Posted By Paul Leadbetter Karen While only analysis can confirm the identity of the woolly stuff, it is probably not asbestos. It is the more likely to be paper-based loft insulation; the paper had to be treated, of course, to improve its flame resistance. Paul

Posted By stephen j mills Karen, Its likely that you have just described a mineral wool (man-made mineral fibre), sometimes known as glass wool, rockwool etc. Often used in thermal and acoustic insulation for buildings, often supplied in large rolls, or as blankets. COSHH applies to such materials and they have been assigned an MEL of 2 fibre/ml(8 hr TWA), or a gravimetric limit of 5mg/m3. Asuitable and sufficient risk assessment must be carried out before any work is done with these materials. Try to get hold of Guidance Note EH46 and MDHS59 from the HSE. Regards, Steve

Posted By Karen Todd All, Thanks for the info. As indicated, it is probably loosefill rockwool or something along those lines. Nevertheless, the fact that the chap was concerned about asbestos, was told to get on with it, had no training in how to deal with this stuff or what it was and ended up covered in it as no disposable boilersuits or dust masks were available is not good. As Stephen quite rightly pointed out, COSHH does apply to this type of material, there are exposure limits and there must be a suitable & sufficient COSHH assessment, information, instruction & training provided etc. This one is personal as it is my little bro, I only wish he had told me before he started. As he loves his job, I will push it as far as I can to keep him safe and keep him in his job. Let's hope more people who think that something isn't quite right speak up. Luckily for him he has me (a h&s officer) who he can turn to, although I am not the person he should be asking - his foreman should have backed him etc etc. What about those who think they have no-one they can depend on for reliable H&S advice or have no-one who cares about their H&S? Regards, Karen

Posted By peter gotch Karen, MMMFs the first hazard where we have effectively legislated before rather than after the bad news. Modern MMMFs constantly being made to mimic asbestos more and more so that fibres may have very similar characteristics under the microscope to amosite and crocidolite, ie short and straight, compared to the apparently less dangerous version of asbestos, ie chrysotile. HSE have done some sampling re work in roofspaces, and have in some cases found airborne levels of MMMFs exceeding MEL. Fortunately any risk is likely to be subject to a dose response relationship, ie as long as little bro not doing this unprotected and repeatedly should be little risk of adverse effect. Regards, Peter

Posted By Geoff Burt Hi Di! I'd always assumed (dangerous word that)a bog standard dust mask is OK for fibre glass. Am I wrong? Geoff

Posted By Diane Thomason Hi Geoff See http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2003/e03003.htm for HSE warning. Quote "Nuisance dust masks should only be used when dusts are not hazardous to health" hence they are no good for anything with an OES or MEL. Also as Peter has pointed out COSHH 2002 demands face fit testing, which any "dust mask" will fail. tricky this - I bet it will be a long time before this idea permeates through...... a lot of people think "I'll wear a mask for this job" without assessing properly for suitability, and of course if there a boxes of dust masks in the stores, that's what will get used. Diane

Posted By Karen Todd All, I see what you are saying about disposable masks and the face fit tests, but many FFP2/FFP3 masks say in their description that they are for use against glass fibre. I guess it depends on the task being done, exposure, etc. Regards, Karen