PT15.S3.Q23 - Asbestos, an almost indestructible mineral

Comments

• drbrown2 Alum Member

  May 2019 2227 karma

  Premise: Removing asbestos disturbs (posing health risk), leaving it alone poses no health risk
  Conclusion: Govt should not require removal of all asbestos

  Gap: What if asbestos can be removed safely and the fibers contained/prevented from releasing into the environment? (This was just the first thing I thought of, there are other assumptions that could be made obviously)

  E talks about a consequence of removing asbestos. The fibers are disturbed when removed, and could be disturbed again in the landfill. Both instances pose health risks. This also addresses the loophole I made up, because much of the time it is disposed of in a way which could pose health risks.

  C talks about different kinds of asbestos being more dangerous than other kinds when removed, but that is irrelevant. We don't know how much more/less dangerous various types of asbestos are, and that doesn't mean we can't remove the asbestos in a safe manner that would not pose health risks.

  A is off the mark
  B seems like it would be another reason not to require removal of asbestos, but the workers are not wearing the required protective gear. If they just wear the required protective gear, the asbestos may not pose health risks to them.
  D weakens. If asbestos is going to be released whenever renovations are done, then we better remove it.
• 1 Like

  Whatslsat Member

  April 2020 476 karma

  Hello DrBrown

  How does D weaken?

  The conclusion we want to strengthen is that the "govt should not require removing it" and the reason is "removing it disturbs it and disturbing it releases dangerous chemicals" if removing is GUARANTEED to disturb it, doesn't it strengthen the govt's position that we shouldnt remove it?