Contractors Expose Workers to Asbestos During Renovation

Enfield, UKThe failure of the US to ban asbestos notwithstanding, a larger and more compelling source with regard to asbestos, mesothelioma lawsuits and asbestos lawsuits remains the rehabilitation of old buildings containing asbestos and what happens to on-site workers and passersby when they are not fully protected.

Over the past number of decades the science of asbestos removal has evolved into a highly specialized and expensive industry. Recent research has suggested that in the case of an old building it is best to leave asbestos alone. Asbestos that is undisturbed and remains out of harm's way is often the safer option than the alternative: asbestos removal.

When an older building containing asbestos insulation is renovated, the asbestos must be removed. In the process of removal, it's disturbed. The good news is there are ways to effectively contain the contamination. But it's expensive.

This month an old hospital building in Canada that was valued at $2.2 million was sold yesterday for $325,000. Why? The depressed economy notwithstanding, renovation costs were assumed too expensive on the huge building that sits on more then 2 acres of land. It would have made a dandy apartment complex. But the old building, built in 1897 is likely full of asbestos. Remediation efforts—to do it safely—would have cost a fortune.

Some companies have been known to attempt asbestos removal on the cheap, exposing workers and the general public to harmful asbestos fibers that can trigger mesothelioma.

In the UK, two companies were recently prosecuted after workers and members of the public were exposed. In the fall of 2005, an unlicensed contractor was awarded the job of removing an old roof from a building. The roof was lined with 3,000 square meters of asbestos-based insulating board known as Amosite. During court proceedings it was revealed that workers removed and smashed the boards over a 12-week period and were required to work in a dust and debris field without protection. Court heard the contractor was aware of the hazard but did nothing to address the concerns of its workers, allowing potentially dangerous asbestos fibers to migrate on worker's clothes to their families, on public transit and placing those fibers into direct contact with the general public.

Sarah Snelling, a health inspector conversant with the case, had this to say: "Not everyone exposed to asbestos goes on to develop life-threatening or terminal asbestos-related conditions such as lung cancer, asbestosis or mesothelioma. However, when people do develop such conditions, it is often many years after they were exposed. All the men exposed and their families will have this hanging over them for the rest of their lives."