Information on asbestos in schools Research Papers Asbestos Policy Suggested Improvements Checking asbestos management Asbestos Guidance for 'System Built' schools Home Page
A summary of the main issues and latest situation Reports of Incidents and Media Articles Investigative programmes, interviews and personal experiences Misleading statements used by those in authority Contact
Results per page:

Match: any search words all search words

Asbestos in Schools

Misleading Statements

These statements are often made as part of authorities' responses to incidents or queries.

The responses are briefly analysed and the flaws in them identified. Factual references and authorities are given or you can email us for more detail.

Flawed Statement one

"If asbestos is in good condition and not likely to be disturbed then it is usually safer to manage it than it is to remove it.”

Flawed Statement two
"Major refurbishments undertaken under BSF would normally include the removal of all asbestos, and any deteriorating material would normally be identified by a type 2 survey and removed."
Flawed Statement three
DCSF have issued a questionnaire "that will give a comprehensive picture about how schools and Local Authorities are managing asbestos in their system buildings"
Flawed Statement four
"There is no need for panic, especially in schools because children are involved. If it is properly managed there is no evidence to suggest they’re at risk. There is also no evidence to suggest asbestos can affect children more than adults."
Flawed Statement five
HSE/DCSF recent guidance for a "significant risk" is dangerously misleading Comment: It differs from the medically and legally recognised level of asbestos fibres that can cause mesothelioma. The level used by HSE is the “Action Level” which was designed for asbestos contractors wearing breathing apparatus and protective clothing. It is a dangerous level, particularly for children. The link explains in detail.