Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 29 April 2004 13:04:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Peter MacDonald Or so an independent asbestos watchdog claimed in a report in the Sunday Post (Scotland) this weekend. I was surprised it only appeared in the one paper and as there was no depth to the story wondered if anyone had further opinions or directions to further discussions on the web. Peter
Admin  
#2 Posted : 29 April 2004 13:07:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Peter MacDonald Link to above story. http://www.dcthomson.co.uk/mags/post/news4.htm
Admin  
#3 Posted : 29 April 2004 14:24:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mike Charleston Peter Thanks for the link - not so much for its own content but I followed through to the Asbestos Watchdog website (http://www.asbestoswatchdog.co.uk) and thoroughly enjoyed reading the material there. Of course it is promotional in nature and may not show all sides of the argument, but with the qualifications, experience and background behind these guys, I guess it will be pretty difficult for most other people to take issue with what they say. Is there anybody out there who can take issue with what is said about White Asbestos? Is there anybody out there that can take issue with the Case Studies and their results? Mike
Admin  
#4 Posted : 29 April 2004 14:47:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Geoff Burt Note the spelling in the article! or perhaps they are trying to make light of the problem?
Admin  
#5 Posted : 29 April 2004 16:45:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Richard White I stand prepared to be wrong but it was my impression that chrysotile has only rarely, if at all, been linked to causing mesothelioma. Instead it has been linked with a range of other lung diseases and is therefore anything but 'not dangerous'.
Admin  
#6 Posted : 29 April 2004 18:03:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Charles Robinson Tech SP While doing my Project work on asbestos I came across the folloing case study which resulted in the DSS now accepting that work with asbestos cement can be dangerous. It can be seen at http://www.oeda.demon.co.uk/microscopy.htm
Admin  
#7 Posted : 29 April 2004 19:30:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Murgatroyd The asbestos industry has been trying for a long time now to get the LARGE amount of governments that have banned asbestos, to allow its use in a variety of different guises. Unfortunately, many people who have worked with white asbestos have contracted, and died from, mesothelioma. Given that the disease is ALWAYS fatal and has NEVER been cured, I think that a total ban on ALL forms and uses of asbestos is reasonable. Never mind the asbestos industry and its tame scientists. It's hardly surprising that many people now regard scientists as tainted by cash is it ? When the owners and shareholders of asbestos companies roll-around in the stuff, and breathe large amounts of it in on a daily basis for several months, THEN I may start to believe that it is maybe safe. In any case, it's banned. Legislation exists to control exposure. And new legislation governing checks for asbestos mean that artex, concrete and other materials MUST be checked for asbestos by May 21st. This year. http://www.nass.uk.com/asbestos_law/index.php http://www.oeda.demon.co.uk/LSTelegr.htm http://www.btinternet.co...nb_wh_asb_still_kill.pdf http://www.asbestos-institute.ca/main.html
Admin  
#8 Posted : 29 April 2004 20:20:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Laurie Wasn't this well discussed in this forum a year or so ago? Laurie
Admin  
#9 Posted : 30 April 2004 09:30:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By stephanie You may be interested to know that the chap in question, John Bridle, is a well known asbestos apologist, who just happens to represent the Asbestos Cement Producers Association - not that I would suggest that that might make him biased at all. White asbestos has proven links with lung cancer, not mesothelioma, but it's still fatal, and incurable, and banned.
Admin  
#10 Posted : 30 April 2004 09:55:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Geoff Burt It was indeed Laurie. Many of us realise the HSE overreacted - which is costing the economy billions more than it needs to. But as long as heart rules mind (think of the railways) then we will waste money which would be much better spent elsewhere. 10 people a day killed on the roads - goodness knows how many maimed for life - I know where I would rather spend it.
Admin  
#11 Posted : 30 April 2004 12:45:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Peter MacDonald Laurie I wasn't a member a year or so ago. Thanks for your input though. Peter
Admin  
#12 Posted : 30 April 2004 19:44:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Murgatroyd Risks and causes Mesothelioma is quite a rare cancer but it is becoming more common. About 1,800 people are diagnosed with mesothelioma every year in the UK. It is much more common in men - 85 out of every 100 cases diagnosed are in men. Pleural mesothelioma is more common than peritoneal mesothelioma. Unusually for cancer, we do know what causes the majority of cases of mesothelioma. It is most often linked to exposure to asbestos. We have known of a link between asbestos and lung disease since the beginning of the 18th century. But the link with mesothelioma has only been known since the 1960's. Remember: Many people who develop mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure may be eligible for compensation. You should talk to a solicitor about this as early as possible. Your specialist doctor or nurse may be able to give you some information on this from their dealings with other mesothelioma patients. Or some of the mesothelioma organisations in Help and Support should be able to help. There are other factors that can increase your risk of being diagnosed with mesothelioma. These are Radiation Other chemicals What is asbestos? Asbestos is an insulating material that is heat and fire resistant. In the past, asbestos was used widely in the Building industry Ship building industry Manufacture of household appliances Motor industry There are three types of asbestos: blue, brown and white. Blue and brown asbestos are linked with mesothelioma. They are rarely used now and cannot be imported into the UK. White asbestos is now also thought to be harmful. How does asbestos cause mesothelioma? Asbestos is made up of tiny fibres. These are breathed in when you come into contact with asbestos. The fibres work their way into the pleura, lining the lung. They irritate the pleura and damage the cells that the pleura are made of. Some of the fibres that have been breathed in can be coughed up and swallowed. This is probably the cause of peritoneal mesothelioma. If you have been exposed to asbestos, your family may also have been exposed. Asbestos fibres can be carried home on your clothes. Research studies have confirmed that the family of people exposed to asbestos also have a higher risk of developing mesothelioma. Mesothelioma may not develop until 15-40 years after you have been exposed to asbestos. Between 7 and 8 out of every 10 people (70 – 80%) diagnosed with mesothelioma say that have been in contact with asbestos. Radiation Pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma has been known to develop after exposure to a type of radiation called thorium dioxide (Thorotast). This was used until the 1950's in some X-ray tests. Other chemicals A mineral found in Turkey called Zeolite may cause mesothelioma. Cancer Research UK What's New Clinical Trials Donate About Access Keys NHS Direct Online: Information Partners Programme Last updated 09 February 2004 CancerHelp UK is not designed to provide medical advice or professional services and is intended to be for educational use only. The information provided through CancerHelp UK is not a substitute for professional care and should not be used for diagnosing or treating a health problem or a disease. If you have, or suspect you may have, a health problem you should consult your doctor. Copyright Cancer Research UK 2002 Cancer Research UK Charity Number 1089464
Admin  
#13 Posted : 30 April 2004 19:55:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Murgatroyd http://www.mesothelioma-...r=GContentMesoHelpCenter It's very easy to constantly refer to the cost to the economy. What about the cost to people ? Have you worked-out the cost TO the economy of asbestosis ? The payments to sufferers and families in compensation is about 6 billion and growing. MORE people ar dying from asbestosis all the time. Since it was banned (never mind the hse, it is banned by the eu now) it has been replced by other materials that are better at the job... How many other excuses am I to hear from people and scientists funded by the asbestos industry in a vain attempt to get this killer back on sale ? And I repeat. I'll believe it is harmless when the owners and shareholders wallow in it and breathe the dust for several months first. Note: My company had testers around on thursday taking samples of plaster and artex....has yours been done ? Is your building over 20 years old ? You SHOULD have had it done !
Admin  
#14 Posted : 30 April 2004 20:39:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Geoff Burt Show me the chrysotile link?
Admin  
#15 Posted : 01 May 2004 00:47:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Admin  
#16 Posted : 01 May 2004 10:23:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Geoff Burt 'The more rapid removal of chrysotile fibres from the human lung is further supported by findings from animal studies showing that chrysotile is more rapidly cleared from the lung than are amphiboles including crocidolite and amosite.' Random sentence from one of your references. Showing chrysotile is less dangerous - no?
Admin  
#17 Posted : 01 May 2004 10:58:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Geoff Burt John I have just reread your responses. We may be at cross purposes. This thread is about white asbestos - all your responses seem to be talking about asbestos in general. It is a known fact that white asbestos is less risky that the others. Geoff
Admin  
#18 Posted : 01 May 2004 14:24:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Murgatroyd White asbestos is "less" dangerous because of the shape of the fibres. Note: "less" dangerous, not "safe". I am dramatically unimpressed by the arguments, many backed by the asbestos industry who also fund the "scientific" studies who keep trotting-out the information. Rather like the tobacco industries tame "scientists" who continually trot-out the same drab lies. I am also minded to note the total lack of the same tame scientists working with the stuff...it's all very well feeding rats spoonfuls of the stuff, but the lifespan of a rat is 7 years, not 70 years. The majority of the guys stating that it's safe DON'T work with it and WON'T work with it. It's guys like ME who have to work with it and have to clear it up as well. It's guys like YOU who also don't have to work with it. Note: 5 minutes with a mask on is just a joke job. As are the masks provided for the job. Passive rpe is crap, take that from one who works with it on. It doesn't fit, is useless if you have any facial hair at all, and in many cases won't fit no matter how you bend it. And STILL companies clearing the asbestos out provide only those masks for the workers. Any risk is too great a risk. Especially when it's the employers who profit and DON'T breathe it. In any case, It's banned here, it's banned in europe and no matter WHAT the "asbestos for health" industry says, it WON'T be used. The financial impact on this countries industry is minor. The financial impact on the workers is minor, if any. The financial impact on the asbestos industry is very large, but then, they've killed tens of thousands of people and still are. So tough. Now, wasn't this a health and safety forum at one time ? When did it change to an asbestos industry support group ?
Admin  
#19 Posted : 01 May 2004 14:38:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Geoff Burt John I worked with asbestos in my teenage years as a joiner - filing it, cutting it, breaking it up. I also get involved as a HS Consultant so you don't really need to preach to me. But, you do seem to have lost track of the discussion. Nobody is calling for the return of asbestos - where has that statement been given in this discussion? Not only that but it also appears because I am not agreeing with you - that I support the use of asbestos. Where has that been said? To repeat - the thread is about white asbestos and that is what I commented on. IT IS OF LESS RISK Geoff
Admin  
#20 Posted : 01 May 2004 20:41:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Murgatroyd let's take it to the logical conclusion. NO type of asbestos is dangerous. All types are stable and harmless. They only become a problem if inhaled or ingested.
Admin  
#21 Posted : 02 May 2004 18:41:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Adrian Watson John, Your right, asbestos is not dangerous unless inhaled. Whether it's dangerous upon being ingested is another question. Regards Adrian
Admin  
#22 Posted : 06 May 2004 22:37:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Michael Daly 1. The qualifications of John Bridle from the Asbestos Watchdog would appear to be suspect. He was recently fined by the Vale of Glamorgan magistrates under the Trade Description Act for fasely claiming to have BOHS qualifications covering building surveying and bulk sampling for asbestos. He was fined £ 2700 plus £ 1282 in costs. 2. To say White Asbestos (Chrysotile) is not dangerous is not correct. It has been linked with asbestosis and lung cancer, a link with mesothelioma has not been proven although it has been suspected. 3. Unfortunately most of the research relating to the adverse effects of asbestos materials has been carried out by the asbestos industry - they even formed the Asbestosis Research Council. The ARC commissioned "independent" research but appeared to have a habit of publishing research that was favourable to the absestos industry and not publishing research which could have created problems. 4. The asbestos industry agreed to a voluntary ban on the use of Blue asbestos (Crocidolite) in 1968 to appease the government and persuade the government not to ban all forms of asbestos. This hardly affected the industry as by that time it had changed over almost entirely to using White asbestos (Chrysotile) 5. It is very difficult to find unbiased, authoritative research on the relative dangers of different forms of asbestos. The true death rate related to asbestos is probably understated as the asbestos industry applied considerable pressure on coroners not to state causes of death relating to asbestos and little guidance was available to doctors carrying out post mortems. 6. My personal opinion is all forms of asbestos are potentialy dangerous. The semantics about levels of danger are of no real benefit to someone dying from an asbestos related disease; it may be important to a lawyer fighting against a compensation claim.
Admin  
#23 Posted : 07 May 2004 00:16:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Murgatroyd http://www.cancerhelp.or...lp/default.asp?page=4395 But due to the lack of positive (100%) information I must assume that asbestos causes no undue effects on human beings at all. The asbestos industry states that it has information proving that asbestos is not harmful. These people would not lie.
Admin  
#24 Posted : 07 May 2004 07:44:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Michael Daly I suppose the asbestos industry would have a bit more credibility if they constructed their headquarters building using asbestos containing materials and the chief executive used a desk with an asbestos top? However, if you read the story of Turner & Newall, I cannot see that happening. It is also interesting to note the asbestos industry provided advice to the tobacco industry on presentation of facts and liaison with the government. You could of course try the argument that there are no dangerous materials nor machines only dangerous people who insist, by their actions, in injuring themselves in order to inconvenience their employers, increase costs and provide employment for H&S advisors?
Admin  
#25 Posted : 07 May 2004 10:02:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Allen The increasing rate of Mesothelioma is a direct result of improvements in handling asbestos. As exposure rates gradually reduce by better controls and less use of asbestos in manufacturing fewer people die of asbestosis which is dose related. They live longer and thus mesothelioma and lung cancer which have long latent periods are more likely to occur. Mesothelioma may be dose related but if it is then the dose required to trigger adverse response in victims is very low. As John Murgatroyd mentioned a few posts back it is all to do with fibre size and shape. White asbestos has fewer fibres of the requisite size. This does not mean it is safe. If the dose required is low (and some have suggested that one fibre may be sufficient) then all types of asbestos are hazardous.
Admin  
#26 Posted : 07 May 2004 10:43:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Geoff Burt If the dose required is low (and some have suggested that one fibre may be sufficient) then all types of asbestos are hazardous. I'd be interested in that research - could you post details up?
Admin  
#27 Posted : 07 May 2004 11:07:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Allen This goes back a long way. I'm not sure if I still have the references. It was known as the "one fibre theory" on the reasoning that one fibre of the requisite size was all that was required to trigger mesothelioma. The problem is no one is ever exposed to just one fibre eg even at 0.2 fibres/ml there are 200,000 fibres in a cubic metre of air. Low dose was the reason why the HSE reduced permissable exposure to crocidolite to a tenth of that of chrysotile in the mid 1970s. Unfortunately this probably initiated the "blue bad, white, safe" myth. I'd check out some of the pressure groups websites.
Admin  
#28 Posted : 07 May 2004 16:32:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Adrian Watson The one fibre theory was a theory of carcinogenosis, from the 1950s, that was discredited as being oversimplistic. White asbestos has different risks of health effects for a variety of reasons. It has different morphology, as well as physical and chemical properties. It's deposition characteristics and biological half live are also different from amphibole asbestiforms. These together mean that in a pure form it is less harmful. However, one problem is that white asbestos is rarely if ever used as a pure product without amphiboles also being present. White asbestos is also less of a risk because of the types of products that it is used in. Asbestos by itself is not harmful, until it can enter the body and reach a site where it can exert a biological effect. Generally this means that it must be in a form that can be inhaled. It is important to remember the old toxicological quote "All things are poisons. The thing that differentiates a poison from a remedy is the dose. The dose makes a poison." Regards Adrian Watson
Admin  
#29 Posted : 07 May 2004 16:55:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Geoff Burt The interesting thing is that during a site visit some months ago, and with employees present, an HSE inspector came out with 'it only takes 1 fibre'. This is emotive talk - which creates all sorts of problems for employers and for worried employees. I was surprised the HSE mentioned it and I'm surprised it has been brought up on this site without some evidence of its validity.
Admin  
#30 Posted : 07 May 2004 17:42:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Allen I think the short answer is we just don't know. Particle shape and size was always thought to be more crucial than chemical composition. With regard to dose response relationship we have a lot of information at the high end of the curve, much less lower down. One of the features of mesothelioma is the evidence of its occurrence in those with no occupational exposure (eg spouses of asbestos workers) suggesting a relationship much lower down the curve. As I said earlier the "one fibre theory" is not appropriate because no one is ever exposed to a single fibre. If evidence of validity was required for every statment made on this site there wouldn't be many postings!
Admin  
#31 Posted : 07 May 2004 20:02:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Murgatroyd Good site: http://www.agius.com/hew/resource/asbestos.htm
Admin  
#32 Posted : 08 May 2004 01:21:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Admin  
#33 Posted : 08 May 2004 07:57:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Adrian Watson Dear All, There are a number of issues and misconceptions. Firstly, the main problems with epidemiology is that you cannot detect small changes above background and most asbestos studies were done on highly exposed populations. It is a simple rule you should compare like with like. Peto's studies relate to smoking populations that were exposed to high levels of asbestos. Secondly, cancer in simple terms is a process where the cells can grow in an uncontrolled manner. This process is caused by mutations within the cell. As a molecule, fibre etc can cause a mutation in a cell, the idea went that this one cell could develop, proliferate and become cancer ... so, far so good. However what the one fibre theory omitted was, was the fact that cell mutations are normal and occurs on a regular basis. So much so that the body has an effective defence mechanism against them. The accepted theory now is that cancer is a multifactorial and multistage process with at least three stages. These stages are mutation, initiation, proliferation and growth. The first two stages, mutation and initiation, are in some cases combined. The most common cause of cell mutation in the body is cell reproduction; therefore anything that increases cell reproduction, such as cell repair, increases the risk of cancer. This is supported by the fact that surgery, breaks etc are known to increase the risk of cancer. In fact one of the known causes of mesothelioma is a thoracotomy to removed tubercular nodules. Going back to asbestos, with amphibole asbestos fibres, the fibres are small, sharp and have a long half-life. This means that they will reach the respiratory regions of the lung. On the way there they will impact into the lung tissue and once there they will impact into the lung. This means that they should increase the risk of lung cancer, which they do. They are 10-50 times more likely to cause lung cancer than white asbestos. Once in the respiratory region there is impaction into the lining of the lung as well as transfer of the fibres into and through the pleural cavity by the macrophages and the lymphatic system. The pleural cavity is in fact the normal dumping ground for the lymphatic system. Once in the pleural cavity the macrophages and the immulological system will attempt to deal with the asbestos fibres. Unfortunately this process causes cellular injury and cellular repair, as well as the release of cytokines by macrophages. Cytokines are chemicals that the macrophages use to increase cell division in bacteria as a means of killing the bacteria. These processes increase the risk of mutations. In some people this process will result in mesothelioma. The risk being a result of the type of asbestos, the number of fibres and some factors relating due to the individual such as genetic susceptibility to cellular mutation, immune status as well as the responsiveness and effectiveness of the immune system as well as cofactors much as disease and smoking. Because of the nature of the process and the interaction between the agent and the individual the risk becomes stochastic; i.e. the more you are exposed the greater the risk but in no individual does exposure equal disease. However, in white, serpentine, asbestos the fibres are long, curly with a short half-life. This means that they do not reach the parts that the other asbestoses reach in such large numbers, and do not stick in lung tissue as readily on the way down. This means that they should pose a reduced risk of lung cancer, when compared against other types of asbestos, as they do. Once in the respiratory region they do not as readily breach the barrier into the pleural cavity and they do not remain as long. All these factors make it less likely that they cause mesothelioma in man. In fact there is strong evidence that they do not cause mesothelioma in man. However, we know that they can cause mesothelioma in rats through implantation studies. Unfortunately, white asbestos is frequently contaminated with 1% tremolite that will cross the barrier and has a longer half-life. This is believed to cause the mesothelioma in the cohorts exposed to white asbestos. Thirdly, in respect of wives having low exposure top asbestos, you have to remember back to 30-40 years ago. In the 1960's coveralls were mainly made of heavy-duty cotton, which accumulated dust and held onto it, so there was substantial dust exposure from it. Then prior to washing machines being generally available how many people remember the copper, mangle and the general washing processes. This would have caused substantial exposure. So just because a person was at home did not mean that they had low exposures. I hope that this helps. Regards Adrian Watson
Admin  
#34 Posted : 08 May 2004 08:15:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Geoff Burt John - This is from your very own latest website reference: 'How do the risks from exposure to different kinds of asbestos differ? Though chrysotile (white asbestos) has been used most widely the greater potency of amphibole (blue and brown) asbestos is generally recognised. A recent scientificpaper produced by HSE estimated the risk of mesothelioma and lung cancer byasbestos fibre type for a range of different exposure scenarios. This analysis suggeststhat on average blue asbestos has a risk about 500 times that of white asbestos for mesothelioma and 10-50 times as high for lung cancer. The equivalent risk ratio forbrown asbestos is 100 for mesothelioma and the same as blue (10-50) for lung cancer.However, no type of asbestos exposure is free of risk, particularly as invariably the asbestos types were mixed to enhance the properties for the materials produced.' You seem unwilling to separate chrysotile out from the rest despite your own references showing that to be the case! Adrian - very comprehensive and constructive posting, which helped me understand a bit more about the disease process. Geoff
Admin  
#35 Posted : 08 May 2004 13:29:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Laurie I agree with Geoff's comments. Thanks Adrian for a very informative posting Laurie
Admin  
#36 Posted : 08 May 2004 14:46:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Murgatroyd I'm not disputing that white asbestos is less dangerous than blue or brown. The phrase to remember is "less dangerous" not "safe". I'll just point out that some people smoke for 60+ years and die in their sleep perfectly "healthy" Most don't, however. If you continue reading about tumours, you will note that despite some people having the promoters present throughout their life, they never GET cancer despite other people with the same, or less, exposure succumbing to various tumours. Most "normal" people will have immune systems that respond to uncontrolled cell growth (apoptosis, attack by macrophages etc) and kill the cells that are growing uncontrolled (cancerous cells). So, while one person may have white asbestos present in their body and suffer no harm, another will not be so lucky. If that person is a smoker, then his/her luck is a lot less anyway, since smokers are more likely to develop asbestosis than non smokers. Given the same exposure level. I assume you are not advocating the use of asbestos just because some people are never going to develop problems ? I'll also refer to dust here. Many people in british industry are exposed to high levels of dust. Flour, wood, paint, brick, concrete and metal dust. To name a few. I have personally been told to "stop being such a pansy, a bit of dust never harmed anyone" when I complained about it. "oh well, put a mask on then", when I insisted. What has this got to do with asbestos ? The SAME attitude is STILL prevalent in this countries industries now. ALL the H&S legislation has made little difference to the way many employers treat the workforce. The SAME attitude is still about with respect to asbestos. It is not the EMPLOYER or the H&S consultant that is going to be exposed. It's NEVER going to change, why spend £1000.00 quid to properly dispose of asbestos when it costs nothing to chuck it in a river ?. Or in my firms case, bury it in the field.
Admin  
#37 Posted : 08 May 2004 23:33:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Alec Wood Buried it in a field? Well I hope you made a discreet telephone call..... I notice that in an earlier posting on this subject you mention a mineral called zeolite. Is this the same zeolite used by thousands of pond fish keepers and garden centres to remove ammonia and other derivative of fish wastes, then "recharged" by soaking in brine? Alec Wood Samsung Electronics
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.