Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Staff and pupils dying from asbestos in schools

176 replies

nobodysdaughternow · 02/07/2023 08:13

I am completely shocked to discover I have potentially sent two of my children to schools which could potentially kill them.

The Times today detailed the story of Chris Willis diagnosed with mesothelioma (a cancer caused by inhaling asbestos fibres) at 29 years old. He died last year at 34.

Newcastle City Council paid substantial damages to Chris for his exposure to asbestos, which he believed happened at Kenton School between 2000 and 2007.

Schools with asbestos are told not to publish asbestos management plans.

10,000 teachers, pupils and staff who have died from asbestos exposure at schools in the past four decades.

If your child goes to a 'block built' school with asbestos, which is at or past it's design life expectancy, then they are at risk.

I naively believed asbestos exposure ended with my grandparents generation. I am very, very angry.

My middle ds went to a special school which was literally crumbling. It was an appalling school and when my son was distressed, he would throw himself at the particleboard wall which I now know may well have contained asbestos.

I didn't have a choice where I sent my kids to school. I thought poor Ofsted's were my biggest worry.

Aibu to ask if you know about the danger to teachers, staff and pupils from asbestos?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
Tygertiger · 02/07/2023 19:08

Turquoisflutterby · 02/07/2023 18:59

Yeah obviously because there's no need to hammer in nails even if the risk is miniscule, so best route is elimination.

Cracks are a warning sign of issues to
come so again, obviously you wouldn't be trained to ignore it but I bet they didn't tell you to evacuate immediately if you saw a crack did they? That'd be because it's not an immediate risk.

Show quote history

The whole POINT is it’s not an immediate risk. Because there is no safe level of exposure, and any cancer is likely to occur 10-50 years down the line. The whole point is that children and staff could be being exposed to fibres daily unless the asbestos has been removed, and in most schools it hasn’t.

Turquoisflutterby · 02/07/2023 19:36

Tygertiger · 02/07/2023 19:08

The whole POINT is it’s not an immediate risk. Because there is no safe level of exposure, and any cancer is likely to occur 10-50 years down the line. The whole point is that children and staff could be being exposed to fibres daily unless the asbestos has been removed, and in most schools it hasn’t.

Show quote history

Oh god this is like arguing with a pigeon.

No the POINT is that you won't be exposed by doing those activities. Do they teach senior leaders in secondary schools critical thinking skills?

CovetedAsFuck · 02/07/2023 19:37

Turquoisflutterby · 02/07/2023 18:59

Yeah obviously because there's no need to hammer in nails even if the risk is miniscule, so best route is elimination.

Cracks are a warning sign of issues to
come so again, obviously you wouldn't be trained to ignore it but I bet they didn't tell you to evacuate immediately if you saw a crack did they? That'd be because it's not an immediate risk.

Show quote history

I bet they didn't tell you to evacuate immediately if you saw a crack did they? That'd be because it's not an immediate risk.

Well, you say that, but one of the points under discussion is that there seems to be a widespread underestimation across many official contexts of what constitutes a significant risk. Hence all the deaths etc.

Presumably because, if the risk was assessed more honestly and lots of the nation's schools did have to "evacuate immediately" all at once, everything would be in chaos.

So the fact that someone with the background you claim to have is minimising the risk of day-to-day low-level wear and tear, doesn't exactly prove anything reassuring.

Piggywaspushed · 02/07/2023 19:43

Turquoisflutterby · 02/07/2023 19:36

Oh god this is like arguing with a pigeon.

No the POINT is that you won't be exposed by doing those activities. Do they teach senior leaders in secondary schools critical thinking skills?

Show quote history

That is emphatically not what is said in the article.

SnackSizeRaisin · 02/07/2023 19:45

Turquoisflutterby · 02/07/2023 19:36

Oh god this is like arguing with a pigeon.

No the POINT is that you won't be exposed by doing those activities. Do they teach senior leaders in secondary schools critical thinking skills?

Show quote history

Of course you will be exposed if you hammer nails into asbestos ceilings. the advice is to leave asbestos undisturbed . Really hope you are not actually an expert in this field.

Also it's not going to be an intermediate risk any more than if the teacher was chain smoking in the classroom. Doesn't mean it's not a serious risk in the long term.

SnackSizeRaisin · 02/07/2023 19:46

*immediate risk

Tygertiger · 02/07/2023 19:49

Turquoisflutterby · 02/07/2023 19:36

Oh god this is like arguing with a pigeon.

No the POINT is that you won't be exposed by doing those activities. Do they teach senior leaders in secondary schools critical thinking skills?

Show quote history

Go on then. Link this pigeon to credible evidence that proves that hammering nails into brown asbestos is risk-free.

Saywhatevernow · 02/07/2023 19:54

Turquoisflutterby · 02/07/2023 19:36

Oh god this is like arguing with a pigeon.

No the POINT is that you won't be exposed by doing those activities. Do they teach senior leaders in secondary schools critical thinking skills?

Show quote history

Really? Wow.

BigGreen · 02/07/2023 19:57

I was thinking about the asbestos mats we used in science too :(

Piggywaspushed · 02/07/2023 19:59

Not everyone who inhales asbestos will be affected by it, but some need to breathe in only a few fibres.

With children more at risk.

From the article ...

Willyoujustbequiet · 02/07/2023 20:05

It's horrific

But it's also in cosmetics and has been for decades so where is the outrage for that?

Piggywaspushed · 02/07/2023 20:22

It was banned in the UK in 1999.

MissDollyMix · 02/07/2023 20:25

I’m amazed it wasn’t banned until 1999. I’m sure I remember my DF talking about it earlier than that.
The ceiling of my DD’s 1960’s modular style school hall partially collapsed during their PE lesson earlier this year. It was my DD’s class in there at the time. Water ended up on their heads. Water and god knows what else. The roof has now been replaced but it was falling apart and leaking for years before onto the heads of god knows how many children and their teachers. It’s scary to think about.

takemetothespace · 02/07/2023 20:27

This made me feel really worried as we have torn the roof of our old house which was artex ceiling and the house was built in 1986.
Although it was done by plaster and he did not mention anything about this, otherwise we could have get it tested. We were not living in the house when renovations were going on so children are not exposed but my husband and I made regular trips and cleared tons of rubbish,

No one mentioned this. I am not born in the UK

Piggywaspushed · 02/07/2023 20:32

MissDollyMix · 02/07/2023 20:25

I’m amazed it wasn’t banned until 1999. I’m sure I remember my DF talking about it earlier than that.
The ceiling of my DD’s 1960’s modular style school hall partially collapsed during their PE lesson earlier this year. It was my DD’s class in there at the time. Water ended up on their heads. Water and god knows what else. The roof has now been replaced but it was falling apart and leaking for years before onto the heads of god knows how many children and their teachers. It’s scary to think about.

Sorry, I meant in cosmetics re 1999.

Wednesdayonline · 02/07/2023 20:43

It is very concerning. Even more so is the asbestos contamination in talc, which many people will have used in their life and on their children, and also in cosmetic products.

Piggywaspushed · 02/07/2023 20:46

As I said, banned in 1999 , and products tested for contamination. Still not good but at least legislated against pretty stringently.

Wednesdayonline · 02/07/2023 20:52

@Piggywaspushed asbestos is still found in talc today. This is why J&J have changed their talc to corn starch. Products containing talc in the UK today can still contain asbestos.

Piggywaspushed · 02/07/2023 20:59

Wednesdayonline · 02/07/2023 20:52

@Piggywaspushed asbestos is still found in talc today. This is why J&J have changed their talc to corn starch. Products containing talc in the UK today can still contain asbestos.

Not what I just read. Products are discontinued if asbestos is found.

Piggywaspushed · 02/07/2023 21:00

www.coresurveys.co.uk/avoiding-asbestos-in-makeup/

hollyblueivy · 02/07/2023 21:02

Piggywaspushed · 02/07/2023 19:59

Not everyone who inhales asbestos will be affected by it, but some need to breathe in only a few fibres.

With children more at risk.

From the article ...

Yes basically pretty much a single time exposure could cause the damage.

Wednesdayonline · 02/07/2023 21:05

Sadly, I work in this area and have spoken with multiple experts in this field, and it is still acknowledged that companies overlook/deny asbestos in their products. Acknowledged even by the fact that those products made it onto shelves, being sold to thousands, before asbestos was identified and the products were removed.

NotmyRLname · 02/07/2023 21:13

10,000 in 40 years is an absolutely tiny amount. We lose more to flu in one season most years. And It’s actually more than likely that the issue was when they first realised the risk and all started ripping it all out.. exposing people to it that way. It used to be EVERYWHERE in peoples homes and everything and is still one of the rarest cancers around. Please get some perspective.

hollyblueivy · 02/07/2023 21:14

NotmyRLname · 02/07/2023 21:13

10,000 in 40 years is an absolutely tiny amount. We lose more to flu in one season most years. And It’s actually more than likely that the issue was when they first realised the risk and all started ripping it all out.. exposing people to it that way. It used to be EVERYWHERE in peoples homes and everything and is still one of the rarest cancers around. Please get some perspective.

250 per year

Saywhatevernow · 02/07/2023 21:15

NotmyRLname · 02/07/2023 21:13

10,000 in 40 years is an absolutely tiny amount. We lose more to flu in one season most years. And It’s actually more than likely that the issue was when they first realised the risk and all started ripping it all out.. exposing people to it that way. It used to be EVERYWHERE in peoples homes and everything and is still one of the rarest cancers around. Please get some perspective.

Oh, that’s ok then.