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
Cox35536  
#1 Posted : 27 November 2012 15:45:12(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Cox35536


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
mootoppers  
#2 Posted : 27 November 2012 16:53:09(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
mootoppers

News to me.....I have always been led to believe that because there is no 'safe level' with any of the forms that suitable precuations have to be taken in all instances where harm can possibly arise. Can the auditor state where this 'current thinking' is coming from?
peter gotch  
#3 Posted : 27 November 2012 17:23:35(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

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.
RichardPerry1066  
#4 Posted : 27 November 2012 17:38:09(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
RichardPerry1066

I had to read your post a couple of times because I can't quite work out if you are asking "what does short term exposure mean" or if you are asking whether "short term exposure" is OK.

I'm not sure that "short term exposure" is defined in respect of Asbestos (it is for Chemicals in EH40) but whatever the level of a hazardous substance its obviously better to be exposed for 10 minutes rather than 10 hours, days, weeks, months or years. But although 10 minutes in a heavily contaminated atmosphere might well be called short term exposure- that doesnt mean that its ok!

Issue is that theoretically a single fibre could cause Mesothelioma and you have a duty to prevent exposure or if that is not possible then to reduce to as low a level as is reasonably practicable.

The control limit for asbestos is 0.1 asbestos fibres per cubic centimetre of air (0.1 f/cm3) its the same for all forms of Asbestos. The control limit is not a 'safe' level and exposure from work activities involving asbestos must be reduced to as far below the control limit as possible.


I knew someone who died from Mesothelioma. It wasnt nice. They had never knowingly worked with Asbestos.
boblewis  
#5 Posted : 27 November 2012 19:34:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
boblewis

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
johnmurray  
#6 Posted : 28 November 2012 00:04:11(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
johnmurray

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 ?
Phil Grace  
#7 Posted : 28 November 2012 09:59:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Phil Grace

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
Graham Bullough  
#8 Posted : 28 November 2012 10:46:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Graham Bullough

JohnMurray

You phrased your two sentences at #6 as statements. However, you puzzled me and no doubt other forum users by concluding the sentences with question marks. Did you intend them as statements or questions?
hilary  
#9 Posted : 28 November 2012 11:50:37(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
hilary

JohnMurray wrote:
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 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.
johnmurray  
#10 Posted : 28 November 2012 13:31:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
johnmurray

The stats actually come from US studies. They have a larger "database" to work from.
The ? Is an "query" not a question mark, as that the stats show that is/was the case.
Just because asbestos is present in the air anyway should not be used as an excuse to not maintain a low work level.
Unfortunately, since the present action of inhalation does not cause any immediate problems a lot of people tend to ignore the risk.
Still, it is just another industrial disease to die from.
Graham Bullough  
#11 Posted : 28 November 2012 14:04:55(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Graham Bullough

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.
johnmurray  
#12 Posted : 28 November 2012 15:43:37(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
johnmurray

World in Action.
Acre mill: dust at





freelance safety  
#13 Posted : 28 November 2012 18:12:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
freelance safety


Cox35536, I've sent you a PM.

Regards

FS.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.