Fluffy factions: The sad side story of the asbestos saga

Tezza7420 said :

I’m not suggesting that the ACT Government should pay or borrow more than they have. Compared to what might have been, on average, this outcome is pretty good. I do consider though that the ACT Government has been extremely negligent over the years and I am surprised that there aren’t grounds for more substantial costs if they ended up in court. As well, while NSW homeowners have had a very bad deal over the last couple of decades their compensation appears now to be better than the ACT’s.

My concern here is that many posters on RiotAct seem to think that Fluffy owners have profited as a result of the buyback scheme. Yes homeowners could have been worse off than they are (assuming that they hadn’t then banded together and succeeded in legal action) but all of them are substantially out of pocket compared to where they stood before this blew up last year. This of course ignores all of the short and long term psychological and health aspects that homeowners have to live through.

As for Brianna, I presume you have misread my comments. I am very impressed by what Brianna achieved – especially initially. It’s just that I think the job got too big and was beyond her. I’m not part of any “faction” as you suggested. I’m just trying to see all sides of this situation and I’m suggesting that everyone try to understand the stress that all of these people have been under.

On what basis are you saying that fluffy owners are significantly out of pocket?

I know a number of fluffy families and each one of them was offered what would be considered a good sale price by the government. Coupled with the other allowances and concessions they’ve been offered, they definitely aren’t behind financially. I’m sure some might be behind due to circumstance but definitely not all.

The emotional stress can’t be denied and would be the hardest part of this.

Dr_Mongrel said :

rubaiyat said :

creative_canberran said :

Was Jansen evil? No. But he was ignorant and exploitative, and therefore culpable.

It was only his business. Why should he keep abreast of his own industry?

I think there will always be people who believe their head in the sand is the only position to take in life.

The anger that came out was because a lot of people wanted to keep their heads in the sand. Human nature, I guess.

Tezza7420 said :

People’s anger towards Brianna Heseltine is understandable but misguided. Her standing up for Fluffy homeowners took a lot of guts, raised awareness as to their plight and got the ball rolling in finding a solution. I suspect the problem was that the issue became too big for Brianna’s ability, expectations were not managed and homeowners didn’t feel that they were being heard. (Brianna’s joining the ALP became an unfortunate and untimely distraction too).

Tezza, it would be very irresponsible for the government to take out a bigger loan on this one. I’d start questioning the people who keep the books if they did more than what was offered.

As for Ms Heseltine’s handling of it, after getting the ACT to roll out a cool billion she took it to NSW and got them on board. I admire that even if your faction doesn’t.

I’m not suggesting that the ACT Government should pay or borrow more than they have. Compared to what might have been, on average, this outcome is pretty good. I do consider though that the ACT Government has been extremely negligent over the years and I am surprised that there aren’t grounds for more substantial costs if they ended up in court. As well, while NSW homeowners have had a very bad deal over the last couple of decades their compensation appears now to be better than the ACT’s.

My concern here is that many posters on RiotAct seem to think that Fluffy owners have profited as a result of the buyback scheme. Yes homeowners could have been worse off than they are (assuming that they hadn’t then banded together and succeeded in legal action) but all of them are substantially out of pocket compared to where they stood before this blew up last year. This of course ignores all of the short and long term psychological and health aspects that homeowners have to live through.

As for Brianna, I presume you have misread my comments. I am very impressed by what Brianna achieved – especially initially. It’s just that I think the job got too big and was beyond her. I’m not part of any “faction” as you suggested. I’m just trying to see all sides of this situation and I’m suggesting that everyone try to understand the stress that all of these people have been under.

rubaiyat said :

What a world we live in where milk straight from a cow’s udder is considered more deadly and requiring urgent government regulations and bans, than the thousands of hydrocarbons we pour into the air, water, soil we grow things in, and our bodies.

Fracking, coal mining and dumping of waste is OK, in fact the Government claims to have its hands tied, but unpasteurised cheese needs to be stamped out!

I’d be interested in hearing the economy and societal wide benefits that we’re missing out on from not being able to get mass produced unpasteurized products?

Dr_Mongrel said :

Tezza, it would be very irresponsible for the government to take out a bigger loan on this one. I’d start questioning the people who keep the books if they did more than what was offered.

As for Ms Heseltine’s handling of it, after getting the ACT to roll out a cool billion she took it to NSW and got them on board. I admire that even if your faction doesn’t.

Yep, NSW is the big win even if at this stage it looks like the smaller job in terms of houses. It’s where the greatest risk is. People in and out of State Parliament have been trying over three decades to get something done, unsuccessfully. Media wasn’t interested, those who could actually sign off on expenditure weren’t interested and local councils who were immediately responsible frankly were involved in covering it up. In less than 2 years, NSW does now have a solution, it probably won’t get all the homes but will get most of them.

What a world we live in where milk straight from a cow’s udder is considered more deadly and requiring urgent government regulations and bans, than the thousands of hydrocarbons we pour into the air, water, soil we grow things in, and our bodies.

Fracking, coal mining and dumping of waste is OK, in fact the Government claims to have its hands tied, but unpasteurised cheese needs to be stamped out!

rubaiyat said :

creative_canberran said :

Was Jansen evil? No. But he was ignorant and exploitative, and therefore culpable.

It was only his business. Why should he keep abreast of his own industry?

I think there will always be people who believe their head in the sand is the only position to take in life.

The anger that came out was because a lot of people wanted to keep their heads in the sand. Human nature, I guess.

Tezza7420 said :

People’s anger towards Brianna Heseltine is understandable but misguided. Her standing up for Fluffy homeowners took a lot of guts, raised awareness as to their plight and got the ball rolling in finding a solution. I suspect the problem was that the issue became too big for Brianna’s ability, expectations were not managed and homeowners didn’t feel that they were being heard. (Brianna’s joining the ALP became an unfortunate and untimely distraction too).

Tezza, it would be very irresponsible for the government to take out a bigger loan on this one. I’d start questioning the people who keep the books if they did more than what was offered.

As for Ms Heseltine’s handling of it, after getting the ACT to roll out a cool billion she took it to NSW and got them on board. I admire that even if your faction doesn’t.

vintage123 said :

The only thing i have learnt from this whole schumozle is to keep my weed poison reciepts.

Maybe in twenty years time (considering information was released last week on the carcinagenics of such poison) the ACT Government or the Weed Companys will provide the average of three quotes value and perks such as free stamp duty and removals for the thirty investment properties which I have that have been exposed to the weed killer in the current “safe to use” Australian health and safety categorisation.

oh and not to buy the cheap second hand trees, pebbles, retaining wall pieces if they come up on the classifieds as an urgent sale.

Toluene is a well known carcinogen and principle solvent in quick drying solutions, leading to a high mortality rate amongst Sign Writers (back when they could actual paint the lettering).

All the hydrocarbon solvents are to a greater or lesser degree equally culpable. An awful lot of petrol, kerosene and Avgas are going directly into the atmosphere or as unburnt byproducts. We are all breathing those, but apparently we need to, just as we needed to toss known carcinogens and lung scarifying materials into roof cavities because we needed to face all our houses away from the sun and use inappropriate walling, roofing and windows for our climate.

The thing we have learnt from all this is: Anyone who knows better is an idiot, make them shut up and keep on with business as usual. Then when the proverbial does it the fan claim nobody knew and it is all an unfortunate accident.

Excuse me. I know there must be a bottom to this hole we are digging, if we only dig deeper we are bound to find it!

JC said :

jewels said :

They let everyone move back into there homes. WHEN, if they had of done a buy and sell back then, a lot of current and future residents would not have been exposed for so long, the residents would have been younger and better placed to accept the change and be able to cope better financially….than it happening in 2015 and being 80 years of age!!!!!

Unless your family were doing renovations you would not have been exposed. The core issue that has lead to the buy back is the future health risk (especially seeing as many of those house would now be prime candidates for renovation).”

And yes, there were renovations,after the alleged clean up, including a wall removal, and yes we also stored stuff up in the ceiling and under the house.

The only thing i have learnt from this whole schumozle is to keep my weed poison reciepts.

Maybe in twenty years time (considering information was released last week on the carcinagenics of such poison) the ACT Government or the Weed Companys will provide the average of three quotes value and perks such as free stamp duty and removals for the thirty investment properties which I have that have been exposed to the weed killer in the current “safe to use” Australian health and safety categorisation.

oh and not to buy the cheap second hand trees, pebbles, retaining wall pieces if they come up on the classifieds as an urgent sale.

creative_canberran said :

JC said :

Why is Mr Fluffy ugly and despicable. He was installing a product that at the time was legal and a very valid and good way of insulating a house. The fact it has since turned out to be such a disaster hardly warrants character assassination of this type against the guy (who has passed away) who ran the business and has no place in any rational discussion or debate about the issue.

It was not a valid or good way of insulating a house, it was a cheap way. By offering a cheap product with finance, he preyed on those who in Canberra’s cold wanted to insulate their homes but couldn’t afford the products more reputable companies were offering. Those more reputable companies by the way advertised their product didn’t have dangerous asbestos at the time. Obviously the concerns about asbestos were becoming known, were even a selling point.

And let’s remember the context. When Mr Jansen started operating, in Britain asbestos factories were shutting down, in the US the asbestos fireproofing for the World Trade Center was being heralded as a breakthrough because the mixing method massively reduced workers’ exposure to the fibres.

Was Jansen evil? No. But he was ignorant and exploitative, and therefore culpable.

Excellent point. If you look at the suburbs that are the worst affected by loose fill asbestos, they’re all in low-to-middle income areas (or were, at the time). It was a cheap way to insulate, and if you weren’t aware of the risks and the information about them wasn’t provided to them – remembering that they couldn’t just Google the product – then who can blame people for having it installed?

Given that Jansen knowingly imported the asbestos from South Africa, it seems to be that he lied by omission about the risks and dangers of having it installed in homes.

My understanding is that:
– The Commonwealth were advised around 1968 of the dangers of loose fill asbestos insulation in Canberra houses but failed to act on that advice. The remediation program started by the Commonwealth was inadequate and the mou with the ACT Government was worded well enough that the Feds could walk away from the current problem.

– Mr Fluffy may have been aware of the dangers of his product – perhaps not when he started using it but certainly earlier than when he ceased installing it. At the very least, I have read homeowners’ comments that suggest they were misled when buying insulation as to whether it had asbestos in it or not. As well, there is a very good late ’80’s/early ’90’s video floating around of a 60 minutes Richard Carleton interview with Mr Fluffy where he still thought the stuff wasn’t dangerous.

– Over the last 20+ years, the ACT Government’s administration of the Mr Fluffy issue has been appalling. They have not provided adequate or timely information to homeowners as and when the Government’s awareness of the risks has evolved, they have not assumed purchasers of homes had clear and sufficient information and they have not ensured that the little information that was provided was actually received by homeowners. Also, the ACT Government has not kept adequate records of contaminated properties and have not adequately monitored those properties during extensions and renovations especially given that they often gave development and building approvals for those building modifications.

As well as the Commonwealth’s underlying negligence, I think many homeowners, and ACT taxpayers generally, are angry with the Commonwealth because they were not prepared to assist the ACT for what is a disaster. Homeowners elsewhere in Australia have received Federal assistance for floods and fires but they won’t help now because this is a “man made” disaster. This is in spite of the fact that no-one can get insurance for asbestos related disasters but insurance is available for disasters such as fires and floods. (I am sure if there was a man made disaster such as at Lucas Heights in Sydney the Feds would readily chip in).

I think people are angry with the ACT Government, because of their historic mismanagement and because the buyback scheme on offer – although better than some other outcomes – have still left people without their homes and, in many cases, without some or all of their home contents. Most of those people are finding that they won’t be able to afford to stay in their area so they are naturally upset. All of these people will be financially worse off than they thought they were 18 months ago.

People’s anger towards Brianna Heseltine is understandable but misguided. Her standing up for Fluffy homeowners took a lot of guts, raised awareness as to their plight and got the ball rolling in finding a solution. I suspect the problem was that the issue became too big for Brianna’s ability, expectations were not managed and homeowners didn’t feel that they were being heard. (Brianna’s joining the ALP became an unfortunate and untimely distraction too).

jewels said :

They let everyone move back into there homes. WHEN, if they had of done a buy and sell back then, a lot of current and future residents would not have been exposed for so long, the residents would have been younger and better placed to accept the change and be able to cope better financially….than it happening in 2015 and being 80 years of age!!!!!

Unless your family were doing renovations you would not have been exposed. The core issue that has lead to the buy back is the future health risk (especially seeing as many of those house would now be prime candidates for renovation).

You are also applying the knowledge and standards of today on something that was done in the late 80’s (the clean up). At the time they thought they had done everything possible, though history tells us it wasn’t the case and a lot of the junk found its way into the frame, and out of the way places.

So it is right to have the buy back scheme, but IMO wrong to blame Mr Fluffy personally, or those involved in the 80/90’s clean up.

Zan said :

Brake linings were also made of asbestos sending fibres into the air. I think they were changed in the late 70s. So a lot of car mechanics were also exposed to asbestos.

Your out by about 30 years. Try 2003. That’s when asbestos was outlawed in Australian brake pads, with building products containing blue asbestos in the mid 80’s. Many in Australia brake pads were made by a company called Ferodo, remember the Bathurst race was sponsored by them, owned by James Hardie of course.

And really that where I have an issue going after this guy personally. Yes people knew asbestos was dangerous, but it was still a legal product that was treated as dangerous, but the belief was once installed it was fine, which is was for the most part true until disturbed.

The same is true for asbestos boarding that can be found in many many many homes in Australia. It is perfectly safe to have, except it was dangerous to the installer and is dangerous if you drill into it or during demolition. No different to Mr Fluffy in the sense that it was safe to live in a house with it, until you distributed it. Modern standards of course say it is a no no and rightly so, but applying modern standards to something that happened 40-50 odd years ago now is a bit rough.

Even today there are building products that are known to be dangerous yet we still openly use them. One very common one is good old MDF which contains formaldehyde, which can find itself attached to the fine dust you get cutting MDF, which in turn ends up in peoples lungs. Whilst clearly (based on today’s knowledge) obviously no where near as dangerous as asbestos, people working with this product day in day out are putting their own health in danger if they don’t follow correct procedure, which is cut in an open space with vacum ducting. How many do you see doing that?

POV from a Mr Fluffy family – My sisters and I grew up in a Mr Fluffy house. In March of this year, Mum accepted the buy out offer and moved out of her family home of 48 years. The only good thing about it was that Dad passed away last year , so never knew what was happening to his precious home.
Yes the debt to the ACT is huge, BUT my parents have been tax payers there whole lives. Mum always worked and Dad did not retire till he was 70. They got there house paid off and were very happy.
From what I can work out, the various governments of the times did not act fast enough in 1. banning the products when health issues were apparent back in the 1930’s onwards. 2. the Federal Govt talking responsibility for the clean up in the early 1990’s. They took this issue on, but the clean up failed. 3. The federal Govt now taking the”it is not my problem” approach, when in fact it is there problem. They let everyone move back into there homes. WHEN, if they had of done a buy and sell back then, a lot of current and future residents would not have been exposed for so long, the residents would have been younger and better placed to accept the change and be able to cope better financially….than it happening in 2015 and being 80 years of age!!!!!
So, we are entitled to the government in fixing this major issue. Mum is entitled to her family home. Even tho it is now a new home. My sisters and I and all our children are all taxpayers, and we do not begrudge the buy out strategy. I have also registered for the health study thing set up with the ANU, as who know what will happen to my sisters and I in the future.
I should point out…there has been no financial gain. There has been heaps of pain, heartache, sadness and it is just a tragedy to see our home now empty, awaiting demolition. It is heart breaking.

creative_canberran said :

Was Jansen evil? No. But he was ignorant and exploitative, and therefore culpable.

It was only his business. Why should he keep abreast of his own industry?

I think there will always be people who believe their head in the sand is the only position to take in life.

creative_canberran said :

And let’s remember the context. When Mr Jansen started operating, in Britain asbestos factories were shutting down, in the US the asbestos fireproofing for the World Trade Center was being heralded as a breakthrough because the mixing method massively reduced workers’ exposure to the fibres.

Was Jansen evil? No. But he was ignorant and exploitative, and therefore culpable.

And there you have hit the nail on the head, the main concern about asbestos was moreso in relation to those installing and handling it. Indeed even the report I mentioned above on the Mr Fluffy business the focus is on the workers not on the occupants of the houses it was being installed in. Once in the ceiling the asbestos was quite safe, well until it was disturbed.

Brake linings were also made of asbestos sending fibres into the air. I think they were changed in the late 70s. So a lot of car mechanics were also exposed to asbestos.

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

Maya123 said :

JC said :

Marcus Paul said :

“Fluffy ‘knew’ the risks – yet failed to warn its customers – show me evidence to suggest otherwise.

Where is the evidence to suggest that in 1968 that the Mr Fluffy product was known to be so dangerous to householders?

A quick check of the net. First thing I checked to answer this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos

“By the beginning of the 20th century concerns were beginning to be raised, which escalated in severity during the 1920s and 1930s. By the 1980s and 1990s asbestos trade and use started to become banned outright, phased out, or heavily restricted in an increasing number of countries.”

In fact, I read someone claiming their parents had rejected the chance of having Mr Fluffy put insulation in their house, because even then they knew of the dangers.

So, many years before 1968; the 1920s and 1930s. However, the general public might not have been aware, but I’m sure the authorities were.

There are hundreds of known carcinogens freely used in industry and construction today even though they are known to cause harm if not used or treated correctly.

Your Wikipedia link doesn’t suggest that this product posed any major risks for its use at the time.

20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing.

I understand that asbestos fibres were once used to filter beer.
A lot of water main pipes were manufactured from asbestos and cement, gaskets in Cosy wood heaters, lagging on steam pipes etc.

Where I used to work, someone went through and removed things made of asbestos and replaced them with other products, many years before this worry with fluffy houses.

chewy14 said :

Maya123 said :

JC said :

Marcus Paul said :

“Fluffy ‘knew’ the risks – yet failed to warn its customers – show me evidence to suggest otherwise.

Where is the evidence to suggest that in 1968 that the Mr Fluffy product was known to be so dangerous to householders?

A quick check of the net. First thing I checked to answer this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos

“By the beginning of the 20th century concerns were beginning to be raised, which escalated in severity during the 1920s and 1930s. By the 1980s and 1990s asbestos trade and use started to become banned outright, phased out, or heavily restricted in an increasing number of countries.”

In fact, I read someone claiming their parents had rejected the chance of having Mr Fluffy put insulation in their house, because even then they knew of the dangers.

So, many years before 1968; the 1920s and 1930s. However, the general public might not have been aware, but I’m sure the authorities were.

There are hundreds of known carcinogens freely used in industry and construction today even though they are known to cause harm if not used or treated correctly.

Your Wikipedia link doesn’t suggest that this product posed any major risks for its use at the time.

20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing.

I understand that asbestos fibres were once used to filter beer.
A lot of water main pipes were manufactured from asbestos and cement, gaskets in Cosy wood heaters, lagging on steam pipes etc.

JC said :

Why is Mr Fluffy ugly and despicable. He was installing a product that at the time was legal and a very valid and good way of insulating a house. The fact it has since turned out to be such a disaster hardly warrants character assassination of this type against the guy (who has passed away) who ran the business and has no place in any rational discussion or debate about the issue.

It was not a valid or good way of insulating a house, it was a cheap way. By offering a cheap product with finance, he preyed on those who in Canberra’s cold wanted to insulate their homes but couldn’t afford the products more reputable companies were offering. Those more reputable companies by the way advertised their product didn’t have dangerous asbestos at the time. Obviously the concerns about asbestos were becoming known, were even a selling point.

And let’s remember the context. When Mr Jansen started operating, in Britain asbestos factories were shutting down, in the US the asbestos fireproofing for the World Trade Center was being heralded as a breakthrough because the mixing method massively reduced workers’ exposure to the fibres.

Was Jansen evil? No. But he was ignorant and exploitative, and therefore culpable.

To make it clear our mistakes are not mistakes of knowledge but of ignoring what we do know and listening to financially involved parties who wish to continue business as usual at the expense of everybody in harms way.

Also of letting those who protect those harming us and the environment, for their own gain, get away with it, by confusing those who are easily lead and/or distracted or preventing the sensible and obvious measures to cease and repair the harm.

The argument is always that “We” can not afford to stop causing harm.

That “We” is always made out to be all of us when really it means a very small and self centred group of people who could easily change but just don’t care to, because they would not make quite as much money or simply would have to change and can’t be bothered to.

Nellie Kershaw, a textile worker, was the first medically noted death from pulmonary asbestosis in 1924. Her employers used the excuse that it was not an existing medical condition to deny liability for her death.

The inquest however lead to a British parliamentary enquiry that formally recognised the condition and that asbestos was hazardous to death. This lead to the first Asbestos Industry Regulations coming into effect in 1932.

Lawsuits against asbestos manufacturers had already begun in 1929 for failure to implement safety measures after the link between asbestos, asbestosis and mesothelioma had become known as early as 1898.

James Hardie knew all this and experimented with alternative fibres as early as the 1950s but as was shown in several compensation trials they determined that asbestos was far more profitable and continued to use it in their products until they were forced to switch in the late 1980’s.

So far from being unknown, the dangers of asbestos had been clearly established for well over 30 years before Mr Fluffy did his dirty work in the ACT.

We will of course fail to learn from this and repeat our mistakes again and again. The only people to ever get condemned and be punished, as usual, will be the victims and those who speak up on behalf of the victims.

pajs said :

JC said :

Why is Mr Fluffy ugly and despicable. He was installing a product that at the time was legal and a very valid and good way of insulating a house. The fact it has since turned out to be such a disaster hardly warrants character assassination of this type against the guy (who has passed away) who ran the business and has no place in any rational discussion or debate about the issue.

Agree. It’s the regulators that failed (the Cth), not the fault of the installer. The science was there, recommendations were made as early as 1968 that the Cth should ban the use of asbestos insulation, but government was too slow to act.

He wasn’t just an installer selling a product many other installers were also selling. He came up with an unusual use for a product with a question mark already over it, so how much research did he do? How much responsibility should the profit-maker take or should the responsibility always and only lie with the government?

Maya123 said :

JC said :

Marcus Paul said :

“Fluffy ‘knew’ the risks – yet failed to warn its customers – show me evidence to suggest otherwise.

Where is the evidence to suggest that in 1968 that the Mr Fluffy product was known to be so dangerous to householders?

A quick check of the net. First thing I checked to answer this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos

“By the beginning of the 20th century concerns were beginning to be raised, which escalated in severity during the 1920s and 1930s. By the 1980s and 1990s asbestos trade and use started to become banned outright, phased out, or heavily restricted in an increasing number of countries.”

In fact, I read someone claiming their parents had rejected the chance of having Mr Fluffy put insulation in their house, because even then they knew of the dangers.

So, many years before 1968; the 1920s and 1930s. However, the general public might not have been aware, but I’m sure the authorities were.

I remember reading about those parents who rejected the Mr Fluffy insulation.

Maya123 said :

JC said :

Marcus Paul said :

“Fluffy ‘knew’ the risks – yet failed to warn its customers – show me evidence to suggest otherwise.

Where is the evidence to suggest that in 1968 that the Mr Fluffy product was known to be so dangerous to householders?

A quick check of the net. First thing I checked to answer this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos

“By the beginning of the 20th century concerns were beginning to be raised, which escalated in severity during the 1920s and 1930s. By the 1980s and 1990s asbestos trade and use started to become banned outright, phased out, or heavily restricted in an increasing number of countries.”

In fact, I read someone claiming their parents had rejected the chance of having Mr Fluffy put insulation in their house, because even then they knew of the dangers.

So, many years before 1968; the 1920s and 1930s. However, the general public might not have been aware, but I’m sure the authorities were.

There are hundreds of known carcinogens freely used in industry and construction today even though they are known to cause harm if not used or treated correctly.

Your Wikipedia link doesn’t suggest that this product posed any major risks for its use at the time.

20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Maya123 said :

JC said :

Marcus Paul said :

“Fluffy ‘knew’ the risks – yet failed to warn its customers – show me evidence to suggest otherwise.

Where is the evidence to suggest that in 1968 that the Mr Fluffy product was known to be so dangerous to householders?

A quick check of the net. First thing I checked to answer this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos

“By the beginning of the 20th century concerns were beginning to be raised, which escalated in severity during the 1920s and 1930s. By the 1980s and 1990s asbestos trade and use started to become banned outright, phased out, or heavily restricted in an increasing number of countries.”

In fact, I read someone claiming their parents had rejected the chance of having Mr Fluffy put insulation in their house, because even then they knew of the dangers.

So, many years before 1968; the 1920s and 1930s. However, the general public might not have been aware, but I’m sure the authorities were.

Seeing as you are using Wiki as a source, if you check the Mr Fluffy page it says:

“At the time, there was little knowledge by the public about the dangers of exposure to asbestos”

So yeah it was starting to become apparent, but still not fully known or understood.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Fluffy

Bennop said :

Marcus Paul said :

“So you think a simple small business operator should know more and better than government and health authorities about the product he is using? Like I said, pull your head in.”

Your support, sympathy and excuses for a company which has cost this city nearly a billion dollars, and has affected probably one-hundred thousand people (or more) is duly noted. If providing an opinion warrants me to “pull my head in” then I’ll keep talking, I obviously need to, with apologists like you out there 🙂

I’m no apologist. But I am trying to highlight that you are sensationalising an issue that was essentially a case of dumb bad luck, and you are also trying to pull out the pitchforks to blame someone who can’t talk back.

Slavery was “legal” right up until people were forced to cease the practice at gun point and the perpetrators were really ignorant of what they were doing and why it was bad. They fought to the grim end to continue harming others for their own personal gain.

Asbestos was well known to be harmful at the time particularly where applied in a loose and friable state. Architects were arguing that it should not have been used but the usual liars, shills and misinformationists made sure that Government did not act.

James Hardy’s management knowingly put their own workers in harms way and lied to them whilst protecting themselves both industrially and financially. When the proverbial hit the fan and they were forced to pay the belated compensation, they moved the company to the Netherlands and did everything to avoid their culpability, even till today.

Everything is legal when you own the law and those who write and administer the law.

Something the victims never do.

JC said :

Marcus Paul said :

“Fluffy ‘knew’ the risks – yet failed to warn its customers – show me evidence to suggest otherwise.

Where is the evidence to suggest that in 1968 that the Mr Fluffy product was known to be so dangerous to householders?

Read any of the reports done on Mr Fluffy and the concern seems to be not about using amosite as an insulation product, but about the dangers about the method of insulation and the precautions the workers were taking installing it. Indeed even after Mr Fluffy closed shop it took another 10 years to get serious about a clean up didn’t it?

JC, even when he found out he brushed it off as a media beat up. Good article here by Adam Spence http://citynews.com.au/2014/revealed-scandalous-mr-fluffly-legacy-lives/. One of his sons has spoken too. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-05/mr-fluffy-son-sorry-for-residents/6595460

pajs said :

The science was there, recommendations were made as early as 1968 that the Cth should ban the use of asbestos insulation, but government was too slow to act.

Not slow, the Liberal Government of the day refused. Because it would have made the very wealthy people behind James Hardy somewhat less wealthy or forced them to do something different and less harmful.

Just as now the present Liberal Government is refusing to act on Carbon emissions for exactly the same selfish reasons and taking the side of those causing the damage, against the victims.

“Given Canberrans are now in debt to the tune of a billion dollars – mostly thanks to the inaction and frankly ‘uncaring’ response from the Abbott Government – this is also understandable.”

Unless Federal Labor has made an absolutely water-tight, free of weasel words and escape clauses promise to redress this when it returns to power, we can probably regard “inaction” and “uncaring” on this subject as bipartisan federal policy.

I’ve been watching the saga unfold and I’ve seen the online tussles. I must admit I have zero time for the people who think they’re so entitled to the billion odd dollars we’ve shelled out on them without so much as a bit of common gratitude.

From what I’ve read, Ms Heseltine didn’t have to lead the charge and the lawyers sure as Hell weren’t lining up for everyone. She brought Goliath to his knees and the peanut gallery thinks she owes them more.

On top of it all, I heard her on the radio saying how grateful she and others were for the bailout and then one of the other home owners attacked her and called her a sell out. Apparently she’s not even entitled to speak for herself or others who know they’ve been spared at our expense.

Maya123 said :

JC said :

Marcus Paul said :

“Fluffy ‘knew’ the risks – yet failed to warn its customers – show me evidence to suggest otherwise.

Where is the evidence to suggest that in 1968 that the Mr Fluffy product was known to be so dangerous to householders?

A quick check of the net. First thing I checked to answer this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos

“By the beginning of the 20th century concerns were beginning to be raised, which escalated in severity during the 1920s and 1930s. By the 1980s and 1990s asbestos trade and use started to become banned outright, phased out, or heavily restricted in an increasing number of countries.”

In fact, I read someone claiming their parents had rejected the chance of having Mr Fluffy put insulation in their house, because even then they knew of the dangers.

So, many years before 1968; the 1920s and 1930s. However, the general public might not have been aware, but I’m sure the authorities were.

In 1979 I worked in the mailroom at the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and one of the companies they invested in was James Hardie. 60 Minutes had done a story on the dangers of asbestos and that resulted in a flurry of other media stories. Hardies sent us a copy of their annual report, and included with it was a pamphlet headed “Asbestos – Scotching the Myths”. It’s a pity I didn’t snaffle it at the time because it would have been very amusing reading nowadays.

Maya123 said :

So, many years before 1968; the 1920s and 1930s. However, the general public might not have been aware, but I’m sure the authorities were.

Only if they cared to look.

Marcus Paul said :

Really JC? I haven’t named the owner personally. The fact remains this product and the foul legacy it has left on our city is “ugly and despicable” I have plenty of information that dismisses any notion that the company had little knowledge of the potential risks associated with pumping this toxic crap into homes. You obviously haven’t been affected? I’d suggest you may well be in a very small minority of people who would offer any support to this company.

Mr Fluffy is NOT a victim.

Marcus Paul,

I personally have no problem with you making the claim that the owner of the Mr Fluffy company knew how toxic his product was, but I (and a number of other rioters judging by the comments in this thread) do have a problem with you not providing any evidence for this claim whatsoever.

So far all you have presented is a series of ad hominem attacks on various other posters in this thread, implying that they lack empathy, or that they are “quarterwits” or “apologists” for daring to ask for some evidence.

You said that you “have plenty of information that dismisses any notion that the company has little knowledge of the potential risks”?

Great, give us that information and silence all your critics!

Marcus Paul said :

“Why is Mr Fluffy ugly and despicable. He was installing a product that at the time was legal and a very valid and good way of insulating a house. The fact it has since turned out to be such a disaster hardly warrants character assassination of this type against the guy (who has passed away) who ran the business and has no place in any rational discussion or debate about the issue”

Really JC? I haven’t named the owner personally. The fact remains this product and the foul legacy it has left on our city is “ugly and despicable” I have plenty of information that dismisses any notion that the company had little knowledge of the potential risks associated with pumping this toxic crap into homes. You obviously haven’t been affected? I’d suggest you may well be in a very small minority of people who would offer any support to this company.

Mr Fluffy is NOT a victim.

Any more than James Hardie was. Ask the Baynton family

Marcus Marcus Marcus if only it were so easy to say all this could of been avoided but in reality it’s up to the authorities to ban a product such as this and as has been mentioned it hadn’t.
I do have sympathy for the people affected but we could argue about who’s fault it is all day and go nowhere and it will not help the people affected.
My only opinion in all this is that the federal government should of taken this on and not “loan” the money to the ACT council, sorry government to handle. we have seen history with that council in relation to a number of issues in the ACT when it comes to construction so god help us with them managing demolition.
The fact that the federal government so called cleaned these homes when in fact that wasn’t the case should of been taken to the high court for them to rule on the negligence.
Anyways again I don’t disagree with your article I just think we need to move forward now for all involved

JC said :

Marcus Paul said :

“Fluffy ‘knew’ the risks – yet failed to warn its customers – show me evidence to suggest otherwise.

Where is the evidence to suggest that in 1968 that the Mr Fluffy product was known to be so dangerous to householders?

A quick check of the net. First thing I checked to answer this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos

“By the beginning of the 20th century concerns were beginning to be raised, which escalated in severity during the 1920s and 1930s. By the 1980s and 1990s asbestos trade and use started to become banned outright, phased out, or heavily restricted in an increasing number of countries.”

In fact, I read someone claiming their parents had rejected the chance of having Mr Fluffy put insulation in their house, because even then they knew of the dangers.

So, many years before 1968; the 1920s and 1930s. However, the general public might not have been aware, but I’m sure the authorities were.

Marcus Paul said :

“So you think a simple small business operator should know more and better than government and health authorities about the product he is using? Like I said, pull your head in.”

Your support, sympathy and excuses for a company which has cost this city nearly a billion dollars, and has affected probably one-hundred thousand people (or more) is duly noted. If providing an opinion warrants me to “pull my head in” then I’ll keep talking, I obviously need to, with apologists like you out there 🙂

I’m no apologist. But I am trying to highlight that you are sensationalising an issue that was essentially a case of dumb bad luck, and you are also trying to pull out the pitchforks to blame someone who can’t talk back.

“So you think a simple small business operator should know more and better than government and health authorities about the product he is using? Like I said, pull your head in.”

Your support, sympathy and excuses for a company which has cost this city nearly a billion dollars, and has affected probably one-hundred thousand people (or more) is duly noted. If providing an opinion warrants me to “pull my head in” then I’ll keep talking, I obviously need to, with apologists like you out there 🙂

Marcus Paul said :

“Fluffy ‘knew’ the risks – yet failed to warn its customers – show me evidence to suggest otherwise.

Where is the evidence to suggest that in 1968 that the Mr Fluffy product was known to be so dangerous to householders?

Read any of the reports done on Mr Fluffy and the concern seems to be not about using amosite as an insulation product, but about the dangers about the method of insulation and the precautions the workers were taking installing it. Indeed even after Mr Fluffy closed shop it took another 10 years to get serious about a clean up didn’t it?

Marcus Paul said :

“By your logic every service station and bottle shop are also “ugly and despicable”. Tobacco and booze kill.
Pull your head in.”

And just like that, some quarter wit pipes up and proves my point regarding this entire post.

Yeah, OK, servo’s and bottlo’s might sell grog and ciggies – but these are drugs with plenty of warnings given about their affects. My argument (if you care to listen) is that Fluffy ‘knew’ the risks – yet failed to warn its customers – show me evidence to suggest otherwise.

You shouldn’t ask for evidence against something you haven’t proven yourself. But seeing you have:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/2014-08-10/5649508

http://citynews.com.au/2014/revealed-scandalous-mr-fluffly-legacy-lives/

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/mr-fluffy-employee-had-no-idea-asbestos-insulation-was-dangerous-20140724-zvqk3.html

So you think a simple small business operator should know more and better than government and health authorities about the product he is using? Like I said, pull your head in.

Now, where is your evidence?

Marcus Paul said :

”
Mr Fluffy is NOT a victim.

Nor is he a criminal, and whilst you didn’t name he everyone knows it was one guy running a legal business installing a legal product. The comments had no place in the article or the debate, stick to facts.

“By your logic every service station and bottle shop are also “ugly and despicable”. Tobacco and booze kill.
Pull your head in.”

And just like that, some quarter wit pipes up and proves my point regarding this entire post.

Yeah, OK, servo’s and bottlo’s might sell grog and ciggies – but these are drugs with plenty of warnings given about their affects. My argument (if you care to listen) is that Fluffy ‘knew’ the risks – yet failed to warn its customers – show me evidence to suggest otherwise.

Marcus Paul said :

“Why is Mr Fluffy ugly and despicable. He was installing a product that at the time was legal and a very valid and good way of insulating a house. The fact it has since turned out to be such a disaster hardly warrants character assassination of this type against the guy (who has passed away) who ran the business and has no place in any rational discussion or debate about the issue”

Really JC? I haven’t named the owner personally. The fact remains this product and the foul legacy it has left on our city is “ugly and despicable” I have plenty of information that dismisses any notion that the company had little knowledge of the potential risks associated with pumping this toxic crap into homes. You obviously haven’t been affected? I’d suggest you may well be in a very small minority of people who would offer any support to this company.

Mr Fluffy is NOT a victim.

He may not be a victim, but as JC says “He was installing a product that at the time was legal and a very valid and good way of insulating a house”.

By your logic every service station and bottle shop are also “ugly and despicable”. Tobacco and booze kill.

Pull your head in.

“Why is Mr Fluffy ugly and despicable. He was installing a product that at the time was legal and a very valid and good way of insulating a house. The fact it has since turned out to be such a disaster hardly warrants character assassination of this type against the guy (who has passed away) who ran the business and has no place in any rational discussion or debate about the issue”

Really JC? I haven’t named the owner personally. The fact remains this product and the foul legacy it has left on our city is “ugly and despicable” I have plenty of information that dismisses any notion that the company had little knowledge of the potential risks associated with pumping this toxic crap into homes. You obviously haven’t been affected? I’d suggest you may well be in a very small minority of people who would offer any support to this company.

Mr Fluffy is NOT a victim.

I completely understand why people could and would be upset by their options. But they also have to keep in mind, that their neighbours are also at risk of the asbestos, if any got out into the air. So demolishing is obviously the best option. However at the same time, why should taxpayers money build them a brand new house netting the owners a financial gain?
An option the government could have given owners would be to pay to demolish and clean the site only and owners can then rebuild or sell the land themselves.
And the government is still going to lose money on this, they are not making money, just recouping some where they subdivide the blocks. In some areas I dare say multiple houses next to each other will be turned into medium density, thus providing a net gain in housing which is also a good thing in Canberra. The valuations also for Mr Fluffy owners seem to be quite generous as well and probably more than what a private sale would get.

I agree its hard to remove the emotions, but you almost have to, to be completely fair to everyone.

JC said :

Why is Mr Fluffy ugly and despicable. He was installing a product that at the time was legal and a very valid and good way of insulating a house. The fact it has since turned out to be such a disaster hardly warrants character assassination of this type against the guy (who has passed away) who ran the business and has no place in any rational discussion or debate about the issue.

Agree. It’s the regulators that failed (the Cth), not the fault of the installer. The science was there, recommendations were made as early as 1968 that the Cth should ban the use of asbestos insulation, but government was too slow to act.

Why is Mr Fluffy ugly and despicable. He was installing a product that at the time was legal and a very valid and good way of insulating a house. The fact it has since turned out to be such a disaster hardly warrants character assassination of this type against the guy (who has passed away) who ran the business and has no place in any rational discussion or debate about the issue.

How have they turned on each other? What are the victims fighting about?

Whenever money is involved, people tend to go crazy.