"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 10:28:44 +0100, "David"
wrote:


fair enough, the general best advice with asbestos is leave it alone...
perfectly safe is maybe stretching things a little bit though.

Not really. The problem is that officially the governments position
(one I suspect they now deeply regret adopting) is that there is no
minimum safe limit for any form of asbestos. This is unlikely to be
the case as asbestos is a natural substance and everyone in the
country breathes quite a few particles a day. Moreover, in areas
where there are large amounts of naturally occurring asbestos bearing
rocks and a higher background exposure there is no increase in
asbestos related diseases.

However the mechanism of damage is such that it is impossible to say
that any exposure _is_ safe, even if the risk is minuscule. There is
also no doubt that high exposure to blue and brown asbestos can be
very damaging and sustained (many years) high exposure to Chrysotile
can also be damaging.

From an insurers point of view the statement of "no minimum safe
exposure" was a disaster (and it has put many out of business) but a
free gift for avaricious lawyers as it makes any "mesothelioma"
related illness case completely indefensible. In the USA at the
moment some estimates put over 90% of the asbestos related illness
claims as fraudulent.

Making life worse (for insurers) was the UK decision that in the case
of asbestos related illness the claimant could claim against anyone
who may have exposed them to any asbestos at any time in their life -
they do not have to demonstrate where the damage occurred. So a
railway worker who had years of high industrial exposure to asbestos
with a now defunct boiler making firm could claim for the damage his
employer had caused against anyone - including his house insurers -
if he could show they had knowingly exposed him to asbestos at any
time in his life no matter how minimal the period or exposure might
have been.

It is the risk of litigation, not the risk of harm which is driving
the insurers thinking.

Given that very low levels of inhaled dust can cause a problem

There is no evidence that very low levels of chrysotile cement dust
cause any more harm than cement dust alone.

the only advice is leave it alone.

That is the best advice - the worst thing you can do is remove it all
as far more gets scattered about the place and the "specialist"
asbestos scam companies are often not the most careful of workers
despite their theatrical use of polythene sheeting.

The insurance company are just covering their backsides, imho.

Correct.

I would imagine that they are more likely to be following health and
safety
laws

Going against current HSE advice actually - but it makes their
position more easily defendable (we acted - we used an approved
contractor) should it be necessary in years to come.

Given that the OP says the ceiling has already been damaged are you saying
that the HSE advice is to then leave it in that state? , or just paper
over the problem and forget about it. While I've not read up on this I
would have thought the position would be if its not been disturbed leave it
alone, but once there is the slightest potential of increased exposure then
the HSE would tend to err on the side of caution and advise removal. Givn
the uncertainty over exposure limits and time takem for illness to show
itself I guess they would have to cover their own arse as well. when
advising on something like

cheers

David