In a case of what seems to be greed over good health sense, Canada sends asbestos overseas to poison..err construct things in developing nations. Just about as bad, the Conservative government is so slow at reading a report, that they are prompting calls from scientists who contributed to it, to denounce the delay as politically motivated. After every thing else seen from this Harper government, what else could it be other than a delay that puts politics over human safety.
If asbestos is so good in construction materials, why are they working right now to remove it from the building next to where I work?
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
Richard | 26-May-08 at 1:07 pm | Permalink
If it’s done to pander for a few Quebec votes, anything can be made to seem acceptable in this country.
jaybird | 26-May-08 at 1:10 pm | Permalink
Pat Martin (NDP) has been extremely vocal for years for a ban on asbestos. In case you are interested, here is the info on the NDP policy on asbestos: http://www.ndp.ca/page/6355
Catelli | 26-May-08 at 1:14 pm | Permalink
But Canadian Asbestos is the bestos! Its safe! http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2008/02/20/asbestos-labour.html
As long as you don’t touch it, eat it, breathe it or drink it, it won’t harm you.
Zhu | 26-May-08 at 3:16 pm | Permalink
How many times did I argue with some Quebecers over that… There is a town named “Asbestos” where kids happily play around the factory (seen in a documentary). But don’t touch it, of course, cause jobs are at stakes…
ashley johnston | 26-May-08 at 6:51 pm | Permalink
There is another subtle issue of markets. If there is a demand and we have a supply… Then again you could compare it to arms.
themusicgod1 | 28-May-08 at 12:25 pm | Permalink
Asbestos causes *cancer*. Cancer is *only* a problem if your population lives long enough to get cancer; and when you have a massive homeless population, who may not live long enough to get cancer, then the safety of homes built by cheap, fire-safe asbestos outweighs the inevitable cancerous death that awaits them; They can replace the asbestos-laden buildings later if they are rich enough afford it.
Saskboy | 28-May-08 at 1:22 pm | Permalink
Except that even in India, people live to be 30 years old, and it’s not unheard of for people in their 20s to get cancer in Canada.
themusicgod1 | 29-May-08 at 2:42 am | Permalink
“not unheard of” is not equivalent to “leading cause of death”.
However, india’s life expectancy is almost 70, but they do have very, very poor areas, so those may be helped by cheap asbestos. Maybe.
But it’s a political problem; how do we ensure that the right decision gets made there? Thankfully it’s not really our choice—it’s theirs. We can only help them make the right choice, by offering them help, information, and resources if they require (in exchange for a fair exchange).
The only thing I can see here that’s wrong is that we’re paying taxpayer dollars to market this stuff(and thus confuse Indian buyers).