Rocks and chocks
Mary Shafer
> "And some rin up hill and down dale, knapping
> the chucky stanes to pieces wi' hammers, like
> sae mony road-makers run daft -- they say it is
> to see how the warld was made!"
We bought a beautiful green rock for the stone-knapping set. It's
serpentine, California's state rock, and it weighs 1.99 tons. Now we
can see how part of the world turned out, at subduction zones.
They delivered it (and five granite boulders) yesterday, using a
grappler truck. It was quite exciting to watch, actually. The driver
put down wooden chocks and chunks of wood for the outriggers and then
lifted away. The grappler is just like the "claws" in those games at
the supermarket, where a quarter gets you a chance to pick up a
stuffed animal and drop it into the delivery chute. It costs $210 per
hour to use the grappler truck, I found out.
When the arm was extended about twelve feet the truck, with the five
boulders in it, was lifting off the opposite outrigger and getting
pretty light on the tires, too. So he set it down, off loaded the
boulders into their places, and then moved the truck. Picked up the
green rock, turned it to the desired angle, and then got it almost in
the final position, about three inches up. Then everyone involved
turned and looked at me. I indicated that I wanted it about six
inches thataway. He moved it six inches thataway and set it down.
It looks great. I'd never picked out a rock and had it delivered
before. This was so cool. We'd picked out different granite boulders
but they were too heavy for the grappler truck and we didn't want to
pay the extra for whatever equipment they use for the big stuff.
Mary
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
mil...@qnet.com
M. J. Freeman
> We bought a beautiful green rock for the stone-knapping set. It's
> serpentine, California's state rock, and it weighs 1.99 tons.
[...]
> ...didn't want to pay the extra for whatever equipment they use for
> the big stuff.
Okay, can we talk about a 4,000 lbs anything not being considered "big
stuff"?
--
Michael J. Freeman Cincinnati, OH
'85 VF700S (The Leper) mike_f...@SPMBLOKmac.com
"Insanity runs in the family; it practically gallops"
Ellison, H. Thompson, D. Parker, Prince, SRV, Led Zep
danny burstein
>Mary Shafer <mil...@qnet.com> posted in alt.folklore.urban:
>> We bought a beautiful green rock for the stone-knapping set. It's
>> serpentine, California's state rock, and it weighs 1.99 tons.
>[...]
>> ...didn't want to pay the extra for whatever equipment they use for
>> the big stuff.
>Okay, can we talk about a 4,000 lbs anything not being considered "big
>stuff"?
Whatcha wanna bet that the listed load capacity
of the crane was 4,000 pounds?
danny " sure the rock just happened to be 99.5 percent
of the rated capacity. sure. can I use that scale
next time I check my own weight? " burstein
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Charles Wm. Dimmick
>>"And some rin up hill and down dale, knapping
>>the chucky stanes to pieces wi' hammers, like
>>sae mony road-makers run daft -- they say it is
>>to see how the warld was made!"
>>
>>
>
>We bought a beautiful green rock for the stone-knapping set. It's
>serpentine, California's state rock, and it weighs 1.99 tons. Now we
>can see how part of the world turned out, at subduction zones.
>
>
Wonderful! Now you almost have me envious.
Only I probably would prefer to have a large chunk of the Onondaga
Limestone.
Charles
--
Charles Wm. Dimmick
>Mary Shafer <mil...@qnet.com> posted in alt.folklore.urban:
>
>
>
>>We bought a beautiful green rock for the stone-knapping set. It's
>>serpentine, California's state rock, and it weighs 1.99 tons.
>>
>>
>[...]
>
>
>>...didn't want to pay the extra for whatever equipment they use for
>>the big stuff.
>>
>>
>
>Okay, can we talk about a 4,000 lbs anything not being considered "big
>stuff"?
>
>
by my quick calculation that's only 0.8 cubic meters.
Charles
--
Bill
news:6ggj60tk4uo6497c5...@4ax.com:
>
> We bought a beautiful green rock for the stone-knapping set. It's
> serpentine, California's state rock, and it weighs 1.99 tons. Now we
> can see how part of the world turned out, at subduction zones.
We live in the Sierra Nevada with Serpentine all around. There are
cautions about asbestos, one is below, and I'm no expert but presumably if
it is in one piece, and only looked at....
http://www.arb.ca.gov/enf/advs/advs161.htm
--
Pull the string to reply
David Winsemius
> We live in the Sierra Nevada with Serpentine all around. There are
> cautions about asbestos, one is below,
I dare say the Coast Range has as much serpentine as the Sierra Nevada.
That cautionary note from the Golden Bear State just says you shouldn't
make gravel roads out of it.
--
David "amphiboling for dollars" Winsemius
If the statistics are boring, then you've got the wrong numbers.
-Edward Tufte
Mary Shafer
<cdim...@snet.net> wrote:
> Mary Shafer wrote:
>
> >>"And some rin up hill and down dale, knapping
> >>the chucky stanes to pieces wi' hammers, like
> >>sae mony road-makers run daft -- they say it is
> >>to see how the warld was made!"
> >>
> >>
> >
> >We bought a beautiful green rock for the stone-knapping set. It's
> >serpentine, California's state rock, and it weighs 1.99 tons. Now we
> >can see how part of the world turned out, at subduction zones.
> >
> >
> Wonderful! Now you almost have me envious.
> Only I probably would prefer to have a large chunk of the Onondaga
> Limestone.
If the Onondaga Limestone is where I think it is, it's not very likely
to turn up in SoCal. This couldn't have come from very far away,
judging by the price.
I'll take a photo or two and post pointers. It's quite beautiful,
translucent greenish gray with embedded opaque lime green circles
surrounded by translucent chartreuse rings. There's some drusy and
some fibrous stuff (don't say the name; we're in denial) and some odd
white stuff that looks almost like limestone.
This was the largest of three such rocks that they got at the yard,
we're told. The others went more quickly, probably because of the
cost of the grappler truck.
Our landscaper is just delighted. I get the impression that clients
who want something unusual and special are the exception, not the
rule.
Greg Locock
> I get the impression that clients
> who want something unusual and special are the exception, not the
> rule.
That'd be because of the definitions of 'exception', 'special' and
'unusual', at a rough guess.
Cheers
Greg "Mundane and quotidienne, please" Locock
R H Draney
>
>Mary Shafer wrote:
>> I get the impression that clients
>> who want something unusual and special are the exception, not the
> ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
>> rule.
>
>That'd be because of the definitions of 'exception', 'special' and
>'unusual', at a rough guess.
Or if I go by where your underlining appeared for me, the definitions of "ething
u", "al and spe" and "he exceptio"....
R H "still not sure why some people's posts show up proportional" Draney
Charles Wm. Dimmick
>We live in the Sierra Nevada with Serpentine all around. There are
>cautions about asbestos, one is below, and I'm no expert but presumably if
>it is in one piece, and only looked at....
>
>http://www.arb.ca.gov/enf/advs/advs161.htm
>
>
As I've often stated before, there is no conclusive proof that
serpentine asbestos
has any harmful effects. See, for instance, the relevant chapter in "
Citizen's
Guide to Geologic Hazards". Our chapter on asbestos hazard clearly points
out that the real hazard is with the various forms of amphibole
asbestos, NOT
serpentine [chrysotile] asbestos.
http://www.aipg-tx.org/anmviewer.asp?a=17
http://www.agiweb.org/pubs/pubdetail.html?item=300327
Or see a sample of what I actually wrote on the subject at:
http://www.fp.rdg.ac.uk/wkc1/DIY/safety/msg00056.html
Charles
--
Bill
news:KsEac.46152$dl7....@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com:
> As I've often stated before, there is no conclusive proof that
> serpentine asbestos
> has any harmful effects. See, for instance, the relevant chapter in "
> Citizen's
> Guide to Geologic Hazards". Our chapter on asbestos hazard clearly
> points out that the real hazard is with the various forms of amphibole
> asbestos, NOT
> serpentine [chrysotile] asbestos.
> http://www.aipg-tx.org/anmviewer.asp?a=17
> http://www.agiweb.org/pubs/pubdetail.html?item=300327
> Or see a sample of what I actually wrote on the subject at:
> http://www.fp.rdg.ac.uk/wkc1/DIY/safety/msg00056.html
>
> Charles
As I said, I am no expert, however the cite from the State of California
seems to indicate that they think that Serpentine asbestos is some
hazard. Also interesting is a display in the lobby of the El Dorado
County Administration center (where they issue building permits) that
shows samples of Serpentine and a map outlining serpentine/asbestos areas
in the county. I had to have my lot checked for Serpentine/asbestos and
there is now one high school football field that *they* say cannot be
used because of Serpentine/asbestos. With your permission I will take
your references down to the county, find out who does this sort of thing,
and present the references to them.
Bill "they don't like *Black Mold* either."
Charles Wm. Dimmick
>As I said, I am no expert, however the cite from the State of California
>seems to indicate that they think that Serpentine asbestos is some
>hazard. Also interesting is a display in the lobby of the El Dorado
>County Administration center (where they issue building permits) that
>shows samples of Serpentine and a map outlining serpentine/asbestos areas
>in the county. I had to have my lot checked for Serpentine/asbestos and
>there is now one high school football field that *they* say cannot be
>used because of Serpentine/asbestos. With your permission I will take
>your references down to the county, find out who does this sort of thing,
>and present the references to them.
>
>
Permission cheerfully granted.
Were I not completely overwhelmed with work I would add more information.
David Winsemius
news:KsEac.46152$dl7....@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com:
> Bill wrote:
>
>>We live in the Sierra Nevada with Serpentine all around. There are
>>cautions about asbestos, one is below, and I'm no expert but
>>presumably if it is in one piece, and only looked at....
>>
>>http://www.arb.ca.gov/enf/advs/advs161.htm
>>
>>
> As I've often stated before, there is no conclusive proof that
> serpentine asbestos
> has any harmful effects. See, for instance, the relevant chapter in "
> Citizen's
> Guide to Geologic Hazards". Our chapter on asbestos hazard clearly
> points out that the real hazard is with the various forms of amphibole
> asbestos, NOT
> serpentine [chrysotile] asbestos.
> http://www.aipg-tx.org/anmviewer.asp?a=17
> http://www.agiweb.org/pubs/pubdetail.html?item=300327
> Or see a sample of what I actually wrote on the subject at:
> http://www.fp.rdg.ac.uk/wkc1/DIY/safety/msg00056.html
>
I cannot claim to have written anything on the topic, but for various
business reasons have done a ton of reading on the question of the
carcinogenic potential of asbestos. For another viewpoint, try
searching with the phrase "amphibole hypothesis". I offer several cites
that should prove to be effective sleep aids:
http://reo.nii.ac.jp/journal/HtmlIndicate/Contents/SUP0000003000/JOU0003000020/ISS0000020023/ART0000260575/ART0000260575.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/swerrims/ahec/summary/presentations/mcdonald.pdf
http://annhyg.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/44/8/565
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/164/4/489
http://www.rsc.ca/english/publications_asbestos.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/risk/asbestos/pdfs/asbestos_report.pdf
I absolutely agree that serpentine rock in California is a pretty puny
threat compared to, say, ... cigarettes, earthquakes, and drunken drivers.
--
David "so this geologist and epidemiologist go into a bar .... " Winsemius
Bill
news:Xns94BCD4C8C19...@204.127.204.17:
> I cannot claim to have written anything on the topic, but for various
> business reasons have done a ton of reading on the question of the
> carcinogenic potential of asbestos. For another viewpoint, try
> searching with the phrase "amphibole hypothesis". I offer several
> cites that should prove to be effective sleep aids:
>
> http://reo.nii.ac.jp/journal/HtmlIndicate/Contents/SUP0000003000/JOU000
> 3000020/ISS0000020023/ART0000260575/ART0000260575.pdf
> http://www.epa.gov/swerrims/ahec/summary/presentations/mcdonald.pdf
> http://annhyg.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/44/8/565
> http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/164/4/489
> http://www.rsc.ca/english/publications_asbestos.pdf
> http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/risk/asbestos/pdfs/asbestos_repor
> t.pdf
>
> I absolutely agree that serpentine rock in California is a pretty puny
> threat compared to, say, ... cigarettes, earthquakes, and drunken
> drivers.
Thank you! This will keep me busy, but as I cited, the State of Kelifornia (that's what
our new gov says) thinks Serpentine/asbestos is the carcinogenic kind. My county of El
Dorado even has a display showing the dreaded rocks and the *polluted* areas. The local
high school can't use the football field because the dreaded Serpentine has been found.
I will try to put together a package of references and find the county health person and
posit that our Serpentine chrysotile asbestos is not the amphibole asbestos that has a
high correlation with cancer (assuming I can get this fact out of the references.)
As I say I am no expert in this area, but the fact that I had to pay to have someone
*certify* that my new lot had no Serpentine/asbestos (and so I could build) set off my
UL meter, but having no background in this area I let it pass (and paid.)
Bill "back to the books"
Mary Shafer
wrote:
> Greg Locock filted:
> >
> >Mary Shafer wrote:
> >> I get the impression that clients
> >> who want something unusual and special are the exception, not the
> > ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
> >> rule.
> >
> >That'd be because of the definitions of 'exception', 'special' and
> >'unusual', at a rough guess.
>
> Or if I go by where your underlining appeared for me, the definitions of "ething
> u", "al and spe" and "he exceptio"....
Well, here it was "ometh", "unusua", and "pecial a".
> R H "still not sure why some people's posts show up proportional" Draney
And differently proportional, too.
Mary "the monospace font is ugly"
M. J. Freeman
> On 31 Mar 2004 10:24:31 -0800, R H Draney <dado...@earthlink.net>
It's that inferior newsreader you're using.
(Does this fall under the BOR?)
Edward Rice
Mary Shafer <mil...@qnet.com> wrote:
> We bought a beautiful green rock for the stone-knapping set. It's
> serpentine, California's state rock, and it weighs 1.99 tons. Now we
> can see how part of the world turned out, at subduction zones.
Gee, Mary, I know you're retired now, but what kind of set calls for a
(nearly) two-ton stone to work with? Our rock-polisher uses nothing much
larger than big pebbles.
Edward
David Winsemius
> David Winsemius <dwin$emiu$@fnord.comcast.net> wrote in
> news:Xns94BCD4C8C19...@204.127.204.17:
>
>> I cannot claim to have written anything on the topic, but for various
>> business reasons have done a ton of reading on the question of the
>> carcinogenic potential of asbestos. For another viewpoint, try
>> searching with the phrase "amphibole hypothesis". I offer several
>> cites that should prove to be effective sleep aids:
>>
>> http://reo.nii.ac.jp/journal/HtmlIndicate/Contents/SUP0000003000/JOU00
>> 0 3000020/ISS0000020023/ART0000260575/ART0000260575.pdf
>> http://www.epa.gov/swerrims/ahec/summary/presentations/mcdonald.pdf
>> http://annhyg.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/44/8/565
>> http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/164/4/489
>> http://www.rsc.ca/english/publications_asbestos.pdf
>> http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/risk/asbestos/pdfs/asbestos_repo
>> r t.pdf
>>
>> I absolutely agree that serpentine rock in California is a pretty
>> puny threat compared to, say, ... cigarettes, earthquakes, and
>> drunken drivers.
>
> Thank you! This will keep me busy, but as I cited, the State of
> Kelifornia (that's what our new gov says) thinks Serpentine/asbestos
> is the carcinogenic kind. My county of El Dorado even has a display
> showing the dreaded rocks and the *polluted* areas. The local high
> school can't use the football field because the dreaded Serpentine has
> been found.
>
> I will try to put together a package of references and find the county
> health person and posit that our Serpentine chrysotile asbestos is not
> the amphibole asbestos that has a high correlation with cancer
> (assuming I can get this fact out of the references.)
>
Sorry, guy. You will get the opposing position in many of those
references. The fact that Charles Wm. D. and I agree that your risks and
the school children's risks are far below measurable will not help much.
(I think we disagree on whether industrial production of chrysotile
products leads to cancer in the workers exposed to high concentrations.)
Industrial uses of chrysotile have lead to increase mesothelioma rates in
the workers exposed, so the "cancer-causing" label will be irrevocably
attached to the substance.
Try to reason with people about deep seated fears. Or about scales of
risk. Or .... save your breath.
--
David Winsemius
Mary Shafer
wrote:
You should see the tumbler if you think this is a big stone.
Olivers
>
> You should see the tumbler if you think this is a big stone.
>
> Mary
>
I allus gnu Mary had some big stones.
TM "I'll have the whole nine yards, he told the gravel hauler." Oliver
Burroughs Guy
> > >> who want something unusual and special are the exception, not the
> > > ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
> > >That'd be because of the definitions of 'exception', 'special' and
> > >'unusual', at a rough guess.
> > Or if I go by where your underlining appeared for me, the
definitions of "ething
> > u", "al and spe" and "he exceptio"....
>
> Well, here it was "ometh", "unusua", and "pecial a".
I get "nusual", "pecial ", and "ception,".
> Mary "the monospace font is ugly"
In ugly monospace.
--
Burroughs Guy
Vaguer memories available upon request
Burroughs Guy
> As I said, I am no expert, however the cite from the State of
California
> seems to indicate that they think that Serpentine asbestos is some
> hazard.
It indicates nothing of the sort. It indicates that they are
following rules based on bad science.
Leaving aside the amphibole v chrysotile dichotomy, the only people
who got lung diseases from asbestos were people who worked for years
in places which put measurable quantities of asbestos dust in the air
every day. If it's not being ground into dust, there is no danger.
Even if is is ground into dust, a day of exposure will put enough
asbestos in your lungs to kill you in 10,000 years. The effect is
cumulative. In ten days you will get enough to kill you in 1000
years. In 100 days you will get enough to kill you in 100 years. In
1000 days you will get enough to kill you in ten years.[1]
But we know that people died from asbestos, and that for 50 years the
asbestos companies knew about it and lied about it, so now we need to
act like it's a deadly toxin. More people are killed by peanuts[2]
than asbestos these days, but you are allowed to handle peanuts
without a moon suit. The biggest peanut warning I have seen was about
24 point type.[3]
[1] Of course, I'm making up these numbers, but they illustrate the
point, and they're within an order of magnitude of correct. If you
have better numbers, please provide them.
[2] Allergic people.
[3] Though in some schools where a peanut allergic child is enrolled,
the entire school is declared a peanut free zone.[4] Kids have been
suspended from school for posession of Snickers.
[4] Which is okay by me. I am not allergic to peanuts. I just don't
like the taste.
Joe Boswell
<YmFydGljdXM=.597950fc34e5e713...@1081057519.nulluser.com>,
Burroughs Guy <BurroughsG...@aol.com> writes
You are so wrong.
The current rate of deaths per annum from asbestos related disease in
the UK is 3500 and rising. It is the largest single cause of fatal
occupational disease in the UK. See
http://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/index.htm
and its links to information on the statistics etc.
And while we're at it, nothing can kill you in 10,000 years, as the
probability of already being dead by then is effectively 1.
--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap
Anthony McCafferty
<YmFydGljdXM=.597950fc34e5e713...@1081057519.nulluser.com>,
"Burroughs Guy" <BurroughsG...@aol.com> writes:
>It indicates nothing of the sort. It indicates that they are
>following rules based on bad science.
So you have to get some bad science of your own to counter it?
>Leaving aside the amphibole v chrysotile dichotomy, the only people
>who got lung diseases from asbestos were people who worked for years
>in places which put measurable quantities of asbestos dust in the air
>every day.
No. One of the groups early identified as at risk were the family members
of asbestos workers, who were, by the nature of things, generally exposed to a
much lower level of fibers. See
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HEC/CSEM/asbestos/Asbestos.pdf
for a fairly good summary of asbestos issues.
One can argue, of course, the relative costs of dying of cancer in 50 years
vs. burning to death/crashing/going broke/getting invaded; one can certainly
argue the size of the risk vs. other, more easily fixable problems. What ya
can't do is deny it.
Anthony "at least, you can't deny it here."McCafferty
Anthony McCafferty
<j...@bigbad.demon.co.uk> writes:
>The current rate of deaths per annum from asbestos related disease in
>the UK is 3500 and rising. It is the largest single cause of fatal
>occupational disease in the UK. See
>
>http://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/index.htm
Which says:
"At least 3500 people in Great Britain die each year from mesothelioma and
asbestos related lung cancer as a result of past exposure to asbestos. Annual
numbers of deaths are predicted to go on rising into the next decade."
That is to say, the rate is still rising, but the cause is in the past. It
goes on to say:
"Analyses of mesothelioma deaths indicate that many deaths are due to heavy
asbestos exposures in industries like shipbuilding and railway engineering in
the past. If current control measures are not adhered to, asbestos removal
workers are now potentially at the highest risk, as are workers involved in the
refurbishment, repair or maintenance of buildings - such as plumbers,
carpenters and electricians."
Which is to say, that the author believes that current preventive measures
are adequate, if actually practiced.
While Hempboy's analysis of the issue is clearly flawed, these stats don't
have much to say about the long-term risks of current practices.
Anthony "Some old practices could often be summarized as 'dust masks are for
pansies', from what I've seen" McCafferty
Joe Boswell
McCafferty <mccaf...@aol.comment> writes
http://www.hse.gov.uk/campaigns/asbestos/index.htm
the (then) government minister, Nick Brown, Oct 2002, is quoted:-
“If current levels of exposure to asbestos are allowed to continue
over the next 50 years, nearly 5,000 additional people will be exposed
to asbestos fibres and will die from asbestos related diseases. These
Regulations should go a long way towards preventing human suffering and
misery, and they deserve the full support of the House."
which goes some way to illustrating the long term risks of current
practices, or the gap between what should be achieved by current
requirements and the reality.
For anyone still interested, the Regulations that Mr Brown was
commending tightened things up by reversing the logic of the previous
Regulations. As a very rough summary, those said that you had to take
precautions if you knew you were dealing with asbestos. The new
Regulations say that until you know you are not dealing with asbestos
you must take precautions.
Olivers
As formerly Guardian of the Person of one Vandiver Brown, late in life non
compos mentis due to a combination of events highlighted by a bottle of
good whisky a day for 30 years or so, but before that, Vice President and
General Counsel of Johns Manville until his 1952 "Golden Parachute", and
the man who back in 1937 affixed his signature to a letter to a trade
publication in essence demanding the witholding of information that
"asbestos can hurt you"....
As one formerly engaged in some pgases of asbestos removal and abatement in
public facilities....
....But before that having spent several years sleeping in a small
"stateroom" beneath the catapults of a USN aircraft carrier. Throught the
tiny cabin passed giant asbestos-lagged steam lines, which at every big
thump of catapult firing, emitted a bit of the fiber which bound them.
The very process by which we have sought to protect our collective selves
has in many cases potentially endangered far more folks to risk than would
have far more sensible solutions.
Classic among blunders was the wholesale ripping up of miles of asbestos
laden floor tile (which if removed according to the methodology suggested,
became well night irremovable), filling the air with plenty of the
material. In countless other examples, we "removed" asbestos, risking
airborned dispersal of materials best left alone or optimally "encapsulated
in situ".
I wish I was still traveling about Scotland, my fare paid by others,
protecting old Van Brown from being deposed as to his knolwedge of the
"conspiracy". It was an exciting, sometimes harrowing period, broken by
much drink and some good food, but best of all by the folks of Southwestern
Scotland, princely fellows most all.
TM "Carry me back to old Newton Stewart" Oliver
Burroughs Guy
> No. One of the groups early identified as at risk were the
family members
> of asbestos workers, who were, by the nature of things, generally
exposed to a
> much lower level of fibers. See
> http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HEC/CSEM/asbestos/Asbestos.pdf
> for a fairly good summary of asbestos issues.
The relevant portion of that cite appears to be these two paragraphs
on page 6:
Secondary exposure occurs when fibers released to the air are inhaled by
persons not directly handling asbestos. For example, 4 to 5 million
shipyard
workers were exposed when a relatively small number of insulation workers
applied asbestos to ships’ pipes and hulls. Domestic and environmental
asbestos exposures can also occur indirectly. Asbestos-related diseases
have occurred in family members whose only contact was dust from an
exposed worker’s clothing. In some circumstances, exposures in household
members might approach occupational levels. Similar diseases were also
found in persons who grew up within one-half mile of an asbestos factory.
People in contact with work clothes of asbestos workers or with
asbestoscontaining
household products have developed pleural abnormalities. An
asbestosis prevalence of 11% in wives, 8% in sons, and 2% in daughters
was reported in families of asbestos-exposed shipyard workers. Low
exposures from work-related, household, and natural sources can induce
pleural plaques. For diffuse, pleural thickening, higher exposure
levels might
be required (International Expert Meeting on Asbestos, Asbestosis, and
Cancer 1997).
(The cut-and-pastery is screwy because it's a pdf, which can only be
read with Adobe crapware.)
Certainly the second hand exposure from someone who comes home every
day covered in asbestos fibers is a significant risk which I should
not have easily dismissed. However I would like to know more about
the "11%...8%...2%...was reported". Those numbers look suspiciously
high. I'm sure that's the worst case found, and the definition of
asbestosis is broad. I don't think it means that 11% of wives had a
noticeable disease.
David Winsemius
news:YmFydGljdXM=.cf26e65546bd8315c226248573478bfb@
1081190379.nulluser.com:
> Anthony McCafferty wrote:
>
>> See
>> http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HEC/CSEM/asbestos/Asbestos.pdf
>> for a fairly good summary of asbestos issues.
>
> The relevant portion of that cite appears to be these two paragraphs
> on page 6:
snip
>
> (The cut-and-pastery is screwy because it's a pdf, which can only be
> read with Adobe crapware.)
Not true, at least on the "only". Ghostscript will open and can extract
text from pdf files. Whether you like it any better than Acrobat Reader
(tm) is your call.
--
David "de gustibus non computandum" Winsemius
L0nD0t.$t0we11
> Burroughs Guy wrote in
> news:YmFydGljdXM=.cf26e65546bd8315c226248573478bfb@
> 1081190379.nulluser.com:
>
>> Anthony McCafferty wrote:
>>
>>> See
>>> http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HEC/CSEM/asbestos/Asbestos.pdf
>>> for a fairly good summary of asbestos issues.
>>
>> The relevant portion of that cite appears to be these two paragraphs
>> on page 6:
> snip
>>
>> (The cut-and-pastery is screwy because it's a pdf, which can only be
>> read with Adobe crapware.)
>
> Not true, at least on the "only". Ghostscript will open and can extract
> text from pdf files. Whether you like it any better than Acrobat Reader
> (tm) is your call.
>
The list of non-Adobe apps that can read pdf files is rather extensive
some can read, some can extract, etc.
--
Evolution is merely survival of the minimally adequate