Today, Tony Blair unveils a stand-alone Bill to help the widows of asbestos victims. This is a pretty bold manoeuvre which, much to the chagrin of the insurance lobby, has been applauded by the press.
In essence, the Bill aims to overturn a ruling by the Law Lords in May which stated that damages should be split between the employers in those cases where more than one employer exposed the victim to asbestos
Can anyone find the text of this Bill anywhere? Or is it possible that after shooting from the hip and promising a draft Bill by today, the Prime Minister has been advised that his wishes are unrealistic? Maybe the Department of Dodgy Dossiers isn't very expert in the drafting of parliamentary Bills....?
Does buggerall for me sitting here waiting to see if the damage to my lungs spreads and not being able to say just where I worked with asbestos in order to claim some compensation.
Whatever this Bill might say, there is no way your widow would have any better claim than you do. If you have no right to compensation, then neither does your widow.
You haven't said what asbestos-related condition you have, but it won't necessarily spread. And are you sure you cannot remember *any* exposure to asbestos from any source?
It's not unusual. Many of the companies working with asbestos fibre were less than careful over the control of asbestos used at several sites around the UK. There were reports of poor quality dumping into landfill with a thin scrape of soil over the top which eroded allowing fibres to be blown in the wind. Also some factories in urban areas simply vented fibres into the air via the extraction systems.
Much use was also made of "cyclones" for the movement of asbestos fibre. That is fibres were blown along ducts by air pressure to move them from one part of the factory to another, then at point of use separated from the airflow by a cyclone. These are the devices that Mr Dyson used as inspiration for his vacuum cleaner and they do not provide 100%R effective separation of air and fibres allowing fibres to blow in the wind, often for huge distances.
I recall a BBC documentary from the 1970s which showed that the majority of dust in the roof spaces of houses in the vicinity of asbestos weaving sheds was asbestos.
In these conditions it is easy for individuals to become affected by asbestos but to have no clear idea of which company was responsible. It's also worth noting that up until very recently all friction materials (clutches, brakes etc) used in cars contained asbestos. The dust from these products was a large part of roadside dust and exposure could have occurred from this source. It only needs a single asbestos fibre to cause mesothelioma.
I worked in mining and around petro-chemical works /storage depots as well as on ships. Could be any or all of them. All I know is the xrays show lung damage a specialist says is caused by asbestos and while not dangerous at present can start spreading at any time. It's a constant worry at the back of my mind every single day.
The message from Steve Firth contains these words:
Which often gets read as "a single asbestos fibre will cause mesothelioma", which if true would mean almost all of us would have it, particularly those who lived near asbestos factories or who used the stuff as kids in school chemistry labs.
The use of asbestos in these components was been phased out over a number of years prior to the ban on using asbestos in these components bought in in 1999. The use of asbestos in components for pre '73 vehicles was stopped in 2005 ISTR. "Asbestos free" has been used as a selling point for at least 20 years
Extreme asbestos exposure by no means always results in that, though - it's quite extraordinary. A documentary some years ago showed workers literally white with the stuff. Not nice.
For the purpose of claiming compensation all you need is to remember one source (and forget the others). If for instance asbestos was regularly used when you were mining then that is the mechanism of exposure that you concentrate on. If you were lagging boilers, removing lagging from them, drilling into asbestos boards, then that might be it. The points to remember are: (a) if the defendants say it could have happened the way you say, but nobody can remember, then you get your damages. If they say it definitely couldn't have happened and they never used asbestos in that way, then you may fail. (b) The more sources of exposure, the more your damages are reduced unless you sue for each possible source. You therefore have a choice of being poor but honest, or rich and forgetful.
It isn't mesothelioma, then, and you probably aren't going to get that. It might not progress, or it might progress very slowly and cause only a negligible amount of breathlessness. Hardly anyone dies of asbestosis.
I think there must be many people who get asbestos-related diseases without knowing the source of the asbestos but it is often possible to remember a source at work if you try hard enough. One claimant who worked in a university building successfully pursued a claim on the basis that asbestos ceiling tiles were removed during a refurbishment project and broken up and left in a public area for a while. Those who worked with vehicle brakes have successfully claimed exposure from asbestos brake shoes. Those who have ever helped clear up after a building has been fire-damaged, may be able to show that asbestos tiles or partitions were broken and that there was exposure whilst clearing up the debris. Anyone who has worked as a tradesman (carpenter, electrician, plumber) can plausibly argue that they were exposed whilst drilling through asbestos partitions or shelves.
One example is a large council housing estate in the Borough of Barking, built on the site of the old Cape asbestos factory.
Indeed, there is no "safe" level. What doctors are currently agreed on, however, is that there is a delay of at least 10 years between the exposure to the fibre and the presentation with symptoms of mesothelioma. In other words exposure less than 10 years before presentation with symptoms will not be causative.
Around the Turner and Newall site in Armley, Leeds "Puffballs" of Asbestos used to blow around the adjacent streets of terraced houses and the kids used to play with them.
See T&N. above.
That was T&N (+others)
Fairly recently around the T&N site IIAC the Council sent a team round sampling the dust in attics and roof voids, and then for some reason refused to release the results. :-( I suspect the occupiers were hoping the houses would be condemned.
Around 1977 I replaced a furnace heating element in one of these.
It would have been no problem at all for them to make a fume cupboard available for me to use. :-((
Asbestos was used freely in household items such as electric irons and simmering mats for use on the stove which were very frangible.
You could say that, but presumably there is a dose/response relationship at worst probably linear. In the similar case of damage to cells by radiation the cell has limited capabilities of self repair it is when these capabilities are overwhelmed that disease becomes more likely.
DG
Although white asbestos was known to be a potent carcinogen for many years, it was only outlawed as recently as November 1999. I blame a Labour government which chose to put the interests of manufacturers and industrial shareholders before the interests of workers.
There have been several court judgments recently which explain what is currently believed to be the mechanism by which mesothelioma occurs. See for instance para 7 et seq. in
As everyone in the UK breathes about 5-20 asbestos fibres a day I have no doubt the Met Office will soon be sued.
Which is no consolation for those of us who were exposed ito it, without our knowledge, for thirty years.
It doesn't really work like that with asbestos, the fibre itself damages the cell, and it's not a chemical process, more like the shape of the fibre encourages the cell to proliferate along the fibre becoming cancerous in the process. Yes there's a relationship with dose, but it really is as simple as a single fibre causes asbestosis, but not every fibre does so.
only a dunce would commit perjury when the defence has access to your employment history.
NT
The employment history, in the form of a letter from the Inland Revenue, consists of a list of employers. It does not say to what extent you were exposed to asbestos. Some employers are of course notorious for causing exposure to asbestos but most are just unknown names.
Perjury is of course a crime, and a deplorable one. Forgetfulness isn't.
Indeed, see
I would have thought that the people who's job it is to know, healthcare workers in a heavy industry that has used asbestos, would have some idea.
Maybe they have but don't want to say.
Clough
Be gratefull he's getting rid of it. Don't lean over the fence watching him. My local authority used to have an asbestos disposal facility- I seem to recall it had to be bagged. Does your neighbour seem to have a death wish?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.