hi,
am new to here - hope you dont mind my first post being a question..
we're looking at buying a house with some old chicken huts in the back
garden. They're nissen-hut type shelters, about 6' tall and 20' long.
They're made of what looks like corrugated concrete, but I wouldnt be
surprised if they also contained asbestos.

If they do, will it cost be a fortune to get them taken out? How much
should we negotiate off the price of the house? (there are 6 of them)

many thanks for the help
mike

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:50:18 +0100, "Mike T"
wrote:


They're made of what looks like corrugated concrete, but I wouldnt be
surprised if they also contained asbestos.

Its is likely to be asbestos cement.

If they do, will it cost be a fortune to get them taken out?

If you have it done by "professional" asbestos removers they will
charge you a considerable sum, it is the latest form of legalised
robbery. If you do it yourself it will cost you next to nothing and
is perfectly safe to do. Search for one of the many threads on this
subject in the last year to find out the details. The best solution
is the leave them be as long as the sheet is not
powdering/fragmenting.

How much
should we negotiate off the price of the house?

If I was the seller I'd take nothing off. They are harmless if left
alone and harmless to remove.


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

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:23:08 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:50:18 +0100, "Mike T"
wrote:


They're made of what looks like corrugated concrete, but I wouldnt be
surprised if they also contained asbestos.

Its is likely to be asbestos cement.

If they do, will it cost be a fortune to get them taken out?

If you have it done by "professional" asbestos removers they will
charge you a considerable sum, it is the latest form of legalised
robbery. If you do it yourself it will cost you next to nothing and
is perfectly safe to do. Search for one of the many threads on this
subject in the last year to find out the details. The best solution
is the leave them be as long as the sheet is not
powdering/fragmenting.

How much
should we negotiate off the price of the house?

If I was the seller I'd take nothing off. They are harmless if left
alone and harmless to remove.

If you take them down yourselves, they have to be disposed of at an
authorised waste disposal dump...my local council dump takes them but
insists they are double wrapped in at least 500 gauge polythene like
Visqueen...
the polythene will be your major expense...and gaffer tape.

Peter Parry wrote:

If you have it done by "professional" asbestos removers they will
charge you a considerable sum, it is the latest form of legalised
robbery. If you do it yourself it will cost you next to nothing and
is perfectly safe to do. Search for one of the many threads on this
subject in the last year to find out the details. The best solution
is the leave them be as long as the sheet is not
powdering/fragmenting.

A farmer up the road recently pulled down a large asbestos
cement shed - it was around 400 square meters of sheet. If you
priced up "professional" removal for an area that size, it would
probably run into several 10s of thousands of pounds.

Surprisingly, this was not the method he employed. He used a
large digger to pull the shed down, dug a big hole, and burried
the lot.

While that may seem an awful thing to do - just think what
happens if someone digs it up in 10 years time - I can see it
from his point of view; paying for disposal was just not an
option, and the shed was going to fall down if it wasn't pulled
down.

--
Grunff

Surprisingly, this was not the method he employed. He used a
large digger to pull the shed down, dug a big hole, and burried
the lot.

While that may seem an awful thing to do - just think what
happens if someone digs it up in 10 years time - I can see it
from his point of view; paying for disposal was just not an
option, and the shed was going to fall down if it wasn't pulled
down.

I wonder how much the fine will be if the Environment Agency find out?

Peter Crosland wrote:

I wonder how much the fine will be if the Environment Agency find out?

Well, yes, there is that. He seemed to think it's very common
practice.

I'm not condoning his action - but at the same time I can see he
was in a very difficult position. I personally hope he doesn't
get fined, because he'd almost certainly lose his farm if that
happened.

Makes corrugated iron roofs look very appealing - you can
actually get a few quid per tonne for scrap iron.

--
Grunff

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 20:35:11 +0100, Grunff wrote:

While that may seem an awful thing to do - just think what
happens if someone digs it up in 10 years time - I can see it
from his point of view; paying for disposal was just not an
option, and the shed was going to fall down if it wasn't pulled
down.

Can you imagine what would have happened if he'd have tried to bury
his herd of cows during the last foot and mouth epidemic by digging up
this asbestos-ridden ground? He'd never have been able to set fire to
the carcasses!

PoP

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 20:57:47 +0100, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:




I wonder how much the fine will be if the Environment Agency find out?

What do you really think most of the "authorised" removers do with
harmless asbestos cement?


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

Conrad Edwards wrote in message . ..

If I was the seller I'd take nothing off. They are harmless if left
alone and harmless to remove.

If you take them down yourselves, they have to be disposed of at an
authorised waste disposal dump...my local council dump takes them but
insists they are double wrapped in at least 500 gauge polythene like
Visqueen...
the polythene will be your major expense...and gaffer tape.

If you want an alternative perspective from where the stuff is very
commonly used: Many houses, barns & sheds here are roofed in
asbestos-reinforced corrugated cement sheeting. When it is removed for
a new roof covering it is treated with virtual contempt. When it
reaches the local council recycling yard it is thrown into a labelled
container. I've yet to see even a simple dust mask worn by anyone in
more than 5 years. Either in the yard or near the container. I took my
own similar roof off myself and trailered it to the council yard and
chucked it into the container with the wind behind me. Most don't even
bother with that level of safety. The local kids were playing on a
huge mound of the stuff taken off a farmhouse. Eventually a large
lorry with a bucket grab on a small crane came and dumped it into the
open lorry. Producing great clouds of dust. He didn't wear a mask
either.
If you really want to remove the sheets (perhaps to take the sheds
down) and the council insists on expensive wrapping/handling. Then I
would make a nice neat pile of the sheets (laid properly together, the
right way up) in a quiet corner of your property somewhere and try to
forget about them. They don't take up much room that way. BTW: Roofers
here use an old spring mattress to toss the sheets down onto from the
roof to save breaking them. You obviously need someone on the ground
to lift the sheet off the mattress each time. Use gloves as the sheets
are hard on the hands.

Chris

Well, yes, there is that. He seemed to think it's very common
practice.

I'm not condoning his action - but at the same time I can see he
was in a very difficult position. I personally hope he doesn't
get fined, because he'd almost certainly lose his farm if that
happened.

Well it does not reduce the level of responsibility for his grossly
irresponsible behaviour.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:05:30 +0100, Grunff wrote:

Makes corrugated iron roofs look very appealing - you can
actually get a few quid per tonne for scrap iron.

Not for rusty galvanised though. Scrap prices are through the floor,
even for good stuff.



--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods

Andy Dingley wrote:

Not for rusty galvanised though. Scrap prices are through the floor,
even for good stuff.

A couple of years ago we pulled down several sheds, all of it
rusty galvanised, and we got ~£4/tonne. We had 4x silage trailer
loads. Didn't *quite* pay for the fuel cost to get it there.

That's about my only experience of selling iron, so maybe it was
a fluke!

--
Grunff

Peter Crosland wrote:

Surprisingly, this was not the method he employed. He used a
large digger to pull the shed down, dug a big hole, and burried
the lot.

While that may seem an awful thing to do - just think what
happens if someone digs it up in 10 years time - I can see it
from his point of view; paying for disposal was just not an
option, and the shed was going to fall down if it wasn't pulled
down.


I wonder how much the fine will be if the Environment Agency find out?




I hope nothing. Its his lungs, and once underground its back where it
came from. It represents no threat to anyone, since its not poisonous in
the accepted sense. The biggest danger in dust inhalation, and thats
covered by burial.

What do you think the council does with it anyway?

Peter Crosland wrote:

Well, yes, there is that. He seemed to think it's very common
practice.

I'm not condoning his action - but at the same time I can see he
was in a very difficult position. I personally hope he doesn't
get fined, because he'd almost certainly lose his farm if that
happened.


Well it does not reduce the level of responsibility for his grossly
irresponsible behaviour.



You do sound a prat.

Asbestos is dangerous only to those exposed long term to the dust in
mining processing and using it.

Asbestos was used extensively in car and other brakes for many many
years, and those used to get blown out with compressed air on a regular
basis. Anyone living in e.g. London in the 60's would be likely to have
inhaled a few pounds of brake dust. I did, I am still here. There isn't
a rash of silicosis amongst ex car mechanics either.

AND asbestos is a totally natural substance, dug out of the ground.

Perhaps you had rather better fine God, or Slartibartfast, for putting
it there in the first place, rather than some poor farmer who is merely
returning it to its original position.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:01:17 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Asbestos is dangerous only to those exposed long term to the dust in
mining processing and using it.

Like Steve McQueen and Warren Zevon ? Both died of mesothelioma

--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:01:17 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Asbestos is dangerous only to those exposed long term to the dust in
mining processing and using it.

Like Steve McQueen and Warren Zevon ? Both died of mesothelioma

Taken from http://www.allmovieportal.com/c/stevemcqueen.html:

"Was diagnosed with a form of lung cancer, mesothelioma, which is related to
asbestos exposure. Steve McQueen wore an asbestos-insulated racers suit in
his race cars, and possibly was exposed to the harmful insulating material
during his stint in the Marines."

Taken from http://members.tripod.com/~stvmcqueen/meso.html:

"The development of mesothelioma is dose related to asbestos exposure.
Patients report history of moderate asbestos exposure several years to over
two decades prior to the development of the disease. Course of the disease
is usually rapidly progressive with most patients surviving less than two
years post diagnosis. "

and (which was taken from Penina Speigel's book but on same site)

"Steve had been peculiarly surrounded by asbestos all his life. It was often
present in his place of work during his itinerant years when be picked up
odd jobs-at construction sites, for example. Asbestos was used in the
insulation of every modern ship built before 1976; it is found on sound
stages, in the brake linings of race cars, and in the protective helmets and
suits worn by race car drivers." (which was taken from Penina Speigel's
book)

"Steve had been sentenced to six weeks in the brig. He spent the time
assigned to a work detail in the hold of a ship, cleaning the engine room.
The pipes were covered with asbestos linings, which the men ripped out and
replaced. The air was so thick with asbestos particles, Steve told John
Sturges, that the men could hardly breathe"


So - as he said - long term exposure.

D

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:49:49 +0100, "David Hearn"
wrote:

Asbestos is dangerous only to those exposed long term to the dust in
mining processing and using it.

Like Steve McQueen and Warren Zevon ? Both died of mesothelioma

So - as he said - long term exposure.

But that isn't long term exposure in the same sense as someone who was
a boilermaker all their working life. Both clearly died of asbestos
exposure, as there's nothing else that causes mesothelioma. But to see
that their (really pretty casual) exposure to it was enough to kill
them indicates just how little exposure can trigger mesothelioma -
unlike asbestosis.

I've also never seen an asbestos insulated race suit. Fireproof yes,
but they're not meant to be an insulator (if it's hot, you get away
from it). Any drivers from the '50s around here ?


--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods

David Hearn wrote:

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:01:17 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Asbestos is dangerous only to those exposed long term to the dust in
mining processing and using it.

Like Steve McQueen and Warren Zevon ? Both died of mesothelioma



Yes. Exposed long term using it.
see below thoughtfully provided by someone else...




Taken from http://www.allmovieportal.com/c/stevemcqueen.html:

"Was diagnosed with a form of lung cancer, mesothelioma, which is related to
asbestos exposure. Steve McQueen wore an asbestos-insulated racers suit in
his race cars, and possibly was exposed to the harmful insulating material
during his stint in the Marines."

Taken from http://members.tripod.com/~stvmcqueen/meso.html:

"The development of mesothelioma is dose related to asbestos exposure.
Patients report history of moderate asbestos exposure several years to over
two decades prior to the development of the disease. Course of the disease
is usually rapidly progressive with most patients surviving less than two
years post diagnosis. "

and (which was taken from Penina Speigel's book but on same site)

"Steve had been peculiarly surrounded by asbestos all his life. It was often
present in his place of work during his itinerant years when be picked up
odd jobs-at construction sites, for example. Asbestos was used in the
insulation of every modern ship built before 1976; it is found on sound
stages, in the brake linings of race cars, and in the protective helmets and
suits worn by race car drivers." (which was taken from Penina Speigel's
book)

"Steve had been sentenced to six weeks in the brig. He spent the time
assigned to a work detail in the hold of a ship, cleaning the engine room.
The pipes were covered with asbestos linings, which the men ripped out and
replaced. The air was so thick with asbestos particles, Steve told John
Sturges, that the men could hardly breathe"


So - as he said - long term exposure.

D

Andy Dingley wrote:

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:49:49 +0100, "David Hearn"
wrote:


Asbestos is dangerous only to those exposed long term to the dust in
mining processing and using it.

Like Steve McQueen and Warren Zevon ? Both died of mesothelioma


So - as he said - long term exposure.


But that isn't long term exposure in the same sense as someone who was
a boilermaker all their working life. Both clearly died of asbestos
exposure, as there's nothing else that causes mesothelioma. But to see
that their (really pretty casual) exposure to it was enough to kill
them indicates just how little exposure can trigger mesothelioma -
unlike asbestosis.


It is precielsy teh same - Steve worked and played around the stuff for
years.



I've also never seen an asbestos insulated race suit. Fireproof yes,
but they're not meant to be an insulator (if it's hot, you get away
from it). Any drivers from the '50s around here ?


They are indeed insulators. Starngely, thats part of what 'fireproof'
means - that things the oher side of 'fireproof' don't catch fire
because they are - er - insulated?

The stuff modern suits are made of is broadly similar to a plumbers heat
protection mat. It both doesn't burn, and insulates.

Racing in the USA has always used methanol - a particularly dangerous
fuel since it burns witha clear flame and many drivers remained unaware
they and their cars were on fire until rather too late for comfort. I
suspect they used fireproofing somewhat earlier than the UK racing scene.






--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods

The very fine, and the large dust is not dangerous, its the in-between size bits, that get stuck in your insides.
Despite what others have said I would take reasonable precautions, overalls, masks, gloves etc ....

Personally I would get a quote from someone, and them try it on with the seller. I would not admit to anyone official that this stuff is there, just incase they made you
pay for it to be done correctly at some time in the future.


On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:50:18 +0100, "Mike T" wrote:
hi,
am new to here - hope you dont mind my first post being a question..
we're looking at buying a house with some old chicken huts in the back
garden. They're nissen-hut type shelters, about 6' tall and 20' long.
They're made of what looks like corrugated concrete, but I wouldnt be
surprised if they also contained asbestos.

If they do, will it cost be a fortune to get them taken out? How much
should we negotiate off the price of the house? (there are 6 of them)

many thanks for the help
mike

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:03:29 GMT, Rick Dipper
wrote:

The very fine, and the large dust is not dangerous, its the in-between size bits, that get stuck in your insides.
Despite what others have said I would take reasonable precautions, overalls, masks, gloves etc ....

Personally I would get a quote from someone, and them try it on with the seller. I would not admit to anyone official that this stuff is there, just incase they made you
pay for it to be done correctly at some time in the future.


On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:50:18 +0100, "Mike T" wrote:
hi,
am new to here - hope you dont mind my first post being a question..
we're looking at buying a house with some old chicken huts in the back
garden. They're nissen-hut type shelters, about 6' tall and 20' long.
They're made of what looks like corrugated concrete, but I wouldnt be
surprised if they also contained asbestos.

If they do, will it cost be a fortune to get them taken out? How much
should we negotiate off the price of the house? (there are 6 of them)

many thanks for the help
mike




I've packed mine up in Visqueen now so the dump will take them...left
them in the front garden.
Some thieving sod had one away last night...found it half way down the
street, ripped open.....hahaha...bet he got a right lungful of it....

"Mike T" wrote in message
...
am new to here - hope you dont mind my first post being a question..
we're looking at buying a house with some old chicken huts in the back
garden.

Some chicken sheds I encountered had the usual corrugated cement asbestos
roofing sheets. However the sheds were fully insulated, and lined
internally with some type of smooth asbestos sheet.

ISTR something about these smooth interior sheets being much more dangerous
than the corrugated cement type, possibly made of brown asbestos. In a
report on a death in the local paper, a wife described how he 'only moved
the sheets about', he never cut them up.

Roger

Bluestars wrote:

"Mike T" wrote in message
...

am new to here - hope you dont mind my first post being a question..
we're looking at buying a house with some old chicken huts in the back
garden.


Some chicken sheds I encountered had the usual corrugated cement asbestos
roofing sheets. However the sheds were fully insulated, and lined
internally with some type of smooth asbestos sheet.

ISTR something about these smooth interior sheets being much more dangerous
than the corrugated cement type, possibly made of brown asbestos. In a
report on a death in the local paper, a wife described how he 'only moved
the sheets about', he never cut them up.

Roger






I thought it was blue asbestos that was the worts...ogh well. Who cares?

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:36:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Bluestars wrote:

"Mike T" wrote in message
...

am new to here - hope you dont mind my first post being a question..
we're looking at buying a house with some old chicken huts in the back
garden.


Some chicken sheds I encountered had the usual corrugated cement asbestos
roofing sheets. However the sheds were fully insulated, and lined
internally with some type of smooth asbestos sheet.

ISTR something about these smooth interior sheets being much more dangerous
than the corrugated cement type, possibly made of brown asbestos. In a
report on a death in the local paper, a wife described how he 'only moved
the sheets about', he never cut them up.

Roger






I thought it was blue asbestos that was the worts...ogh well. Who cares?

Me.
30 years ago I worked for a few months in shed clad in an asbestos
based material. It was an old aircraft hangar. That is the only time I
haver been in contact with asbestos in over 40 years of working. Last
year a scan found asbestos damage on a lung. It isn't treatable and
all I can do is go along for a scan every year to check for further
damage.

Don't be so cocky. It could be you next with some substance the
government knew might cause long term damage but kept quiet about . It
happened with lead, phosphorous, tricloroethane and asbestos. No
reason to suppose it can't happen again.
Alan G

AlanG wrote:

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:36:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Bluestars wrote:


"Mike T" wrote in message
...


am new to here - hope you dont mind my first post being a question..
we're looking at buying a house with some old chicken huts in the back
garden.


Some chicken sheds I encountered had the usual corrugated cement asbestos
roofing sheets. However the sheds were fully insulated, and lined
internally with some type of smooth asbestos sheet.

ISTR something about these smooth interior sheets being much more dangerous
than the corrugated cement type, possibly made of brown asbestos. In a
report on a death in the local paper, a wife described how he 'only moved
the sheets about', he never cut them up.

Roger






I thought it was blue asbestos that was the worts...ogh well. Who cares?


Me.
30 years ago I worked for a few months in shed clad in an asbestos
based material. It was an old aircraft hangar. That is the only time I
haver been in contact with asbestos in over 40 years of working. Last
year a scan found asbestos damage on a lung. It isn't treatable and
all I can do is go along for a scan every year to check for further
damage.


That's as far as you know. It was commonly used in many industrial and
domestic applications, from fire insulation to brake pads.

I am not sorry to see it go - there was no need to take even

tiny risks as other materials were available, but the whole

'panic: Asbestos: I will die tomorrow' attitude is IMHO very unhelpful.






Don't be so cocky. It could be you next with some substance the
government knew might cause long term damage but kept quiet about . It
happened with lead, phosphorous, tricloroethane and asbestos. No
reason to suppose it can't happen again.


I have messed around with so many different chemicals, smoked, injured
myself etc etc that I am surprised I have lasted this long.

We all have to die of something. I've had a lot of fun along the way
too. I'd rather have 30 good years than 70 miserable fear filled
hypochondriac ones.

I have always felt I was living on borrwed tme since my 30'th birthday
anyway.

:-)



Alan G

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:56:17 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

AlanG wrote:


I thought it was blue asbestos that was the worts...ogh well. Who cares?


Me.
30 years ago I worked for a few months in shed clad in an asbestos
based material. It was an old aircraft hangar. That is the only time I
haver been in contact with asbestos in over 40 years of working. Last
year a scan found asbestos damage on a lung. It isn't treatable and
all I can do is go along for a scan every year to check for further
damage.


That's as far as you know. It was commonly used in many industrial and
domestic applications, from fire insulation to brake pads.

Indeed. However there is no indication that general exposure to these
caused any problems.

I am not sorry to see it go - there was no need to take even

tiny risks as other materials were available, but the whole

I agree.
I worked in the petrochemical industry for most of my life and was
very safety conscious but only on what I knew to be a danger. If the
relevant government department keeps secret the dangers of exposure to
substances we don't really have much chance to avoid them.

'panic: Asbestos: I will die tomorrow' attitude is IMHO very unhelpful.

I will not be popping my clogs tomorrow but the fact that I will
almost certainly die earlier than I would have done doesn't exactly
fill me with joy.





Don't be so cocky. It could be you next with some substance the
government knew might cause long term damage but kept quiet about . It
happened with lead, phosphorous, tricloroethane and asbestos. No
reason to suppose it can't happen again.


I have messed around with so many different chemicals, smoked, injured
myself etc etc that I am surprised I have lasted this long.

We all have to die of something. I've had a lot of fun along the way
too. I'd rather have 30 good years than 70 miserable fear filled
hypochondriac ones.

I would rather have 90 healthy years

I have always felt I was living on borrwed tme since my 30'th birthday
anyway.

That may be truer than you imagine


Alan G

AlanG wrote:

I worked in the petrochemical industry for most of my life and was
very safety conscious but only on what I knew to be a danger. If the
relevant government department keeps secret the dangers of exposure to
substances we don't really have much chance to avoid them.

What has the goverment got to do with this? The vast majority of
occupational exposure studies (where most good long term
toxicity data comes from) are carried out by universities, and
published in publicly available journals. Often long before the
'government' know anything about it.

--
Grunff

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:48:24 +0100, Grunff wrote:

AlanG wrote:

I worked in the petrochemical industry for most of my life and was
very safety conscious but only on what I knew to be a danger. If the
relevant government department keeps secret the dangers of exposure to
substances we don't really have much chance to avoid them.

What has the goverment got to do with this? The vast majority of
occupational exposure studies (where most good long term
toxicity data comes from) are carried out by universities, and
published in publicly available journals. Often long before the
'government' know anything about it.

The dangers of lead, phosphorous, asbestos etc. were known by the
relevant government departments for decades but they were kept secret
from the public. It wasn't until the start of the 70s IIRC that
safety regulations with potentially harmful substances started to get
some teeth. Even in the 80s we had to fight to get Trichloroethane
accepted as dangerous. It's banned now.

--
Alan G
"The corporate life [of society] must be
subservient to the lives of the parts instead
of the lives of the parts being subservient to
the corporate life."
(Herbert Spencer)

AlanG wrote:

Even in the 80s we had to fight to get Trichloroethane
accepted as dangerous. It's banned now.

What the hell are you on about? Trichloroethane is not banned;
it's readily available from any chemical supplier.

There are restrictions on it's use, but not because of it's
toxicity; because of it's ozone depletion potential. There are
far more toxic solvents in everyday use in labs all over the world.

--
Grunff

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 19:13:48 +0100, Grunff wrote:

AlanG wrote:

Even in the 80s we had to fight to get Trichloroethane
accepted as dangerous. It's banned now.

What the hell are you on about? Trichloroethane is not banned;
it's readily available from any chemical supplier.

We used to use it as a degreaser. The literature I got in the early
90s said it was now illegal to use it as such.


There are restrictions on it's use, but not because of it's
toxicity; because of it's ozone depletion potential.

There were restrictions put on how it was used after a young aircraft
fitter was brain damaged through inhalation of the vapour from a tank
of the stuff. I was a shop steward in at the time and distinctly
remember a union pamphlet full of self congratualtion when the stuff
was finally declared dangerous and safe handling procedures brought
in. Until then it was common practise to use it in open tanks or
dishes with no skin protection or protection from the fumes. The stuff
was effectively banned as a solvent cleaner because of ozone
depletion in the 90s. There were even reports of smugglers running it
across borders because manufacturers couldn't find an alternative. I
know I had a hell of a job finding a solvent cleaner that could
replace it without damaging some of the components.

There are
far more toxic solvents in everyday use in labs all over the world.

But only under strictly controlled conditions. Just like asbestos or
phospherous or lead. We are far more safety concious now than we were
only a few decades ago.

Fortunately I'm retired from that and wouldn't willingly go back even
if you paid me

--
Alan G
"The corporate life [of society] must be
subservient to the lives of the parts instead
of the lives of the parts being subservient to
the corporate life."
(Herbert Spencer)

AlanG wrote:

We used to use it as a degreaser. The literature I got in the early
90s said it was now illegal to use it as such.

Restricting use and banning are two totally different things.


We are far more safety concious now than we were
only a few decades ago.

Paranoid is a far closer description. Many things which get
banned from certain applications were doing very little harm in
that application. Lead in petrol is a point in case.

--
Grunff

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 20:31:41 +0100, Grunff wrote:

that application. Lead in petrol is a point in case.

Compared to the alternative junk kicked out by diesel engines, which
are seeing rather a large increase in use I think.

PoP

Robbie Chuff wrote:

My garage has a cement asbestos roof which has cracked and is leaking
slightly.

I obviously need to replace this at some stage but am concerned about
how to go about it.

Can I just hire some builders to sort it out or as someone has already
suggested to me, do I need a special skip?

Do the council offer a service?

NOTE: The garage is completely separate to the house and is a single
bay.


Cheers.


Essentially you have several choices.

(i) do it youreself, smash it up and stuff it in plastic bags and dump
it by teh roadside.
(ii) Pay through the nose to have a bunch of 'sbestors disposla
specialists' do exactl the same thing.
(iii) As (i) but take it to the tip, and pay presumably teh council..
(iv) pay through several noses to have (ii|) happen, but have it end up
in teh skip.
(v) Pay an arm, several legs AND through several noses to get a complete
overkill, road closed, flashing hazard lights, encase the entire
neighnourhood in plastic with negative air pressure, have men in suits
that make sellafield look like toytown, and get it dumped in the council
skip for landfill...

Or take it off yourself, put in black plastic bags in yer black wheelie
bin or bury it at the bottom of the garden.

The approach to take depends on your cost benefit analysis of the risks
of asbestos, law breaking, and teh social stignma of being o teh front
page of te CEN 'prominent Cambridge citizen acused of illegal asbestos
transportation in back of Volvo' etc etc.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The approach to take depends on your cost benefit analysis of the risks
of asbestos, law breaking, and teh social stignma of being o teh front
page of te CEN 'prominent Cambridge citizen acused of illegal asbestos
transportation in back of Volvo' etc etc.

It's worth pointing out that many local councils (no idea about yours in
particular) will take non-industrial quantities of asbestos free of
charge (or at least they used to).

If you are going to remove yourself, wet it down thoroughly, and have
some tough plastic bags handy.

--
Grunff

Grunff wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The approach to take depends on your cost benefit analysis of the risks
of asbestos, law breaking, and teh social stignma of being o teh front
page of te CEN 'prominent Cambridge citizen acused of illegal asbestos
transportation in back of Volvo' etc etc.

It's worth pointing out that many local councils (no idea about yours in
particular) will take non-industrial quantities of asbestos free of
charge (or at least they used to).


A couple of years ago the bloke opposite my dad's was demolishing an
entire asbestos garage. The local Council tip supplied him with tough,
bright orange plastic bags clearly labelled as containing asbestos
waste, and some clear plastic bags. He had to put the asbestos in the
clear bags, then put those in the orange ones, tie them closed, and take
them to the tip.

The only inconvenience was that they would only give him a few (6?) bags
at a time (so they didn't have the entire garage arrive at once) and he
had to phone in advance to let them know he was bringing the full bags
(so they could arrange to put them straight in the landfill rather than
have them lying around).

As for cost, it was either free, or a small nominal charge (to reduce
the temptation to fly-tip I guess because they have to clear the mess up
and decontamiate the dumping site). This was Lancs CC but I would expect
most/all councils provide a similar service.

If you are going to remove yourself, wet it down thoroughly, and have
some tough plastic bags handy.