|
Motronic posted:Yeah, and when they dig to the weeping tile to do a proper tie in with the window well and find it's nonexistant or completely clogged add a few thousand more. Tell me more, Mr Swanson 
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 06:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:26 |
|
|
Sylink posted:Yah, I'm just triggering because people keep posting solid asbestos and sky-is-falling stuff like its on the same level as gamma rays and even looking at it will kill you. More or less this. Asbestos is only bad over long exposures, or if you powder it up and do a few lines of it. I'm reasonably certain my popcorn ceiling contains asbestos, and all I did was seal it with two coats of latex ceiling paint and then not gently caress with it. It'll happily not give me any issues for another 15 years, and then it'll be a 2 week job suiting up and gutting the interior to bring everything up to current code.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 07:23
|
|
|
A single exposure has been known to cause mesothelioma. It is potentiated by smoking. In general, more exposure = higher chances and higher exposure concentration = higher chances, though. Cement asbestos tile is basically no big deal unless you are an idiot however. Soak it, remove it, double bag it while still wet, dispose of in accordance with local laws.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
I see dead people
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
`Nemesis posted:I see dead people
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
`Nemesis posted:I see dead people I was just coming to post this here. Mr. Unlucky posted:jesus christ did they have glass eating competitions too
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
`Nemesis posted:I see dead people So the government shut down that town because who would want to live there? Turns out there are a handful of people who simply refuse to leave even though there are no basic services like water or electricity.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 10:20
|
|
|
I mean we went for millions of years as a species and millenia of recorded history without them, but... that is a level of "I don't feel like moving my poo poo" that I just could not commit to.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 10:23
|
|
|
it's been in the news a bit lately : http://www.watoday.com.au/interactive/2015/blueGhosts/
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
This house in Texas finally decided to take a final plunge into the lake.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
I give the neighbors, ohhhhh, one, maybe two decades, at best.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
Captain Cool posted:epilogue was surprisingly easy to find http://www.mesothel.com/asbestos-cancer/exposure/asbestos_roulette.htm  Probably Italian 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
Safety Dance posted:
The worst kind of italian.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
You Safety Dance posted:
You can tell by his dumb spaghetti eating face!
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
If it weren't for that whole cancer stuff, asbestos would be a pretty fantastic material.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Cheap, effective, won't kill you: pick two.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Captain Cool posted:epilogue was surprisingly easy to find http://www.mesothel.com/asbestos-cancer/exposure/asbestos_roulette.htm Oh hey CSR. They stalled all the cases against them with giant bankrolls until everyone died of cancer. Nice guys. Also the lawyer that handled it is now Australia's Foreign Minister.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:If it weren't for that whole cancer stuff, asbestos would be a pretty fantastic material. I'd imagine that there's gotta be -some- way to use asbestos in its best/safest applications now that we know the ways in which it's dangerous- like, I dunno, for shingles you could manufacture them with pre-punched tabs for screwing down so you could install them and remove them without ever having to cut or otherwise significantly disturb the asbestos, something like that. I mean, the idea of using asbestos for anything is rightfully poisoned forever for the average consumer so it's probably a non-starter, but I'd think almost all the risk could be ameliorated if it was used very selectively and the entire manufacturing/installation process was designed around eliminating the health risks.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Ambrose Burnside posted:I'd imagine that there's gotta be -some- way to use asbestos in its best/safest applications now that we know the ways in which it's dangerous- like, I dunno, for shingles you could manufacture them with pre-punched tabs for screwing down so you could install them and remove them without ever having to cut or otherwise significantly disturb the asbestos, something like that. I mean, the idea of using asbestos for anything is rightfully poisoned forever for the average consumer so it's probably a non-starter, but I'd think almost all the risk could be ameliorated if it was used very selectively and the entire manufacturing/installation process was designed around eliminating the health risks. Fun fact: It's still legal to use in some products. No one does, unless it's REALLY needed, because "hey this has asbestos in it" is a great way to scare everyone off, but it's still legal. Examples: super high temp wire insulation for special purposes vinyl flooring (yup, you read that right) some brake/friction products (but no one does it, except maybe the lowest of the low budget foreign crap with horrible warnings on it) some putties and pastes for fireproofing, IIRC ... etc You can find a full list online if you really want to be scared.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Great Wall (the chinese vehicle manufacturer) got in the poo poo in the last year or so for shipping vehicles into Australia with Asbestos gaskets in the exhaust systems. Kicker was that they got told by the government to knock it off and change the gasket material. Nothing about the thousands of the pieces of poo poo running around already. Cos the cheapest chinese exhaust system on the cheapest ute you can buy in Australia at the moment isnt going to need work done on it any time soon. Heard of a few workshops already that wont work on great walls if its an exhaust related issue.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
LOL "The savagery of Nature." As if geologists haven't been more than willing and completely capable of identifying eroding cliff faces for centuries. (Basically all cliffs are eroding, it's only a question of when, not if.) I was in a geology class back in the early 90s, and we went on a field trip down the west coast of the San Francisco peninsula. At one point we stood on a piece of beach and my teacher pointed at all the houses along the cliffside in Pacifica and told us the ones closest to the edge wouldn't last another 20 years, and the ones on the other side of the street they were on probably wouldn't make it 50. Sure enough, a big storm about a decade later took several of them out. You had the owners on TV, crying and talking about why didn't the city do anything, etc. etc. Yeah, you can dump huge boulders into the water at the base of the cliff (it's called "riprap") and it'll slow things down a bit, but you can't fight the inexorable process of the mighty sea, grinding away day by day at the shoreline. If you buy a house on a cliffside, you should assume your kids will not inherit it.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:LOL "The savagery of Nature." rage  against  the  machine 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:rage Cliffhouse, in SF. The one shown burned down, LOL. If I remember right, the one they built to replace it also burned down? The Cliffhouse that's there now is probably good for a while, since that piece of rock is very hard. It's an OK restaurant (by SF standards) with a really nice view, though.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
You'd think when they tried to get insurance on those and the insurance company said no, they would have gotten the point. If the insurance company was dumb enough to say yes, what are they even mad about? Build another one.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
KillHour posted:You'd think when they tried to get insurance on those and the insurance company said no, they would have gotten the point. City won't give them building permits, so they're stuck with multimillion dollar land (mortgaged to the hilt) that is now worthless because you can't build on it, I'd imagine.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
Looks like only a miserable person would want to live there, but I kind of like this as an idea
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 13:12
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:City won't give them building permits, so they're stuck with multimillion dollar land (mortgaged to the hilt) that is now worthless because you can't build on it, I'd imagine. I meant build another one somewhere else. If your land is now useless (because it's at the bottom of the ocean), your homeowners insurance should cover that, as well.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I meant build another one somewhere else. You would be surprised what kind of insurance people intentionally do not have, such as flood insurance where floods are probable (and thus insurance against them is very costly). I'm not sure if the ground literally falling into the ocean counts as a flood or not though.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 14:16
|
|
|
DNova posted:You would be surprised what kind of insurance people intentionally do not have, such as flood insurance where floods are probable (and thus insurance against them is very costly). I'm not sure if the ground literally falling into the ocean counts as a flood or not though. There are states on the east coast of the US where homeowners receive subsidized flooding insurance. Because clearly we need to encourage people to live on the coast. Then again, there are also states where insurance companies are legally barred from considering the effects of global warming when pricing their insurance. We aren't very sensible people.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
DNova posted:You would be surprised what kind of insurance people intentionally do not have, such as flood insurance where floods are probable (and thus insurance against them is very costly). I'm not sure if the ground literally falling into the ocean counts as a flood or not though. Acts of god. And some are and are not included depending on the actuary tables for your property.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
quote:Their house was condemned, forcing the couple to move out, but they refused to let the cliff have what was left of the home and the memories they may have shared inside, so they burned it down. Yes, of course, that would be the only solution. They sure showed that cliff who was boss by burning the place down.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
flosofl posted:Acts of god. And some are and are not included depending on the actuary tables for your property. Apparently scientifically proven and predictable phenomena are Acts of God now. Neutrino posted:Yes, of course, that would be the only solution. They sure showed that cliff who was boss by burning the place down. humans.txt
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Neutrino posted:Yes, of course, that would be the only solution. They sure showed that cliff who was boss by burning the place down. tbf they would've had to pay the cleanup cost once it fell into the water it was probably a lot cheaper to do a controlled burn (which they did, they hired a group to burn it) then had the remnants trucked out
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:There are states on the east coast of the US where homeowners receive subsidized flooding insurance. Because clearly we need to encourage people to live on the coast. I remember reading about the shock that some homeowners got when their flood insurance premiums were recalculated in the last few years with some people getting annual premiums equal to a third of their house's value. The insurers basically assumed that their house would be totally destroyed every three years where they were living.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
When I was in high school, there was a massive avalanche in a nearby canyon that destroyed a bunch of summer homes. Two years later, one of the homeowners was in court, arguing he should be allowed to rebuild in the now extremely-high-risk area. Shockingly, the county had rejected his claim that the new structure would be impervious to avalanches.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
In my hometown a developer tried to build a subdivision on a big, empty plot of land. It was empty because it was a flood plain and the city refused to zone it for Residential. The developer then sued the city, which didn't want to pay for lawyers so they relented and zoned the area such that the houses could be built. Later, it flooded. Of course. So either the developer or the homeowners (can't remember) then sued the city for letting them build/buy houses in a flood plain. 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Arrath posted:In my hometown a developer tried to build a subdivision on a big, empty plot of land. It was empty because it was a flood plain and the city refused to zone it for Residential. The developer then sued the city, which didn't want to pay for lawyers so they relented and zoned the area such that the houses could be built. The developer I can see having deep pockets to do something that stupid, but how could all the single family homebuyers pay cash or miss the whole flood zone thing when they went to get mortgages?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
If you've ever bought a house, it's easy to understand. You review and sign hundreds of pages of documents (literally, I think I went through at least 300), and you usually do this in a meeting where you need to get through them all, and you've already had your closing delayed twice, and you've got to move in the next two days or you're goign to have to pay another month's rate on top of all your mortgage and new loan and moving expenses. You do get a flood report and you do have to get insurance and you do have to sign all that stuff, but having done it (and been one of the extraordinarily rare people that actually reads everything I'm signing) I know most people don't. The people at closing were patient with me, and nobody pressured me to go faster, but we could tell they were a bit surprised to have someone reading it all. Maybe more importantly, we're socially conditioned to accept that if the herd is doing something, it's probably fine. So if someone built all those houses there, and all these people are buying them, and your realtor seems to think it's a fine idea, and you actually like the house and are picturing living there and starting your NEW LIFE there, then it's very very difficult psychologically to hold up when you see this disclosure, 20+ days into escrow, with huge amounts of money and time and emotional investment already committed, and go "wait, no, buying a house in this flood-prone zone I have just learned about being here is actually a disastrous idea and all these other people doing it are idiots, the sale is off." ...and this is how you get entire cities built in flood plains, housing developments on cliffsides, houses built along rivers that flood every five to ten years, houses at 1 foot elevations along beaches of the gulf/atlantic coast that are subject to hurricanes and storm surges, etc. Everyone else is doing it, everyone's expectation is that the paperwork is just routine, it all seems fine. Until it isn't, and then you can be angry along with all your neighbors, because... well, isn't it the government's job to look out for us? They give us street lights and traffic rules, and they make restaurants be clean and force public buildings to put railings on the stairs, and they rate movies and put explicit lyrics warnings on CDs, and they make you take your shoes off and go through a scanner at the airport. In thousands of countless ways, we are conditioned to feel like it's someone else's job to look out for us. What else are our taxes for? So while I do think you're an idiot for buying a house on a crumbling cliffside and then being surprised that it falls off that same crumbling cliffside within 10 years, I'm also sympathetic to the general problem. It's tough to navigate a world where half the time, external entities you barely understand or know about are constantly acting to keep you safe... and the other half the time, similarly nebulous and unknowable entities are actively trying to take advantage of you and help you make big mistakes they can profit off of. Some idiot bought that house, yes. But some predator built it and sold it to them, too. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 00:03 on May 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:If you've ever bought a house, it's easy to understand. You review and sign hundreds of pages of documents (literally, I think I went through at least 300), and you usually do this in a meeting where you need to get through them all, and you've already had your closing delayed twice, and you've got to move in the next two days or you're goign to have to pay another month's rate on top of all your mortgage and new loan and moving expenses. This is why you pay the extra $500 or so and have a lawyer review the documentation and be present at the closing to for any changes and amendments. Worth every penny.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:26 |
|
|
Yeah if you're buying a house and don't have a lawyer involved you're really really doing it wrong. REALTORS (R) are loving useless, get a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 05:01
|
|
