Posted By Adrian Watson Nigel, There are cases of mesothelioma in infants and neonates. So there are other causes of mesothelioma other than asbestos. Other causes include sugar cane, eronite and thoracic surgery. Approximately 90% of cases of mesothelioma are due to asbestos exposure. Conversely 10% of cases are not. The mere presence of asbestos does not mean that there is a risk to health. As previously stated there are no safe or dangerous substances; there are only safe and dangerous ways of using substances. Increases in mesothelioma is teachers could be because many teachers had other jobs before becoming a teacher. Regarding their estimates, HSE acknowledge that low level exposures over estimate risk. A basic premise of modeling is that the further away you go from the data the more the model is unlikely to represent reality. I'm not saying that HSE having publicity campaigns is wrong. They are important in raising awareness. However, they should not misinform people to scare them. This reduces their credibility and destroys trust in them. Regards Adrian Watson

Posted By Neil R In reply to John Richards, you'll find it's not a case of cant be bothered to visit, the HSE are shamefully underfunded by the government, if you consider how many companies there are in the UK compared to how many HSE inspectors there are then you'll realise you are lucky to have had two visits! and since the insurance people will be footing the bill if anything goes wrong no wonder you see them more often And as a H&S "advisor" (as you put it) for quite a number of years i don't believe im treated with contempt from the workers at all, i advise on two projects with a workforce of over 300 guys at the moment and theres not an ounce of contempt if thats the way it is where you work then you have a bad culture sadly.

Posted By Neil R "I think you will find you are not highly regarded in these." Sad state of affairs indeed, ironically the tinpot firms are the ones who have to most to gain from a good safety record, as someone who has dealt with tenders for the last few years, many small firms have been binned at the first stage because of their safety record.

Posted By GeoffB4 The cost TO the small firms of a "good safety record" is higher than the cost OF a bad safety record Really? Perhaps you'd like to quantify that for us if you can?

Posted By GeoffB4 Support your statement John - simple. Anybody can exaggerate and/or make statements without support, but it doesn't mean your argument is correct!

Posted By GeoffB4 I just want you to reference it for me John. I simply don't understand your assertion and would like to see where it comes from. For example how do you quantify a small company losing tendered for contracts because they don't have adequate safety arrangements - and that is just one aspect?

Posted By GeoffB4 The death rate will peak in 2015. This is an HSE researched and published figure. Why do you say the figures will continue to increase - can I see your source?

Posted By John Richards Most small companies do not tender for work. The really small (one/two-man-band) companies do a lot of work on word-of-mouth. The larger ones can get by with a vanilla safety policy and similar risk assessments/method statements. A 100 quid safety-pro specialty. So, how many people die each year from various industrial diseases ? Just to continue the asbestos rant..... Asbestos = 4000 to 10000 All others = a few hundred thousand Great Health and Safety we [haven't] got.

Posted By GeoffB4 We have not seen the decline in asbestos related disease, as it is still on the increase, this is not expected until 2015. ... which equals The death rate will peak in 2015. This is an HSE researched and published figure. I don't understand your point?

Posted By Dave Wilson Geoff it was just trying to simplify for people who are not in the know how the 2015 date was worked out

Posted By GeoffB4 .. and it's worked out by estimating the numbers exposed and the amount of exposure about (ish) 30/40 years ago. The slope at the other side of the peak takes into account the reduced exposure from that time as the use of asbestos tapered off. Workers today are not in any way exposed as they were in the 60s/70s, which is why the rate will drop. It seems there is some difficulty in understanding that reasoning and explains why the emotive comments about one fibre causing lung cancer are still bandied around.

Posted By Dave Wilson A while back I was on a demo site and another company are doing the soft strip in another part of the site, No mask overalls etc removing floor tiles & AC , I can appreciate they are a lower risk but they know as it was on the survey and just shrug their shoulders. They have damaged some Pipe lagging when they have been recovering the copper etc from above a suspended ceiling and left debris all over the place. Good shout mate if I was still in enforcement I would be prosecuting these companies very rigorously!!!!

Posted By Nigel Bryson Geoff There are two aspects to this. The first is that a number of maintenance workers will not know that asbestos fibres - in sufficient quantity over time - could kill them. From the evaluation of the campaign pilot in the North West the following was concluded: 'The pilot campaign has performed extremely well in the North West region with high recognition and a strong message. It has raised awareness of the dangers of asbestos amongst maintenance workers and has had an impact on their attitudes towards asbestos and on claimed actions taken regarding asbestos.' The second is getting people to take adequate precautions where asbestos materials are present. Again quoting from the evaluation of the North West pilot campaign: 'The challenge will however be in workers taking safety precautions while working as it can be very difficult to tell if asbestos is present. There was a slight increase in those saying they would stop working if they were suspicious asbestos was present following the campaign but similar numbers claimed they would take no action.' Taking up Tony's original point, no he is not alone in his thinking. However the subject is emotive. This is not the HSE's first 'emotive' Campaign and I hope it is not the last. People dying at or because of work is an emotive issue. As regards the statistics, on current knowledge the numbers recorded as dying from mesothelioma are likely to drop after 2015 for the reasons given. However, how rapidly the deaths decline depends on how many people are exposed to sufficient asbestos fibres that could kill them today and into the future. There has been a trend in recent years of deaths associated with environmental exposure. While these are not likely to give rise to the same number of deaths from occupational exposure, they will be additional. The construction sector has been seen as a health and safety priority for every single year that I have worked professionally in this field - since 1981. It remains so today because of its poor health and safety record. So why not tell the workers directly about the potential threat to their health and safety? Relying on the employer's duty to inform workers has not been an overwhelming success so far. I understand that the campaign is designed to raise asbestos awareness in specific targeted occupations, nothing else. The pilot was seen as a success by the HSE so they have rolled it out nationally. However it will not solve the current inability of the Construction/Building maintenance Sectors as a whole to sufficiently control their risk activities. Seeing as we do not know what the risk to 'targeted' workers is - no threshold exposure limit; do not know how many people are actually exposed to asbestos fibres;etc - it would appear difficult to make accurate predictions. Hence it seems reasonable to me to say how many people are dying today [fact] and promote preventative policies. Nigel

Posted By GeoffB4 Simple, 4 representatives immediately went to see the MD whilst the inspector was on site and asked if the statement by the HSE inspector was true. It it was they were going to immediately stop work. We asked the inspector to immediately retract this statement which she did. By any standards that is emotive, both by the inspector and the workforce. The difference is the inspector (and there are others out there) should have known better. Answering your question: By overstating the case the inspector did no favours to the HSE, was seen to overreact, and by her actions could have caused severe financial loss to the company. As Tony said in the first message, he had an electrician walk off site. I'm surprised you needed to ask the question, these are fairly obvious points to those of us who work in industry.

Posted By IOSH Moderator To avoid confusion (because moderators are easily confused... it's the age you know) we are locking this thread. Please feel free to continue the discussion on the second thread that Tony has started which has the title "HSE Campaign on Asbestos rev 2". Regards Jon