Is Ellis Board dangerous?

[bigcat]

I unsnipped it so we know what we're talking about. You mention 2 sources of info there, neither of which I would consider reliable.

'I read somewhere' is anything but reliable. 'Told this by a company that makes fat profits out of people believing this nonsense' is also not a reliable source.

So I'm pretty sure those 2 are not to be relied on.

health

Blue asbestos products contain blue asbestos. Brown asbestos products contain brown asbestos. Normally white asbestos products contain only white asbestos.

A minority do also contain a very small percentage of blue or brown, and it can only be a very small level, else the product would become blue or brown. But since it is bonded into the cement, it is still not a significant issue. The many people that have died from asbestosis did so as a result of working with the dangerous ones, not bonded in any cement matrix, day in day out, for years. Perspective is all important in safety questions. Its like the difference between doing 10mph and

100mph.

Its pointless, why would one saw it? If we were still building with it, there would be a reason to, and we would know the products in question were chrysotile only.

It also wrecks the saw, its extremely hard stuff. I know that from drilling it.

or possibly not prepared to read it and find out that you arent taking a gamble, as was previously thought. Its only a gamble if there is some sound evidence that says its a gamble, and there isnt, not with chrysotile cement sheeting. The 80s evidence has been found to be thoroughly flawed on that, and the newer study, which does look at health of asbsetos workers, shows no risk at all for chrysotile.

A large number of the substances we come into contact with daily have never been studied for safety, it is only when we find a verifiable problem from data that we need to think about doing something about it. I expect in 200 years this will have changed, and every known substance toxicity tested, and inevitably some things we think are innocuous today will be found to be toxic in some way.

There are real risks in life, getting hung up over a non risk only diverts attention from the real issues. You have a 50% chance of dying from heart disease or cancer, and a good 50%+ of those are preventable. Sometimes a reality chekc is called for!

livelihood

yes, and the ethical standards of the asbestos removal industry is not rock bottom, but not too far off. It is one of those industries that is mostly just scam. Theres a website about some of these scammy industries somewhere...

>>(and are looking at a stint!).

ok, just most to all then.

Especialy

I was making the point that you or other diyers could easily dispose of it legally for free. You paid only because you chose to.

NT

[bigcat]

If an industry existed which told you used teabags were hazardous, warned you of the dire hazards of used teabags, and dressed up in theatrical suits and charged you =A3500 for less than a days tea bag disposal, what would you think?

NT

[Chris Bacon]

PROMAT ELLIS BOARD 900X600X6MM £6.50 EACH

[The Natural Philosopher]

Well done for finding i. I spent half an hour looking for it.

Well, then the answer is, if its on sale, it hasn't got asbestos in it.

End of thread.

[Bob Mannix]

If you enter "sheet material ellis board" in the Google (UK) search box, it's on the second page.

'Fraid it only took half a minute ;o)

[Bob Mannix]

or even "ellis board sheet material" ! I think it's a bit further down the way I originally said.

[AlexW]

Splitting hairs ... that is not an answer but an analogy phrased as a question.

Considering your analogy ... I think the public would have enough first hand *empirical* evidence to make there own informed descision on the issue. I don't think that the same can be said for issues related to asbestos removal.

[AlexW]

You read your report somewhere too BTW ... and you consider it reliable. But I take your point.

However, I later clarified what I read where in a different post. I am not asserting that these sources are the best available, but that is what I read and they were not just idle chit-chat as you can see.

Fair enough WRT vested interests ... but consultants who write papers can have these too you know.

Hmm ... on this issue the site you originally ref'd, containing the recent paper says on its 'what is' page.

"All can be dangerous, but blue and brown asbestos are known to be more dangerous than white. The different types cannot usually be identified by their colour alone"

My statement was based on this ... is the site not reliable in this respect?

I agree that perspective *is* important. But correct information is also important. I would prefer the difference to be several orders of magnitude rather than one on safety related issues ... but I *do* get your point.

I'll take your word for it and won't be trying this. I could rephrase again but its the word games that are becoming pointless now.

I *have* read the opening pages of the paper you originally referenced and am now so intruiged will probably read the rest.

It seemed clear from the outset that what the agenda was.

However, as the potential consequences of the report being in error could be very high, before I base *my* actions on such a paper I would want to know:

1) What vested ineterests have the authors have. 2) Has the paper been published elsewhere, for example in a trade journal etc. 3) Has it been subjected to proper peer scrutiny. 4) Are there other independent papers which have the same findings.

I doubt I'll ever have the time to find all these things out and thus will probably have to maintain my admittedly risk averse stance on this issue ... until the consesus changes.

Also, the consequential cost of the time it would take me to really be sure here may be higher than the fees I paid for peice of mind ... so is this really worth it given that I don't deal with asbestos on a day to day basis?

I agree with all of that. I am just not wholly convinced that this specific issue is non-risk.

"Somwhere" sounds a bit like "I read somwhere" ... or was that intentional :-).

Maybe. I don't know. I only have a single example as my sample space. I take it that you are more experienced in these matters then?

I agree, I indicated that too, so did the guys who removed my garage. My only issue really is what precautions are required to do so safely and the logistical issues involved given those precautions.

[Holly, in France]

Yes, it is, that is correct.

[Holly, in France]

People experienced in this will have a good chance of knowing what it is by the situation they find it in, the material in question, age of the building etc. Otherwise, and in case of doubt, you have to get it analysed. Some local authorities do this, or you can use a private analyst.

-- Holly, in France Holiday Home in Dordogne

[Peter Parry]

Not really, I am sure there might be honest individuals but as an industry it has no standards, no method of disciplining errant members and apparently no wish to set up such structures. It cannot call itself "professional".

contains a number of stories. There are about 700 licensed asbestos removers and the HSE has prosecuted about 100 of them in the last 15 years.

Yes, and a very worthwhile one.

[Peter Parry]

The reality is somewhat different. A person (not a licensed asbestos remover) discovered numerous asbestos sheets and asbestos insulated pipes during renovation work on a disused factory. On discovery of the asbestos sheets they contacted the HSE for advice and were told the asbestos would have to be removed by a specialist firm. They were quoted a price of £23,000 for removing the sheets safely.

They decided instead to advertise the sheets (14 tons of them)free for collection and someone responded, removed the sheets, and now cannot be traced. They then shotblasted the covering of the pipes into dust leaving the asbestos in dustbins outside nearby housing.

The fine was £8,000 with £366 costs. £15,653 less expensive than complying with the law.

[bigcat]

reliable.

Reliable enough, anyway. Citing means the memory is correct, and the report shows how thoroughly theyve investiagted it. And it quotes all the factual details relevant to confirming or denying the info it contains.

Right, but not on the same quality scale as a research report.

they usually have. These days the British asbestos industry is all but dead though, it is the asbestos removal industry that has the report writing power. Even if that report were a fiction made up, it is fairly obvious in todays climate it would not result in any change in the law on asbestos, so it would be pointless for an asbestos co to commission it - as well as unaffordable given the almost non existent state of said industry here.

identified

It says more things besides, such as what effects bonding into the cement has, and what white board is likely to contain. Also having physically seens blue and brown products, you can not make white board with significant amounts of blue/brown in, because it will no longer be white. If its grey you might not be able to i.d. it, but white cant contain much blue or brown, and usually contains none, as it says.

asbestos

question

Its not word games, Ive made the 2 relevant points there. If new chrysotile only board were in use today, I'd have no problem working it. With old board, there isnt any reason to work it.

The significant facts were made open enough that anyone who looks into it and finds misreporting would publish or talk about it online. The way its presented is an open invitation to find fault. But I've yet to find anyone that can poopoo its methods or findings.

Also it undoes the claims made in the 80s specifically concerning chrysotile and cement bound asbestoses, leaving really no worthwhile evidence stansing for those older claims.

good stuff. All these reports have vested interests of course. Bear in mind the AW company is actually telling most of its potential custmers they dont need their help, even when they came to their site looking for help.

never employed an asbestos removal co, but I have read the report, heard the arguments for and against, and seen what those cos actually do. The silly prices, unverifiable alarmist sales tack, and remarkably high prosecution figures say quite a bit.

NT

[AlexW]

The respiratory protection advice was HSE for the record the other was general handling info from a local authority.

Quality means different things to different people.

In terms of scientific correctness the AW report appears to be much higher on the quality scale, to that I agree.

In terms simple advice for the layman regarding how to deal with a material that has not been classified then the LA sourced info won't get you killed.

But then you could always read both.

Don't disagree with your logic.

But what happened to all the reserach scientists previously working in the British asbestos industry? Must have been some, some have probably retired or died, some retrained are there any still parcticing? They might not be inclined to backtrack on previous work if they are in the same line of work.

BTW I am *not* suggesting that this is the case at AW, it just something that needs to be considered.

It does say those things and *likley* is the key word here. Going back to the AW 'what is' page, AW advises:

"There is no simple laboratory test to identify the different types of asbestos. Laboratory analysis is required. They often occur as mixtures and unless you are sure which type of asbestos fibres are present you must treat the material as if it contains blue or brown."

The paper indicated that the HSE advocates handling as blue/brown even after it has been classified as white and took issue with this, based on there findings. The two situations are slightly different though.

This may be the case ... I don't really have any experience here other than that my garage was very old and a bit grey on the edge of the bits that were falling off.

The paper is "is concerned solely with high density chrysotile products" and does not make these particular claims. However is does say "Blue and brown asbestos owe their colour to the large amounts of iron they contain although other amphiboles may be iron free".

The above are the only references to colour and asbestos identification on the whole AW site.

Usually. Probabilities again.

Its also worth noting that the scope of the report is limited to the the last 50 years of asbestos manufacture and usage. This may or may not be significant re: chrysotile asbestos, I don't know enough about the history of asbestos, but I would be looking at finding out more about the material at hand before plunging in.

The original context of the thread (which has now got muddied a bit :-)) whether to saw up unidentified and potentially old board that was suspected to be asbestos of some sort. Of course we now know its not asbestos at all as its still available.

OK ... hypotheticially, assuming there is a reason (for example retro fitting a flue where the AC board cannot be removed) and ignoring any legal/BC/HSE ramifications as its only hypothetical ... in very old AC board, which has not been subjected to laboratory analysis, and just for good measure it a bit grey ... would you be prepared to work it in a manner which produces large amounts of dust without proper masks & wetting down etc.

Fair enough ... I am not suggesting that this report is in error. But taking the paper alone I would want to know more before assuming it is gospel.

I *read* that on their site and will bear it in mind.

Fair enough on price, I got 4 quotes which varied from what I paid to four times that. I didn't check references etc (would you quote a bad one?) and all that but did enquire about what they did with the waste.

[bigcat]

something

they have been considered Alex, youre free to consider them too.

NT

[AlexW]

As an aside, maybe this would be a good topic for the uk.d-i-y FAQ?

[Crafty Bugger]

Why on earth troll about something like this? Sheesh!

[RichardS]

Not entirely convinced that it would be, well not in the normal format of the FAQ anyway.

It would probably have to consist of restating the current HSE & legal position on asbestos, otherwise we're getting onto sticky ground.

Perhaps a link in the links section would be more appropriate.