Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

IOSH Forums are closing 

The IOSH Forums will close on 5 January 2026 as part of a move to a new, more secure online community platform.

All IOSH members will be invited to join the new platform following the launch of a new member database in the New Year. You can continue to access this website until the closure date. 

For more information, please visit the IOSH website.

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
Admin  
#1 Posted : 04 March 2008 13:31:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mark Ruff I apologise if this subject has already been covered on another thread The information I have researched on the links between exposure levels & mesothelioma are vague. It's stated that repeated low exposures can result in the disease or relatively breif intense exposures. What constitutes "intense" & "relatively" brief? Also how many low exposures would put you at risk.
Admin  
#2 Posted : 04 March 2008 13:40:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By peter gotch Hi Mark. Not a direct answer, but there are some stats at www.guengl.eu/upload/Asbestos_EN.pdf Regards, Peter
Admin  
#3 Posted : 04 March 2008 14:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis Mark As Peter indicates there are no defined answers. This is because it is not possible to define safe levels of fibre in the first place and thence any non-effect dose. We are also aware that susceptibility to cancer development is very tied to the individual's own defence mechanisms. This leads us to the definitions under CAR 2006 where only low intensity and sporadic exposure is permitted. This is reasonably well described. From this you could say that short and relatively intense is anything that low intensity and sporadic is not. A bit circular but probably the best that can be done. The above answer is, however, simplistic and there are many confounding factors. Bob
Admin  
#4 Posted : 04 March 2008 14:45:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By CFT http://www.ehponline.org...uppl-5/gibbs-full.html#5 One in some cases. Quality tests conducted in 1994. Still won't answer your questions though. CFT
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
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.