wrote:
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.


You read your report somewhere too BTW ... and you consider it reliable.
But I take your point.

However, I later clarified what I read where in a different post. I am
not asserting that these sources are the best available, but that is
what I read and they were not just idle chit-chat as you can see.

Fair enough WRT vested interests ... but consultants who write papers
can have these too you know.


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.

Hmm ... on this issue the site you originally ref'd, containing the
recent paper says on its 'what is' page.

"All can be dangerous, but blue and brown asbestos are known to be more
dangerous than white. The different types cannot usually be identified
by their colour alone"

My statement was based on this ... is the site not reliable in this respect?

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 agree that perspective *is* important. But correct information is also
important. I would prefer the difference to be several orders of
magnitude rather than one on safety related issues ... but I *do* get
your point.

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.


I'll take your word for it and won't be trying this. I could rephrase
again but its the word games that are becoming pointless now.

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.

I *have* read the opening pages of the paper you originally referenced
and am now so intruiged will probably read the rest.

It seemed clear from the outset that what the agenda was.

However, as the potential consequences of the report being in error
could be very high, before I base *my* actions on such a paper I would
want to know:

1) What vested ineterests have the authors have.

2) Has the paper been published elsewhere, for example in a trade
journal etc.

3) Has it been subjected to proper peer scrutiny.

4) Are there other independent papers which have the same findings.

I doubt I'll ever have the time to find all these things out and thus
will probably have to maintain my admittedly risk averse stance on this
issue ... until the consesus changes.

Also, the consequential cost of the time it would take me to really be
sure here may be higher than the fees I paid for peice of mind ... so is
this really worth it given that I don't deal with asbestos on a day to
day basis?

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!

I agree with all of that. I am just not wholly convinced that this
specific issue is non-risk.



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/

The link does not work.

"Somwhere" sounds a bit like "I read somwhere" ... or was that
intentional :-).

(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.

Maybe. I don't know. I only have a single example as my sample space. I
take it that you are more experienced in these matters then?

I think thats at the lower end of asbestos disposal charges, but

£250

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.


I agree, I indicated that too, so did the guys who removed my garage. My
only issue really is what precautions are required to do so safely and
the logistical issues involved given those precautions.