DIYbanter - View Single Post

wrote:
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.

The respiratory protection advice was HSE for the record the other was
general handling info from a local authority.

Quality means different things to different people.

In terms of scientific correctness the AW report appears to be much
higher on the quality scale, to that I agree.

In terms simple advice for the layman regarding how to deal with a
material that has not been classified then the LA sourced info won't get
you killed.

But then you could always read both.

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.

Don't disagree with your logic.

But what happened to all the reserach scientists previously working in
the British asbestos industry? Must have been some, some have probably
retired or died, some retrained are there any still parcticing? They
might not be inclined to backtrack on previous work if they are in the
same line of work.

BTW I am *not* suggesting that this is the case at AW, it just something
that needs to be considered.

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.

It does say those things and *likley* is the key word here. Going back
to the AW 'what is' page, AW advises:

"There is no simple laboratory test to identify the different types of
asbestos. Laboratory analysis is required. They often occur as mixtures
and unless you are sure which type of asbestos fibres are present you
must treat the material as if it contains blue or brown."

The paper indicated that the HSE advocates handling as blue/brown even
after it has been classified as white and took issue with this, based on
there findings. The two situations are slightly different though.

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,

This may be the case ... I don't really have any experience here other
than that my garage was very old and a bit grey on the edge of the bits
that were falling off.

The paper is "is concerned solely with high density chrysotile products"
and does not make these particular claims. However is does say "Blue and
brown asbestos owe their colour to the large amounts of iron they
contain although other amphiboles may be iron free".

The above are the only references to colour and asbestos identification
on the whole AW site.

and usually contains none, as it says.

Usually. Probabilities again.

Its also worth noting that the scope of the report is limited to the the
last 50 years of asbestos manufacture and usage. This may or may not be
significant chrysotile asbestos, I don't know enough about the
history of asbestos, but I would be looking at finding out more about
the material at hand before plunging in.

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.

The original context of the thread (which has now got muddied a bit :-))
whether to saw up unidentified and potentially old board that was
suspected to be asbestos of some sort. Of course we now know its not
asbestos at all as its still available.

OK ... hypotheticially, assuming there is a reason (for example retro
fitting a flue where the AC board cannot be removed) and ignoring any
legal/BC/HSE ramifications as its only hypothetical ... in very old AC
board, which has not been subjected to laboratory analysis, and just for
good measure it a bit grey ... would you be prepared to work it in a
manner which produces large amounts of dust without proper masks &
wetting down etc.

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.

Fair enough ... I am not suggesting that this report is in error. But
taking the paper alone I would want to know more before assuming it is
gospel.

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.

I *read* that on their site and will bear it in mind.

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.

Fair enough on price, I got 4 quotes which varied from what I paid to
four times that. I didn't check references etc (would you quote a bad
one?) and all that but did enquire about what they did with the waste.