Russian asbestos firm loves Trump


Originally published at:




I’m actually in the process of having asbestos removed from my house at a cost of £5000. There’s your economy right there.


They are putting his g’damn face on the product!



That’s actually good; when the getting sick and dying from exposure to asbestos starts ramping back up, the brand recognition is already in place for who to blame.


I just saw this doc on Russian Abestos the other day:


Just another day living in Bizarro World.


The company I worked for was still battling aesbestos suits that we stopped using 30 years before. I don’t know how you could convince us to use that material again.


Man, if Chernobyl only had this level of promotion after the meltdown…


I bet it’s gonna be super easy to sue the Russian asbestos industry too.


Interesting that the second mine worked they interview has his face hidden but they still put his name up in the video. Somebody screwed that one up.


My brother worked with asbestos when he was younger; he’s very sick now due to it.

Screw this idea!


I have severe COPD as a result of working with asbestos in the early 70’s. So far it has not progressed to meso, or lung cancer, but with only 25% lung capacity, exercise and running are out of the question. A simple flight of stairs gets me winded badly.
Trust me - asbestos is not something to fuck with.
also, trust me - Trump and his cronies are truly evil to even think of legalizing this stuff again.


Here in the US, people will end up suing the companies that decided to do business with the Russian asbestos industry.

Man, I hate this version of reality; nobody but the lawyers are happy…


Read this and was surprised that the US never banned it:


What better face to put on poison?


It’s so very weird that so little of the world has banned it:

I mean even Canada (they’re doing it now apparently)?!

Also, the WTC buildings’ structural steel coated with it (something like 40 floors):


The way I see it, it may be prudent for specific use. The problem in the past is because of it’s properties it was used in EVERYTHING with no safety precautions.

That said, I have no idea what its current use is, and whether or not is poses a risk to the public. Obviously what ever use it is approved for needs to have its pros and cons weighed and then its handling done in a proper and safe manner.

Also, just want to point out, asbestos is 100% natural. You can point this out to people who harp on and on about things being safer if they are natural or organic or what have you.


The article I linked mentioned some usages.

Interestingly enough, countries which banned asbestos must have a replacement, since chlorine is produced and used there, too…

Re: natural, that’s a quite lazy, but yes, sometimes fun.


Funny story: guess which Canadian province produces rather a lot of asbestos(It’s the one where the town of Asbestos is); and which has been seen of in need of some appeasement by a succession of Canadian governments?

This level of support hasn’t always been enough to keep it in popular use domestically (though that remained on the table longer than you would expect); but it has been ample to support a flourishing export operation and the steady manufacture of reports on the safety and value of this misunderstood mineral.

(Edit: I’m divided on whether using the term “Quebecois coal” because the analogy with the distorting effects of coal in the US context is closer than is comfortable, and I like the way it sounds, would be acceptable or not…)