Probably inhaled asbestos

[Satsuki]

Just want to say CONGRATULATIONS!!!!! on quitting smoking!

It's important to know this, that even if you've smoked a lot for many years, it's ALWAYS worth quitting!





Sinuslinus - It's probably true that the trend is going in the "wrong" direction as you say, partly because it takes time to develop mesothelioma, but also because it's easier to get cancer as you get older.
I read a study that suggested ALL people develop some form of cancer if you just live long enough... I don't know how true it is, but it's absolutely the case that cells' ability to handle damage becomes worse with age, which increases the risk of developing cancer as you age. The older you are, the greater the risk of faults in the genes that prevent cancer, in the genes that contribute to the development of cancer, and the mechanisms that should prevent cancer become less effective.

Compared to those who worked in asbestos factories, exposure today is probably very minimal, even if you're demolishing it, but OF COURSE you should follow the AMV guidelines and protect yourself. The times I've seen asbestos removal, those working with it were at least very well protected, but of course, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot of carelessness (just because it's easier and cheaper that way)....

 

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Now the decision needs to be made whether to hire a firm to remove the remaining insulation or to do it myself, albeit with more knowledge backing me up. I think I'm leaning towards spraying open insulation with Tectyl or something sticky, soaking it as much as possible, then wrapping everything in plastic wrap and cutting the pipes, then carrying them out as they are.

No, you are on the right track. There's hardly any point in hiring a firm because the problem with asbestos removal isn't the knowledge or expensive tools but the time it takes. I had a firm come and remove pipe insulation and asbestos cement sheets from the ceiling. They worked for two days. I followed up and cleaned according to all the rules; i.e., as the regulations prescribe, and it took me 60-80 hours... And no one would pay the amounts it would require.

So, as you said, if you can remove pipes without needing to clean them, it's not difficult to do what you propose. Namely, bind with adhesive/paint/water or the like, wrap and take out. It is during processing that dangerous fibers are released, so if you can remove entire components without disturbing them, the risk is significantly reduced. As long as you don't sand, drill, saw, or the like in asbestos-containing materials or need to chisel away tile adhesive etc., it's quite simple. Look, for example, at the Work Environment Authority (or whatever they are called now) for how to proceed.

And regarding younger craftsmen or older ones for that matter. I've had, for example, electricians at home who without hesitation drilled several holes through asbestos cement boards in the ceiling, so it's clear that exposure still occurs. Then how much and who and which, that's a more difficult question to get good numbers on.

 

[Odjuret]

The problem today, I think, is that people are terrified of asbestos... But they tear up the floor at home without a mask... Stone dust isn't that healthy either...
It's funny with people who smoke like chimneys, but that's not dangerous, but when it comes to asbestos and radon, people get paranoid...

(This was not directed at TS at all)

 

[Pippirull]

At the same time, it's understandable that people are terrified of asbestos when you consider what's said about it online. Basically, you get cancer, it's just a matter of when, is the impression I got when I read around, even from media reports and doctors' statements, etc. It's easy to get the impression that asbestos is much more dangerous than smoking, even in small doses. I can't blame others, including myself, for being terrified when reading that. But otherwise, I agree with you. It's important to wear a mask for other dust-related work as well, which has also been neglected here (spot on about that point). Then, I think you should have a lot of respect for asbestos; after all, it is a nasty fiber. I have had and still have a lot of respect for it, but I felt the need to talk about it somewhere and seek information, hence this thread, and now it feels better 😊 I will definitely be more careful with proper masks in all dust-related work going forward is my lesson, and also seek information first before doing anything because I've realized that asbestos can be found almost everywhere you don't think about.

 

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

The problem today, I think, is that people are terrified of asbestos... But they rip up the floor at home without a mask... Stone dust isn't that healthy either...

Well, compared to asbestos, it's a pure sinecure. Asbestos in the same amounts as stone dust causes exactly the same problem as stone dust, namely asbestosis. Single exposures to stone dust in the levels we're talking about here are practically harmless.

But asbestos, as mentioned, causes another much nastier disease, mesothelioma, with a median survival time after detection of 9 months, even at much, much lower exposures than those required for stone dust lung/asbestosis.

Now, one should still use a mask when working with, for example, fiberglass or stone dust, or other fine dust for that matter, even with single exposures, but it's mainly to avoid the short-term consequences, namely to avoid coughing up lungs. (The irritation also makes it easier for infections to take hold.) You feel better for it.

So even if you shouldn't be terrified of asbestos, there is still reason to treat it with respect. Just in the same way as you treat, for example, electricity.

 

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

At the same time, it is understandable that people are terrified of asbestos when considering what is said about it online. Essentially, you will get cancer; it's just a question of when, is the impression I got when reading around, even from media reports and doctors' statements, etc. It is easy to get the impression that asbestos is much more dangerous than smoking, even in small doses.

Yes, looking at the USA, cigarettes account for about 90% of all cancer cases while asbestos accounts for 4%. But the interesting connection is, as mentioned, between cigarettes and asbestos. If you smoke and are exposed to asbestos at the same time, the risk of lung cancer (meaning "regular" lung cancer) increases by 50 to 90 times.

So how can we differentiate between cancer caused by smoking and smoking plus asbestos from that caused solely by asbestos? Well, "regular" lung cancer is a different form of cancer than mesothelioma. And it turns out that no one has found a link between smoking and mesothelioma. So if you get mesothelioma and have been exposed to asbestos, you can be reasonably sure that it is the cause (at least for the population). If you get "regular" lung cancer and have been exposed to asbestos and smoke, you can be reasonably sure that it is the combination that is the culprit. (The hypothesis, as someone wrote above, is that the repeated scarring in the lung provides an entry point for the nasty chemicals in cigarette smoke in a completely different way than healthy lung tissue).

A piquant historical fact in the debate is that some cigarette manufacturers in the fifties made and sold cigarettes with asbestos (crocidolite, which is nasty) in the filters of the cigarettes... So there you could really talk about hitting two birds with one stone. These cigarettes delivered a large amount of nasty asbestos fibers along with the smoke... It's almost as if they wanted to get rid of their customers. Which is not good for business.

So what does that anecdote show for today's conditions? It shows that when demolishing, it is difficult to guess exactly where asbestos might appear. It occurs in a whole lot of other building materials besides cement and pipe insulation, for example, it was not uncommon for painters to mix loose asbestos in the paint to stretch it and prevent drips. This is not so common in houses, fortunately. So some caution when, for example, tearing up linoleum is warranted.

And don't smoke.

 

[Chrissofsweden]

Did you know that Hepa-filter and P3 are the same thing? It can be good to know when doing decontamination.

 

[Anders243]

Well, it's not that simple.

There are many different classes of HEPA filters. The name "HEPA" in its original sense refers to a specific filter with a specified minimum particle filtration rate.

"To qualify as HEPA by US government standards, an air filter must remove (from the air that passes through) 99.97% of particles that have a size of 0.3 µm."

Are you suggesting that the minimum requirement to call a filter HEPA is stricter than the requirements for P3 in protective masks? (I haven't checked myself)

Sidenote: Nowadays, there are certainly Chinese HEPA filters, just like with CE marking.

Edit: Now I have looked a bit at P3 filters, but I can't find any data on filtration rate per particle size. However, I can agree that the "filtration rate" is about the same for H13 and P3 (which makes sense as both are used in asbestos removal - P3 on the worker and H13 in the vacuum cleaner)

 

[Chrissofsweden]

That's what the remediation company told me and what they were going with However, I like your thinking so that the facts behind it can be supported! I will also do some research and call them again. One of the remediators thought I could do certain parts myself as long as I worked methodically as follows:

Plastic off as much as possible
Use P3 and HEPA
Avoid too much dust / seal asbestos with tape or paint
Wet wipe everything afterwards
If possible, have the vacuum outside
Full body suit

In other words; knocking down a few kitchen tiles that aren't stuck too much, tearing out carpets, removing a pipe and similar can be done if you're careful. I'm very glad that the remediation company took down the tiles in the bathroom.

 

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Edit: I've looked a bit into P3 filters, but I can't find data for filtration efficiency by particle size. However, I agree that the "filtration efficiency" is roughly the same for H13 and P3 (which makes sense since both are used in asbestos remediation - P3 on the worker and H13 in the vacuum cleaner)

No, you probably won't find it. They basically only measure for 0.3um sized particles since these are the best at getting through filters. So if you stop 0.3um particles, you stop "all" others too.

There are mainly three different effects that stop particles in a filter. Firstly, adhesion, i.e., when a small particle follows the airflow around the filter fiber and comes within one radius of it, it sticks. Secondly, direct collision, i.e., the particle cannot follow the airflow around the fiber and crashes right into it and sticks, and thirdly, diffusion, i.e., small particles interact with air molecules and have their path through the filter extended. This increases the chance that one of the two mechanisms above will act.

So, for small particles, 0.1um and smaller, diffusion dominates. They have difficulty getting through, but it depends on the air flow velocity. For larger particles, 0.4um and larger, adhesion and collision dominate. They have difficulty getting through because they cannot follow the airflow around the fibers without getting close or colliding. So it's only for particles that are "in-between," around 0.3um, that none of these effects is dominant. They are large enough that diffusion doesn't help but small enough to follow the airflow without getting close enough to the fibers to be caught. So you have to hope they collide, but they are also good at avoiding that since they are light enough to be carried past the fiber by the airflow.

That's why air filter efficiency is only measured at precisely 0.3um (MPPS - Most Penetrating Particle Size). (This article has a nice graph of efficiency as a function of particle size, for example.)

What does this have to do with asbestos fibers? Well, filters are quite effective at capturing asbestos fibers because they are not spherical and often larger than the 0.3um "sweet spot".

Fun historical fact: HEPA filters were developed as part of the Manhattan Project (which built the nuclear weapons used against Japan) as a solution to how do you machine plutonium without killing everyone in the room? Plutonium-239, as you know, is a nasty alpha emitter, so even though the radiation doesn't penetrate even a piece of paper or the skin, it's dangerous to ingest alpha-emitting materials because they have an exceptionally large biological impact when they come in contact with sensitive tissue (twenty times more than X-rays or gamma radiation). So you don't want to contaminate the air with a bunch of small plutonium particles.

What to do? Well, the existing filters weren't much to boast about, and nobody really understood how filters worked physically/chemically. So the researchers in the Manhattan Project put their heads together, developed a theory, tested it, and had Arthur D. Little further develop and produce filters that could be used to capture all the radioactive particles created in the production and processing of nuclear weapon materials.

After the war, American authorities realized that this research and development could benefit the rest of society, so they lifted the secrecy, and the HEPA filter was born. HEPA - High Efficiency Particulate Air. At Los Alamos, they were originally called "absolute filters" but they're not really "absolute," so someone came up with the catchy acronym HEPA instead.

 

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Full-body suit

And consider all this material as "contaminated". That is, don't walk around in shoes/disposable coveralls etc. in the house outside the "decontamination zone". Build an "airlock" with at least overlapping plastic, and carefully remove protective clothing. Immediately put it in a well-sealed plastic bag and shower afterward. If you can go directly outside (e.g., through a window), it's naturally the absolute best and optimal. So change clothes outside if at all possible.

And never use a vacuum cleaner in the house that doesn't have a HEPA filter, so you eliminate the risk of other fibers and generally get a better indoor environment by also capturing pollen, mites, and other debris that would otherwise have been perfectly spread during vacuuming.

 

[Chrissofsweden]

And consider all this material as "contaminated." That is, don't walk around in shoes/disposable overalls, etc., in the house outside the "decontamination zone." Build an "airlock" with at least overlapping plastic and carefully remove your protective clothing. Immediately place it in a well-sealed plastic bag and shower afterward. If you can go directly outside (e.g., through a window), that's naturally absolutely best and great. So change clothes outdoors if at all possible.

And never use a vacuum cleaner in the house that doesn’t have a HEPA filter, as this eliminates the risk of other fibers and provides a better indoor environment overall, as you also capture pollen, dust mites, and other junk that would otherwise have spread perfectly with the vacuuming.

Consider it done. That was kind of my plan but in simplified text form

 

[ansgar46]

Now I think many of you are taking the asbestos issue lightly. But maybe it's as you say that unnecessary worry has been created.

In the 70s, I was part of a situation where everyone, EVERYONE, was X-rayed because they wanted to check for possible asbestosis (I believe that's what it was called). I'm wondering if they would have really done that if it is as harmless as you seem to suggest it is!

Edit: I had only read some posts when I wrote my reply, and now I see that several have responded with more seriousness than before, and it is quite clear that one should not neglect the risks of asbestos!

 

[Jehu]

The reason for the X-rays was to see who had plaques (spots) on the lung linings, so-called pleura-plaques. These were always caused by asbestos exposure, and a large portion of those who worked with asbestos got them. They were seen as a precursor to tumors, but the connection was not direct. Those who had plaques still received a one-time compensation of 10,000 SEK if I remember correctly.
http://www.asbestos.com/mesothelioma/pleural-plaques.php

 

[andersmc]

Now I think that many of you are taking the asbestos issue lightly. But maybe it's as you say, that an unnecessary worry has been created.
In the 70s, I remember that everyone, EVERYONE was X-rayed to check for possible asbestos (I think that was the name). I wonder if they really would have done that if it was as harmless as you seem to suggest it is!

Edit: I had only read a few posts when I wrote my reply, and I now see that several have responded with more seriousness than before, and it seems clear that one should not neglect the risks associated with asbestos!

Who do you mean by EVERYONE? Not the entire population of Sweden, surely?