The headline you provided is a bit misleading.
How so?
Because they are not considering “removing a ban on cancer causing asbestos”
that is a very wide net.
The Environmental Protection Agency told a federal appeals court it will reconsider the Biden administration’s ban on the last type of asbestos used in the United States to determine whether it went “beyond what is necessary.”
It’s on 1 type of asbestos.
It’s nuanced but the framing is ridiculously misleading.
Is that “1 type of asbestos” asbestos?
Is that “1 type of asbestos” cancer causing and classified as a carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer?
Does that “1 type of asbestos” qualify as a “major risk factor for mesothelioma, a rare and aggressive form of cancer”?
Does that “1 type of asbestos” increase the risk for lung cancer?
Does that “1 type of asbestos” cause Asbestosis, a chronic lung diseases characterized by scarring of the lung tissue?
Is there a “safe threshold” or any established safe level of exposure to that “1 type of asbestos”?
Then, why is it “ridiculously misleading”?
For reasons he just said
Don’t duck em you little narrative spewing cunt
The guy can never just concede…. Ever.
He just has to drag everything out to absurdity.
1 Like
canes51 style…He’s not as stupid as canes51, and 51 didn’t repeatedly post dumb shit no one cares about like Warden
But in the aspect you just mentioned, they are the same.
Again, you made a statement. None of your statement was correct. Again, what part is “ridiculously misleading”?
The Trump EPA is considering removing a ban on cancer causing asbestos. It does cause cancer. They are considering removing the ban.
Again, what part is incorrect in any way? You claimed it was 1 type of asbestos. That 1 type causes cancer. Ipso facto, you’re lying again.
Still waiting - what part is “ridiculously misleading”?