Talk:Asbestosis

message: Okay, pppppp--203.193.95.140 (talk) 07:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see the history stuff before, so I really can't comment.  But I like the article very much the way it is now.  Whoever wrote this did an outstanding job. This article should only be about the disease, and disease process, imho.  It is logical to mention mesothelioma and other lung diseases, to differentiate them from asbestosis.  The legal issues have no place here.  Btw, not all lawyers are trolling for clients.  Contrary to popular belief, we are not all greedy scum suckers.  I left a lucrative career where I made more than I probably ever will as a lawyer.  I went into law because I wanted to learn it, and because I wanted to do something I believed in.  And now I am, and I make a fraction of what I made in engineering.  And I am happier. MollyBloom 04:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow ! - that's quite a strong assertion to make, isn't it?
200.216.31.201, we have argued endlessly about this elsewhere. I wrote this before the debate on the "compensation" article started, and I cannot be bothered to argue about it again. JFW | T@lk 13:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Today's version seems okay. I suggest controversial stuff be moved to an article like asbestosis controversy or asbestos removal or asbestos abatement; or my favorite, campaign to ban asbestos. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 21:31, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
I would move to delete any article entitled "Campaign to ban asbestos".  My guess is that it would be a rant about the poor companies and how much they have been harmed.  At least one of those poor companies, Johns-Manville, lied repeatedly to its workers and to the public about the dangers of asbestos.  This is not conjecture or political twisting.  There is a volume of written documents that were found, written by executives and a medical director" advising the corporate hq not to tell workers of their 'condition' because they should have the 'peace' to go on working in these conditions until they dropped.  There were others that warned their colleagues to stay silent, and not discuss any of this to the public or medica, to avoid 'problems.'  These companies are not the victim.  As to jobs, more jobs were created cleaning up asbestos and developing new products, and diversifying.  So that does not hold water either.
I am floored that any thinking person would suggest this.  60 countries have banned asbestos for good reason.  IN  the US, 10,000 people die a year from asbestos; 5,000 a year in the UK, and 3,000 a year in Australia.  That does not begin to count the many who become disabled from chronic lung problems.  I simply don't see how even the hard right wingers/industry apologists can argue this is not cause for serious concern, even banning.  There are other fire retardants that are safe than asbesots.  Cheap and easy to use does not outweigh the pain and agony familes go thorugh, who have had loved ones die.  I know aobut this, because my father died of mesothelioma, 5 months after he was diagnosed.  This was 40 years after he worked 3 months cutting asbestos shingles.MollyBloom 04:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What do you think JFW? I've made a few changes myself, over on the "compensation" page Asbestosis_-_Compensation_and_Liability_Disputes, paraphrasing some quotes, removing some of the more emotional language and including text and references on predatory "runaway litigation" aspects. Should the NPOV and CLEANUP be maintained, or is it ready to have these tags removed? Thanks for any suggestions. Wikityke 11:38, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Asbestosis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110524203454/http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/123072/AQG2ndEd_6_2_asbestos.PDF to http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/123072/AQG2ndEd_6_2_asbestos.PDF
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article lacks epidemiological info. Especially it's comparison to mesothelioma 182.255.99.214 (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epidemiological info 

message: It's a small point but...I improved the non-standard-English syntax in the intro and it was reverted, then there was a simultaneous change to exactly the same sentence in line with what I had said! I've now made it even better!
Dr Greg Wood (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syntax/style 

message: — Assignment last updated by Llava11 (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Epidemiology ENPH 450

message: Source 10, “Asbestos-related disease statistics, Great Britain 2021”, has a disfunctional link 2601:197:F00:4F0:B580:15BF:594B:B67B (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That reference has an archived copy of the PDF (https://web.archive.org/web/20220305120012/https://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causdis/asbestos-related-disease.pdf). The original is there for posterity (?) but the info is still accessible. Reconrabbit (talk|edits) 15:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source inaccuracy