For some years it has been recognised that 'short duration exposure' to the inhalation of mainly crocidolite (blue) asbestos (brown also attributable) may lead to mesothelioma being contracted at a later date. I was led to believe that this 'short exposure' could be attributed to as little as a few hours i.e. in a confined area (boiler room) with very poor lagging and high airborne levels.

I have recently been told by an external auditor that this is no longer considered to be current thinking.

Is there any authoritive guidance on what short term exposure really means?

Graham

Graham

I think that the "current thinking" is still that there is a dose response relationship i.e. the more exposure the more risk of subsequent adverse ill health.

Cox

The problem with such statements you make is that such exposures cannot be proved to exist as there is now a significant background level of fibres in the normal environment. I think your auditor is actually right to point out that very short exposures should not be emphasised when discussing ACM issues. All exposures have, in essence, to be reduced to the minimum level but Zero is not now feasible. There is always a risk.

Mesothelioma is a nasty disease and I have seen death within 6 weeks of diagnosis. The other diseases are not much better. Hence why I believe strongly that far too much work is undertaken by relatively poorly trained workers undertaking non licensed work.

Bob

John,
You state
"And yet it has been found that relatives of workers exposed to asbestos have as high a risk of developing asbestos-related disease as the workers ?
While people not exposed at work, or in any other direct means of exposure, have a lower risk than asbestos-exposed workers families ?"

I've not seen your stats but I do wonder whether that is really correct. What rates are we talking about? Rates per 1million of population? Given the numbers of deaths - admittedly far too high but still small in pure statistical terms (meso deaths in 2010 were 2,347) we are talking about relatively small numbers of "relatives" and an even smaller number of persons "never knowingly exposed". As such I doubt that significant stats about "relative rates could be calculated.

HSE states that c80% of meso deaths are among persons exposed to asbestos in the workplace.

I may be wrong...

Phil

I think this is attributable to fibres being caught on and in worker's clothing before the rules pertaining to the bagging and disposal of asbestos coated clothing became the standard. The fibres would then transfer to the worker's car, home, laundry, etc exposing his or her family to a higher than normal percentage of asbestos.

Various examples of scenarios involving contamination away from work as mentioned by hilary can be found by doing an internet search for 'Hebden Bridge asbestos' regarding the former Cape Asbestos Company factory at Acre Mill near Hebden Bridge in West Yorkshire. Some websites describe how pupils at a school near the factory played with "snowballs" they made from accumulations of asbestos fibres which came from an external vent forming part of the factory's dust extraction system. One webpage consists of a local press report regarding the death of a local woman from mesothelioma on November 2011. It mentions that she was exposed to asbestos while at the school and adds that her father, who worked at the factory and had some inkling about asbestos disease, would not let her and his other children work at the factory after they left school. If the father wore overalls while at work it was highly likely that, like other workers, he would have brought them home for laundering on a regular basis.

In 1976 HM Factory Inspectorate (HMFI) was heavily criticised in a report by ombudsman Sir Alan Marre for lack of action about the conditions at Acre Mill which had led to many deaths from asbestos disease. Does anyone know if the report dealt just with the risks to employees at the factory or did it also include any mention of risks (through overalls being taken home and asbestos dust discharges near the school) to non-employees?

On a national scale in the UK it seems that until the 1960s there was relatively little awareness of and action about the risks posed by UK workplaces and activities to non-employees. However, the members of the Robens Committee were aware of increasing concern about such risks and therefore recommended that what became the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (HSW74) included obligations under Section 3 for employers and self-employed persons to control the risks they pose to non-employees. Furthermore, HSW74 gave inspectors in the newly-formed Health & Safety Executive the requisite power to enforce Section 3 obligations.

Cox35536, I've sent you a PM.

Regards

FS.