I need to trim the overhang off some corrugated asbestos sheets which form the roof of my garage. I could do it with my 9" angle grinder, but it would no doubt generate a lot of asbestos dust, which I understand is hazardous.
Can anyone give me any advice on how I should do it?
Thank you
Jake
Under no circumstances should you attempt to do this yourself. You need to get the job done by a specialist company who are authorised to do the work. Attempting to do it yourself would put yourself, your family and other people in danger.
Peter Crosland
Peter,
That advice is simply not practical (nor extremely dangerous) for the small jobs that the DiYers are usually involved in when using the old asbetos cement sheets which usually contain far less than 15% of least harmful chrysotile asbestos fibres.
Cash
Unless you have personal knowledge of the sheets the OP has then you cannot be sure. It is obvious that the OP has no comprehension of the danger he might cause, or be in. The bottom line is you just cannot afford to take changes with asbestos. It would be grossly irresponsible for the OP to proceed with without qualified professional advice.
Peter Crosland
With all due respects Peter, having dealt with literally hundreds of sheets (and gutters) of this stuff over many years, I am certain that if the sheets are as the OP describes, they are safe enough to handle without the intervention of specialists etc - in the years that I was sending samples off for analysis, not one sample ever reached 15% let alone exceeded it.
As for "grossly irresponsible for proceeding without qualified professional advice" - that's what many so-called professionals say, often for their own ends.
I once dealt with a so-called "professional asbestos remover", who knew a damn sight less about the stuff that I did at the time, and if I'd taken his advice, then a number of employees could have been placed in danger - I rest my case on that one m'lud!
Cash
So you draw a conclusion on the basis of a single case that all contractors are rogues. Handling the sheets may be quite safe but attacking them with an angle grinder or the like would not be wise. In any case the OP would be very unwise to proceed solely on the basis of advice given on a NG. Furthermore chrysotile may be the least dangerous of the various asbestos types but nevertheless it is the most common cause of pleural mesothelioma so to call it safe is simply untrue.
Peter Crosland
Peter,
I have no wish to go down the "ridiculous road" on this subject, as health and safety "mentality" has now turned from the ethos of "health and safety" to protect those that are working for rogue employers (and to protect the public in general) to an "I'm going to protect my arse even to the detriment of common sense and pure fright of being sued" mentality.
But I will say that:-
You get rogue contractors just the same as you get rogue lawyers, builders, doctors et al - and in most cases you judge the whole profession on just one instance - even you I bet.
Using your argument, would you consider the cutting of stone, brick, concrete, mdf and even timber safe?
If you do, then you are very wrong - the dust from those creates both a health risk (lung problems for the first four) and a risk of explosion and fire from the last - and those are just a few, I won't cover paints, thinners, fire retardant coatings, sharp tools and objects, power tools et al.
Would you advocate calling the "professionals" to handle those? I doubt it!
Let's keep things in perspective and use some common sense - after all, most competent DiYer's have a great deal of that, but many (including lawyers, politicians etc) lack even a basic level of it.
As for me calling asbestos "safe" - then you have interpreted that yourself, what I actually posted was "they are safe enough to handle without the intervention of specialists etc" which they are if adequate PPE and cleaning precautions are observed by the *occasional* do-it-yourselfer (and *THAT* is what we are talking about here and not the people using it day in and day out).
As I said in my original post "Paranoia not accepted here - but common sense is" - and *PARANOIA* is the crux of the matter.
Cash
Utter, utter c*ck.
Not necessarily.
In general I agree it's a job not to be done regularly by DIYers, but even the H&S site has worksheets available for download to pass on best practice for non-licensed removal of Asbestos sheeting etc .. see my posts with some details .. but for a one-off job it _is_ a task that can be done within reasonably safe parameters. ;)
Personally I wouldn't cut the sheets, I'd replace them .. ;)
Do you have any evidence that the majority of licensed asbestos contractors are rogues or is this just an opinion of yours? Saying that few will give objective advice sounds like bigotry to me. If you actually do have some evidence then please explain what it is. As for the risks of exposure to asbestos there is no safe level. Of course the risk is increased by long term regular exposure but that does not mean that a single exposure can be considered safe.
Peter Crosland
Which is the essence of why I urged caution to the OP. It seemed evident to me that the OP had no experience whatsoever of handling, or working with, a potentially dangerous material. If, and I emphasise the if, the appropriate precautions are observed then I agree that there should not be a problem. Unfortunately in my experience many workers, both DIY and small builders, simply don't know or even care about the dangers they may expose themselves or others to. This applies not only to handling potentially hazardous materials such as asbestos but also to safe working practices. Sadly common sense is a very scarce commodity.
Peter Crosland
Peter: this is all very officious.
There is a simple rule with asbestos. Don't inhale, and particularly don't inhale blue, or large quantities. Over a long period of time.
All these lung conditions boil down to a simple set of conditions: provided your lungs don't pack up before you die of something else, some damage in a life is inevitable, and not an issue.
What one strives to prevent is overwhelming the bodies natural defences, either through chronic high exposure, or by dint of other underlying conditions like asthma or heavy smoking which inhibit the ability to produce phlegm and cough the crap up and out.
If the ability to clear the crap is inhibited, the crap will stay, and the body may then start to react to isolate it by forming cysts or cancers, or simply swelling enough to inhibit air passage at all: At that point the lungs are also prone to infections, which exacerbate the whole thing.
All the asbestos related illnesses come from industries where prolonged high exposure to the dust caused measurable impacts on health, and just as is the case with radiation, we only have data points from these cases of high and prolonged exposure. And just as with radiation, the simplest thing to do is to draw a straight line, origin zero, zero between those points we have, and say 'the only safe asbestos exposure is no exposure at all' .
This may form the basis for health and safety rules in both the asbestos and the nuclear industry guidelines, but it is not a fact, it is an extrapolation from a crude bit of - not even curve fitting - but straight line fitting.
If people have their lungs full of water, they drown. If people get half their lungs full of water maybe half of them drown and half managed to cough it all up and be more or less all right. If you inhale a teaspoon of coffee, you do not die at all. You choke and cough it up.
Should we therefore say that 'no one should drink coffee, in case they inhale a teaspoon, because statistically if they inhale a gallon, they will die, ergo the chances of them dying from a spoonful (a thousandth of a gallon) is one in a thousand, which is still not safe'?
The chances of dying in a road accident are about one in 20,000 in any given year. The only safe way is never to go near a road at all.
The same can be said of hospital infections.
I.e. the point to make is that health and safety, in the absence of certainty, is extremely conservative, and, one can say, simplistic in its approach to risk. There is a lot to be said in favour of that, in the sense that eliminating asbestos from the environment is not a great cost by and large, and may at least benefit the work forces that dealt with it on a daily basis.
There is however very little evidence that low exposure over a short period or prolonged ultra low exposure, does any harm whatsoever.
Just as there is with radiation. We are to a large extent self repairing organisms. As long as that ability is not exceeded, most low level exposure to lots of things, gets repaired.
With asbestos, the key is not to inhale large quantities of the fibres and dust. A face mask and wetting the area down is all it takes.
And to be frank, as one who grew up surrounded by asbestos, that is probably overkill.
I have suffred far more from cement dust inhalation.
Peter,
Draw your horns in and stop being bloody officious.
Now let's get down to the nitty-gritty, *YOU* made that suggestion of rogue contractors in one of your rather bumptious replies to one of my posts So you draw a conclusion on the basis of a single case that all contractors are rogues. where I had said I once dealt with a so-called "professional asbestos remover", who knew a damn sight less about the stuff that I did at the time, and if I'd taken his advice, then a number of employees could have been placed in danger - I rest my case on that one m'lud! and I replied You get rogue contractors just the same as you get rogue lawyers, builders, doctors et al - and in most cases you judge the whole profession on just one instance - even you I bet. .
I won't ask where you stand in that list, but I have obviously hurt a tender spot in questioning your revered opinion.
*YOU* started the rogue contractor line, no I - so sod-off on that one and start arguing about with yourself - you sound like a typical legal bod!Now with the exposure risk of asbestos, your obvious lack of training in the usage removal of the stuff has polarised your view down to that of the purely theoretical "WHAT IF" stance - a stance that you could project to that of developing cancers from the carcinogens in unleaded fuel whilst filling up your car with the stuff - there is a risk, but does that stop you doing it? Presuming of course that you own a motorised vehicle.
Please, stop portraying the high-flying lawyer and get your feet back on the ground.
Now as you seem to be stuck on the health issue of this stuff - dig into whatever information you have and let me know the age groups in which the majority of cancers have developed, the years in which those people worked with the stuff and the protection that they were (not) issued with or even used if they were.
That information will put into perspective the health risks of toadies generation of asbestos - minimal in 30 to 60 years time.
Good day to you
Cash
Now do you have the information to back up all those statements, or is it simply your polarised thinking of what *YOU* *believe* to be fact?
So how much *practical* experience do you have in using *any* asbestos? I have had both the theoretical training on its use, safety and disposal, used and installed the stuff - and also removed it.
In fact, the "scarcity of common sense" these days is due to people just like you who are preventing those who have it, from using it!! Put simply, scaremongering.
Cash
No, that is why I said "many" rather than "most". Many are rogues.
An opinion based upon having to deal with them over the years, including one (which still has a licence) who drove a tipper truck full of asbestos cement sheet a mile down the road and dumped it in a lay bye.
You need a new dictionary I think. In my experience I've never come across one which gave objective, sound advice. They employ salesmen to push the most expensive solution, not the most appropriate. If you care to carry out even a rudimentary search you will find many others with the same experience. The most common deceit is to say that removing asbestos cement sheets requires a licensed contractor and specialist equipment. A company I worked with moved into new premises and found an outhouse with about 100 used asbestos cement sheets stored in it. A leading licensed contractor was asked to give advice and told them it would cost £12,000 to remove and they would be committing an offence if they didn't use a licensed asbestos handling company.
After doing a proper risk assessment and conversations with the HSE the material was bagged on site and removed by a non-licensed but perfectly competent contractor for £600 (most of which was the LA waste disposal fee).
That isn't strictly true except in H&SAW cases. Because a legal precedent has been set which says any single exposure _may_ cause asbestos related injury you can't defend a case except by proving you never exposed a claimant to any asbestos no matter for how short a time. That is very difficult to do.
A few years ago a company I knew had a claim brought against them by someone who worked for them in 1970. As far as the company was concerned they had never processed or used asbestos containing products but the claimant said one day he had been told to cut an asbestos sheet. No one who worked for the company at that date was traceable. The claimant sister had also died of mesothelioma. She and her brother used to play as children in blue asbestos loose fill stored by their father, who owned a company making insulation products, in a shed where they lived. That company had closed many years ago.
As the company involved could produce no evidence to counter the claimants assertion that he had handled asbestos they were held to be liable despite it being many times more likely the claimants childhood exposure was to blame for his illness. The company had no record of who their insurer had been in 1970 so a perfectly healthy company employing half a dozen staff had to be put into administration and closed as they could not pay the award and costs. As it happened, after the lawyers and receiver had taken first bite out of the carcass the claimant received a few hundred pounds of the many thousands awarded.
That is the real risk of asbestos and why employers are so afraid of it.
mean that a single exposure can be
Seeing as everyone, including you, breathes asbestos fibres every day it does mean the single event risk is minimal as is the low dose risk. All the evidence is that asbestos follows a normal dose/time relationship with risk increasing with increasing dose and increasing length of exposure. The vast majority of people with asbestos related illness have been exposed to a lot for a long time. There are exceptions, but there are few of them.
Poop!Poop!
Yep, I think that should have read "todays generation due to asbestos use - in 30 to 60 years time".
Ah well, brain and hands don't quite co-ordinate on occasions these days Grimly, especially since the old brain blew a few circuits some time ago - and its more obvious when I get a little agitated. LOL
You should some of the real Poop!Poops! I have written on official letters since the last stroke - even given the odd po-faced official the odd laugh or two when we have come face-to-face. All bloody good stuff...it also has my wife and kids in bloody great bouts of laughter.
Cash
When people start shouting and using abuse, like you have, it is a sure sign that they have lost their argument and can't bear to admit that they might have got it wrong have got it wrong. I did not raise the subject of rogue asbestos contractors. What I did say, and continue to say, is that it is quite illogical to make glib claims that because they know of one or two cowboys that all asbestos contractors are. You have presented no credible evidence that a significant percentage of asbestos contractors are dishonest or incompetent. Of course there are rogues in all walks of life. Given your comments it is axiomatic that you have a jaundiced view of asbestos contractors that has coloured your thinking and prevents you from discussing the matter in a rational and civilised manner. As for what others have said I shall not comment further.
Peter Crosland
like you are about to do next..
it is a sure sign
As a disinterested observer, it seems to me that Cash is winning any argument in this thread right now. Your "sure sign" isn't nearly so sure as you think it is.
Probably wise - always sensible to stop digging.
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.