this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2025
74 points (97.4% liked)
Space
1895 readers
68 users here now
A community to discuss space & astronomy through a STEM lens
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive. This means no harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions by discussing in good faith.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
Also keep in mind, mander.xyz's rules on politics
Please keep politics to a minimum. When science is the focus, intersection with politics may be tolerated as long as the discussion is constructive and science remains the focus. As a general rule, political content posted directly to the instance’s local communities is discouraged and may be removed. You can of course engage in political discussions in non-local communities.
Related Communities
🔭 Science
- !curiosityrover@lemmy.world
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !esa@feddit.nl
- !nasa@lemmy.world
- !perseverancerover@lemmy.world
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !space@beehaw.org
🚀 Engineering
🌌 Art and Photography
Other Cool Links
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You're welcome to review the published peer-reviewed information on this topic: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41526-022-00244-1
The paper explicitly states that while lunar dust has sharp edges and irritant potential (mechanical abrasion of skin, eyes) — it does not establish that the exposure risk is equivalent to asbestos, nor that it behaves identically in terms of chronic fibrosis or mesothelioma risk. In fact, it emphasises that we don’t yet know the long-term human health effects.
The asbestos part... Well. Its not literally asbestos nor does it have anything in common with asbestos in terms of health effects. In fact it might, but we don't know. So your claim is wrong on every level and i love how you try to cite a paper that does not support your claim x)
I think the dispute is in how literally somebody is reading your statement