AlexW wrote:
NT wrote:

I have read this somwhere (although I can't remember where) and also
was
told this by a "professional" removal company who did engage in
theatrics with dust masks and disposable overalls etc. They did say

Not a reliable source of info then.

Are you sure they are not reliable?

I unsnipped it so we know what we're talking about. You mention 2
sources of info there, neither of which I would consider reliable.

'I read somewhere' is anything but reliable.
'Told this by a company that makes fat profits out of people believing
this nonsense' is also not a reliable source.

So I'm pretty sure those 2 are not to be relied on.


Before getting into any of that one needs a bit of clarity. The
term
Asbestos covers 3 different substances, 2 of which are a real
health
risk, and one of which, which comprises nearly all asbestos found,
is
harmless. If the asbestos product is blue or brown, caution is
needed,
but if its white, white asbestos, chrysotile, bonded in cement, is
a
safe building material.

Yes ... but how do you identify each substance *reliably* - genuine
question. This seems a fairly important point.

Blue asbestos products contain blue asbestos.
Brown asbestos products contain brown asbestos.
Normally white asbestos products contain only white asbestos.

A minority do also contain a very small percentage of blue or brown,
and it can only be a very small level, else the product would become
blue or brown. But since it is bonded into the cement, it is still not
a significant issue. The many people that have died from asbestosis did
so as a result of working with the dangerous ones, not bonded in any
cement matrix, day in day out, for years. Perspective is all important
in safety questions. Its like the difference between doing 10mph and
100mph.


I shall restate my question: Are you advocating sawing white asbestos

cement products?

Its pointless, why would one saw it? If we were still building with it,
there would be a reason to, and we would know the products in question
were chrysotile only.

It also wrecks the saw, its extremely hard stuff. I know that from
drilling it.


Thinking on this has changed since the 80s: initially the 3 types
were
not studied separately, but more a recent study showed it is blue
and
brown that have killed people, not white, which has materially
different properties.

Thinking does indeed change and I am sure your recent study reflects
the
current thinking, although I haven't read it ... in my case I was not

really prepared to gamble at all.

or possibly not prepared to read it and find out that you arent taking
a gamble, as was previously thought. Its only a gamble if there is some
sound evidence that says its a gamble, and there isnt, not with
chrysotile cement sheeting. The 80s evidence has been found to be
thoroughly flawed on that, and the newer study, which does look at
health of asbsetos workers, shows no risk at all for chrysotile.

A large number of the substances we come into contact with daily have
never been studied for safety, it is only when we find a verifiable
problem from data that we need to think about doing something about it.
I expect in 200 years this will have changed, and every known substance
toxicity tested, and inevitably some things we think are innocuous
today will be found to be toxic in some way.

There are real risks in life, getting hung up over a non risk only
diverts attention from the real issues. You have a 50% chance of dying
from heart disease or cancer, and a good 50%+ of those are preventable.
Sometimes a reality chekc is called for!



Professional n.: Engaging in a given activity as a source of
livelihood
or as a career

Or "professionally" adjective, "characterized by or conforming to the

technical or ethical standards of a professional".

yes, and the ethical standards of the asbestos removal industry is not
rock bottom, but not too far off. It is one of those industries that is
mostly just scam. Theres a website about some of these scammy
industries somewhere...
http://www.onthelevel.in-uk.com/


(and are looking at a stint!).

I doubt it, but its veryc ommon practice, either way.

It may be a common practice but it is a little unfair to tar the
whole
"profession" with the same brush ... which is what your initial post
seemed to imply.

ok, just most to all then.


I think thats at the lower end of asbestos disposal charges, but
=A3250
per person per less than a day is a bit on the steep side.
Especialy
considering disposal is free (see the site you reffed).

Well disposal could have been free for my domestic asbestos waste.
However the refuse site probably couldn't be persuaded to allow a van

with an asbestos company logo on the side to dispose of it FoC, even
with my assurances ... so their margin on this work was probably less

than you are assuming (I think you knew that really though!).

I was making the point that you or other diyers could easily dispose of
it legally for free. You paid only because you chose to.


NT