Some interesting views from one of our readers here, who reckons the dangers of asbestos are greatly overplayed.

What do ConstructionSpace members think?

Asbestos Watchdog has for the last ten years being trying to get the HSE to accept that white asbestos cement is not a risk akin to radio active anthrax. Unfortunately all our submissions of scientific data have been ignored [this is in breach of the HSE’s own charter ] and the only reply we have had has been to subject us to a well co-ordinated dirty tricks and smear campaign.

It was a tremendous support to our campaign when the Advertising Standards Authority [ ASA ] examined all the scientific evidence from us and the HSE and correctly concluded that 4500 workers do not die each year from asbestos exposure.  For our part we only submitted science papers produced by the HSE itself, rather than from the vast body of independent research worldwide which also supports our claim.

This first proper examination of the HSE’s assessment of the asbestos risks is just the start of a number of opportunities we are organising to get a full public debate into this expensive deception.  Firstly let’s put the problem into an easy analogy.  With all poisons the danger is in the size of the dose. If one aspirin can cure a headache and a bottle full can kill, then just how safe are aspirins? If the HSE assessed the risks of aspirins based on a whole bottleful being consumed every time then would a total ban based on this evidence be acceptable?

This in fact is exactly what they have done over white asbestos. [ The one fibre kills mantra is total rubbish ].  In doing so the HSE have become nothing more than the sales and marketing arm of the vested interests. The HSE state that this ASA’s decision is only a technical glitch involving only one complainant and they intend to appeal. This is neither a small matter nor a glitch and Asbestos Watchdog is not alone but shares its views with the main body of asbestos science worldwide.

As for an appeal the HSE had over a 9 month period sent the ASA masses of evidence to support their position but failed. However, the HSE will be pleased to know that they will be required to present their case publicly as we are planning to have a full enquiry organised by opposition MPs. We would also like to know who actually paid the £1.48 million for the HSE’s campaign. The individuals behind the dirty tricks and smears against anyone who dares to question the HSE’s asbestos regulations are now to come under a police investigation to see if there has been any criminal deception involved and, in addition, offences under the new law of Aggressive Harassment may have occurred.

The Unions are also objecting to the ASA ruling but they will have to answer questions about how much commission they earn from referrals of their members to claims lawyers. At least 2 MPs are to be questioned [ both have had to leave the Labour Party over expenses fraud etc ].  Aggrieved doctors and scientists supporting the 4000 + deaths from asbestos will have to disclose how much the claim lawyers are paying them to support this deception.

As for the HSE’s claim that this campaign was an award winner, it turns out that this ‘award’ was in fact only a nomination for the advert of the month by the in house Awards for National Newspapers Advertising [ ANNA ] who have confirmed that they do not issue awards of the week. More exaggerated smoke and mirrors as usual.

So there is much debate to come on this issue. Meanwhile, all we want is for the HSE to make some small changes to the regulations and guidance notes that will make sure no one is put at risk but will stop the regulations which are at present being used as a ‘cowboy’s charter’.  Most important of all we want to stop the claims culture from sucking the available compensation away from genuine victims and save businesses from being crippled by unnecessary asbestos removal. The HSE have refused to consider any alterations to the regulations and continue to avoid any public debate to explain their position.  Now with the debate becoming public this deception will finally end. “

Lloyds of London were the underwriters for the companies in the US who produced Asbestos.

I'm going off memory here but it was something like this.

Quite a few years ago Lloyds were so terrified of the claims about to hit them that they set up a subsiduary company to deal with the claims and gave it a budget of £10 million knowing  it was going to go bust.

They knew the 30,000 or so claims would have bankrupt Lloyds completely and they managed to wriggled out of it.

I remember being really impressed thinking that was a cool scam.

Then there's my old man who drove a tipper around London for 35 years who's lungs collapsed with asbestosis.

I have worked with all kinds of asbestos most of my life be it White, Brown or Blue and over the years the general idea of danger was not its colour or format but simply its ability to enter your lungs combined with your bodies suseptability to it.

Its not a gamble most men want to take which to me justifies the HSE stance on this issue!

Its like like Climate Change, No-one really knows and your view depends on how reckless you are.

I worked on the Olympics where a small inch squared bit of white will stop the job and i worked in Fleetwood where theres a derilict site with mountains of white open to the elements on a public highway!

They say it can have a 10 to 15 year incubation period.

How are you going to know enough to say the HSE stand is exagerated?

And who is going to front the cash and resources to do a correct nationwide survey for the next 15 years!

Our lives are not that important!

Any fresh meat out there take advice from an old head!

If they tell you its safe thats because they don't want to do it themselves (because they think its dangerous) and go by your gut feeling even if it gets you the sack! (No job is worth your life)

If this clown believes white is so safe let him post a You Tube video eating it!

How ridiculous to compare the safety of asbestos with the safety of aspirin.

You are never likely to consume large quantitites of aspirin unless you're trying to top yourself.

However, if you are a builder working on a certain age of property it's very likely you'll find large quantities of asbestos.

I think the essence of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regs is correct but once again the HSC have put a huge burden on small business with regards to how they manage the problem.

Regards

HSM

http://www.healthandsafetymentor.com

 

An excellent website Ken1000!

I would certainly recommend our colleagues to pay a visit.

Regards

MVM

HSE has reponsded on this issue previously and our position is below... 

We agree that the risks to human health for white asbestos are substantially lower than for brown or blue asbestos. We also agree that the level of risk in relation to any carcinogen depends on the degree of exposure. However, we strongly disagree about the implications of the scientific evidence for how asbestos cement products should be dealt with.

This evidence does indeed show that brown and blue asbestos are particularly hazardous. However, it also shows that exposure to white asbestos leads to a risk of lung cancer. Yes, there is uncertainty about a level of exposure - a threshold - below which that particular disease is unlikely to be caused. There is also uncertainty about the actual scale of the risk at different levels of exposure to white asbestos in relation to the other major asbestos related cancer, mesothelioma. Risks were found to be considerably higher in some research studies than others, and the extent to which contamination of white asbestos by other forms may have played a part is not always clear cut.

Putting it simply, white asbestos is implicated as a cause of both lung cancer and mesothelioma though uncertainty remains about the precise nature of how the risk changes at different levels of exposure. It cannot be called safe by any sensible person.

Based on the evidence, the regulatory system in Britain distinguishes between different types of asbestos-containing materials according to how hazardous they are likely to be. This is why we have a licensing scheme and require a very high level of control for products most likely to contain blue and brown asbestos - and why work with asbestos cement does not usually fall within our licensing scheme.

Even so, the evidence still justifies precautionary controls being imposed on work with products that contain white asbestos alone - we cannot rule out the link to cancer. It is further justified by the fact that in reality it is impossible to be completely sure that asbestos products really do contain white asbestos alone. Materials like asbestos cement can and do contain other forms of asbestos, but rarely in a way that those working with it are able to distinguish. And when asbestos cement is broken, research shows that asbestos fibres are released.

If we were to accept less rigorous controls of work with asbestos cement, there is no doubt that the result would be higher exposures to white asbestos as well as more individuals being exposed to more dangerous forms of asbestos.

The regulatory system for asbestos in Britain is therefore both a proportionate and responsible approach to dealing with what remains Britain's biggest industrial killer.

The news that the Advertising Standards Authority had upheld the Asbestos Watchdog complaint that the HSE had grossly exaggerated the number of deaths of workers exposed to asbestos certainly seems to have provoked a robust discussion.   The HSE has had several attempts to justify their position even to the point of stating that they intend to appeal the ASA ruling.  The main problem that they would have with an appeal is that when Asbestos Watchdog was asked by the ASA to justify the reasons our complaint we only used HSE published data.  The HSE on the other had tried unsuccessfully for nearly 12 months to prove that we were wrong and totally failed to do so, an important point that all of your critical respondents seem not to have grasped.

So, unfortunately, one must place the dissenting objectors into two classes.  Firstly those who have not understood the HSE’s science on asbestos and secondly those who hope to profit from the deception.  No one has yet been able to provide any evidence that realistically disputes what the Asbestos Watchdog has reported  over asbestos risks.  We have many times asked for a public debate with the vested interests and the HSE but to no avail. The HSE and friends go to extraordinary lengths to avoid any direct exposure to real facts. Not so long ago the National Farmers Union hosted a conference for the HSE to explain why they have abandoned their pre 1997 position in favour of the present hysterical policy based on a zero risk that has financially crippling consequences for businesses and property owners.  The invitation was accepted but when the HSE discovered they were to share the platform with Watchdog scientists they refused to attend  . Instead they snipe at us from the shadows with written submissions of justification.  We have had many attempts to discover the authors of these submissions on asbestos but to no avail. The HSE refuse to divulge the authors.

We had however established, thanks to Freedom of Information requests, that the HSE’s asbestos policy unit is surprisingly short of anyone who has any real experience or training on asbestos science in spite of publishing HSE technical documents on asbestos in their own names  clearly having no understanding of the contents..

At Asbestos Watchdog we have no argument with the HSE for a need to treat all asbestos with due respect and expertise.  However this can be done quite easily and without terrifying the general public nor bankrupting businesses but our contributions to the HSE’s asbestos policy unit to implement these proposals have been ignored. The HSE seems to depend on the asbestos removal industry and their friends to compose all the asbestos protocols without any representation of the folk who have to pay for it.  We consider this inappropriate cooperation with the vested interests [ who boast of their political donations ] to be so dangerous that we have challenged the HSE that if they publish the new MDHS 100 without considering our alternatives that would dramatically reduce the frauds, then we have briefed our legal team to implement an injunction to stop the publication and force the debate into the public arena.

Some may well ask why we should bother.  Well, once you have established in the public minds that all asbestos is as lethal as radio active anthrax and that one fibre can wipe out a city block you have that other group of generous donors to political parties rearing their ugly heads and nicknamed the Asbestos Taliban or the ‘no win no fee’ asbestos claims lawyers .  These legal terrorists prey on innocent companies who in the past may have once employed an asbestos victim and are now held to ransom for tens of thousands of pounds.  Statistically 90% of all these claims need exaggerated and flawed evidence for submission to the courts but the courts rubber stamp 100% of any such claims. For example after the Law Lords ruled that you cannot tell where the so-called one fibre was inhaled that killed the worker then EVERYWHERE he has ever worked is in line for paying the compensation. The ‘one fibre kills’ mantra is total nonsense   Facts like  ‘white asbestos cannot contribute to a mesothelioma’ is brushed aside and any supporting evidence dismissed .  All it takes is a disgruntled ex-employee to answer one of the many adverts by the asbestos claims lawyers and the company is immediately on a crash course with a gravy train.   A suitable doctor is selected and generously rewarded for their testaments and it’s ‘goodnight Vienna’.  One may feel that to employ a top defence law firm is a good idea. Unfortunately they seem to be cooperating with the policy and the claims lawyers and seem to have no interest in winning for their client. We have seen in the past the defending law firm  actually sabotaging any positive evidence that may have helped the client .

Besides this crippling burden on innocent businesses one forgets that this poisonous policy is actually stealing the available compensation funds from the real victims who have to wait years for totally inadequate money that mostly is awarded too late to be of any use and furthermore the bulk of it goes into the pockets of the lawyers .

So you can see this is a very complex and serious problem and is in need of an informed debate to stop what the OFT have described as this “industry wide fraud “.  The Tory Party have promised such an enquiry should they take power but in the meantime it would be helpful if  any critics can provide supporting evidence for their rage against us. They could have found something we have missed.

Whilst I am not at all surprised to read your reply Professor, the main question I would be asking when considering your statement below is:  

"We have challenged the HSE that if they publish the new MDHS 100 without considering our alternatives that would dramatically reduce the frauds, then we have briefed our legal team to implement an injunction to stop the publication and force the debate into the public arena."

Whilst it is generally known that the H&SE 'printed and published' MDHS 100, who actually wrote it?

Regards

MVM

Who wrote the MDHS100 is a good question. It becomes more relevant when the same question is asked about the CAR2006, the ACOP and the BOHS surveying exams. The input of all of these has virtually no HSE cooperation. A close look at the old ARCA web site will reveal the boastings of the real authors.

The aspirin analogy is a good one as all poisons and toxins are dependent on the size of the dose. If a lump of radioactive Plutonium was found in a public place you would expect the removal process to involve a lot of booted and suited operatives dealing with it and the perpetrators prosecuted. However, if the same process was used to remove your watch because of its luminous dial you would think it was excessive. This is in essence the difference between the removal of loose blue asbestos and cement sheets made with white asbestos. Before anyone disputes this they may wish to take a look at the HSC's own confirmation data in their report HSC/06/55.

I take your point that builders are likely to come across asbestos in old buildings but they are just as they are likely to come across live electrical wiring. However there are practical protocols in place to protect them from this risk as there can and should be for managing asbestos. Instead we have histerical procedures based on the outdated belief that one fibre can kill.

 

It is perhaps important that the readers of Construction Journal are aware of who is posting on this forum, and their history.

Perhaps "Professor" Bridle would like to explain exactly which educational institution his professorship comes from, perhaps he would like to explain about his misuse of post nominal letters from the British Occupational Hygiene Society regarding their asbestos surveying qualification and what action Trading Standards took with regard to this matter, perhaps he would like to explain what happened to his claims that encapsulating chrysotile asbestos in a cementitious matrix changed the physical properties of the fibres and perhaps he would like to explain which sector of industry he has been involved in for very many years. What is perhaps more relevant in this particular debate is that Canada. which still mines white asbestos and mainly exports it is about to cease the practice, I am sure with the alleged links that he has within the Chrysotile Industry that perhaps John Bridle would be able to explain that.  I have a declared interest, I run a UKAS asbestos laboratory; I am very pleased that matters are given an airing, but feel that it is important that when muck is being raked then people know who all the players are. HSE have a very onerous task in relation to obtaining statistical evidence of asbestos death. It is very difficult to differentiate between asbestos related lung cancer and lung cancer. There are undoubtedly many old men who worked with asbetsos and who smoke dying in council care homes who will be misdiagnosed and whose death will not be on the figures. I am sure that many people have now seen the HSE video "how are you today"?  The one with the not quite accurate Cardiff accents who dies in "his mam's" front room. I can assure you that this is quite a good picture of a mesothaelioma death.With regard "one fibre can kill" I was not aware that this was an issue with regard to worker exposure? A recent paper on exposure to plumbers in the UK measured exposure at 2f/ml for plumbers working recently, that translates into English at about 2 million asbestos fibres in a cubic metre of air. Kind regardsBruce Sutherland   

 

 

 

 

Asbestos scam - (Amongst many others)

Excerpts from the same paper that exposed those crooked MP's

"Imagine that a very experienced, knowledgeable and brave whistleblower sets out to expose a commercial racket that is ripping off businesses and members of the public to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds a year, and which a government agency, despite being supplied with factual evidence, does nothing to stop. If a leading BBC "consumer affairs" programme learned about this story, might one not expect it to throw all its resources into exposing the racket?"

"It might seem odd that, using evidence supplied by the very people who are behind the scam, the BBC would instead pull out all the stops to discredit the whistleblower. Yet such is the bizarre situation that will arise this Wednesday, when Radio Four's You and Yours programme attempts to sabotage the four-year campaign waged by Prof John Bridle, Britain's leading practical asbestos expert, to expose the malpractices of many firms in the asbestos industry. This column has supported Bridle's crusade since 2002, when the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) proposed new asbestos regulations that, on its own original figures, would cost £8 billion. Introduced to me by the Federation of Small Businesses, Bridle explained how these regulations were so seriously flawed that they would open the door to shameless exploitation by many of the firms to which the HSE gave the exclusive right to handle asbestos."

"When I checked this out with some of the leading asbestos scientists in this country, they not only endorsed what he was saying but said they were enthusiastically behind his campaign. Such support did it win from members of the public, not least readers of this column, that Bridle set up Asbestos Watchdog, a company dedicated to giving honest advice to the ever larger number of people who were victims of the racket."

"So powerful was Bridle's case that Asbestos Watchdog was given the HSE's official support, and on November 26 2004 was appointed by Bill Macdonald, the HSE's head of asbestos policy, as an official "stakeholder" to advise on policy. One leading asbestos company was so alarmed by the practices rife in the industry that it even gave Asbestos Watchdog significant financial backing."

"But so vast were the sums now at stake that there have recently been clear signs of a concerted move by the powerful "anti-asbestos lobby" to silence Bridle. One of their greatest successes to date has been winning the support of the You and Yours team. Fortunately, the programme has informed him of 18 of the charges they plan to throw at him, all of which have been levelled before by different branches of the anti-asbestos lobby. It is hard to believe that the BBC will be so reckless as to repeat them (when he offered documentary evidence to refute their charges, one journalist said they were so confident they were right that this was not necessary)."

"Some charges are laughable, such as that Bridle falsely claims to have been made in 2005 an honorary professor of the prestigious Russian Academy of Medical Sciences. Confirmed by the academy's official certificate, this was widely reported in Russia at the time as the first occasion on which anyone had been so honoured.

The BBC charges him with falsely claiming to have advised the Conservative Party leadership."

Yet in 2002 when, after a briefing from Bridle, Iain Duncan Smith, then the party's leader, wrote to the Government asking for the regulations to be delayed until they could be debated by Parliament, Bridle (and I) gave extensive written and verbal briefings to John Bercow, the front-bench Tory spokesman who led the debate, as You and Yours could have confirmed by consulting Hansard.

The BBC denies that Asbestos Watchdog, much to the rage of the asbestos industry, has saved businesses and homeowners tens of millions of pounds by advising how asbestos work could legally and safely be carried out for a fraction of the sums they had been quoted by contractors, as I have reported here (not least because many of the beneficiaries were readers of The Sunday Telegraph). The BBC did not even want to look at the evidence.

The central point on which the whole asbestos scam rests, as You and Yours seems unable to grasp, is the confusion, now made worse by some very bad law, between two completely different minerals, both passing under the general but unscientific term "asbestos".

One includes the genuinely dangerous blue and brown forms (amphiboles with sharp metallic fibres that, remaining in the lungs, can cause cancer). The other, very much commoner, "white asbestos" (chrysotile, the soft silky fibres of which dissolve in the lungs within 15 days) is usually encapsulated in cement or textured coatings, from which it is virtually impossible to extract a single fibre.

Yet it is on the sleight of hand allowing the dangers of one mineral to be attributed to the other that huge sums of money are now being made by those who play on public fear and ignorance, a commercial racket the HSE does nothing to stop.

Itself a victim of this confusion, the BBC seems desperate to pin on Bridle the damning charge that he claims that "white asbestos is harmless". Yet he is always scrupulously careful to cite the most comprehensive review yet conducted of the scientific literature (Hoskins and Lange 2004) as showing that white cement products pose "no measurable risk to health".

Instead of falling for such distortions and untruths, the BBC team should be asking why they plan to give credence to the most disgraceful commercial racket flourishing in Britain today -

Err excuse me but didn't you mean to write - this is just one of the many disgraceful commercial rackets that is flourishing in Britain today?

Well...I for one know who's side I am on!

Regards

MVM

With respect, other than stating your opinion on the results of BBC investigative journalism, you do not appear to have dealth with the issues that I raised?

I note from one of your other posts that you are a building inspector and clerk of works; do you also earn your living from carrying out asbestos surveys? If so then I suggest that you are as much part of the industry as the rest of us and are you perhaps not indulging in a pot calling the kettle black exercise?

Kind regards

 

Bruce 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe opinions are as noted..opinions.

I am, as you quite rightly say, a Clerk of Works / Site Inspector but do not involve myself with Asbestos Investigation so am unable to deal with those issues, hence my requesting more clarity on what appears to be a financial issue rather than the truth?

At the same time, I do however encourage those involved to secure the services of the experts such as  Noble Health and Safety Consultancy Ltd?

Regards

MVM

 

 

I have posted here merely to make sure that people are perhaps more aware of both sides involved. I also make no secret / use strange log ins as to who I am. I run a health and safety consultancy as has been posted, I am a Chartered Fellow of IOSH, RMaPS, MIDE and I worked for HSE in the past....... and I also wrote much of the current edition of the CITB GE 700 which I am delighted to see Molevalleyman quotes in another post as being the best construction text on the market....... 

Kind Regards

 

Bruce 

 

Good stuff Bruce

It's very important to me to perhaps try to get you to understand where I am coming from?

I don't have so many fancy letters after my name, HND being my claim to fame in the 'intellect' department but, I do have over 44 years of construction experience working initially as a Carpenter and Joiner, then as a Senior Site Manager and trawling onwards to become a Project Manager, working both here and outside of the UK. -  I simply asked our friend the professor the question -

Who actually wrote mdhs100?

GE700 is perhaps the best overall health and safety reference that I have ever known and, for the past god-knows how many years, I have relied on it greatly and... it has never let me down.

Kind Regards

MVM

The people who wrote mdhs100 are as follows  

 

John Addison (John Addison Consultancy); Tracey

Boyle (HSE); Garry Burdett* (HSL); Laurie Davies

(Institute of Occupational Medicine); Andy Martin

(United Kingdom Accreditation Service); Jean

Prentice (McCrone Scientific Ltd); Bill Sanderson

(Casella Science and Environment Ltd); Damian

Stear (HSE); and Barry Tylee (HSL).

There is no secret - it is contained within the publication - I really do not understand how anyone can make a conspiracy theory out of that - Laurrie Davies, Bill Sanderson and Jean Prentice are amongst the most respected asbestos scientists in the UK ie they do science not commerce, and I really find it quite strange that people can link them and HSE/ HSL with ARCA or any other trade assocation.

Again I emphasise that I am posting to make sure that anyone reading this understands that as always there are two sides to an argument.

Kind regards

Bruce 

. 

 

 

An interesting read so I thought i’d drop this into the mix.

"When making judgements on asbestos containing products, it is important not to fall into the trap of thinking that 'asbestos = bad'.

Take aspirins for example. One aspirin can cure a headache, a whole bottle will kill you.

Similarly, alcohol is actually legally classified as a class one carcinogen (as is white asbestos), but millions of people will drink it every day.

On a similar note the MDHS 100 is currently under review and for the better in my opinion."learn more here The Asbestos Surveyors Guide