Asbestos

[dan-kernow]

i agree with you stuart, i wont read your article you have attached because i wont read something a journalist has wrote. but i just been on website
for asbestos victims and woman wrote about living in her house which had asbestos in the cupboards and artex etc she then went on to say that she had been getting headaches and was felling unwell and was putting it down to the asbestos which was contained in the building materials.
the reply from the asbestos victim organisation was that the majority of patience they see are people who had HIGH exposure over a long period of time
and that people who have low level exposures would be ok. if you want i could put a link up. also there white asbestos is natural occurring mineral and is present in the air we breath, i just seen a documentary quoting that we breath in up to 15000 tiny particles of asbestos without knowing about it. i could put a link up if you want of that too. i am not saying its safe im just saying that low level exposure is not a death sentence.
you know what the media is like to get your attention to read there articles.

 

[Newboy]

obviously this had to be removed before we could put our cladding up. we took them off, a lot got smashed off basically there was a big mess of broken tiles.


my thought on this is that if it was harmful then the housing authority who gave us the contract would of made sure that the tiles were removed by a specialist asbestos company.

So it's in your way so you break it up and create a big mess off ACMs and then you assume that's it's OK because somebody else should have taken care of it

Assumption is the mother of all f*ck ups

 

[dan-kernow]

there was more than me taking the tiles off including our boss who instructed us to.

my assumption that they would not be that harmful is that when my old employer tended for this job he would of had to produce a method statement to the housing association on how the tiles would be removed and disposed of. if the housing association wanted them disposed of by a asbestos removal company it would of been in the contract.

 

[^woody^]

There is no real safe limit, although the more exposure the greater the risk.

The 2002 and 2006 Control of Asbestos Regulations, and previous HSE guidance did specify exposure periods depending on activity and the type of asbestos and material, before exposure had to be notified to the HSE as a "dangerous occurrence". Eight hours for cement sheet but 15 minutes for sprayed on insulation for example.

The 2012 regulations give a "control limit" of 0.1 fibres per cm3, but say that this is not many to be a safe limit. In context, a reading of 0.01 fibres per cm3 is indistinguishable from ambient air.

But it still all comes down to activity, proximity and the time periods of exposure when working out the risk. Low level exposure over many years may be more harmful than a single "high risk" exposure.

There is a significant increase in the amount of asbestos related deaths and diseases in teachers - who have had gradual exposure over many years.

 

[Newboy]

there was more than me taking the tiles off including our boss who instructed us to.

my assumption that they would not be that harmful is that when my old employer tended for this job he would of had to produce a method statement to the housing association on how the tiles would be removed and disposed of..

So you had a briefing and whoever was running the job explained the method to be used, issued PPE and checked that you all understood the task? Did the method statement include smashing them off and producing a big mess of broken tiles?

 

[dan-kernow]

you got it.