Posted By stevehaigh Workmen have disturbed asbestos in our workplace, and we have taken the appropriate action regarding isolating it. Do we now issue workers who came into contact with it with a statement (form) stating the fact that asbestos may have been inhaled on such a date, and keep this statement for 40 years

Posted By stevehaigh Thanks Frank, The exposure levels were minimal and quickly corrected, therefore we believe health surveillance is not required. However should the exposure albeit small be recorded and logged on file

Posted By Adrian Watson Steve, I refer you to Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002 Regulation 14. (4) In the event of an accident, incident or emergency related to the unplanned release of asbestos at the workplace, the employer shall ensure that - (a) immediate steps are taken to - (i) mitigate the effects of the event, (ii) restore the situation to normal, and (iii) inform any person who may be affected; and (b) only those persons who are responsible for the carrying out of repairs and other necessary work are permitted in the affected area and they are provided with - (i) appropriate respiratory protective equipment and protective clothing, and (ii) any necessary specialised safety equipment and plant, which shall be used until the situation is restored to normal.' Therefore, you do need to provide information to those persons affected by the unplanned release, emergeny etc ... However health surveillance is not required unless someone exceeds the action level. Regards Adrian Watson

Posted By Dave Wilson Why!!! Will this not carry on perpetuating the myth that 1 fibre kills!! lets tell eveyone they are going to die as they may have inhaled a couple of fibres! Balance is what is required, what you going to do pull everyone lungs out and give em a scub! We all breathe in asbestos fibres daily particularily in built up areas, so if that the case we are all dead.

Posted By Paul Oliver Dave, if your response is aimed at myself, i would just like to point out that if you have a look at the RIDDOR regs it is stated that this is a reportable incident. I'm not saying that these guys will drop sown dead in 20 years time, I am simply stating the necessary measures that are required to be taken, in order to fulfill the companies legal obligation at this moment in time. failure not to report may be seen as ignorance and/or collusion to deny the incident occurred at a later date should the worst happen. also, how do you know that one fibre or a hundred fibres kills. it is a known fact that exposure to asbestos kills and will continue to kill well into my own and my childrens lifetime. Until you can catergorically deny with suitable scientific proof that exposure to 1 fibre will not kill you then I will always err on the side of caution. As safety proffesional i am posting my comments within this forum to hopefully aid steve in the measures required in order to manage this incident, not to engage in a slanging match over personal opinion. thanks Paul

Posted By Frank Hallett This has now become an interesting exploration of how well the societal imposition of a "rule" [in this case the Asbestos exposure action levels, protection and requirements to report etc] matches with individual and group preceptions. The current rules exist 'cos our representatives [the Govt] have taken [hopefully top-line specialist professional] advice and determined that the most "reasonably practicable" way of controlling asbestos exposure for those at work and the public generally is what the current situation is. There is plenty of space for discussion on how best to achieve the standards required under the current legislation, but arguing against those standards and requirements in this way will be of far less impact and certainly less relevance to the users of this Chat Forum and would probably be best focussed on discussing the wider discrepancies in the way "risk" is perceived and discussed by the experts. For instance, to attack the existing exposure and action limits and their rationale for abestos in isolation isn't supportable. If the discussion moved on to consider comparisons of the very well known discrepancies and of what is considered to be a "societally acceptable risk level" amongst the various experts in different fields, then there will be an immediate benefit to all in the H,S,F&E business. Incidentally Dave, I'm not disputing your arguement. Frank Hallett