• Jerkface (any/all)
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    I mean, it IS adequate in most cases. Removing asbestos is a last resort. It’s not harming anyone in the walls, but it has a potential to do so if you try and rip it out.

    • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      I think the biggest factor here is the cost in safely removing it. Sure its not harming anyone in the walls, but mice may still stir it up and spread it around the building, and you’ll never want to puncture the wall to hang a picture or a shelf. It is considered adequate because the exposure is so low, you would have a hard time proving it was specifically the asbestos that caused health concerns.

        • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 years ago

          When removing it a crew can wear P.P.E. and use extensive techniques to remove as much asbestos as possible, this is however very expensive and often equates to a full renovation + cleaning/removal. Instead it is much cheaper to ignore responsibility for the substance by following a “do not disturb” policy.