--- Ralph Walter <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Mary,
> As for the asbestos, I would get it the hell off, in
> strict accordance with all applicable regulations
> for removal, handling and disposal, so your owner
> never has to worry about (or be sued because of) it
> again.

> [log in to unmask] writes:
> > Asbestos shingles.... That 'A' word.  Any thoughts
> on containment, abatement, removal or encasement?

I don't know what the OSHA regs are like.
Down here, asbestos-containing materials can remain in
place if they are still in sound condition and not
shedding fibres.  Signage, and management plans are
required.  And sealing to minimise the risk of
fibre-shedding is preferred.

There is, of course, the question of authenticity.
Should you try to preserve the original asbestos
shingles, or should you accept that the technology of
the time has failed, and replace them with a modern
equivalent of the product?

I can see an argument for replacing the asbestos
shingles with a modern equivalent ... but I think you
should only do this if the condition of the asbestos
shingles is deteriorating / bad.

I'm interested in this particular issue for two
reasons.

Firstly, I think there is a wonderful little set of
philosophical debates about conservation of materials
now known to be hazardous (and asbestos is just the
most well-known of these).

Secondly, having just started developing a paper
addressing the conservation of innovation in building
... I'm currently arguing that a multiplicity of
approaches is useful ... and that conservation of
fabric is only one of them.  Other approaches are:
* conservation of form
* conservation of function
* conservation of philosophy (idea)

I think that these all happen at present, but are not
necessarily recognised as such.

Cheers

david

http://shopping.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Shopping
- Get organised for Christmas early this year!