AlexW wrote:
NT wrote:

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

Reliable enough, anyway. Citing means the memory is correct, and the
report shows how thoroughly theyve investiagted it. And it quotes all
the factual details relevant to confirming or denying the info it
contains.


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.

Right, but not on the same quality scale as a research report.


Fair enough WRT vested interests ... but consultants who write papers

can have these too you know.

they usually have. These days the British asbestos industry is all but
dead though, it is the asbestos removal industry that has the report
writing power. Even if that report were a fiction made up, it is fairly
obvious in todays climate it would not result in any change in the law
on asbestos, so it would be pointless for an asbestos co to commission
it - as well as unaffordable given the almost non existent state of
said industry here.


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?

It says more things besides, such as what effects bonding into the
cement has, and what white board is likely to contain. Also having
physically seens blue and brown products, you can not make white board
with significant amounts of blue/brown in, because it will no longer be
white. If its grey you might not be able to i.d. it, but white cant
contain much blue or brown, and usually contains none, as it says.


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.

Its not word games, Ive made the 2 relevant points there. If new
chrysotile only board were in use today, I'd have no problem working
it. With old board, there isnt any reason to work it.


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

The significant facts were made open enough that anyone who looks into
it and finds misreporting would publish or talk about it online. The
way its presented is an open invitation to find fault. But I've yet to
find anyone that can poopoo its methods or findings.

Also it undoes the claims made in the 80s specifically concerning
chrysotile and cement bound asbestoses, leaving really no worthwhile
evidence stansing for those older claims.


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.

good stuff. All these reports have vested interests of course. Bear in
mind the AW company is actually telling most of its potential custmers
they dont need their help, even when they came to their site looking
for help.


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?

never employed an asbestos removal co, but I have read the report,
heard the arguments for and against, and seen what those cos actually
do. The silly prices, unverifiable alarmist sales tack, and remarkably
high prosecution figures say quite a bit.


NT