I think it's called Ellis board. It's a heat resistant board used to
line flues.

I need to saw up quite a bit of it and it seems quite dusty. It looks
like asbestos!

Ta.

Crafty Bugger wrote:
I think it's called Ellis board. It's a heat resistant board used to
line flues.

I need to saw up quite a bit of it and it seems quite dusty. It
looks
like asbestos!

Ta.

Not heard of it, but asbestos risk depends on the type of abestos used:
white is not a significant problem, but blue and brown are serious
risks.

Proper info he
http://www.asbestoswatchdog.co.uk/ACM.pdf



NT

Crafty Bugger wrote:
I think it's called Ellis board. It's a heat resistant board used to
line flues.

I need to saw up quite a bit of it and it seems quite dusty. It looks
like asbestos!

Ta.

Never heard of this board.

But if you suspect its asbestos then sawing or taking power tools to it
is a really bad idea.

Unless you know exactly what type of asbestos it is and precisely how to
handle it safely then you could be taking a risk with your (and other
peoples) health.

As an aside ... have you thought of how you will dispose of the waste?
Not all local tips will take it and you may need to double bag it etc
before they will accept it even if they do (your local authority may be
able to provide advice here). If its commercial waste you will have to
pay for disposal I suspect.

Have you considered professional removal?

Alex

Crafty Bugger wrote:

I think it's called Ellis board. It's a heat resistant board used to
line flues.

I need to saw up quite a bit of it and it seems quite dusty. It looks
like asbestos!

Ta.
No abets boards are sold these days.

Its probably gypsum and glass fibre. Nasty but not carcinogenic, but
wear a mask anyway, and use a hand saw, and if squeamish, wet to
lubricate and kill the dust.

AlexW wrote:
Crafty Bugger wrote:

Never heard of this board.

But if you suspect its asbestos then sawing or taking power tools to
it
is a really bad idea.

not really. there is a minor risk but the public has been scared
witless over them without good cause. You do more dangerous things
every day without batting an eyelid.


Have you considered professional removal?

Professional removers will be happy to charge you a fortune for their
theatrics, and leave it in someone elses dustbin for normal disposal by
the binmen.

NT

It was somewhere outside Barstow when wrote:

Not heard of it, but asbestos risk depends on the type of abestos used:
white is not a significant problem, but blue and brown are serious
risks.

White asbestos is a significant dust hazard if you're cutting it, it's
just not on the same scare-level as "asbestos". Even MDF or mahogany
is a "significant problem" for dust control.

wrote:
AlexW wrote:

Crafty Bugger wrote:


Never heard of this board.

But if you suspect its asbestos then sawing or taking power tools to

it

is a really bad idea.


not really. there is a minor risk but the public has been scared
witless over them without good cause. You do more dangerous things
every day without batting an eyelid.


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 that
the risk to health from asbestos cement products is very low unless you
generate a lot of dust and that I could have done the job myself taking
the right precautions ... but I don't know what Ellis Board is so would
not advise cutting it it up this way.

Are you advocating cutting asbestos with tools/power tools?

Have you considered professional removal?


Professional removers will be happy to charge you a fortune for their
theatrics, and leave it in someone elses dustbin for normal disposal by
the binmen.


Maybe. That was not my experience with the ones I employed to remove my
ancient garage, although they did admit that there was good money in it,
and that it would be a growing business over the coming years.

BTW, if they fly tip asbestos they clearly are not professional (and are
looking at a stint!).

Its the disposal fees that are the real killer ... last summer the quote
I had was £90+vat a ton in a skip + skip hire on top. I could have taken
it to my local tip for free, but then there's the bagging issue and
transporting bulk amounts of the stuff. The company I employed took my
garage away for £500 pounds, it was less than a days work for 2 people
.... for me this was a reasonable fee, which is why I suggested this option.


Alex.

I have read this somwhere (although I can't remember where)

See http://www.york.gov.uk/waste/asbestosdisp.html and
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg288.pdf.

Crafty Bugger wrote:
I think it's called Ellis board. It's a heat resistant board used to
line flues.

I need to saw up quite a bit of it and it seems quite dusty. It looks
like asbestos!

I think you can buy Ellis Board today. Try a BM for info (sheet
materials?). What makes you think it's Ellis Board?

On 13 Mar 2005 16:34:06 -0800, babbled like a
waterfall and said:

AlexW wrote:
Crafty Bugger wrote:

Never heard of this board.

But if you suspect its asbestos then sawing or taking power tools to
it
is a really bad idea.

not really. there is a minor risk but the public has been scared
witless over them without good cause. You do more dangerous things
every day without batting an eyelid.


Have you considered professional removal?

Professional removers will be happy to charge you a fortune for their
theatrics, and leave it in someone elses dustbin for normal disposal by
the binmen.

NT

I took an old ironing board down the council tip last week. I wisely
removed the small panel of asbestos that the iron sits on, before I
got there. (I foolishly ignored safety precautions as we have used it
for ironing for 25 years, and it is an old friend).

I took this little panel of the stuff and showed it to one of the
guys.

He looked sadly at me and said "As the asbestos bin has been removed
for emptying, we cannot accept it for disposal, sorry".

I turned to walk away and one of his mates, came up to me, took it out
of my hand, smiled and chucked it on the large heap of household junk
he was JCBing.

Problem solved.

AlexW wrote:
wrote:
Crafty Bugger wrote:

But if you suspect its asbestos then sawing or taking power tools
to
it
is a really bad idea.

not really. there is a minor risk but the public has been scared
witless over them without good cause. You do more dangerous things
every day without batting an eyelid.

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.

Not a reliable source of info then.


They did say that
the risk to health from asbestos cement products is very low unless
you
generate a lot of dust and that I could have done the job myself
taking
the right precautions ... but I don't know what Ellis Board is so
would
not advise cutting it it up this way.

Are you advocating cutting asbestos with tools/power tools?

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.

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.


Have you considered professional removal?

Professional removers will be happy to charge you a fortune for
their
theatrics, and leave it in someone elses dustbin for normal
disposal by
the binmen.

BTW, if they fly tip asbestos they clearly are not professional

Professional n.: Engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood
or as a career


(and are looking at a stint!).

I doubt it, but its veryc ommon practice, either way.


Its the disposal fees that are the real killer ... last summer the
quote
I had was =A390+vat a ton in a skip + skip hire on top. I could have
taken
it to my local tip for free, but then there's the bagging issue and


The company I employed took my
garage away for =A3500 pounds, it was less than a days work for 2
people
... for me this was a reasonable fee, which is why I suggested this
option.

I think thats at the lower end of asbestos disposal charges, but =A3250
per person per less than a day is a bit on the steep side. Especialy
considering disposal is free (see the site you reffed).


NT

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 12:11:55 +0000, Chris Bacon
wrote:

Crafty Bugger wrote:
I think it's called Ellis board. It's a heat resistant board used to
line flues.

I need to saw up quite a bit of it and it seems quite dusty. It looks
like asbestos!

I think you can buy Ellis Board today. Try a BM for info (sheet
materials?). What makes you think it's Ellis Board?

I assume you mean "I don't think you can buy Ellis Board today."

I was recommended to buy some Ellis board (for a project I'm working
on) by a bloke at B&Q. They didn't sell it, but I just buy it at my
local Plumb-Centre. They seem to know what i mean when I ask for a
few sheets of it.

It's fairly crumbly stuff, and looks like there are flakes of metal
embedded in it.

If there is another name for it I don't know it.

What do you mean try a BM?

Not a reliable source of info then.


Are you sure they are not reliable?


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.

I shall restate my question: Are you advocating sawing white asbestos
cement products?

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.

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".

(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.

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!).

Crafty Bugger wrote:
Chris Bacon wrote:
Crafty Bugger wrote:

I think it's called Ellis board. It's a heat resistant board used to
line flues.

I need to saw up quite a bit of it and it seems quite dusty. It looks
like asbestos!

I think you can buy Ellis Board today. Try a BM for info (sheet
materials?). What makes you think it's Ellis Board?


I assume you mean "I don't think you can buy Ellis Board today."

No, I mean "I think you can (still) buy Ellis board today" - I seem to
remember seeing it recently.


I was recommended to buy some Ellis board (for a project I'm working
on) by a bloke at B&Q. They didn't sell it, but I just buy it at my
local Plumb-Centre. They seem to know what i mean when I ask for a
few sheets of it.

So you can buy it! Eh?


It's fairly crumbly stuff, and looks like there are flakes of metal
embedded in it.

If there is another name for it I don't know it.

If it's modern, it won't have asbestos in it.


What do you mean try a BM?

Try asking at Jewson's, Travis Perkins, Buildbase, or similar, to see
whether they know what it is.

I think this whole thread is ********.

First of all no such product as Ellis Board exists or ever has as far as
a lot ogf googling is concerned, and secondly, now the OP hads got
everyone on an asbestors roll, he seems to have vanished...Troll?

Crafty Bugger wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 12:11:55 +0000, Chris Bacon
wrote:


Crafty Bugger wrote:

I think it's called Ellis board. It's a heat resistant board used to
line flues.

I need to saw up quite a bit of it and it seems quite dusty. It looks
like asbestos!

I think you can buy Ellis Board today. Try a BM for info (sheet
materials?). What makes you think it's Ellis Board?


I assume you mean "I don't think you can buy Ellis Board today."

I was recommended to buy some Ellis board (for a project I'm working
on) by a bloke at B&Q. They didn't sell it, but I just buy it at my
local Plumb-Centre. They seem to know what i mean when I ask for a
few sheets of it.


No such product has shown up on any web searches: I've never heard of it.

The material that is normally used is Multiboard, Maxiboard, Masterboard
or Supalux.

It's fairly crumbly stuff, and looks like there are flakes of metal
embedded in it.

Mica probably. If it exists.

Mica in Gypsum. If anything worse than just plain gypsum in tems of
falling to pieces.

Completely harmeless of course - no asbestors bearing board is on
general sale these days.


If there is another name for it I don't know it.

What do you mean try a BM?

Builders mercahnts.

(and are looking at a stint!).


I doubt it, but its veryc ommon practice, either way.



FYI: Legal situation is up to £20K fine 6 months custodial sentence for
fly tipping, increasing to 5 years if hazardous substances (including
asbestos)are involved.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I think this whole thread is ********.

Beginning to think the same thing!

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:12:38 +0000, AlexW
wrote:


I shall restate my question: Are you advocating sawing white asbestos
cement products?

I wouldn't - it ruins the saw.

Or "professionally" adjective, "characterized by or conforming to the
technical or ethical standards of a professional".

That rules out all of the asbestos disposal industry.

I gather their latest scam is to dump the stuff on farmland and then
report its presence to the local authority. The LA tell the farmer
to remove it (at the farmers expense - nulabor decided a neat way of
reducing rubbish disposal costs was to make landowners pay to dispose
of rubbish dumped on their land).

Hey presto - a day later the dumpers turn up at the farm and offer
their services as certified Local Authority approved professionals to
remove the stuff at a discounted rate.

With a bit of skill one load of asbestos cement can generate many
farm worths of revenue.


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

Peter Parry wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:12:38 +0000, AlexW
wrote:



I shall restate my question: Are you advocating sawing white asbestos
cement products?


I wouldn't - it ruins the saw.


Fair enough ... but then you might have guessed I won't be trying this
any time soon :-)

Or "professionally" adjective, "characterized by or conforming to the
technical or ethical standards of a professional".

That rules out all of the asbestos disposal industry.

A bit harsh, to use the word "all"? What basis does this statement have
(genuinely interested here, not just being picky).

I gather their latest scam is to dump the stuff on farmland and then
report its presence to the local authority. The LA tell the farmer
to remove it (at the farmers expense - nulabor decided a neat way of
reducing rubbish disposal costs was to make landowners pay to dispose
of rubbish dumped on their land).

Hey presto - a day later the dumpers turn up at the farm and offer
their services as certified Local Authority approved professionals to
remove the stuff at a discounted rate.

I have not heard of this happening in my neck of the woods ... but it
does seem like a typical criminal scam ... and that is what we are
talking about here.

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.


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.

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 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.


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.

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!



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/


(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.


I think thats at the lower end of asbestos disposal charges, but
=A3250
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.


NT

AlexW wrote:
Peter Parry wrote:

Or "professionally" adjective, "characterized by or conforming to
the
technical or ethical standards of a professional".

That rules out all of the asbestos disposal industry.

A bit harsh, to use the word "all"? What basis does this statement
have
(genuinely interested here, not just being picky).


If an industry existed which told you used teabags were hazardous,
warned you of the dire hazards of used teabags, and dressed up in
theatrical suits and charged you =A3500 for less than a days tea bag
disposal, what would you think?


NT

wrote:

AlexW wrote:

Peter Parry wrote:


Or "professionally" adjective, "characterized by or conforming to

the

technical or ethical standards of a professional".


That rules out all of the asbestos disposal industry.


A bit harsh, to use the word "all"? What basis does this statement

have

(genuinely interested here, not just being picky).



If an industry existed which told you used teabags were hazardous,
warned you of the dire hazards of used teabags, and dressed up in
theatrical suits and charged you £500 for less than a days tea bag
disposal, what would you think?



I'd think they were from Nu Laber Nazis.

NT

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I think this whole thread is ********.

First of all no such product as Ellis Board exists or ever has as far as
a lot ogf googling is concerned, and secondly, now the OP hads got
everyone on an asbestors roll, he seems to have vanished...Troll?

http://www.indextimber.co.uk/PR_sheetmaterial.asp

55600030 PROMAT ELLIS BOARD 900X600X6MM £6.50 EACH

shrug

Chris Bacon wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I think this whole thread is ********.

First of all no such product as Ellis Board exists or ever has as far
as a lot ogf googling is concerned, and secondly, now the OP hads got
everyone on an asbestors roll, he seems to have vanished...Troll?


http://www.indextimber.co.uk/PR_sheetmaterial.asp

55600030 PROMAT ELLIS BOARD 900X600X6MM £6.50 EACH

shrug

Well done for finding i. I spent half an hour looking for it.

Well, then the answer is, if its on sale, it hasn't got asbestos in it.

End of thread.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Chris Bacon wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I think this whole thread is ********.

First of all no such product as Ellis Board exists or ever has as far
as a lot ogf googling is concerned, and secondly, now the OP hads got
everyone on an asbestors roll, he seems to have vanished...Troll?


http://www.indextimber.co.uk/PR_sheetmaterial.asp

55600030 PROMAT ELLIS BOARD 900X600X6MM £6.50 EACH

shrug

Well done for finding i. I spent half an hour looking for it.


If you enter "sheet material ellis board" in the Google (UK) search box,
it's on the second page.

'Fraid it only took half a minute ;o)


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

"Bob Mannix" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Chris Bacon wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I think this whole thread is ********.

First of all no such product as Ellis Board exists or ever has as far
as a lot ogf googling is concerned, and secondly, now the OP hads got
everyone on an asbestors roll, he seems to have vanished...Troll?


http://www.indextimber.co.uk/PR_sheetmaterial.asp

55600030 PROMAT ELLIS BOARD 900X600X6MM £6.50 EACH

shrug

Well done for finding i. I spent half an hour looking for it.


If you enter "sheet material ellis board" in the Google (UK) search box,
it's on the second page.

or even "ellis board sheet material" ! I think it's a bit further down the
way I originally said.


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

wrote:


If an industry existed which told you used teabags were hazardous,
warned you of the dire hazards of used teabags, and dressed up in
theatrical suits and charged you £500 for less than a days tea bag
disposal, what would you think?


NT


Splitting hairs ... that is not an answer but an analogy phrased as a
question.

Considering your analogy ... I think the public would have enough first
hand *empirical* evidence to make there own informed descision on the
issue. I don't think that the same can be said for issues related to
asbestos removal.

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.

AlexW wrote:
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?

Yes, it is, that is correct.

--
Holly, in France
Holiday Home in Dordogne
http://la-plaine.chez.tiscali.fr/

AlexW wrote:

Yes ... but how do you identify each substance *reliably* - genuine
question. This seems a fairly important point.

People experienced in this will have a good chance of knowing what it is
by the situation they find it in, the material in question, age of the
building etc. Otherwise, and in case of doubt, you have to get it
analysed. Some local authorities do this, or you can use a private
analyst.

--
Holly, in France
Holiday Home in Dordogne
http://la-plaine.chez.tiscali.fr/

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:26:39 +0000, AlexW
wrote:

Peter Parry wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:12:38 +0000, AlexW
wrote:

Or "professionally" adjective, "characterized by or conforming to the
technical or ethical standards of a professional".

That rules out all of the asbestos disposal industry.

A bit harsh, to use the word "all"?

Not really, I am sure there might be honest individuals but as an
industry it has no standards, no method of disciplining errant
members and apparently no wish to set up such structures. It cannot
call itself "professional".

What basis does this statement have (genuinely interested here, not just being picky).

http://www.asbestoswatchdog.co.uk/ contains a number of stories.
There are about 700 licensed asbestos removers and the HSE has
prosecuted about 100 of them in the last 15 years.

I have not heard of this happening in my neck of the woods ... but it
does seem like a typical criminal scam ... and that is what we are
talking about here.

Yes, and a very worthwhile one.

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

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:52:23 +0000, AlexW
wrote:


FYI: Legal situation is up to £20K fine 6 months custodial sentence for
fly tipping, increasing to 5 years if hazardous substances (including
asbestos)are involved.

The reality is somewhat different. A person (not a licensed asbestos
remover) discovered numerous asbestos sheets and asbestos insulated
pipes during renovation work on a disused factory. On discovery of
the asbestos sheets they contacted the HSE for advice and were told
the asbestos would have to be removed by a specialist firm. They were
quoted a price of £23,000 for removing the sheets safely.

They decided instead to advertise the sheets (14 tons of them)free
for collection and someone responded, removed the sheets, and now
cannot be traced. They then shotblasted the covering of the pipes
into dust leaving the asbestos in dustbins outside nearby housing.

The fine was £8,000 with £366 costs. £15,653 less expensive than
complying with the law.




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

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

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.

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

they have been considered Alex, youre free to consider them too.

NT

snip

As an aside, maybe this would be a good topic for the uk.d-i-y FAQ?

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:26:11 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

I think this whole thread is ********.

First of all no such product as Ellis Board exists or ever has as far as
a lot ogf googling is concerned, and secondly, now the OP hads got
everyone on an asbestors roll, he seems to have vanished...Troll?

Why on earth troll about something like this? Sheesh!

"AlexW" wrote in message
...
snip

As an aside, maybe this would be a good topic for the uk.d-i-y FAQ?

Not entirely convinced that it would be, well not in the normal format of
the FAQ anyway.

It would probably have to consist of restating the current HSE & legal
position on asbestos, otherwise we're getting onto sticky ground.

Perhaps a link in the links section would be more appropriate.

--
Richard Sampson

mail me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk