Your cunt. Would you get lung cancer to troll the libs and commies?

>cancer

Just don't be a weak soyboy and you won't get sick, cuck

Asbestos was never banned in Canada.

Asbestos isnt that harmful tho unless youre cutting or grinding it without a mask and also are a smoker. A brick of asbestos is pretty much harmless unless you start grinding it up and puffing asbestos dust into the air and even then your chances of lung cancer arent that high unless you are a smoker because the tar in your lungs is what binds the asbestos in.

It's basically healthy, Praise Trump.

We are getting a total ban this year.

lol fucking faggots
im already on my fourth kind of cancer and each time my immune system gets stronger
cancer inducing toxins should all be allowed so the superior people become more robust, while weak ones just die

having one smoke isn't dangerous either

I smoke asbestos.
Get on my level faggots

Explains a lot dunnit

In Australia we used to fill childrens sand pits with it (literally not kidding, this photo is 100% real)

Attached: Kids_In_Abestos_Sandpit1953.jpg (400x278, 124K)

Asbestos sack race on an asbestos road.

Attached: Asbestos-sack-race-1024x705.jpg (1024x705, 145K)

>The EPA has proposed a framework that will allow for the approval for "new uses" of asbestos.

>EPA has not changed anything about currently banned uses of asbestos, and any new uses would first be assessed by the agency.

Why are Canadians such mongoloids?

Attached: 35194177_531137017284553_5983469452891521024_o.jpg (1000x667, 81K)

>The second problem, more specifically, concerns the way in which the EPA has proposed to evaluate that risk. In May 2018, the EPA published a document known as the “Problem Formulation of the Risk Evaluation for Asbestos,” which establishes the scientific approach the EPA will take in evaluating these new uses. Significantly, their approach will not include information from existing, or “legacy” uses of asbestos, despite the significant body of work around health risks stemming from those uses

>Other changes identified in the E.P.A. documents narrow the definitions of certain chemicals, including asbestos. Some asbestos-like fibers will not be included in the risk assessments, one agency staff member said, nor will the 8.8 million pounds a year of asbestos deposited in hazardous landfills or the 13.1 million pounds discarded in routine dump sites.

>Three former EPA officials, including the former supervisor of the toxic chemical program, told the New York Times that such stipulations would necessarily create flawed analyses of the threat posed by any chemical currently being re-evaluated by the EPA

It's coming back.

based and redpilled asbestos

Attached: 36188742_531137047284550_8200176046578860032_n.jpg (640x960, 96K)

wtf why?

Russian money

Bring back leaded fuel as well. America needs to be able to compete with China.

>I heard some libtards talking about suicide is bad yesterday, gonna troll them epic style!

They also warn to pee on the electric fence.

Attached: funny-warning-signs-20-desktop-wallpaper.jpg (1280x800, 388K)

It's like Trump tries to be the worst president possible.

Ironic because communist cunts had no pollution/safety standards at all.

Australian kids tend to combust spontaneously.

>literally says "Approved by Donald Trump, 45th President of the USA"
>Russia is the biggest producer of asbestos in the world
The US is so cucked at this point it's not even funny.

Are you using chlorine trifluoride to manage to ignite the asbestos?

I did some asbestos demolition work illegally in my old work place a few years ago. Didn't know that the place was covered in it. Wish me luck in a decade or two.