Go Back   The Environment Site Forums > Socio-Economic Issues > Waste and Recycling Forum

Notices

Waste and Recycling Forum "There is enough on earth for everybody's need, but not for everyone's greed" - Gandhi

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 23rd-April-2008, 02:19 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Hull - its getting a bit nippy
Posts: 1,889
Wobs is on a distinguished road
Default Asbestos

How dangerous is asbestos? Interesting article on it, but you may also wish to read the comments in the link.

Asbestos - the most expensive word in history - Telegraph

"In our new book Scared To Death we analyse many of the major scares of recent years, showing how they follow a remarkably consistent pattern.


A US Navy 'ghost ship, which contains asbestos and other pollutants, arrives in the UK to be broken up
A crucial part in almost every scare is played by supposed scientific experts who misread or even manipulate the evidence, usually by putting two things together and theorising, wrongly, that they are linked.

A classic instance of this has been the great scare which has swept the Western world in recent decades over asbestos, based, as it turns out, on a fundamental scientific confusion which has cost businesses, homeowners, insurance companies and our economies truly astronomic sums.

Most people these days imagine that asbestos has been identified as one of the most dangerous substances in the world, and that even the slightest contact with its 'deadly fibres' can cause cancer.

They might be startled to know that more than 90 per cent of this alarm is wholly unfounded. This is because the unscientific term 'asbestos' is used to describe two different minerals, with quite different properties.

On one hand are what are known as 'blue' and 'brown' asbestos or 'amphiboles'. These are iron silicate, the hard, sharp, acid-resistant fibres of which can accumulate in the human lung over many years, causing two very nasty forms of cancer.

On the other hand is the very much more widespread white asbestos or chrysotile. This is a magnesium silicate, chemically similar to talcum powder, the soft, silky fibres of which dissolve so readily in the lung that their half-life is only 11.4 days.

By far the commonest use of white asbestos is as a binding agent used with cement to make a wide range of products such as roof slates. The fibres holding the cement together undergo a chemical change which makes them no longer respirable by the lungs at all.

The essence of the great asbestos scare has been that the genuinely dangerous properties of the amphiboles have been projected onto white asbestos, which in manufactured form poses no measurable risk to health whatever (like any dust, such as flour, chrysotile is only dangerous when workers are exposed to its raw fibres in very high doses).

The alarm over asbestos began in the early 1960s when a much higher than normal mortality rate was discovered in US shipyard workers who had been exposed to very high concentrations of amphiboles (blue and brown asbestos, because of their acid-resistance, were extensively used for insulation in shipbuilding).

Particularly when it was revealed that manufacturers had long been suppressing evidence of the damage inflicted on workers, this led to a fast-growing avalanche of compensation claims. And it was at this point that the confusion between the different forms of asbestos crept in, a basic error which the lawyers and more alarmist scientists did nothing to discourage.

By the end of the 1980s these soaring compensation claims were becoming a major threat to the global insurance industry (in the early 1990s they brought Lloyds of London to its knees).

The panic over asbestos was now so great that in 1989 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tried to ban its use in the US altogether, making no distinction between amphiboles and chrysotile. In 1991 the federal courts reversed the ban on white asbestos, stating that, on the EPA's own data, it was likely to cause many fewer deaths than 'the ingestion of toothpicks'.

By now, however, the panic had given rise to two separate commercial scams, both immensely lucrative. The first was being run by the compensation lawyers, who by now had brought hundreds of thousands of claims, the vast majority of which, as eventually emerged, were bogus (a celebrated expose in Fortune magazine dubbed it 'The $200 Billion Miscarriage Of Justice').

The other scam was worked by the new profession of licensed contractors who, under new laws on both sides of the Atlantic, were now alone legally permitted to work with asbestos. This enabled them to exploit the general fear and confusion by charging absurdly inflated sums for removing supposedly 'deadly' asbestos from buildings, more than 90 per cent of which was in fact harmless.

The colossal sums of money now at stake had called into being a powerful political lobby, supported by the law firms and contractors, along with the multi-national manufacturers of asbestos substitutes, who had a vested interest in perpetuating the confusion between the different types of asbestos; and in 1999 they won a signal victory in persuading the EU to introduce a total ban, making no distinction between amphiboles (long since been withdrawn from the market) and chrysotile.

On the back of this muddying of the scientific and legal waters, the various commercial interests have continued to enjoy an extraordinary bonanza, ripping off the public on both sides of the Atlantic on a colossal scale.

When in 2002 Britain's Health and Safety Executive introduced new regulations to comply with EU law (flatly contradicting studies carried out by the HSE itself), its original estimate for the cost of implementation was £8 billion, making it one of the two most expensive laws ever put on the UK statute book.

Subsequent evidence of the alarming scale on which HSE-licensed contractors have continued to exploit their privileged position, by grotesquely overcharging for work often not necessary at all, suggests that even this was a serious underestimate.

Only in the past few years have a series of new studies by some of the world's leading independent scientific experts on asbestos (such as Dr David Bernstein, Professor Fred Pooley and Dr John Hoskins) finally confirmed in exhaustive detail just how insignificant is the danger which chrysotile poses to human health.

But by now, thanks to that basic linguistic confusion, the damage has been done - making 'asbestos' arguably the single most expensive word in history."

Some further info here:
Chrysotile Information Center
__________________
"Nero fiddles while Gordon Burns
In my Joy Division Oven Gloves"
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 23rd-April-2008, 03:42 PM
Eco Warrior
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 739
macgardener is on a distinguished road
Default

Interesting. I was actually aware of there being different "colours" of asbestos, with different levels of risk. I'm wondering if it makes much difference in practical terms. Is it possible to point to things and say with certainty that one contains white and that one contains brown?
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 23rd-April-2008, 04:12 PM
Forum Hermit
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,856
Blog Entries: 5
forfismum is on a distinguished road
Default

Having worked with both Mac,let me try to put your mind at rest.If you ahve never been in a ships engine room or worked in a power ststion or large boiler room then it is unlikely that you will have come in contact with the dangerous type.It was used in some domestic appliances but it would appear that the danger from single or occasional exposure is minute.I get checked out annually due to constant exposure when I was at sea and working in power stations but I honestly think that my lungs suffered more from the bloody dust from me hens and from smoking than form asbestos exposure.There were times when we worked in clouds of the stuff caused by steam pipe leaks,not very nice.Shipyard workers seem to have been the main victims and also the wives who handled and washed the guys clothes.But as the item quoted by Wobs points out,the white asbestos is like talc and anyone who has ever changed a nappy would be doomed if it was really bad.BTW I was only reading recently of the natural occurance of asbestos in the US and In Oz but that was in a geological paper and I can't remember which one !! maybe a google is in order
__________________
I am no longer associated with this forum,pleases do not reply to posts in my name
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 11th-May-2008, 02:37 PM
Eco Warrior
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 739
macgardener is on a distinguished road
Default

So the one used in products like fibre cement sheeting is the white asbestos which is not as hazardous? That would be good because the concern these days seems to be about people renovating older homes having to cut into or remove sheeting.

The Canberra region had what appeared to be a uniquely stupid situation involving loose fluff. The home I grew up in fortunately didn't have it but I remember seeing the plastic wrap going up round other houses during the removal process. I even recall many years ago that sensors were placed in various locations around the main shopping mall in the CBD while the asbestos was removed so that if any was detected in the public areas the mall could be evacuated.
Stateline Canberra
Stateline NSW

Then there is the very sad story of Wittenoom. I believe there are other areas where some form of asbestos was mined but Wittenoom is the most well known, even inspiring a song. (Btw the lead singer of the band is now Australia's environment minister.)
Wittenoom, Western Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A few years ago I read on a gardening forum that there are concerns in California about a type of surface used in unpaved rural roads. I googled and found this.
Asbestos Network: Asbestos in Serpentine-Surfaced Roads

More recently I saw on the EU consumer website that garden torches had been recalled because they contain asbestos. (Btw I always wonder why there seem to be so many more recalls in Europe than Australia.) Sorry, I couldn't get the site to load so I can't provide a link.

Forfi, you mentioned smoking. Hope you won't mind if just this once I nag you about it. I hope you've given it up, and if you haven't please do so. Please please look after yourself!!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
asbestos

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5
The Environment Site
Google