On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:28:54 -0000, "Holly, in France"
wrote:


Peter Parry wrote

The detection of a trace of harmless chrysotile cement will bring the
asbestos removal mafia down on you like a ton of bricks.

IME it won't, it will bring you a reasonable person who will tell you
whether or not the product contains asbestos, which type and in roughly
what quantity, and the best way to deal with it.

Why on earth would a small amount of Chrysotile cement warrant a
person, reasonable or otherwise, visiting a site at taxpayers expense
to give "advice"? Are you aware of a single case, anywhere in the
world, of asbestos related illness caused by occasional exposure to
Chrysotile cement products?

Neither insurance nor licensing is a requirements so why should it be
an issue?

I believe the situation in Britain is that any tradesperson working on
any job should have liability insurance or they accept that they will be
responsible for any damages that they cause.

I wasn't under the impression that this was a trade arrangement but
may well be mistaken. If it is the presence or otherwise of
Chrysotile cement will not make any difference.

If Mary's husband were to remove this product,
particularly if he knew there was a possibility that it contained
asbestos, and if the householder were then to worry and call in the EHO,
who then came and found elevated levels of asbestos in the air, IMO and
IME he would be held liable.

For what?

I have, whilst working for a local
authority, had to give expert witness statements in cases such as this.
Not with artex though, but with various asbestos boards and with
asbestos cement.

Expert in what way?

(who a surprising number of
times turns out to be a relation of someone in the Environmental
Health Department).

Have you any evidence of this? How many is 'surprising' ? Certainly some
EHOs and some consultants have, what shall I say, overly close
relationships with asbestos removal companies.

Indeed, the saga I related recently about a school which ended up
with a bill for tens of thousands of pounds to remove one asbestos
cement wall was the result of one. As I recounted the "specialist"
remover was furious to discover the wall had been sprayed with a
marker dye the day before they removed it to identify it if it got
dumped. The EHO wasn't that impressed either - didn't think it was
"fair" to do "tricks" like this.

But most of them are ordinary, decent, honest people.

Who don't understand risk assessment and whose credo is "got to cover
my backside first"

This sort of thing happens in every
walk of life, the asbestos industry IMO and IME is no different.

It is different, the profits are guaranteed (the licensing scheme
sees to that) and enormous. Many of the licensed firms are cowboys
and the scope for bribery and corruption is much greater than in many
other local council areas. There is considerable money to be made by
detecting a whiff of asbestos, no matter how harmless.

Chrysotile cement disposal is a scam of enormous
magnitude fuelled by those who make huge profits out of it.

I don't know what the current requirements are or who handles/manages
the disposal sites so I can't comment specifically. My personal opinion
is that asbestos cement should be handled carefully and disposed of
separately in a known site where it won't be disturbed in future.

How much asbestos do you breathe in a day?

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/