thanks!  I've copied it to the lists - Kate

>>> <[log in to unmask]> 27/01/03 17:34:55 >>>

 We've had the same precautionary principle approach in the health service
irrespective of cost/benefit/effectiveness/utility, see Christopher Bookers
EU notebook "unnecessary asbestos bill will top £8bn" Sunday Telegraph
21.01.02 and 10.02.02. The Times Sat 18.05.02 "Asbestos strikes fear for
gloomy insurers". "Fatal Fibre Fracas" Occupational health Review p6,
March/April edition 2002. Apparently the potential for compensation in US
for exposure without evidence of acquiring disease has employers spooked.
Absence of evidence,  not evidence of absence and all that.

Peter Noone MPH,MFOM(UK),MRCGP,LFOM(I),DCH,DRCOG,DOccMed,
North Eastern Health Board, Ireland.

n >Dear colleagues - your advice would be appreciated on a local issue.  My
>safety colleagues are seeking to persuade our employer to carry out a
>large and costly programme of asbestos removal and/or encapsulation.
>There has been no written risk assessment or assessment of cost-benefit.
>There has, apparently, been a "survey" from an asbestos removal contractor
>but the report has not been made available, at least not to the relevent
>committees or the OHS.  I have argued for more discussion, circulation of
>written papers, some involvement by the OHS, without success.  I am
>concerned (a) that this spending may be ill-considered and unnecessary.  I
>am also concerned about (b) a complete lack of any consideration that a
>major investment in asbestos removal/encapsulation is likely to uncover a
>need for health surveillance for longterm workers who may have been
>exposed in the past eg during maintenance work, and (c) that this
>programme is likely to lead to an increase in self-referrals to the OHS by
>people who want to discuss the effects of asbestos and whether it has
>affected their health or may do in the future.  As well as a complete lack
>of consultation about the removal/encapsulation programme, there has been
>absolutely no attempt to consult me about the OH implications.  Whenever I
>raise these issues with the safety team or in relevant committees, I am
>fobbed off and ignored.
>
>It is particularly galling because, at the same time, the OHS is trying to
>build up on several fronts from a small, frankly inadequate, service to
>one which is actually effective.  The justification and funding of any OH
>proposal is scrutinised in the most nit-picking and intrusive way in our
>committees - with the safety officers leading the negative and critical
>commentary.  Needless to say, few OH initiatives have been funded.
>
>Your thoughts would be much appreciated - best wishes - Kate
>
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned using the MessageLabs SkyScan >antivirus
>system. Funded for members by the Doctors.net.uk Bulletin >service
>How does this protect me? http://www.Doctors.net.uk/qualityemail>
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>


________________________________________________________________________
All email and attachments sent from http://www.Doctors.net.uk have been
scanned by the MessageLabs SkyScan antivirus system
________________________________________________________________________