My friend recently had water coming in through the roof and into the
bathroom. The ceiling was only very slightly damaged.
The insurance company sent someone to repair the roof and then they sent
someone to do a test on the artex that was on the ceiling. The house, ex
local authority, he has lived there from build, has only been built about
30 years and it was artexed from new. The results were that the artex
contained a small amount of asbestos.
Result, the insurance company are sending a special team round to rip all
the ceiling down, then someone is going round to put a new ceiling up and do
all the plastering, then someone else is going to do the wallpapering.
My friend was told that if a house is over a certain age then where artex is
involved, they have to by law have it checked.
Anyone heard of this before.....?

--
troubleinstore
http://www.tuppencechange.co.uk
Personal mail can be sent via website.
Email address in posting is ficticious and is intended as spam trap

View my items on eBay:-
http://cgi6.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI....include=0&user
id=yorkie_8&sort=2&rows=25&since=-1&rd=1

In article , troubleinstore
writes
My friend recently had water coming in through the roof and into the
bathroom. The ceiling was only very slightly damaged.
The insurance company sent someone to repair the roof and then they sent
someone to do a test on the artex that was on the ceiling. The house, ex
local authority, he has lived there from build, has only been built about
30 years and it was artexed from new. The results were that the artex
contained a small amount of asbestos.
Result, the insurance company are sending a special team round to rip all
the ceiling down, then someone is going round to put a new ceiling up and do
all the plastering, then someone else is going to do the wallpapering.
My friend was told that if a house is over a certain age then where artex is
involved, they have to by law have it checked.
Anyone heard of this before.....?

Artex of a certain vintage does contain a small amount of asbestos but
that sounds like a typical asbestos-expert overreaction.
--
Tim Mitchell

On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 06:42:29 +0100, "troubleinstore"
wrote:

My friend recently had water coming in through the roof and into the
bathroom. The ceiling was only very slightly damaged.
The insurance company sent someone to repair the roof and then they sent
someone to do a test on the artex that was on the ceiling. The house, ex
local authority, he has lived there from build, has only been built about
30 years and it was artexed from new. The results were that the artex
contained a small amount of asbestos.
Result, the insurance company are sending a special team round to rip all
the ceiling down, then someone is going round to put a new ceiling up and do
all the plastering, then someone else is going to do the wallpapering.
My friend was told that if a house is over a certain age then where artex is
involved, they have to by law have it checked.
Anyone heard of this before.....?

Old Artex does indeed contain asbestos but is perfectly safe. The only
potential hazard is if the ceiling is damaged or drilled and even then
if you take care not to breathe the dust you'd be OK.

The insurance company are just covering their backsides, imho.

sPoNiX

"sPoNiX" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 06:42:29 +0100, "troubleinstore"
wrote:

My friend recently had water coming in through the roof and into the
bathroom. The ceiling was only very slightly damaged.
The insurance company sent someone to repair the roof and then they sent
someone to do a test on the artex that was on the ceiling. The house, ex
local authority, he has lived there from build, has only been built about
30 years and it was artexed from new. The results were that the artex
contained a small amount of asbestos.
Result, the insurance company are sending a special team round to rip all
the ceiling down, then someone is going round to put a new ceiling up and
do
all the plastering, then someone else is going to do the wallpapering.
My friend was told that if a house is over a certain age then where artex
is
involved, they have to by law have it checked.
Anyone heard of this before.....?

Old Artex does indeed contain asbestos but is perfectly safe.

fair enough, the general best advice with asbestos is leave it alone...
perfectly safe is maybe stretching things a little bit though.

The only
potential hazard is if the ceiling is damaged or drilled and even then
if you take care not to breathe the dust you'd be OK.

This strikes me as increadibly bad advice to even remotely suggesting
drilling into it.
I'm just wondering how in hell you manage to avoid breathing in the dust?
Anytime I've drilled any hole in the ceiling, my drill, my hand, arm and
clothes are covered in dust, and there is a fair amount floating about the
room too. We're not talking a wee paper mask to ensure that you don't
breathe in the dust, its a full face jobby, but then you'll have to take
that off to shower the dust out your hair etc. so you'd better make sure
you've got on a disposable overall, with hood as well.

Given that very low levels of inhaled dust can cause a problem the only
advice is leave it alone.


The insurance company are just covering their backsides, imho.

I would imagine that they are more likely to be following health and safety
laws

cheers

David

On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 10:28:44 +0100, "David"
wrote:


fair enough, the general best advice with asbestos is leave it alone...
perfectly safe is maybe stretching things a little bit though.

Not really. The problem is that officially the governments position
(one I suspect they now deeply regret adopting) is that there is no
minimum safe limit for any form of asbestos. This is unlikely to be
the case as asbestos is a natural substance and everyone in the
country breathes quite a few particles a day. Moreover, in areas
where there are large amounts of naturally occurring asbestos bearing
rocks and a higher background exposure there is no increase in
asbestos related diseases.

However the mechanism of damage is such that it is impossible to say
that any exposure _is_ safe, even if the risk is minuscule. There is
also no doubt that high exposure to blue and brown asbestos can be
very damaging and sustained (many years) high exposure to Chrysotile
can also be damaging.

From an insurers point of view the statement of "no minimum safe
exposure" was a disaster (and it has put many out of business) but a
free gift for avaricious lawyers as it makes any "mesothelioma"
related illness case completely indefensible. In the USA at the
moment some estimates put over 90% of the asbestos related illness
claims as fraudulent.

Making life worse (for insurers) was the UK decision that in the case
of asbestos related illness the claimant could claim against anyone
who may have exposed them to any asbestos at any time in their life -
they do not have to demonstrate where the damage occurred. So a
railway worker who had years of high industrial exposure to asbestos
with a now defunct boiler making firm could claim for the damage his
employer had caused against anyone - including his house insurers -
if he could show they had knowingly exposed him to asbestos at any
time in his life no matter how minimal the period or exposure might
have been.

It is the risk of litigation, not the risk of harm which is driving
the insurers thinking.

Given that very low levels of inhaled dust can cause a problem

There is no evidence that very low levels of chrysotile cement dust
cause any more harm than cement dust alone.

the only advice is leave it alone.

That is the best advice - the worst thing you can do is remove it all
as far more gets scattered about the place and the "specialist"
asbestos scam companies are often not the most careful of workers
despite their theatrical use of polythene sheeting.

The insurance company are just covering their backsides, imho.

Correct.

I would imagine that they are more likely to be following health and safety
laws

Going against current HSE advice actually - but it makes their
position more easily defendable (we acted - we used an approved
contractor) should it be necessary in years to come.

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

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 10:28:44 +0100, "David"
wrote:


snip very fine post from Peter Parry

It's rare to see such sensible words.

Which, of course, means it's the way I think too ... :-)

Thanks, Peter.

Mary

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 10:28:44 +0100, "David"
wrote:


fair enough, the general best advice with asbestos is leave it alone...
perfectly safe is maybe stretching things a little bit though.

Not really. The problem is that officially the governments position
(one I suspect they now deeply regret adopting) is that there is no
minimum safe limit for any form of asbestos. This is unlikely to be
the case as asbestos is a natural substance and everyone in the
country breathes quite a few particles a day. Moreover, in areas
where there are large amounts of naturally occurring asbestos bearing
rocks and a higher background exposure there is no increase in
asbestos related diseases.

However the mechanism of damage is such that it is impossible to say
that any exposure _is_ safe, even if the risk is minuscule. There is
also no doubt that high exposure to blue and brown asbestos can be
very damaging and sustained (many years) high exposure to Chrysotile
can also be damaging.

From an insurers point of view the statement of "no minimum safe
exposure" was a disaster (and it has put many out of business) but a
free gift for avaricious lawyers as it makes any "mesothelioma"
related illness case completely indefensible. In the USA at the
moment some estimates put over 90% of the asbestos related illness
claims as fraudulent.

Making life worse (for insurers) was the UK decision that in the case
of asbestos related illness the claimant could claim against anyone
who may have exposed them to any asbestos at any time in their life -
they do not have to demonstrate where the damage occurred. So a
railway worker who had years of high industrial exposure to asbestos
with a now defunct boiler making firm could claim for the damage his
employer had caused against anyone - including his house insurers -
if he could show they had knowingly exposed him to asbestos at any
time in his life no matter how minimal the period or exposure might
have been.

It is the risk of litigation, not the risk of harm which is driving
the insurers thinking.

Given that very low levels of inhaled dust can cause a problem

There is no evidence that very low levels of chrysotile cement dust
cause any more harm than cement dust alone.

the only advice is leave it alone.

That is the best advice - the worst thing you can do is remove it all
as far more gets scattered about the place and the "specialist"
asbestos scam companies are often not the most careful of workers
despite their theatrical use of polythene sheeting.

The insurance company are just covering their backsides, imho.

Correct.

I would imagine that they are more likely to be following health and
safety
laws

Going against current HSE advice actually - but it makes their
position more easily defendable (we acted - we used an approved
contractor) should it be necessary in years to come.

Given that the OP says the ceiling has already been damaged are you saying
that the HSE advice is to then leave it in that state? , or just paper
over the problem and forget about it. While I've not read up on this I
would have thought the position would be if its not been disturbed leave it
alone, but once there is the slightest potential of increased exposure then
the HSE would tend to err on the side of caution and advise removal. Givn
the uncertainty over exposure limits and time takem for illness to show
itself I guess they would have to cover their own arse as well. when
advising on something like

cheers

David

On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 16:37:52 +0100, "David"
wrote:


Given that the OP says the ceiling has already been damaged are you saying
that the HSE advice is to then leave it in that state?

Of course not.

or just paper over the problem and forget about it.

If the damage is slight and that repair is cosmetically acceptable
that might be perfectly reasonable. It's not really different from
any ceiling repair.

While I've not read up on this I
would have thought the position would be if its not been disturbed leave it
alone, but once there is the slightest potential of increased exposure

Everyone breathes this stuff every single day.

then
the HSE would tend to err on the side of caution and advise removal.

The H&SE wouldn't be in the slightest bit interested although a good
few empires there (and jobs after retirement) have been built on this
substance.

Givn the uncertainty over exposure limits and time takem for illness to show
itself I guess they would have to cover their own arse as well. when
advising on something like

If asked they probably would, for exactly the papered posterior
reason you stated.


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

"David" wrote in message ...
"sPoNiX" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 06:42:29 +0100, "troubleinstore"
wrote:

My friend recently had water coming in through the roof and into the
bathroom. The ceiling was only very slightly damaged.
The insurance company sent someone to repair the roof and then they sent
someone to do a test on the artex that was on the ceiling. The house, ex
local authority, he has lived there from build, has only been built about
30 years and it was artexed from new. The results were that the artex
contained a small amount of asbestos.
Result, the insurance company are sending a special team round to rip all
the ceiling down, then someone is going round to put a new ceiling up and
do
all the plastering, then someone else is going to do the wallpapering.
My friend was told that if a house is over a certain age then where artex
is
involved, they have to by law have it checked.
Anyone heard of this before.....?

Old Artex does indeed contain asbestos but is perfectly safe.

fair enough, the general best advice with asbestos is leave it alone...
perfectly safe is maybe stretching things a little bit though.

The only
potential hazard is if the ceiling is damaged or drilled and even then
if you take care not to breathe the dust you'd be OK.

This strikes me as increadibly bad advice to even remotely suggesting
drilling into it.
I'm just wondering how in hell you manage to avoid breathing in the dust?
Anytime I've drilled any hole in the ceiling, my drill, my hand, arm and
clothes are covered in dust, and there is a fair amount floating about the
room too. We're not talking a wee paper mask to ensure that you don't
breathe in the dust, its a full face jobby, but then you'll have to take
that off to shower the dust out your hair etc. so you'd better make sure
you've got on a disposable overall, with hood as well.

Given that very low levels of inhaled dust can cause a problem the only
advice is leave it alone.


The insurance company are just covering their backsides, imho.

I would imagine that they are more likely to be following health and safety
laws

cheers

David


If we were talking brown asbestos youd be right, but we're not. White
asbestos is a different substance. There are 3 different substances
all called asbestos, and theyre not the same.

White asbestos fibres are only a risk with very high levels of
exposure. If you worked in a factory for years chopping up asbestos,
coming out looking like a snowman, the risk is real. If you have a
ceiling thats not crumbling, containing embedded fibres, its a
complete non issue.

To expand further on the question around no safe lower limit... first
it is thought that one fibre can cause mesothelioma. However,
experience shows that IRL the number of fibres inhaled per case is
positively googolic, thus the risk from a few dozen fibres when you
drill a hole is absolutely tiny compared to the risk you take by going
3 steps up the stepladder.

Always put numbers to things, or this kind of madness starts
occurring.

The flip side is house buyers are equally ignorant, so for sale value
its a real plus to remove it (even though the risk from the stairs
will be thousands of times higher.)


Regards, NT

On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 06:42:29 +0100, "troubleinstore"
wrote:

My friend was told that if a house is over a certain age

Asbestos was put in Artex as late as July 1984 so we are talking about
fairly new properties.

sPoNiX

Asbestos was put in Artex as late as July 1984 so we are talking about
fairly new properties.

sPoNiX

My ceilings are textured. Bit like woodchip paper, in fact it may well be
but how can I check if it is artex? It will have several layers of emulsion.

Any ideas?

If it is artex then do I
- leave alone
- panic
- remove all the ceilings and replace
- contact my insurance company as it was in
place prior to my entry date

On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 22:18:31 +0100, "harry" wrote:


My ceilings are textured. Bit like woodchip paper, in fact it may well be
but how can I check if it is artex? It will have several layers of emulsion.

Artex is a very hard coating and usually put on with a very
pronounced pattern. Running you hand over it is usually enough to
feel the hardness.

If it is artex then do I
- leave alone

Yes.

- panic

Optional.



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

Result, the insurance company are sending a special team round to rip all
the ceiling down, then someone is going round to put a new ceiling up and
do
all the plastering, then someone else is going to do the wallpapering.

Jammy git!

If I had my insurance company round insisting that all the Artex was removed
at their expense, I'd celebrate for a week.

Christian.

On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 09:58:22 +0100, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

Result, the insurance company are sending a special team round to rip all
the ceiling down, then someone is going round to put a new ceiling up and
do
all the plastering, then someone else is going to do the wallpapering.

Jammy git!

If I had my insurance company round insisting that all the Artex was removed
at their expense, I'd celebrate for a week.

Christian.



So call your insurance company, ask to speak to an actuary and ask if
they have heard of mesothelioma. Go from there.

Worth a call. Maybe...





..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

If I had my insurance company round insisting that all the Artex was
removed at their expense, I'd celebrate for a week.

So call your insurance company, ask to speak to an actuary and ask if
they have heard of mesothelioma. Go from there.

I should have rephrased it as "if I was still in my last house and I had
my..."

My current house has no Artex at all. It just has lath and plaster ceilings
with loads of cracks, instead. No chance of getting them to replace those
with plasterboard, either!

Christian.

Christian McArdle wrote:
If I had my insurance company round insisting that all the Artex was
removed at their expense, I'd celebrate for a week.

So call your insurance company, ask to speak to an actuary and ask if
they have heard of mesothelioma. Go from there.

I should have rephrased it as "if I was still in my last house and I had
my..."

My current house has no Artex at all. It just has lath and plaster ceilings
with loads of cracks, instead. No chance of getting them to replace those
with plasterboard, either!

How easy it Artex to apply?

"Ian Stirling" wrote
| How easy it Artex to apply?

Terribly easy. My own flat was done by a blind rabid chimpanzee high on
crack cocaine (I would judge by the result).

Owain

How easy it Artex to apply?

Do you know where I can get Artex with asbestos then?

Christian.

On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 09:58:22 +0100, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

If I had my insurance company round insisting that all the Artex was removed
at their expense, I'd celebrate for a week.

I'd have no house left !

Anyone heard of this before.....?

Yes, it's quite well known.

Artex contained white asbestos (chrysotile) until sometime in the
60s. It's less hazardous than the blue and brown types, but it's still
not something you want to mess about with. Many builders would have
ripped it down and shovelled it up; or got some lad to do it whilst
they were elsewhere..

"Aidan" wrote in message
om...
Anyone heard of this before.....?

Yes, it's quite well known.

Artex contained white asbestos (chrysotile) until sometime in the
60s. It's less hazardous than the blue and brown types, but it's still
not something you want to mess about with. Many builders would have
ripped it down and shovelled it up; or got some lad to do it whilst
they were elsewhere..

The house I am in now had artex on all ceilings. Last October, I ripped the
lounge ceiling down that was artexed. Got someone to chuck it on his van and
take it to the tip. The artex was put on in 1983, before I moved in and I
knew nothing about it containing asbestos.
You live and learn.

--
troubleinstore
http://www.tuppencechange.co.uk
Personal mail can be sent via website.
Email address in posting is ficticious and is intended as spam trap

View my items on eBay:-
http://cgi6.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI....include=0&user
id=yorkie_8&sort=2&rows=25&since=-1&rd=1

"troubleinstore" wrote in message
...

The house I am in now had artex on all ceilings. Last October, I ripped
the
lounge ceiling down that was artexed. Got someone to chuck it on his van
and
take it to the tip. The artex was put on in 1983, before I moved in and I
knew nothing about it containing asbestos.
You live and learn.


My 1960's house has artexed ceilings and I have only disturbed them if
absolutely necessary, and taken what I consider to be reasonable
precautions. On one occasion I carefully bagged a small amount of waste
and took it to the local dump where there is an asbestos products skip. As
requested I sought permission before using the skip. The attendant let me
use it, but had clearly never heard of artex containing asbestos. A sad
reflection on the health and safety training the local authority provides
for its staff.

James


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.719 / Virus Database: 475 - Release Date: 15/07/2004