by Jennifer Collins

Many workplace hazards are more easily identified than others. Those who test parachutes for instance, can make a clear connection between workplace hazards and life threatening situations. Some people put their lives at risk each day in military and public safety positions to feed their families or serve their country. There are however, entire classes of workers who have been put in danger without even knowing it. Some of these hard working men and women have been victim to the silent killer known as asbestos.

Asbestos is a naturally occurring element that is present in a number of asbestos containing materials, or those that contain at least 1% asbestos, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Asbestos was first used by early civilizations for a number of factors. They realized that pottery was more heat-resistant when the hair-like asbestos fibers were mixed with the clay. They also used it in their clothing and blankets, noticing an increased durability and warmth to garments woven with asbestos fibers. Up until approximately 1980, asbestos was used in the United States for any number of home and industrial purposes. It is present in pipe insulation and electrical fixture coverings because it is fire retardant and prevents heat transfer. It is mixed with several construction compounds such as floor tiles, roofing shingles, and artificial home siding materials.

Contrary to popular belief, asbestos when left alone, poses little threat to human inhalation though those asbestos containing materials should be replaced as a rule. However it is when it is damaged by heat, weather, or other force which renders it “friable,” when it is most dangerous. When the asbestos fibers become loosened or otherwise disturbed by any number of factors they become airborne and inhaled.

Occupational hazards are the most common origin of asbestos related health complications. Duties which engage asbestos materials are those who are the most likely to disturb the particles and inhale them. This can happen in a myriad of occupational situations but is most common in shipyards, construction sites, and some areas of manufacturing. In shipyards for instance, it is not likely that those work on the ships will be affected but more likely that those who were involved in the construction or repairs of ships. These are professions in which repairs of older fixtures, which contain asbestos, could mean chipping away the insulation and rendering it friable. When these types of repairs or duties are done day after day for many years, the likelihood of developing asbestos related disease is increased.

Asbestos related diseases, such as the lung cancer http://www.mesothelioma.com/ are incredibly painful and debilitating ailments, in which in the absence of a cure the body will eventually asphyxiate itself. Often the symptoms of asbestos related respiratory complications will not appear for several years, even decades after an exposure. This can lead many to be unaware of the causal relationship between a prior occupational exposure and the reality that they now have to deal with. It is a darker chapter of American industry, in which workers were not protected from a known human carcinogen. It is important that if you have been exposed to asbestos, or think you may have been exposed while working in one of the above or related industries that you seek the assistance of a physician. There are medical, emotional, and legal support structures already in place to assist victims of occupational asbestos exposure. Early detection of the disease is the primary variable which can increase treatment and quality of life management options.

However, it is being aware that can help us all. Be knowledgeable about what materials your working with, and what could be potentially harmful. If asbestos is involved, leave it alone or request the proper training from your employer which teaches professionals how to remove and dispose of asbestos products. Knowledge of these materials is the primary line of protection, and knowing is half the battle.
Jennifer Collins
jcollins@mesothelioma.com

Jennifer Collins grew up in Aberdeen, Maryland in the city that is known as the “Gateway to the Chesapeake Bay.” She attended Aberdeen High School and graduated in June of 2001. From there she studied Communications and English at Colby College in rural Maine. Upon graduation in 2005, Jennifer gained her M.A. in communications design at the Newhouse School of Communications at Syracuse University.

She first discovered an interest in asbestos-based health complications while working with a prominent health resource website in a research position. Jennifer worked in several freelance capacities before joining the web design team at Mesothelioma.com in February of 2007. Today she resides in Syracuse, NY and enjoys weekends in the nearby mountains with friends and the small town charm nightlife of upstate New York’s Salt City.
 

The Compliance Resource Center would like to thank Jennifer Collin for contributing her article to our site.  If you would like to write an article for this site, please contact us at allan@thecrcenter.com 

Study Evaluates Asbestos Removal Technology

On May 15, EPA announced the release of a draft report that evaluates an alternative demolition process for buildings containing asbestos. Scientists and engineers from EPA’s National Risk Management Research Laboratory and the Dallas regional office compared the current process of demolishing a dilapidated, asbestos-containing structure with a new method called the Alternative Asbestos Control Method (AACM).

The first demonstration project was successfully completed in Fort Chaffee, Ark. Preliminary findings show AACM procedures to be protective for the cleanup of many asbestos-containing buildings.

Two similar buildings containing similar types and quantities of asbestos were demolished in April 2006. One demolition used the alternative method, and one employed the standard National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) method. As the buildings were demolished, environmental emissions were monitored to determine if the alternative protected the environment as well as the NESHAP method.

The current NESHAP process involves removal of some asbestos materials prior to demolition of a structure. This process can be time-consuming and expensive. After demolition, the removed asbestos and the demolished structure are both disposed of in approved landfills.

Similarly, the alternative method removes some friable (capable of becoming airborne) asbestos materials, but some asbestos-containing materials are allowed to remain. The structure is then wetted with amended water to control asbestos fiber release prior to and during demolition. Demolition debris and several inches of affected soil from the AACM process are disposed of as asbestos-containing debris at an approved landfill.

Data from the evaluation demonstrated lower than expected levels of asbestos and reduced potential for worker exposure. The cost and time savings for the first study also were found to be significant.

A select panel of experts has released the draft report for public comment and for peer review. The public is invited to review the draft report at http://www.epa.gov/region06/6xa/asbestos.htm. Comments are due by June 11