- Thread starter FCB
- Start date
Hello,
I came into this forum to post a message about finding an architect, but I saw this post and would just like to make a comment. I am an asbestos surveyor and I would discourage anybody from removing the asbestos yourself. Asbestos fibres are microscopic and even to rub the edge of an asbestos insulating board when removing it could potentially releases thousands of fibres which you can't see (about 2,000 times thinner than a human hair). Unless you professionally seal off every room you are working in or have to pass through to get the asbestos out of the house, you are going to contaminate it, and you will have to have the whole place environmentally cleaned if you want to live in it without compromising your health. Removing cement containing asbestos is less hazardous because it is well bonded and often only contains white asbestos (the only type which the lungs can potentially break down). Even so, as someone working with this stuff everyday, please take my advice and do not remove it yourself. Having asbestos in your home can devalue it likely because of the expensive removal costs if it is done properly, and the obvious fact that it is harmful to your health and not something that everybody would be comfortable to live with. Also, the point made above about a house being Victorian and not having asbestos in it is not true. The house could have been refurbished in the 60's for example, so could be full of it.
Scott
I came into this forum to post a message about finding an architect, but I saw this post and would just like to make a comment. I am an asbestos surveyor and I would discourage anybody from removing the asbestos yourself. Asbestos fibres are microscopic and even to rub the edge of an asbestos insulating board when removing it could potentially releases thousands of fibres which you can't see (about 2,000 times thinner than a human hair). Unless you professionally seal off every room you are working in or have to pass through to get the asbestos out of the house, you are going to contaminate it, and you will have to have the whole place environmentally cleaned if you want to live in it without compromising your health. Removing cement containing asbestos is less hazardous because it is well bonded and often only contains white asbestos (the only type which the lungs can potentially break down). Even so, as someone working with this stuff everyday, please take my advice and do not remove it yourself. Having asbestos in your home can devalue it likely because of the expensive removal costs if it is done properly, and the obvious fact that it is harmful to your health and not something that everybody would be comfortable to live with. Also, the point made above about a house being Victorian and not having asbestos in it is not true. The house could have been refurbished in the 60's for example, so could be full of it.
Scott
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
I'd take this warning seriously - apart from cement board which contains 'white' asbestos, and the jury is still actually out about that, the other stuff can be deadly.
A headteacher in Carlisle has just died - from working in a school which contained asbestos.
A headteacher in Carlisle has just died - from working in a school which contained asbestos.
Gervase
Member
- Messages
- 1,500
- Location
- North London
...and a builder friend of mine is living under the shadow of mesothelioma from sawing up asbestos board some 20 years ago. It is nasty stuff, and not worth being macho about.
Lime
Member
- Messages
- 2,749
- Location
- East of England
White asbestos is similar to mercury in respect of the once cavalier attitude taken with it.
Mercury was played with by most children in the school lab.
It could be found in cracks in wood and on the floor.
No precautions were taken with it.
White asbestos was on the ironing board, in the iron, the cooker, the stove, the electric fire.
It was on the walls, ceilings and doors in some places, it was everywhere.
I remember at school the hot water pipes covered in the stuff for insulation and where it was damaged a hole full of asbestos dust blew over everyone as they passed. That happened all the time and I was there 5 years!
It is very difficult to change the habits of a past lifetime where danger of dying from childhood disease or being shot in the war seemed more important.
Mercury was played with by most children in the school lab.
It could be found in cracks in wood and on the floor.
No precautions were taken with it.
White asbestos was on the ironing board, in the iron, the cooker, the stove, the electric fire.
It was on the walls, ceilings and doors in some places, it was everywhere.
I remember at school the hot water pipes covered in the stuff for insulation and where it was damaged a hole full of asbestos dust blew over everyone as they passed. That happened all the time and I was there 5 years!
It is very difficult to change the habits of a past lifetime where danger of dying from childhood disease or being shot in the war seemed more important.
But like many things, there is safe asbestos and unsafe. Brown asbestos fibre lagging is nasty nasty stuff, whereas white asbestos cement board used in homes is simply not a significant risk factor. And, like many things, those with money to make love to try to scare people into spending money without point.
NT
NT
Gervase
Member
- Messages
- 1,500
- Location
- North London
Er, where do you get that from?NT said:
It seems to have been significant enough to have caused a very unpleasant condition in a good friend of mine; one which could shorten his life by decades and which has been attributed by several specialists to his sawing of asbestos board. To me that is significant.
Anyway, it's down to individual choice these days. Personally I would rather not handle the stuff, and would certainly not even think of breaking it up or sawing it indoors. If others feel confident and rufty-tufty enough to do so, good luck to 'em.
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
That is just the organization that BBC Radio 4 You and Yours so comprehensively slated. They haven't tried sueing the BBC yet!
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
http://www.cieh.org/ehn/news/2006/october/articles/critics_attack_asbestos_watchdog_claims.htm
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/world/2006/10/353849.html
Like I said - the jury's still out as far as I can see.
Asbestos Watchdog Watchdog | 18.10.2006 18:46 | Health | Social Struggles | Workers' Movements | World
Today, (18th October) Shari Vahl on BBC Radio 4’s You and Yours programme investigated a businessman called John Bridle. His company “Asbestos Watchdog” has claimed to be:
“The only UK organisation that can provide unbiased information about asbestos”
The BBC claim that two of the UK’s biggest house builders have been using an asbestos surveyor who is carrying out analysis which the Health and Safety Executive say is illegal.
Find out more at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/items/01/2006_42_wed.shtml
John Bridle, the sole director of a company called Asbestos Watchdog Ltd has been described (on his company’s website) as “the world’s leading expert on asbestos science”
Mr Bridle has stated:
- that there is no measurable risk to health from white asbestos;
- that white asbestos cannot cause the cancer mesothelioma;
- that his company has saved Sunday Telegraph readers at least £34 millions pounds;
- that his company- Asbestos Watchdog “saves householders £20 Billion” (yes Billion).
Mr Bridle has also claimed to have received a professorship from the Russian Academy of Sciences. IS THIS TRUE?
Find out at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/items/01/2006_42_wed.shtml
Mr Bridle also claimed to be-
-the ‘asbestos consultant’ to the ‘International Centre for Asbestos Research’ (ICARE) at the University of Glamorgan
-the ‘chief scientific asbestos consultant’ for the ‘European Asbestos Accreditation Centre’ (EAAC) in Lisbon, Portugal.
DO THESE ORGANISATIONS EXIST?
Mr Bridle also claimed his ‘main clients’ include:
-BBC Radio 4 and TV News 24;
-Vale of Glamorgan Trading Standards Dept, and
-the Conservative Party Shadow Cabinet.
IS THIS TRUE?
Find out at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/items/01/2006_42_wed.shtml
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS…
-Does Mr Bridle have close links with the Canadian and Russian asbestos industries?
-Has the UK Parliament been misled?
-Does Mr Bridle have a criminal conviction under the Trades Descriptions Act?
-How many national building companies have used Mr Bridle’s asbestos surveys?
Regeneration of ‘brownfield’ and potentially contaminated land, worth billions of pounds has either gone ahead or is planned for the UK.
Are we ‘as safe as houses’?
Find out more at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/items/01/2006_42_wed.shtml
Or contact the BBC on: 0800 044 044 email: youandyours@bbc.co.uk
Asbestos Watchdog Watchdog
Download this article in pdf format >>
Email this article to someone >>
Submit an addition or make a quick comment on this article >>
Comments
Display the following 7 comments
Is the Sunday Telegraph liable? — Curious
Asbestos scam victims... — Barrack Room lawyer
Christopher Booker- victim of the international asbestos industry or accomplice? — Rhodes scholar
If Christopher Booker's Notebook is not accurate then some something about it — Citizen Kane
Prof Bridle and Kazahkstan asbestos is very nice — Borat
Has Mr Bridle been caught out breaking the law (again)? — Postman Pat
New-look Asbestos Watchdog website — Asbestos Watchdog watchdog
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/world/2006/10/353849.html
Like I said - the jury's still out as far as I can see.
Asbestos Watchdog Watchdog | 18.10.2006 18:46 | Health | Social Struggles | Workers' Movements | World
Today, (18th October) Shari Vahl on BBC Radio 4’s You and Yours programme investigated a businessman called John Bridle. His company “Asbestos Watchdog” has claimed to be:
“The only UK organisation that can provide unbiased information about asbestos”
The BBC claim that two of the UK’s biggest house builders have been using an asbestos surveyor who is carrying out analysis which the Health and Safety Executive say is illegal.
Find out more at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/items/01/2006_42_wed.shtml
John Bridle, the sole director of a company called Asbestos Watchdog Ltd has been described (on his company’s website) as “the world’s leading expert on asbestos science”
Mr Bridle has stated:
- that there is no measurable risk to health from white asbestos;
- that white asbestos cannot cause the cancer mesothelioma;
- that his company has saved Sunday Telegraph readers at least £34 millions pounds;
- that his company- Asbestos Watchdog “saves householders £20 Billion” (yes Billion).
Mr Bridle has also claimed to have received a professorship from the Russian Academy of Sciences. IS THIS TRUE?
Find out at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/items/01/2006_42_wed.shtml
Mr Bridle also claimed to be-
-the ‘asbestos consultant’ to the ‘International Centre for Asbestos Research’ (ICARE) at the University of Glamorgan
-the ‘chief scientific asbestos consultant’ for the ‘European Asbestos Accreditation Centre’ (EAAC) in Lisbon, Portugal.
DO THESE ORGANISATIONS EXIST?
Mr Bridle also claimed his ‘main clients’ include:
-BBC Radio 4 and TV News 24;
-Vale of Glamorgan Trading Standards Dept, and
-the Conservative Party Shadow Cabinet.
IS THIS TRUE?
Find out at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/items/01/2006_42_wed.shtml
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS…
-Does Mr Bridle have close links with the Canadian and Russian asbestos industries?
-Has the UK Parliament been misled?
-Does Mr Bridle have a criminal conviction under the Trades Descriptions Act?
-How many national building companies have used Mr Bridle’s asbestos surveys?
Regeneration of ‘brownfield’ and potentially contaminated land, worth billions of pounds has either gone ahead or is planned for the UK.
Are we ‘as safe as houses’?
Find out more at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/items/01/2006_42_wed.shtml
Or contact the BBC on: 0800 044 044 email: youandyours@bbc.co.uk
Asbestos Watchdog Watchdog
Download this article in pdf format >>
Email this article to someone >>
Submit an addition or make a quick comment on this article >>
Comments
Display the following 7 comments
Is the Sunday Telegraph liable? — Curious
Asbestos scam victims... — Barrack Room lawyer
Christopher Booker- victim of the international asbestos industry or accomplice? — Rhodes scholar
If Christopher Booker's Notebook is not accurate then some something about it — Citizen Kane
Prof Bridle and Kazahkstan asbestos is very nice — Borat
Has Mr Bridle been caught out breaking the law (again)? — Postman Pat
New-look Asbestos Watchdog website — Asbestos Watchdog watchdog
Gervase
Member
- Messages
- 1,500
- Location
- North London
Good enough for me.
Johneds
Member
- Messages
- 126
- Location
- South Gloucestershire
There are no special requirements or legislation controlling the removal of asbestos cement board except that it must be disposed of correctly. Any householder or general builder etc. can do it. The HSE advises sensible precautions but these are the same precautions that anybody should take when dealing with any dusty or fibrous material.
So if it is reasonably safe to remove the stuff and cart it away then I think it would be reasonably safe to remove a small piece, bag it and take it away for testing. Whilst taking those sensible precautions of course.
Asbestos insulation is a completely different thing. It is controlled by strict legislation and can only be handled by licensed asbestos removal contractors.
So if it is reasonably safe to remove the stuff and cart it away then I think it would be reasonably safe to remove a small piece, bag it and take it away for testing. Whilst taking those sensible precautions of course.
Asbestos insulation is a completely different thing. It is controlled by strict legislation and can only be handled by licensed asbestos removal contractors.
biffvernon said:
Yes I know, I isnt quite senile yet
1. Theres nothing in Nemesis' links that is conclusive
2. Asbestos litigation and the asbestos removal industry are worth billions, and there are plenty of folk wiling to play dirty
3. It bears the hallmarks of a hot air campaign
4. Most rumours are untrue IME
5. Some fundamental asbestos related case law is clearly unrealistic
Yes, it may all be correct, or it may not, the jury is still out. But in the circumstances I wouldnt believe everything one reads. Or any of it at this point.
Meanwhile I'd suggest asbestos watchdog's pdf technical report for anyone that hasnt read it yet. It contains some pretty good stuff, and gives some pretty good clues as to where AW is coming from.
http://www.asbestoswatchdog.co.uk/ACM.pdf
NT
thiambal
Member
- Messages
- 464
- Location
- Walmer, Kent
I listened to both the You and Yours reports on John Bridle - to be fair to the BBC the concentration was not about whether or not John Birdle's position on the safety of asbestos was right or wrong - they acknoweldged that it is a controvertial subject.
The report was focued on the claims that John Bridle makes about his qualifications, experience, associations with academic institutions and customers. The BBC had investigated this and obtained proof that some of the isntitutions John Bridle claimed to be a member of did not exist, that the various quoted customers did not share the same view about their relationship with, and expert opinion calling into question the ability of John Bridle to provide the serivces offered.
The second report focused on his company encouraging people send samples through the post which the Royal Mail are investigating the legality of. It was stated that the company has since altered their website accordingly.
This is not a debate about whether and which type of asbestos are dangerous but highlighting a man who appears to be misleading people about his credentials, professional associations and customer base. If you were to look for an expert opinion, it would be worth bearing this in mind, although you might decided to take up his service, which appears to be substantially cheaper and less hassle than other firms.
And quite frankly if the original poster wants the mortgage he is either going to have to cough up the money for the survey or find a different provider. The dull debate about the safety or otherwise of asbestos has little to do with it - and I doubt anybody posting here has the scientfic credentials to expertly comments (I am prepared to be corrected).
The report was focued on the claims that John Bridle makes about his qualifications, experience, associations with academic institutions and customers. The BBC had investigated this and obtained proof that some of the isntitutions John Bridle claimed to be a member of did not exist, that the various quoted customers did not share the same view about their relationship with, and expert opinion calling into question the ability of John Bridle to provide the serivces offered.
The second report focused on his company encouraging people send samples through the post which the Royal Mail are investigating the legality of. It was stated that the company has since altered their website accordingly.
This is not a debate about whether and which type of asbestos are dangerous but highlighting a man who appears to be misleading people about his credentials, professional associations and customer base. If you were to look for an expert opinion, it would be worth bearing this in mind, although you might decided to take up his service, which appears to be substantially cheaper and less hassle than other firms.
And quite frankly if the original poster wants the mortgage he is either going to have to cough up the money for the survey or find a different provider. The dull debate about the safety or otherwise of asbestos has little to do with it - and I doubt anybody posting here has the scientfic credentials to expertly comments (I am prepared to be corrected).
For a buyer, safety and possible removal cost are the real issues. Removal cost of cement board is relatively low since it can be safely diyed, within all council and legal guidelines. That isnt something that is seriously debated.
Safety and removal of brown asbestos fleece insulation is at the othe end of the scale, again without any real debate, but this is not normally found in houses.
How dangerous is it to keep white asbestos cement board? NHS hospitals are quite happy to leave in in situ, and this is compliant with all guidelines and laws.
Theres plenty of room for scaremongering, but buyers should keep a calm head and take a cool look at the established and agreed facts.
NT
Safety and removal of brown asbestos fleece insulation is at the othe end of the scale, again without any real debate, but this is not normally found in houses.
How dangerous is it to keep white asbestos cement board? NHS hospitals are quite happy to leave in in situ, and this is compliant with all guidelines and laws.
Theres plenty of room for scaremongering, but buyers should keep a calm head and take a cool look at the established and agreed facts.
NT
I dont share your bbc-sided view of Mr Bridle. There are too many weasel words, not enough facts, a lot of hot air, a vast pool of so-called experts, and billions of pounds at stake.
If he took some questionable shortcuts to getting more attention for his site, thats not good, but I'm afraid its not uncommon. It does bring some things into question, but it does not make the AW report invalid.
It is also fair to say that believing anything the press say would be a little wide eyed. Remember Michael Jackson, they'd convinced us he was guilty, but the court ruled that it was simply not possible for the prosecution case to be true. It wasnt that he was not found guilty as charged, but rather it was proven he could not be. And the reason why had been known to the press for some time.
'Expert opinion calling into question the ability of John Bridle to provide the serivces offered' reminds me of the damp proofing 'experts' calling into question the ability of PPUK posters to have any clue as to how to solve damp problems. All it tells us is there are differences of opinion, and enough riding on them for something to be aired publicly.
There are billions of dollars at stake over asbestos. Lets at least keep our eyes open.
NT
If he took some questionable shortcuts to getting more attention for his site, thats not good, but I'm afraid its not uncommon. It does bring some things into question, but it does not make the AW report invalid.
It is also fair to say that believing anything the press say would be a little wide eyed. Remember Michael Jackson, they'd convinced us he was guilty, but the court ruled that it was simply not possible for the prosecution case to be true. It wasnt that he was not found guilty as charged, but rather it was proven he could not be. And the reason why had been known to the press for some time.
'Expert opinion calling into question the ability of John Bridle to provide the serivces offered' reminds me of the damp proofing 'experts' calling into question the ability of PPUK posters to have any clue as to how to solve damp problems. All it tells us is there are differences of opinion, and enough riding on them for something to be aired publicly.
There are billions of dollars at stake over asbestos. Lets at least keep our eyes open.
NT
thiambal
Member
- Messages
- 464
- Location
- Walmer, Kent
I broadly agree with you NT, certainly let keep our eyes open.
With reference to the experts calling into question his ability - this referred to his claims to be able to identify whether asbestos was present in a substance using the naked eye - a university based expert said on the BBC report that this was impossible without laboratory equipment and specifically a microscope' - seems reasonable
As for 'taking questionable short cuts' - according to the BBC report these included claiming to hold senior academic positions at institutions that do not exist.
I think my point was - keep you eyes open, specifically when taking a decision on which expert you pay to advise you.
thiambal said:
Both views 'seem reasonable.' I suspect neither of us knows which is really correct. These kind of disagreements between experts are normal.
Yes, those are the sort of questionable shortcuts I was referring to. Its common in industry to set up organisations that have no useful function, become a member of them, and proudly display your trade body membership logo to prove quality and a dispute resolution system. Some are worthwhile, some are of little or no value, some are non-operational, and some dont even exist. Yet these all go on en masse with almost no comment in the press. Theyre just another feature of the business landscape.
Why do you think one person/company alone is singled out for this type of questionable claim? Its much more likely to be about trying to control business interests than anything to do with real integrity. Bear in mind Mr Bridle is in a position to change the asbestos removal industry, his input questions all the bs the other are trading on, and thats something people that want your money seriously dont like.
NT
thiambal
Member
- Messages
- 464
- Location
- Walmer, Kent
Guess we will have to agree to disagree then ;-)