|
|
|
|
|
|
by Spooky23
1042 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
So is the other figure, so the comparison is valid. Maybe wood dust is more dangerous that you assume?
BTW, the asbestos in baby powder had nothing to do with industrial use of asbestos. It was in the talc because asbestos and talc are frequently coincident in the ground.