-up. I ditched that one after
       | the first half day.
        
       | carstenhag wrote:
       | Offtopic on this man's death, on topic about asbestos: My parents
       | always told me my grandpa died because he smoked tobacco. As a
       | kid I took this very serious and of course never once wanted to
       | smoke, having lost him when I was 5 or so. When I was 17-18, my
       | family talked about asbestos and that it was actually asbestos-
       | caused lung cancer that killed him. Usually I hate lies with a
       | passion, but in this case I am glad my parents lied to me.
        
         | kazinator wrote:
         | For a time in the 1950's, Kent cigarettes used asbestos
         | filters.
        
         | tjrgergw wrote:
         | Thanks for sharing.
         | 
         | I don't agree with the take away. My parents told me my whole
         | life "don't do drugs", and so I didn't. And no one in the
         | family was into drugs.
         | 
         | What's my point? Not sure. I guess I also hate lies with a
         | passion, and additionally there's multiple ways to get the
         | outcome of not getting your kids to do X. I don't know what it
         | is, but some kids when you tell them "don't do X", they want to
         | do X. I guess you and I, luckily, aren't like that, and I
         | suspect maybe that's a large part of why your parents "don't
         | smoke" thing had an affect on you.
        
           | vizzah wrote:
           | The problem is - when parents say "don't do something"
           | (without giving a good excuse not to) - it has little (and
           | often opposite) effect.
        
             | tjrgergw wrote:
             | I don't believe that. And in fact, you have two examples
             | right here (me and the person I was responding to) where we
             | were told "don't do X" and we didn't.
             | 
             | I know everyone says it, but I think "kids do the opposite"
             | is pop-psych BS. I've never met a balanced a person who'd
             | say "I just did the opposite of what my parents told me". I
             | only know of examples where invariably the kids are
             | disturbed also in other ways, and so it's impossible to
             | disentangle cause and effect.
             | 
             | People just repeat nonsense they hear with no basis
             | whatsoever, and so BS propagates.
        
               | simmerup wrote:
               | Then how do you explain reverse psychology?
        
               | tjrgergw wrote:
               | You mean this?
               | 
               | > Susan Fowler writes, "Beware that such strategies [of
               | reverse psychology] can backfire. Children can sense
               | manipulation a mile away." She instead recommends leading
               | by example.
               | 
               | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_psychology
        
             | asdff wrote:
             | Usually when there is cognitive dissonance involved with
             | the command. Parents might tell you being gay or smoking
             | weed sends you to hell, but then when you finally see
             | examples of people that meet these definitions your parents
             | espoused but aren't presumably suffering the harmful
             | effects they claim, you start to question their judgement
             | and the entire belief system they saddled upon you.
             | Teenagers don't usually act out just to act out. They don't
             | argue to you the sky is red when you say its blue, they
             | will argue breathless over it though if you claim its red
             | when they can go outside and see that it is blue.
        
       | YesBox wrote:
       | It's interesting looking back, before the hazards were widely
       | known ("Silk from Stone" - Vermont Life Magazine, 1954. Home of
       | the nations largest asbestos mine)
       | 
       | https://archive.org/details/rbmsbk_ap2-v4_1954_V08N3/page/n3...
        
       | ck2 wrote:
       | It's supposedly not used by many manufacturers today but imagine
       | through the 1990s when asbestos was still used widely in car
       | brake pads, at every traffic light when cars stop the particles
       | would fly into the air, then pedestrians are crossing the street,
       | etc. breathing through that cloud.
        
         | nick_ wrote:
         | Sadly just one of the very many negative externalities of car-
         | centric cities that are imposed on people who don't opt-in to
         | the madness.
        
           | toomuchtodo wrote:
           | I think the more pressing concern is the systemic nature of
           | this issue. We've eliminated lead and MTBE from auto fuel,
           | and no longer use asbestos, but have replaced them with
           | plastic (leading to micro plastics everywhere, including
           | being found in heart tissue), PFAS, BPA, etc. The EPA
           | approved a plastic waste fuel proposed by Chevron that is
           | highly likely to cause cancer with almost no pushback. Almost
           | 100% of the US population has DuPont C8 (used to make Teflon)
           | in their bloodstream.
           | 
           | It's a call for government regulators who aren't industry
           | pushovers and conservative evaluation and approval approaches
           | to novel materials. We need a system that won't enable us to
           | continually find new ways to poison ourselves, but still
           | allows for material innovation. Activists and journalism
           | professionals are key stakeholders in this effort, holding
           | (or at least trying to) government and industry accountable.
           | We continue to need people like Paul who talk about this.
           | Same story, different materials.
           | 
           | (walkable communities are of importance and significance as
           | well of course)
        
             | bagacrap wrote:
             | What is an acceptable rate of causing cancer and how do you
             | determine what rate a new material will have?
             | 
             | I hope your answer to the first question is not zero
             | because things like PFAS do have benefits that are directly
             | translatable to health outcomes. For example, when used for
             | water proofing clothing, they might prevent hypothermia and
             | save lives in extreme conditions. Plastic water bottles
             | enable the distribution of clean water in areas that don't
             | have (can't afford) good infrastructure. Less glass and
             | more plastic means less broken glass on city streets, which
             | I appreciate as a dog owner who doesn't want his pooch to
             | step on broken shards.
        
               | Spooky23 wrote:
               | We have standards for acceptable risk. In the Chevron
               | example, they were just ignored by the EPA.
               | 
               | Basically, every Chevron employee working with those
               | products will likely develop cancer as a result.
               | 
               | Environmental issues are tough. It's easy to focus on
               | your dogs' paw and not even be aware that people are
               | needlessly suffering and dying to protect it.
        
               | bagacrap wrote:
               | I don't know anything about this Chevron example, but
               | there are two possibilities:
               | 
               | A) it's not as clear cut as you say
               | 
               | B) it is as clear cut as you say, and I agree with you
               | 
               | But if the latter were true, there would probably be a
               | high profile post on HN or elsewhere about it.
        
               | toomuchtodo wrote:
               | First few links.
               | 
               | https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false
               | &qu...
               | 
               | Propublica: https://www.propublica.org/article/epa-
               | approved-chevron-fuel...
        
               | toomuchtodo wrote:
               | Some cancer (harm, in general) is going to have to be
               | acceptable. Zero risk is rare. I am not a chemical
               | engineering domain expert, so I can't speak to the
               | acceptable amount of harm caused to progress ratio. Do
               | the math and make it public. With that said, I'd argue
               | we're too far to one side of the pendulum and need to
               | find the middle close to less overall harm caused.
               | 
               | It's not all doom and gloom. Switching from lead and MTBE
               | to ethanol as an anti knock additive in auto fuel was an
               | objective win. There are more wins like that out there I
               | believe.
        
           | veave wrote:
           | You can opt out by moving to the countryside.
        
             | jeffbee wrote:
             | There are many naturally occurring hazards in the
             | countryside, including asbestos.
        
           | bagacrap wrote:
           | I would agree but we're talking about asbestos here. It was
           | primarily used in building insulation. Are you suggesting we
           | should have opted out of housing altogether as the sane
           | people opt out of driving? Because I would have suggested we
           | simply stop using asbestos, whether in houses or cars.
        
         | mustafa_pasi wrote:
         | Now we have carbon fibre. And asbestos is still everywhere. You
         | just need to know where to look for it. However, in most cases
         | it is perfectly safe unless pulverized.
        
           | rcme wrote:
           | I don't consider it perfectly safe. We live in a world of
           | constant change. If you install something, say fireproofing
           | on a structure, you need a plan to remove it in the event of
           | a repair or renovation. You can't say "it's fine as long as
           | you don't touch it" because what thing on Earth is never
           | touched again?
        
             | bookofjoe wrote:
             | >Computer simulation study of fullerene translocation
             | through lipid membranes (2008)
             | 
             | https://www.nature.com/articles/nnano.2008.130
        
       | remote_phone wrote:
       | People with heavy, prolonged exposure to asbestos have up to 13%
       | chance is getting cancer.
       | 
       | People with prolonged exposure to sawdust have a 16% chance of
       | getting cancer.
       | 
       | Asbestos is dangerous but not nearly as dangerous as most people
       | think.
        
         | Spooky23 wrote:
         | That's an ignorant interpretation of those statistics.
         | 
         | 13% risk is a number controlling out other factors. Cancer is a
         | numbers game and as a person living your life you stack the
         | risks together.
         | 
         | Trying to rhetorically minimize the danger of this stuff by
         | comparing it to sawdust is specious and gross. Exposure to
         | sawdust is a narrow occupational hazard easily mitigated with
         | PPE. Exposure to asbestos is a much broader - use of baby
         | powder, serving on a ship, working in a boiler room, working as
         | a mechanic, etc. Its a very broad risk that most workers didn't
         | even realize they were exposed to - just their presence was a
         | risk.
        
           | logdap wrote:
           | [dead]
        
           | remote_phone wrote:
           | Please provide sources for all of your claims.
        
         | tegmark wrote:
         | i discovered this after buying a house with asbestos and
         | looking not only into the official guidelines but the
         | undercurrent of industry experts, their observations. the risks
         | of asbestos are massively overblown in the way that the public
         | understands it. massively. it was shocking to find out.
        
           | jtwaleson wrote:
           | Do you have some sources? I'm interested in this topic as
           | there is also asbestos in my house.
        
         | goeiedaggoeie wrote:
         | Turns out getting particles into our lungs are bad! I recently
         | did some DIY on an old cottage on our land which was empty for
         | years, I got a N100 mask since it was painted with lead paint
         | which was flaking off and I was putting lead containment paint
         | over it after brushing it down. An older person seeing me take
         | this rudimentary precaution went about mocking me for being
         | timid.
        
         | delphi4711 wrote:
         | assuming you are correct, what if someone is exposed to both
         | asbestos and sawdust? And what if that person is also a smoker?
         | And now that person also lives in a house with high radon
         | exposure.
        
         | CharlesW wrote:
         | Can you post a link to the source?
         | 
         | It's well-known that both asbestos and wood dust (especially
         | hardwood dust) are carcinogens, but (for example) mesothelioma
         | is very bad and _does not_ require heavy, prolonged exposure --
         | brief and /or low-level exposure has been shown to cause it
         | too. Additionally, inhaled asbestos fibers can remain in the
         | lungs and pleural lining for decades. In contrast, the human
         | body can expel wood dust over time.
        
           | remote_phone wrote:
           | > mesothelioma is very bad and does not require heavy,
           | prolonged exposure -- brief or low-level exposures have been
           | linked to mesothelioma.
           | 
           | Link?
        
             | CharlesW wrote:
             | Lemen, R. A. (2004). Asbestos in brakes: exposure and risk
             | of disease. American journal of industrial medicine, 45(3),
             | 229-237.
        
               | remote_phone wrote:
               | A more recent and substantial study disproves that idea.
               | 
               | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4243788/
               | 
               | Workers with heavy exposure to asbestos have a similar
               | risk of lung cancer as persons with low or no exposure 20
               | years after the exposure has ended.
        
               | gpm wrote:
               | What exactly do you think that study contradicts? It
               | seems to show that asbestos increases the risk of lung
               | cancer for about two decades. That seems to support the
               | comment you're saying it disproves, not disprove it.
        
         | atdrummond wrote:
         | One of the sad things about the massive increase in popularity
         | of engineered quartz countertops has been the massive increase
         | in 20-something year olds getting silicosis and needing lung
         | transplants.
         | 
         | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7810008/
        
           | asdff wrote:
           | Just to be clear about your source for other readers. It
           | discusses the workers who produce these counter tops versus
           | people merely having them in the home (what I originally
           | inferred with your comment), it says the mean age of onset
           | was 43 years old, and that 79% of the workers with silicosis
           | did not use personal protective equipment.
        
       | toomuchtodo wrote:
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Brodeur
        
       | bookofjoe wrote:
       | https://archive.ph/DCQJ5
        
       | NoZebra120vClip wrote:
       | My maternal grandfather was a pipe fitter for the railroad. He
       | suffered many years from lung cancer. I remember when they
       | brought in the hospital bed and oxygen tanks so he could suffer
       | and die at home, with my grandmother always by his side.
       | 
       | My father worked in asbestos abatement projects, along with
       | cleaning up other kinds of HAZMAT. I doubt that this is a mere
       | coincidence.
        
       | uptown wrote:
       | My dad is dying from mesothelioma. He was first diagnosed a few
       | years ago, and after surgery and chemotherapy, was in remission
       | for a period of time. He's now been fighting an aggressive second
       | round where immunotherapy has proven ineffective - instead
       | triggering colitis. He's gone from an active and vibrant man to
       | someone who can barely summon the energy to move from his bed to
       | a chair. Every few weeks he has paracentesis to drain multiple
       | liters of fluid from his abdomen. He has no appetite and the food
       | he does eat has almost no taste.
       | 
       | He's nearly 80, and has had many points of exposure throughout
       | his life. He's mentally as sharp as he's ever been, but his body
       | is failing him as he fights this disease.
       | 
       | His remaining time in this world is likely measured in days, or
       | weeks.
       | 
       | He's alive but not living. It's a condition I wouldn't wish on
       | anyone.
        
         | arrosenberg wrote:
         | My dad just passed in a similar fashion from a different
         | cancer. He was fairly sharp until the last month when spiraled
         | out. I'm sorry you are going through it.
        
       | WarOnPrivacy wrote:
       | I worked for an attorney that had a few doz old+active
       | mesothelioma cases on the shelf. About every third year, each
       | would get a check for ~$12.
        
       | oblib wrote:
       | I started working with asbestos while modifying vans for
       | handicapped people to drive back in the early 70s. We used it as
       | a heat shield when we lowered the floors in vans for people in
       | wheelchairs to drive.
       | 
       | I would watch guys I worked with stand in a cloud of dust cutting
       | up 4'x8' sheets of asbestos. I'd offer them my respirator and
       | they'd refuse. They considered that to be unmanly and made a
       | point to give me shit over that.
       | 
       | A few years into that work I convinced the engineers who'd
       | designed those asbestos heat shields to use galvanized sheet
       | metal, which is what the OEM used and we removed. It was less
       | expensive, easier to fabricate and install, and it worked a lot
       | better.
       | 
       | I owe Paul Brodeur a lot, and so do many others.
        
       | Animats wrote:
       | No mention of "Currents of Death".
        
         | lioeters wrote:
         | Nor the briefly titled, "The Great Power-Line Cover-Up: How the
         | Utilities and Government Are Trying to Hide the Cancer Hazard
         | Posed by Electromagnetic Fields".
        
           | alex_duf wrote:
           | Never heard of these, should they have been mentioned?
        
             | lioeters wrote:
             | He wrote another book titled, "The Zapping of America:
             | Microwaves, Their Deadly Risk, and the Coverup".
             | 
             | I'd never heard of these either. These other books about
             | microwaves and power lines, the titles seem a bit too
             | dramatic and click-baity, which makes me skeptical. But
             | kinda curious if there's any evidence of such coverups.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-08-13 23:01 UTC)