Removal of council house fireplace, has anyone done it? Need advice

EachPenny

Helena2006 wrote: »

And also if the council where going to give us permission to remove the fire years ago wouldn’t they have disclosed the fact there may be asbestos in the fire? If there was any as I’m sure they would have put this in their list of conditions wouldn’t they?

No, not automatically. The obligation is on the people commissioning the work and/or carrying it out to do an assessment and adopt safe working methods.

The Council should have a plan in place to carry out surveys and build up a register of properties known to contain asbestos, and should provide that to contractors working for them. But afaik there is no obligation on them to survey all council-owned domestic dwellings and make that information available to householders.

HampshireH

Bigger risk that could have been was frayed rope in the seal.

Have you added a vent? If a proper chimney this is benefial to ensure airflow.

No council will have done an intrusive survey on a fireplace unless they did so to remove it. As they didnt remove it before you moved in there would have been no reason to check.

From having tiles sampled you know that asking them they would have sampled as they did so before. They just wouldn't have this info without a reason

Helena2006

Could you please expand Upon the rope in the seal as I didn’t see anything like that and would like to know where I would have expected to find this. Im very worried now. I’ve sent off for a 1 sample testing kit to send off but can I take several bits of material from the fireplace would that count as one sample as it’s all coming from the same place ?

nick74

Even if the fireplace contained asbestos the health risk associated with one - off exposure to it from removing a fireplace is basically zilch. The people who have developed asbestosis are those who were exposed to asbestos day in, day out through their work for years on end.

EachPenny

nick74 wrote: »

Even if the fireplace contained asbestos the health risk associated with one - off exposure to it from removing a fireplace is basically zilch. The people who have developed asbestosis are those who were exposed to asbestos day in, day out through their work for years on end.

That is a potentially misleading comment which only gives a partial picture of the risks. Asbestosis is just one of the diseases you can get from exposure to asbestos fibres.

Whilst the OP's risk is very low from a one-off exposure to any asbestos present, it would be misleading to suggest that daily contact with asbestos through work for many years is required to develop asbestos-related illnesses.

People need to be given truthful advice, with the risks neither over nor under-stated.

Helena2006

I honestly don’t know what to do now. He only removed the fireplace and hearth but didn’t touch anything inside the chimney breast and then plastered it. I’m so worried now. Maybe I should move out now. I’m worried we going to have constant exposure to it. I’m waiting for a test kit but have no idea what to test for, I don’t think there is any cement to test only other bits and pieces.

Helena2006

Now me and the kids have a cough...

EachPenny

Helena2006 wrote: »

I honestly don’t know what to do now. He only removed the fireplace and hearth but didn’t touch anything inside the chimney breast and then plastered it. I’m so worried now. Maybe I should move out now. I’m worried we going to have constant exposure to it. I’m waiting for a test kit but have no idea what to test for, I don’t think there is any cement to test only other bits and pieces.

Helena2006 wrote: »

Now me and the kids have a cough...

You probably need to go and see a doctor and discuss this with them. You are worrying excessively about something for which there is next to no risk involved, and not something you can now do anything about. The cough will have nothing at all to do with asbestos.

nick74

EachPenny wrote: »

That is a potentially misleading comment which only gives a partial picture of the risks. Asbestosis is just one of the diseases you can get from exposure to asbestos fibres.

Whilst the OP's risk is very low from a one-off exposure to any asbestos present, it would be misleading to suggest that daily contact with asbestos through work for many years is required to develop asbestos-related illnesses.

People need to be given truthful advice, with the risks neither over nor under-stated.

I agree that people need to be given truthful advice, but I do feel that there is a certain amount of hysteria relating to asbestos, out of proportion to the real risks involved.

It is a subject close to my heart due to my own exposure to asbestos in the past. In the late 70s/early 80s I lived close to a large industrial site which was in the process of being demolished and cleared. It makes me cringe to think about it now, but the whole site was littered with smashed up asbestos cement sheeting and when the contractors left for the day myself and my friends would have great fun playing on the heaps of broken up asbestos, even building dens out of any intact asbestos sheets we could find.

Its impossible to say what my exposure level was, but it worried me sufficiently to get a full medical check up. They fortunately found no evidence whatsoever of asbestos damage, which considering that the exposure took place 35-40 years ago it would have begun to show up by now, if it was ever going to.

Certainly people should take sensible precautions when handling any material which may contain asbestos fibres, but I am concerned that the OP is worrying way in excess of the real risk. It is rather like a non-smoker taking a single drag from a cigarette and then worrying that they will now get cancer. Yes, the odds will have increased by an absolutely minuscule percentage, but the likelihood is that there will be no measurable damage to their health at all.

EachPenny

nick74 wrote: »

I agree that people need to be given truthful advice, but I do feel that there is a certain amount of hysteria relating to asbestos, out of proportion to the real risks involved.

I wouldn't call it 'hysteria', but there is a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding. The reason why I challenged your post was that it implied that you needed to have long-term regular exposure in order to develop disease. Some people reading this thread might take that message away and think it is completely safe to carry out work on asbestos containing products so long as they only do it occasionally. Which obviously isn't the case.

nick74 wrote: »

It is a subject close to my heart due to my own exposure to asbestos in the past. In the late 70s/early 80s I lived close to a large industrial site which was in the process of being demolished and cleared. It makes me cringe to think about it now, but the whole site was littered with smashed up asbestos cement sheeting and when the contractors left for the day myself and my friends would have great fun playing on the heaps of broken up asbestos, even building dens out of any intact asbestos sheets we could find.

I have similar experience, except mine was in an agricultural setting. It included breaking up bits of asbestos cement and throwing them onto a bonfire to watch them explode. With hindsight it is not something I'd now do.

nick74 wrote: »

Its impossible to say what my exposure level was, but it worried me sufficiently to get a full medical check up. They fortunately found no evidence whatsoever of asbestos damage, which considering that the exposure took place 35-40 years ago it would have begun to show up by now, if it was ever going to.

I'm hesitating to say this, but on balance feel it is important to do so. This is one of the misunderstandings that can develop regarding asbestos risk. There is a latency (the time between exposure and illness) in developing certain asbestos-related illnesses, and that is often expressed as an average. 35-40 years is a reasonable average figure for mesothelioma latency.

However, that doesn't mean that once you are past the 40 year point it is never going to happen to you. What it means is that statistically it is now decreasingly likely that the exposure which happened at that point in time will result in you developing mesothelioma. That is the nature of the average statistic... some people were very unlucky and developed mesothelioma sooner (after say 15-20 years) others will be less unlucky and will develop it later (after say 50-60 years).

The 35-40 year figure simply represents the time period when you are on average most likely to develop mesothelioma after an exposure. The risk doesn't vanish after the peak, it just starts declining.

Properly understanding the statistical analysis and predictions is important, because it explains why some people can say they worked with asbestos every day and have lived to 70 fit as a fiddle.

This isn't because the risks of asbestos exposure are being exagerated, it is because they were one of the lucky ones who balance up the statistics against those people who are no longer with us.

nick74 wrote: »

...but I am concerned that the OP is worrying way in excess of the real risk. It is rather like a non-smoker taking a single drag from a cigarette and then worrying that they will now get cancer.

Agreed. Given the OP doesn't even know if asbestos was present, the worrying is way out of proportion to any risk.