asbestos?
Fred
Downstairs we have a concrete floor on top of which are some thin but
rigid "plastic" tiles. Unfortunately many are cracked, e.g. from
carpet fitters hammering grips into them, uneven concrete underneath,
etc.
I was hoping to remove them, in fact I did lift a few from around the
edge of the room. They are glued on by some black bitumen like
adhesive but they came up quite easily.
I have now read that asbestos was widely used in floor tiles. The
house was built in the mid 1970s. I am wondering whether it is safe to
remove the tiles?
I have read some websites and if I understand correctly, floor tiles
can be removed by yourself and do not require notifying or
professional removal. The danger seems to be if they are broken; some
are already broken which is why I want to remove them and there is a
danger (or even likelihood) they will snap in half when removed.
I did wonder about sending a tile for testing but one web site said if
you had any tiles from before 1980 they would almost certainly contain
asbestos and not to waste money having them tested. Is that so?
Does anyone recognise these tiles as being asbestos containing? I
tried flickr but it wouldn't let me register, I couldn't work out why,
so I uploaded them here instead:
http://img193.imageshack.us/my.php?image=flooro.jpg
Other than a mask and disposal at the asbestos skip at the tip, what
other precautions should I take?
Thanks in advance.
Peter Parry
wrote:
>I have now read that asbestos was widely used in floor tiles. The
>house was built in the mid 1970s. I am wondering whether it is safe to
>remove the tiles?
Perfectly. Some floor tiles of that period contained up to 7%
Chrysotile (white asbestos) but it is heavily bound into the material
so release of fibres even when broken is very low.
>I have read some websites and if I understand correctly, floor tiles
>can be removed by yourself and do not require notifying or
>professional removal.
Correct.
>I did wonder about sending a tile for testing but one web site said if
>you had any tiles from before 1980 they would almost certainly contain
>asbestos and not to waste money having them tested. Is that so?
Yes, simply assume they contain Chrysotile and handle accordingly.
This involves simply making sure you minimise dust and heavy handling.
>Does anyone recognise these tiles as being asbestos containing?
Don't bother, simply assume they are.
>Other than a mask and disposal at the asbestos skip at the tip, what
>other precautions should I take?
Keep the work area damp. Use a hand water mister to keep dust down.
You can get a special "asbestos tile lifter" but all it is is a normal
scraper on the end of a broom handle so you are not kneeling over the
tiles as you lever them up. As you get them up put them in a strong
polythene bag. Once you have levered up the tiles and bitumen if you
are going to use self leveling compound to even out the floor consider
using some PVA on the floor to bind all the dust. Otherwise wet it
well and mop up the residue.
The risk is negligible.
NT
tiles can contain white asbetos, chrysotile, which is well bound by
the rest of the tile material. As far as hazards go, its probably more
dangerous to pop outside for a cigarette. Blue & brown asbestoses in
unbonded state are nasty, bonded white asbestos is a very different
animal.
NT
Fred
wrote:
>Perfectly. Some floor tiles of that period contained up to 7%
>Chrysotile (white asbestos) but it is heavily bound into the material
>so release of fibres even when broken is very low.
Thanks for the reassurance. I was particularly reassured by the "even
when broken" part because my experience is they snap in half when
lifted. I wasn't sure how much asbestos was in them, so it's nice to
know it is a small and highly bound quantity. That said, I will still
be careful.
>Yes, assume they contain Chrysotile and handle accordingly.
>This involves simply making sure you minimise dust and heavy handling.
Sorry, what does "heavy handling" mean: not smash them up more than
necessary?
>You can get a special "asbestos tile lifter" but all it is is a normal
>scraper on the end of a broom handle
I never knew that. Where can I buy one from and are they expensive?
>consider using some PVA on the floor to bind all the dust. Otherwise wet it
>well and mop up the residue.
Should there be much dust? Reading above you implied that little
should be released. So mop rather than brush because brushing might
make the dust airborne? I presume the mop head has to be thrown away
afterwards?
>The risk is negligible.
Thanks, I feel more confident about starting the job now. You hear all
these terrible stories about it being the most deadly substance known
to man. I have artex on most ceilings. I guess that contains some
asbestos too? Why was it put in everything? Did they think it would
prevent the spread of fires?
Thanks again.
Fred
wrote:
>tiles can contain white asbetos, chrysotile, which is well bound by
>the rest of the tile material. As far as hazards go, its probably more
>dangerous to pop outside for a cigarette. Blue & brown asbestoses in
>unbonded state are nasty, bonded white asbestos is a very different
>animal.
Thanks for the reassurance. I guess the horror stories all relate to
the blue and brown variety then? Which was used in brake linings? I
remember when changing the pads on my car, reading warning about not
inhaling dust.
Peter Parry
wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:30:27 +0100, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
>wrote:
>>Yes, assume they contain Chrysotile and handle accordingly.
>>This involves simply making sure you minimise dust and heavy handling.
>
>Sorry, what does "heavy handling" mean: not smash them up more than
>necessary?
Don't throw them into a bucket from 20 paces and miss most of the
time, don't smash them up enthusiastically with a hammer to make the
bits smaller to fit more in a sack. You certainly do not need to
carry each piece as if it is a bottle of nitro-glycerine on hot day.
>>You can get a special "asbestos tile lifter" but all it is is a normal
>>scraper on the end of a broom handle
>
>I never knew that. Where can I buy one from and are they expensive?
Everything from asbestos specialists is expensive - just buy a scraper
and a broom handle and fix them together or a Dutch Hoe such as
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Faithfull-Stainless-Dutch-Hoe-Handled/dp/B0001IWSQK
>>consider using some PVA on the floor to bind all the dust. Otherwise wet it
>>well and mop up the residue.
>
>Should there be much dust? Reading above you implied that little
>should be released. So mop rather than brush because brushing might
>make the dust airborne?
There shouldn't be much at all but sometimes you find the concrete
underneath wasn't well made and is breaking up into small particles
because of heavy traffic over years. This isn't hazardous in itself
but as you can't separate out the harmless dust from any which is
potentially harmful it pays to keep both down.
> I presume the mop head has to be thrown away
>afterwards?
Not really but as they cost so little it makes some sense to stick it
in the last sack of waste.
>>The risk is negligible.
>Thanks, I feel more confident about starting the job now. You hear all
>these terrible stories about it being the most deadly substance known
>to man. I have artex on most ceilings. I guess that contains some
>asbestos too? Why was it put in everything? Did they think it would
>prevent the spread of fires?
The risk is, like most hazardous substances, heavily dose and exposure
related. The people most at risk are the ones exposed to heavy
concentrations over many years in industry.
It was a popular material because it was cheap, had excellent
construction qualities and was a strong binder. Artex may contain
some but the best way of dealing with that is simply to plaster over
it.
NT
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:52:44 -0700 (PDT), NT <meow2...@care2.com>
Loose dust is the problem, not asbestos fibre bound in cement or
plastic. Brake pad wear resulted in loose asbestos dust. You can't
really breathe in chunks of floor tile.
NT
Fred
wrote:
>Loose dust is the problem, not asbestos fibre bound in cement or
>plastic. Brake pad wear resulted in loose asbestos dust. You can't
>really breathe in chunks of floor tile.
...Unless the floor tile snaps and a fibre is released and the
likelihood of that is low?
By the way, how big are these fibres? Can you see them with the naked
eye?
Thanks to the reassurance here I have carefully lifted the tiles now.
So thanks again. Before I posted I thought they were as dangerous as
radioactive ones!
Clot
This is truly not a major problem. Asbestos, whatever form, was only an
issue to those regularly exposed over a very long term measured in years to
dust; usually, but not only, the workers with these materials.
We are going through another one of these paranoid stages with mercury at
present. I suspect that this round of paranoia is being wound up by both the
waste industry re striplight disposal and all the future disposal of all
these energy efficient CFLs which have circa 5 mg from recollection and the
guvmint needing to be seen to do something- in other words bugger all
compared to that we were regularly exposed to in the past.
NT
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 15:52:19 -0700 (PDT), NT <meow2...@care2.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Loose dust is the problem, not asbestos fibre bound in cement or
> >plastic. Brake pad wear resulted in loose asbestos dust. You can't
> >really breathe in chunks of floor tile.
>
> ...Unless the floor tile snaps and a fibre is released and the
> likelihood of that is low?
the amount released is trivial. People working in clouds of asbestos
dust for decades have a terrible death rate, but divide that down to
10 fibres from a floor 3 of which were breathed in, and the resulting
number of deaths would almost certainly be less than one per entire
history of humankind.
NT
dennis@home
"Clot" <clo...@ntlglobe.goon> wrote in message
news:Lk3em.265732$jW1.1...@newsfe22.ams2...
> Fred wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 15:52:19 -0700 (PDT), NT <meow...@care2.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Loose dust is the problem, not asbestos fibre bound in cement or
>>> plastic. Brake pad wear resulted in loose asbestos dust. You can't
>>> really breathe in chunks of floor tile.
>>
>> ...Unless the floor tile snaps and a fibre is released and the
>> likelihood of that is low?
>>
>> By the way, how big are these fibres? Can you see them with the naked
>> eye?
>>
>> Thanks to the reassurance here I have carefully lifted the tiles now.
>> So thanks again. Before I posted I thought they were as dangerous as
>> radioactive ones!
>
> This is truly not a major problem. Asbestos, whatever form, was only an
> issue to those regularly exposed over a very long term measured in years
> to dust; usually, but not only, the workers with these materials.
You really don't understand asbestos do you?
You must avoid exposure to the asbestos fibres, even a single fibre lodged
in the lung can and has been shown to cause a painful death.
Many of the people that died were not asbestos workers but their family
members who were exposed to dust on clothing.
If you keep the dust down you are safe but just stating there is nothing to
worry about is just plain daft.
BTW radioactive stuff is perfectly safe if you know how to handle it.
There have been far fewer deaths in the nuclear industry than in the
asbestos industry.
You don't know how to handle radioactive stuff so you don't tell people how
to handle it but likewise you don't know how to handle asbestos, but do tell
people how to handle it.
RobertL
> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:22:27 +0100, Fred <f...@no-email.here.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:30:27 +0100, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
> >wrote:
> >>Yes, assume they contain Chrysotile and handle accordingly.
> >>This involves simply making sure you minimise dust and heavy handling.
>
> >Sorry, what does "heavy handling" mean: not smash them up more than
> >necessary?
>
> Don't throw them into a bucket from 20 paces and miss most of the
> time, don't smash them up enthusiastically with a hammer to make the
> bits smaller to fit more in a sack. You certainly do not need to
> carry each piece as if it is a bottle of nitro-glycerine on hot day.
and don't do what I did (not knowing what they were at the time) cut
through them with a circular saw when taking up the chipboard. :-(
Robert
Bob Mannix
news:h5bflm$1q7$1...@news.datemas.de...
>
>
> "Clot" <clo...@ntlglobe.goon> wrote in message
> news:Lk3em.265732$jW1.1...@newsfe22.ams2...
>> Fred wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 15:52:19 -0700 (PDT), NT <meow...@care2.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Loose dust is the problem, not asbestos fibre bound in cement or
>>>> plastic. Brake pad wear resulted in loose asbestos dust. You can't
>>>> really breathe in chunks of floor tile.
>>>
>>> ...Unless the floor tile snaps and a fibre is released and the
>>> likelihood of that is low?
>>>
>>> By the way, how big are these fibres? Can you see them with the naked
>>> eye?
>>>
>>> Thanks to the reassurance here I have carefully lifted the tiles now.
>>> So thanks again. Before I posted I thought they were as dangerous as
>>> radioactive ones!
>>
>> This is truly not a major problem. Asbestos, whatever form, was only an
>> issue to those regularly exposed over a very long term measured in years
>> to dust; usually, but not only, the workers with these materials.
>
> You really don't understand asbestos do you?
> You must avoid exposure to the asbestos fibres, even a single fibre lodged
> in the lung can and has been shown to cause a painful death.
No it hasn't, even if theoretically the case.
> Many of the people that died were not asbestos workers but their family
> members who were exposed to dust on clothing.
>
> If you keep the dust down you are safe but just stating there is nothing
> to worry about is just plain daft.
>
Which was almost exactly what "clot" said, so what are you arguing about?
--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)
Peter Parry
<den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>"Clot" <clo...@ntlglobe.goon> wrote
>> This is truly not a major problem. Asbestos, whatever form, was only an
>> issue to those regularly exposed over a very long term measured in years
>> to dust; usually, but not only, the workers with these materials.
>You must avoid exposure to the asbestos fibres, even a single fibre lodged
>in the lung can and has been shown to cause a painful death.
No it hasn't. What has occurred is that in court it is not possible
to prove that one single exposure _did not_ cause asbestos related
injury and that it is accepted that mesothelioma is indicative of
asbestos exposure. This unusual situation, which makes suing
companies without having to prove they caused the injury rather easy,
is responsible for the enthusiasm lawyers have for asbestos.
Mesothelioma was the best thing to happen to solicitors since the
National Coal Board and many have run yachts and educated their
children on it for years.
Mesothelioma can in fact come from a number of sources, it is common
in some areas of Turkey where there are high natural occurrences of
Erionite, one of the zeolites.
Asbestos isn't particularly special, it follows much the same
dose/exposure/response relationship as many harmful substances. It
makes sense to minimise exposure, it makes no sense to _worry_ about
occasional exposure - you get it every day.
Martin Bonner
> So thanks again. Before I posted I thought they were as dangerous as
> radioactive ones!
But asbestos *is* just as dangerous as radioactivity.
- Exposure can cause cancer
- There are different sorts, some of which are more dangerous than
others
- If you are exposed to a lot of it, you are more likely to suffer
- If you are exposed to it for a long time, you are more likely to
suffer
- There is a detectable amount of it in the natural environment
... so now you just need to be more relaxed about radioactiviy too :-)
Man at B&Q
> On Aug 4, 11:27 pm, Fred <f...@no-email.here.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Thanks to the reassurance here I have carefully lifted the tiles now.
> > So thanks again. Before I posted I thought they were as dangerous as
> > radioactive ones!
>
> But asbestos *is* just as dangerous as radioactivity.
but tiles containing asbestos *are not* as dangerous as radioactive
ones might be.
MBQ
dennis@home
"Man at B&Q" <manat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42c0b68a-633d-401a...@c1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
But some tiles are radioactive.
Even some worktops are radioactive and people prepare food on them.
>
> MBQ
Fred
wrote:
>We are going through another one of these paranoid stages with mercury at
>present. I suspect that this round of paranoia is being wound up by both the
>waste industry re striplight disposal and all the future disposal of all
>these energy efficient CFLs
and dental fillings and barometers!
Clot
> On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 10:26:46 +0100, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Breaking up floor tiles and dancing on the remains is unlikely to
>> come anywhere near either of these levels. Indeed a single journey
>> on the tube would probably expose you to more asbestos dust.
>
> Thanks for such an informative reply.
>
> I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek when I talked about radioactive
> floor tiles but I agree that both asbestos and radioactivity are
> perfectly safe if handled properly. The problem with asbestos seems to
> be that there is so much contradictory advice, people like me don't
> know which is correct. This thread is a good example with some people
> saying there is only a risk from long term exposure and other people
> arguing one fibre is fatal.
>
> The consensus is that the risk from floor tiles is minimal and so,
> wearing a mask, I lifted them as carefully as I could. Some of them
> were not glued down very well so lifted whole and easily. Some were
> stuck firmer and snapped, which was a worry, but I have been reassured
> by the posts here that I shouldn't worry too much.
>
> I have read that we get daily exposure to asbestos. Where does it come
> from? You mentioned the tube: do they use it in the brake linings
> still? What about above ground? Is it just fibres floating from
> natural sources and worn brake linings? I wouldn't have thought there
> would be any asbestos brakes left by now?
Generally dust from former and current uses. I've no idea of the relative
proportions. Asbestos cement sheets in garden sheds and garages, dust still
knocking about from old brakes, fireproof claddings of buildings,
demolition - though this seems to be well controlled where significant
amounts are identified. Any other offers?
>>> workers were almost certain to suffer,
>>> and also a good chance of their family too, if they took overalls
>>> home to wash.
>
> Why were the families affected: were the overalls especially dusty or
> was it a low exposure over a very long time that proved dangerous?
Yes to both.
Clot
Indeed; the amount generated in crematoria is calculated to rise until about
2030 and thereafter decline, I seem to recall reading in a report. Many folk
being cremated today have few teeth but the proportion of folk with teeth
and fillings is expected to rise until 2030.
That's only old barometers. You can't get new ones using mercury.
Emissions from coal- fired power stations.
Man at B&Q
wrote:
> "Man at B&Q" <manatba...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:42c0b68a-633d-401a...@c1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
Your point is?
MBQ
JTM
Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
> >Why were the families affected: were the overalls especially dusty or
> >was it a low exposure over a very long time that proved dangerous?
> Especially dusty and long period. The roads around asbestos factories
> often looked as if it had been snowing there was so much waste blowing
> around.
Seem to recall a woman in Yorkshire (?) winning a compensation claim some
10-20years ago. The judgement was along the lines that a (traditional
type) housewife doing her bloke's laundry when he came home from the
asbestos factory, had developed an industrial disease, even though she'd
never worked in a factory herself
John
--
John Mulrooney
NOTE Email address IS correct but might not be checked for a while.
I bet being with gamblers anonymous will work this time
The Natural Philosopher
> On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 10:26:46 +0100, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Breaking up floor tiles and dancing on the remains is unlikely to come
>> anywhere near either of these levels. Indeed a single journey on the
>> tube would probably expose you to more asbestos dust.
>
> Thanks for such an informative reply.
>
> I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek when I talked about radioactive
> floor tiles but I agree that both asbestos and radioactivity are
> perfectly safe if handled properly. The problem with asbestos seems to
> be that there is so much contradictory advice, people like me don't
> know which is correct. This thread is a good example with some people
> saying there is only a risk from long term exposure and other people
> arguing one fibre is fatal.
>
Its precisely teh same with radiatioon.
One particle of plutonium lodged in the wrong place in your lungs will
kill you eventually.
BUT its extremely unlikely. Unless you are regularly around it.
Its the same with any statistical stuff. It only takes one car to kill
you, but if you regularly jaywalk down a motorway, its a lot more likely.
That's one aspect of the statistics.
The other aspect is that there may be a limit - like with poisons, where
your body fails to eliminate the offending substance, goes down fats and
gets overwhelmed
> The consensus is that the risk from floor tiles is minimal and so,
> wearing a mask, I lifted them as carefully as I could. Some of them
> were not glued down very well so lifted whole and easily. Some were
> stuck firmer and snapped, which was a worry, but I have been reassured
> by the posts here that I shouldn't worry too much.
>
> I have read that we get daily exposure to asbestos. Where does it come
> from? You mentioned the tube: do they use it in the brake linings
> still? What about above ground? Is it just fibres floating from
> natural sources and worn brake linings? I wouldn't have thought there
> would be any asbestos brakes left by now?
>
There is virtually no asbestos being used anywhere anymore. Better
things exist at less risk.
>>> workers were almost certain to suffer,
>>> and also a good chance of their family too, if they took overalls home to
>>> wash.
>
> Why were the families affected: were the overalls especially dusty or
> was it a low exposure over a very long time that proved dangerous?
>
yes. Its the long term exposure that seems to be the damaging thing.
> Thanks.