Controlling Asbestos in New Construction Materials 6

[WoodyPE]

Why would anybody want asbestos in their new construction materials when it isn't necessary?

The liability is on the property owner, and the regulations stop short of eliminating the problem from everyday building materials like floor tiles, insulation, etc.

Imported construction materials are more likely to contain asbestos.

Do any material manufacturing companies label their products as "asbestos free".

Is there a "green list" of suppliers?

 

[WoodyPE]

Ron Said, "It makes no economic sense which is their driver."

WoodyPE says -- Any corporation with "deep pockets" is a law-suit magnet for ANYTHING anymore.

 

[WoodyPE]

The Washington State Department of Labor and Industries says: Product information on labels and Material Safety Data Sheets will often have information on asbestos content when it is greater than 1% of a material....When handling products that may contain asbestos, the presence of asbestos should be assumed unless the manufacturer or an appropriate testing laboratory has specifically certified the material as asbestos free.

WoodyPE says: Only 1% of all wild mushrooms contain toxins, and they aren't labelled either....When picking wild mushrooms assume they contain poisons unless it can be proven otherwise.

 

[WoodyPE]

The Washington State Department of Labor and Industries says: Building and facility owners are required to assess asbestos hazards prior to renovation, maintenance or demolition work.... This requirement applies to newly installed materials as well.

Are there any Washington State engineers on this forum that can speak to this requirement for new materials? As an engineer, I assess building materials before I use them instead of waiting until they're installed to see if they'll work or not. I've never regretted it either.

 

[hokie66]

WoodyPE,
I was aware of the James Hardie plant in Virginia, as well as several others in the US. That's a good thing, I think.

 

[WoodyPE]

Ron said, Incidental asbestos exposure occurs daily for most people and the exposures are non-consequential.

WoodyPE says, Can you find a physician that agrees on a "safe" level for any type of asbestos exposure? Chrysotile asbestos is supposedly safe and comprises more than 80% of the asbestos already in place. I watched a physician talk about all the lung cancer cases he sees where the patients have chrysotile in their lungs from supposedly "safe" work environments. Shouldn't we trust our health to doctors? Asbestos mortality statistics confirm their view:


Mortality statistics from the Chrysotile Institute

http://www.chrysotile.com/en/sc_publi/he-research.aspx

Table 1-1

Estimated lifetime cancer risks for different scenarios
of exposure to airborne asbestos fibers (a)

Conditions: Premature cancer deaths (lifetime risks) per million exposed persons


Lifetime, continuous outdoor exposure
€ 0.00001 f/mL from birth (rural) 4
€ 0.0001 f/mL from birth (high urban) 40

Exposure in a school containing ACM, from age 5 to 18 years (180 days/year, 5 hours/day)
€ 0.0005 f/mL (average) (b) 6
€ 0.005 f/mL (high) (b) 60

Exposure in a public building containing ACM age 25 to 45 years (240 days/year, 8 hours/day)
€ 0.0002 f/mL (average) (b) 4
€ 0.002 f/mL (high) (b) 40

Occupational exposure from age 25 to 45
€ 0.1 f/mL (current occupational levels) (c) 2,000
€ 10 f/mL (historical industrial exposures) 200,000

(a) This table represents the combined risk (average for males and females) estimated for lung cancer and mesothelioma for building occupants exposed to airborne asbestos fibers under the circumstances specified. These estimates should be interpreted with caution because of the reservations concerning the reliability of the estimates of average levels and of the risk assessment models summarized in Chapter 8.

b) The "average" levels for the sampled schools and buildings represent the means of building averages for the buildings reviewed herein (Figure 1-1). The "high" levels for schools and public buildings, shown as 10 times the average, are approximately equal to the average airborne levels of asbestos recorded in approximately 5 percent of schools and buildings with asbestos-containing materials (ACM) (see Chapters 4 and 8). If the single highest sample value were excluded from calculation of the average indoor asbestos concentration in public and commercial buildings, the average value is reduced from 0.00021 to 0.00008 f/mL, and the lifetime risk is approximately halved.

(c) The concentration shown (0.1 f/mL) represents the permissible exposure limit (PEL) proposed by the U.s. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Actual worker exposure, expected to be lower, will depend on a variety of factors including work practices, and use and efficiency of respiratory protective equipment.

American doctors accept a one in 10,000 risk of error when they treat their patients. That's 100 patients in a million that could be malpractice litigants. Current occupational levels allow 2,000 in a million. I ask, would you want a doctor that treats you to that standard? That's one serious error for every 500 patients. Obviously a physician that is still in business CAN NOT agree with a "don't worry, be happy" approach to asbestos.

 

[bimr]

There are some factors that affect decision making abilities and cause people to make irrational decisions, one of them being availability bias. Availability bias is the tendency for some items that are more readily available in memory to be judged as more frequently occurring. For example, someone who watches a lot of movies about terrorist attacks may think the frequency of terrorism to be higher than it actually is.

Yes mesothelioma caused by asbestos is bad. However, mesothelioma (or, more precisely, malignant mesothelioma) is a rare form of cancer.

It is estimated that of the roughly 150,000 people who die each day across the globe, about two thirds (100,000 per day)die of age-related causes. In industrialized nations the proportion is much higher, reaching 90%. Thus, albeit indirectly, biological aging is by far the leading cause of death.

An engineer has to have the ability to put risks in perspective; understand the complexities of risk problems; and understand the rationale of risk assessment and management. Engineers should know that there are no zero-risk solutions; tradeoffs are necessary; and uncertainty cannot be avoided.

 

[WoodyPE]

bimr: An engineer has to have the ability to put risks in perspective; understand the complexities of risk problems; and understand the rationale of risk assessment and management. Engineers should know that there are no zero-risk solutions; tradeoffs are necessary; and uncertainty cannot be avoided.

WoodyPE: So a label requirement is just out of the question. A lot of products require caution labels, but asbestos doesn't matter. Why?

 

[WoodyPE]

Intelex Blog:

Only purchase asbestos-free building materials for renovations or new construction. Despite its known health hazards, asbestos materials are still being produced. In 2004, the United States used more than 3,000 metric tons of asbestos for roofing products, coatings and compounds and other industrial applications. Facility managers must specify that they want asbestos-free materials when placing or approving orders for building materials. Be sure to verify manufacturer’s certifications before making the purchase.

 

[WoodyPE]

School officials decry asbestos rules

December 26, 2007

"Maryland schools officials say they could be forced to test every new tile, pipe or wall put into school buildings for asbestos, under new guidance on Environmental Protection Agency regulations."

"After the Maryland Department of the Environment asked the EPA a "clarifying question," Maryland schools were notified in September 2006 that the manufacturer's sheets could not be used to determine whether products contain asbestos, said EPA spokeswoman Donna Heron."

"Schools say that requiring them, instead of the manufacturer, to determine whether a product contains asbestos is an unfair burden."

"You can still buy stuff that may or may not be labeled," Knight said. "A lot of stuff from Southeast Asia is not labeled."

"The new structure, which does not allow for material safety data sheets, has huge consequences on school systems and buildings," Lever said."

 

[WoodyPE]

I called an asbestos testing and remediation company today and asked them about testing new materials. The inspector said he has seen asbestos in Canadian manufactured insulation that you can buy today. According to him, China and Russia are "suspected" to be manufacturing and selling new asbestos-tainted building materials.

 

[WoodyPE]

"An engineer has to have the ability to put risks in perspective."

And somebody did a terrible job of assessing the risk. A doctor that makes a fatal mistake on one out of every 500 patients is not a good doctor. Looking at the mortality data (again), it's ok for one out of 500 employees to die from the current workplace asbestos standards. Doing the math 2,000 employees per million = one in 500.

 

[cvg]

woodype
if you wish to outlaw asbestos on your projects than do it. but being argumentative on this site will not help. perhaps if you had a new question to ask you might get another answer that will suit you. At this point however, your multiple posting is getting a tad obnoxious. I believe you have made your point, whatever it is.

 

[bimr]

OSHA is proposing new regulations for an additional silica based material (asbestos is also silica based). See the chat link:

http://ecmweb.com/news/osha-will-ho...2&YM_RID=bimrone@earthlink.net&YM_MID=1442963

 

[WoodyPE]

@ CVG,

My apologies for sounding obnoxious to you or anyone else.

What can I say about asbestos prevention according to the Tipsters?

I'll be gone before it matters anyway, but I'd like to help the grand kids.

Maybe someday they'll understand what went wrong.

I recommend deleting the whole thread.

Adieu and have a great day. ;-)

 

[WoodyPE]

@ bmir well done my friend. Bless you.

Maybe we can hold on to this thread just a little longer.

Mineral wool is a good replacement in high temperature applications.

I have a star and other rewards for you:

OSHA Data for silicate fiber exposure
OSHA warning label requirements for silicate fibers
CDC NIOSH PEL for High Temperature Mineral Wool Insulation
CDC NIOSH PEL for Asbestos Fibers

Both materials break into fibers 40 um or less. Mineral silicates turn to gel in the presence of moisture and they dissolve away, but asbestos fibers remain to kill lung cells and provide a favorable environment for lung cancer. The allowable PEL for silicone-mineral fibers is 30 times higher than asbestos fibers. Exposures from both types of materials have been compared. Remarkably smokers with asbestos exposure have a risk up to 90 times higher than their smoking counterpart that isn't exposed to asbestos.

Here's a journal abstract from Science Daily: Mystery Unraveled: How Asbestos Causes Cancer

 

[WoodyPE]

"Yes mesothelioma caused by asbestos is bad. However, mesothelioma (or, more precisely, malignant mesothelioma) is a rare form of cancer."

Lung Cancer is not the same as mesothelioma, and it is also caused by asbestos.

 

[WoodyPE]

@ greenone said: What new materials are you finding asbestos in?

New insulation coming from Canada. New floor tiles coming from Mexico.

@ greenone said: Is this in the US?

Yes, End-use buyers are purchasing and installing these materials today. They are unaware.

 

[WoodyPE]

World Bank Group Report

2.3. Increasing Use of Asbestos Fiber
There is evidence that, after a decline in the 1990s, the use of asbestos fiber is increasing
globally. A recent study [16] shows that a 59% increase in metric tons was consumed in 12
countries from 2000 to 2004.

16 R. Virta, US Geological Survey, 2007.

 

[chicopee]

Too much as been made about asbestos. It is a great product for many technical applications and substitute material are inferior in quality, durability and performance. Health problems is the result of undue diligence by those who have worked with this material. After all if we are so concerned about the hazards of certain materials, there is a whole sleuth that should be ban from the market such as radioactive material.

 

[WoodyPE]

@ chicopee said: "Too much as been made about asbestos. It is a great product for many technical applications and substitute material are inferior in quality, durability and performance. Health problems is the result of undue diligence by those who have worked with this material. After all if we are so concerned about the hazards of certain materials, there is a whole sleuth that should be ban from the market such as radioactive material."

Asbestos is low tech but it's cheap and that's why it's still in the marketplace -- because the signal is not there for the consumer to drive it out of the marketplace. Mineral wool works quite well for insulation, and carbon fiber is much stronger.

If you aren't involved with asbestos then good for you, but the laws say you can't ignore it whenever you renovate, maintain, or demolish a building.

35 countries in the world banned asbestos in new building materials including many in the EU and Australia.

50 years from now we'll probably be doing asbestos inspections, keeping inventory of asbestos in buildings, training employees on asbestos dangers, and so on, while it's no longer relevant to the rest of the world.

I hope for a better future than that. Please forgive me.