Air quality

Rochdale M.P. Tony Lloyd tells us -

"The people of Rochdale are entitled to transparency and know what is going on."

and that

"The council-commissioned air survey of the former Turner Brothers Asbestos site in Spodden Valley cost £26,000, and identified the discovery of only one asbestos fibre containing ‘brown’ and ‘blue’ asbestos from a sample taken at Harridge Avenue."

https://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/112944/tony-lloyd-responds-to-turner-brothers-asbestos-air-survey-results

Asbestos used in manufacture was generally white, clarification of the implications of this colour classification is needed.

Indeed. It's a bit of a problem to determine without specialist advice. However - the vast majority of products in the lists do not contain the most dangerous of the asbestos family, namely blue asbestos and brown coming a close second. Most contain white and since the mid 60's that itself was substituted for a harmless flax fibre as in all corrugated roofing sheeting etc etc. Old mills and ships are the most dangerous as it was used extensively for pipe cladding of steam pipeworks. So stay away from old mills and derelict ships.

Uninterpreted, the survey result could mean anything. Were white asbestos fibres ignored, or none found? To find only one airborne fibre near the ruin of what once was the biggest asbestos factory in europe the world, is a bit odd in itself. Due to necessities of war, finance, insurance and law, information about asbestos has, in the past, been withheld, distorted and hidden. Perhaps that tradition of obscuration has become embedded.

Either Mr. Lloyd is lost in a daydream not noticing what he writes, or has included that loose-ended bit of information precicely to draw attention to the need for transparency and clarification on this matter of life and death, well, death mainly. I wouldn't jump to conclusions though. The daydream theory is entirely plausible.

As discussed many times on here and on the Facenovel the asbestos site and works are a very dangerous health risk and like Chernobyl should be treated in the same manner. You dome the whole area whilst the machines and people work for the whole removal of 'everything in and out of sight' until the are has been picked bone-bleach clean. Or - you cap the whole area with graphite and concrete and leave for posterity to eventually attend to. You top it off with an infra-red inter-stella telescope and let Rochdale, for once, reach for the stars.

It might have been a good idea to bury the asbestos factory site and contaminated land quite deeply a long time ago, but again, better late than never.

Councils don't do 'good ideas'. Councils take the quickest and easiest way forward - ignore it and it will go away long enough to outlive our tenure. Need I say more.

On why a local council fails to cope with long term problems, no, that sums it up nicely. Todays' asbestos article -
https://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/113076/new-study-links-environmental-exposure-to-asbestos-with-increased-risk-of-mesothelioma

Talks about how it can take decades for asbestosis to kill after exposure to it. With a mobile population, people go to live and die of it elsewhere. You can take the person out of the asbestos, but unfortunately, you can't take the asbestos out of the person.

If the money to bury contaminated land can't be found, it might be cost-effective to improve information. It could be made legal requirement that people housed by government agencies must be given relevant information about specific dangers of that location. Not only asbestos, but chemically contaminated land, radon gas, illegally high air pollution levels etc.

There is absolutely nothing new in that report that hasn't been known for decades. It may come as some surprise to more recent generations, but then most 'history' does. TBA have been culpable since the 1930's following a number of work-related deaths from the 1920's onwards. But then so have thousands of other industries relating to 'death by industrial pollution'. Asbestos is just one of those 'most deadly'. I keep telling you that 10% of the world's population are written off at birth and not required for useful processing - so what's new in any of this? The only thing to do now is to 'seal off' the troublesome area as I have already described. The crime now is that the authorities have been aware of this 'problem' for the last 30 years and have done absolutely nothing whilst they 'scrap' over 'who is responsible' and consequently 'who pays'? The answer to that is 'we do'. As always.

Yes, talk about asbestos has gone on many years, and it continues to kill. Perhaps there is not much new to say. If it had been dealt with years ago, it would have been easier, cheaper and more effective. Because left so long, it's become more widespread and fragmented. Those who recognise it when they see broken bits of it lying on the ground, underfoot or where it has been dumped, may think little of it, as they are used to seeing it from childhood.

This problem will keep getting kicked into the long grass because of the huge costs in 'making it safe'. The European Court of Human Rights is probably the only avenue of the town's redemption from its industrial past - a case of 'Endangerment of human life' -. But who wants to bother -?

The best of anyone bothering with the asbestos problem, was a chap who decided to throw the stuff from his back garden into the canal, to save the kids from playing with it. Rather brave and recourceful of him in the circumstances I thought.

I don't know the actual circumstances - however - if he was dumping corrugated or flat sheet asbestos the chances are there was no asbestos in it. The fibres in those manufactured goods changed from asbestos fibre to flax fibre with the cement forming the half hour fire-break standard - in the early 1960's. The sheets continued to be named 'asbestos' but didn't contain any. I worked with thousands of them throughout the 60's and apart from the 'dust' (which in itself wasn't healthy) there was almost no danger from them. Hey ho - he probably polluted the canal more.

The motive to protect children was admirable, not many seem to give it a thought when they see what is probably asbestos lying about where children play. Danielle Smalley is in the news today, seems she may have eaten asbestos as a child.

Like any other poison, asbestos should be kept out of reach of children. If that was generally known, accepted and acted upon, it would be an improvement. Try telling a council or any other authority about asbestos lying on scrap land where children play, there will be no attempt to remove it.

The best that could be hoped for is the start of a long quasi-legal inquiry into who owns what and who is responsible for what and why they can't do it which continues until circumstances change and previous processes become irrelevant, meanwhile ....

Chuck it in the canal isn't ideal, but, it's not an ideal situation.

One should not throw anything at all into the 'canal'. They weren't built, at great expense, to be used as a dumping ground for deleterious material. I lived and played alongside the canal for 20 years in the 40's and 50's when they had become little more than stinking sewers - an ideal kids playground of course - if you didn't die from it then you obviously had a good immune system. I therefore must protest in the strongest terms at this wanton display of 'good neighbourliness'. The materials should have been bagged and taken to the land-fill tip at best or bagged and stored safely until disposal could be properly arranged. RCC and RMBC have spent millions on the Rochdale Canal over the past 40 years and in this case 'every little bit' doesn't help.

You are perfectly correct, Atlas. If only the 'powers that be' were as perfectly correct as you, in dealing with asbestos.

The powers that be have a greater responsibility to me and you and shouldn't 'HAVE to be dealing with things of this nature. The responsibility lies with the local power that is - RMBC - and primarily with its employee's and councillors who have the prim a-fascia case to answer over a 'problem' that has been known now for decades and over which nothing useful has been done. They are culpable for all and any illness or deaths derived from this pile of 'noxious' material - and they alone.

Now I know you were just having a pop at me for being self-righteous - see if i care -.

.

Pollution is in the news today with reports and statistics, numbers of people killed by pollution and so on. Traffic fumes seem to be a main killer in the UK. Will the general population start to behave differently, avoid main roads and so on? Towns historically developed with shops opening on to main roads, with shoppers right next to the traffic. The opposite of common sense in todays world. More shopping is done 'on line', but that just means more delivery vans, more road traffic

Indeed. But you are forgetting the 'bleedin' obvious'. In 20 to 30 years all road vehicles will be electric or hydro, whether they be delivery vans or whatever, and most will becoming 'autodrive'. The problems of pollution from 'industrial' will be driven away by technology. That will of course leave pollution by technology and biochemistry which in itself is becoming more of a problem as the time passes. The human body sucks up more 'chemicals' per hour in today's world than ever before. They are in everything we eat and everywhere we go (sprays,filters,coverings etc etc etc) and are probably responsible for the mass of ailments which today are called 'social' (asthma,cancers,rare deceases etc etc etc). One problem eradicated by another problem called 'progress'. Pollution will always be with us - e.g. plastics, the marvel of the 20th century -. Now - a pollutant. We are the architects of our own demise as a 'species' simply by our own arrogance and desires.

Yes, humans are a strange monkey. Tomorrows' world seems to tumble in from the future like a jumbled jigsaw, some bits we expect never seem to appear, and bits you didn't expect, do.

Herein after called the 'spice' of life. It's what makes it all so surprisingly interesting as much as we 'moan' our lot. It keeps us busy. Which in itself has great merit. Idle hands make the devils work.
And so we venture on plodding blindly towards extinction - but having a party as we go -

Is it a party? I thought it was a jumble sale.

In that you pays your money and you takes your pick - a jumble sale is much more appropriate.

Many diesel vehicles are driving about without 'diesel particulate filters'. Seeing as the government made the huge mistake promoting diesel, how about they organise having them fitted to all vehicles that need them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41761864

"organise"! ha ha ha.

How's about the government shoots itself in the foot a second time. Organised fitting of filters at MOT service stations at X costs per vehicle which cannot be guaranteed to work for more than 12 months before requiring changing again? Not a sensible deal. Cheaper to remove all diesel cars by scrappage and give the commercial industry 5 years to change over to hydro/petrol or electric. You know it makes sense. As for blame - we are all to blame. We all want things cheaper and cheaper always has a hidden cost.

Scrappage schemes so far are comedy items, far too expensive for the average motorist. The government could suggest to motor manufacturers who have recently been found guilty of fiddling emmisions figures, that they might like to supply and fit diesel particulate filters through their service agents at low cost as a 'community service' to mitigate for the deadly damage they have done. That could be done quickly, cheaply with economy of scale, and save hundreds of lives while we wait   for hydro/electric cars to appear.