Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Ask RiotACT

Charity and fundraising auctions for the Canberra community

Any concerns re Mr Fluffy demolitions?

By CuriousCat - 22 April 2016 13

Ask RiotACT

So Mr Fluffy houses have started to be demolished. Fences have gone up around several in my street, including one across the road from me. If a Mr Fluffy has been demolished next door to you or in your street, what is your opinion of the demolition process? Are you satisfied that every safety measure that is supposed to be taken, has been?

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
13 Responses to
Any concerns re Mr Fluffy demolitions?
1
madelini 2:07 pm
22 Apr 16
#

I’m lucky enough to not live close to Mr Fluffy houses, but I have been following the news with interest (having worked in the Canberra property market for a few years).

While there will obviously be some concerns, I think it’s important to remember to be reasonable. It was reported that so far, the only two demolitions where the materials were compromised were houses that had not opted into the Government buyback scheme. By all accounts, those facilitated by the ACT Government have all been successful and careful thus far.

2
Nilrem 4:52 am
23 Apr 16
#

dungfungus said :

I’m lucky enough to not live close to Mr Fluffy houses, but I have been following the news with interest (having worked in the Canberra property market for a few years).

While there will obviously be some concerns, I think it’s important to remember to be reasonable. It was reported that so far, the only two demolitions where the materials were compromised were houses that had not opted into the Government buyback scheme. By all accounts, those facilitated by the ACT Government have all been successful and careful thus far.

What was story about the dust plume above the fluffy demolition a couple of months back?

3
crackerpants 7:19 am
23 Apr 16
#

JC said :

dungfungus said :

I’m lucky enough to not live close to Mr Fluffy houses, but I have been following the news with interest (having worked in the Canberra property market for a few years).

While there will obviously be some concerns, I think it’s important to remember to be reasonable. It was reported that so far, the only two demolitions where the materials were compromised were houses that had not opted into the Government buyback scheme. By all accounts, those facilitated by the ACT Government have all been successful and careful thus far.

What was story about the dust plume above the fluffy demolition a couple of months back?

We have opposite us, and had a member of the Taskforce knock on our door for a chat when that house was being “decommissioned”. This was just after the news about the botched demolitions, and I asked how that was possible. Yes, they were undertaken privately. My question remains why such a risky procedure was allowed to be done privately at all once contaminated houses had been identified – seems a rather obvious gap.

4
HenryBG 3:57 pm
23 Apr 16
#

gooterz said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

I’m lucky enough to not live close to Mr Fluffy houses, but I have been following the news with interest (having worked in the Canberra property market for a few years).

While there will obviously be some concerns, I think it’s important to remember to be reasonable. It was reported that so far, the only two demolitions where the materials were compromised were houses that had not opted into the Government buyback scheme. By all accounts, those facilitated by the ACT Government have all been successful and careful thus far.

What was story about the dust plume above the fluffy demolition a couple of months back?

We have opposite us, and had a member of the Taskforce knock on our door for a chat when that house was being “decommissioned”. This was just after the news about the botched demolitions, and I asked how that was possible. Yes, they were undertaken privately. My question remains why such a risky procedure was allowed to be done privately at all once contaminated houses had been identified – seems a rather obvious gap.

Probably because your health is about 1,000,000x more at risk from the Carbon Monoxide and other pollutants you are breathing in every day of the week than it is from a one-off of a few stray fibres of asbestos.

For Blue Asbestos, the risk is this: if you spend 10 years, breating in 2-3million fibres per day, you have a 50% chance of contracting Mesothelioma.
But Mr Fluffy isn’t Blue Asbestos.
For the asbestos causing the current panic, the risk is so infinitesimal it is unquantifable.

…but people do feel so empowered by buying into a moral panic.

5
Masquara 2:29 pm
24 Apr 16
#

No-one who developed a headache and sore throat when the black plume from the chemical fire in Mitchell a few years ago traversed the inner north, followed by a “no, we won’t be carrying out long-term environmental testing or following up re contamination, even though the chemicals are dangerous” response from Simon Corbell, will be in the least bit surprised at “zero duty of care for neighbours” stories re the Mr Fluffy demolitions.

6
TracyS 4:30 pm
24 Apr 16
#

“Probably because your health is about 1,000,000x more at risk from the Carbon Monoxide and other pollutants you are breathing in every day of the week than it is from a one-off of a few stray fibres of asbestos.

For Blue Asbestos, the risk is this: if you spend 10 years, breating in 2-3million fibres per day, you have a 50% chance of contracting Mesothelioma.
But Mr Fluffy isn’t Blue Asbestos.
For the asbestos causing the current panic, the risk is so infinitesimal it is unquantifable.

…but people do feel so empowered by buying into a moral panic.”

Except with Mr Fluffy it isn’t “a few stray fibres” – because it is a loose fluff insulation product, the amount of asbestos fibres that are in the air to be breathed in are much higher than other asbestos products which are usually bonded into a solid structure…

7
crackerpants 6:03 pm
24 Apr 16
#

JC said :

gooterz said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

I’m lucky enough to not live close to Mr Fluffy houses, but I have been following the news with interest (having worked in the Canberra property market for a few years).

While there will obviously be some concerns, I think it’s important to remember to be reasonable. It was reported that so far, the only two demolitions where the materials were compromised were houses that had not opted into the Government buyback scheme. By all accounts, those facilitated by the ACT Government have all been successful and careful thus far.

What was story about the dust plume above the fluffy demolition a couple of months back?

We have opposite us, and had a member of the Taskforce knock on our door for a chat when that house was being “decommissioned”. This was just after the news about the botched demolitions, and I asked how that was possible. Yes, they were undertaken privately. My question remains why such a risky procedure was allowed to be done privately at all once contaminated houses had been identified – seems a rather obvious gap.

Probably because your health is about 1,000,000x more at risk from the Carbon Monoxide and other pollutants you are breathing in every day of the week than it is from a one-off of a few stray fibres of asbestos.

For Blue Asbestos, the risk is this: if you spend 10 years, breating in 2-3million fibres per day, you have a 50% chance of contracting Mesothelioma.
But Mr Fluffy isn’t Blue Asbestos.
For the asbestos causing the current panic, the risk is so infinitesimal it is unquantifable.

…but people do feel so empowered by buying into a moral panic.

Ok, fair point, but then why the two sets of conditions for demolitions?

And why the snark? Offer an explanation, sure, but no need to belittle.

8
Tezza7420 9:14 pm
24 Apr 16
#

JC said :

gooterz said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

I’m lucky enough to not live close to Mr Fluffy houses, but I have been following the news with interest (having worked in the Canberra property market for a few years).

While there will obviously be some concerns, I think it’s important to remember to be reasonable. It was reported that so far, the only two demolitions where the materials were compromised were houses that had not opted into the Government buyback scheme. By all accounts, those facilitated by the ACT Government have all been successful and careful thus far.

What was story about the dust plume above the fluffy demolition a couple of months back?

We have opposite us, and had a member of the Taskforce knock on our door for a chat when that house was being “decommissioned”. This was just after the news about the botched demolitions, and I asked how that was possible. Yes, they were undertaken privately. My question remains why such a risky procedure was allowed to be done privately at all once contaminated houses had been identified – seems a rather obvious gap.

Probably because your health is about 1,000,000x more at risk from the Carbon Monoxide and other pollutants you are breathing in every day of the week than it is from a one-off of a few stray fibres of asbestos.

For Blue Asbestos, the risk is this: if you spend 10 years, breating in 2-3million fibres per day, you have a 50% chance of contracting Mesothelioma.
But Mr Fluffy isn’t Blue Asbestos.
For the asbestos causing the current panic, the risk is so infinitesimal it is unquantifable.

…but people do feel so empowered by buying into a moral panic.

I would love to know your source for your stats. Please share.

But, assuming your stats are accurate, does that mean that 1 to 1.5 million fibres per day would result in a 25% chance of mesotheliaoma? What about 100k to 150k fibres? Given that the fibres are microscopic and given many houses were so contaminated they were leaking huge numbers of fibres into living spaces every day, the risk seems much more realistic depending on how you present it.

Oh, and some houses do have blue asbestos. So you need to check at least some of your facts.

And ignoring the health concerns, it appears that you continue to ignore the massive financial cost to many Fluffy owners both in terms of overcapitalising on properties they were compelled to sell earlier than intended and the cost of abandoned (and non compensated) contents.

9
JC 5:38 pm
25 Apr 16
#

JC said :

JC said :

gooterz said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

I’m lucky enough to not live close to Mr Fluffy houses, but I have been following the news with interest (having worked in the Canberra property market for a few years).

While there will obviously be some concerns, I think it’s important to remember to be reasonable. It was reported that so far, the only two demolitions where the materials were compromised were houses that had not opted into the Government buyback scheme. By all accounts, those facilitated by the ACT Government have all been successful and careful thus far.

What was story about the dust plume above the fluffy demolition a couple of months back?

We have opposite us, and had a member of the Taskforce knock on our door for a chat when that house was being “decommissioned”. This was just after the news about the botched demolitions, and I asked how that was possible. Yes, they were undertaken privately. My question remains why such a risky procedure was allowed to be done privately at all once contaminated houses had been identified – seems a rather obvious gap.

Probably because your health is about 1,000,000x more at risk from the Carbon Monoxide and other pollutants you are breathing in every day of the week than it is from a one-off of a few stray fibres of asbestos.

For Blue Asbestos, the risk is this: if you spend 10 years, breating in 2-3million fibres per day, you have a 50% chance of contracting Mesothelioma.
But Mr Fluffy isn’t Blue Asbestos.
For the asbestos causing the current panic, the risk is so infinitesimal it is unquantifable.

…but people do feel so empowered by buying into a moral panic.

I would love to know your source for your stats. Please share.

But, assuming your stats are accurate, does that mean that 1 to 1.5 million fibres per day would result in a 25% chance of mesotheliaoma? What about 100k to 150k fibres? Given that the fibres are microscopic and given many houses were so contaminated they were leaking huge numbers of fibres into living spaces every day, the risk seems much more realistic depending on how you present it.

Oh, and some houses do have blue asbestos. So you need to check at least some of your facts.

And ignoring the health concerns, it appears that you continue to ignore the massive financial cost to many Fluffy owners both in terms of overcapitalising on properties they were compelled to sell earlier than intended and the cost of abandoned (and non compensated) contents.

Where is the evidence fibres were leaking into houses every day and what rule of physics were they using to leak into living spaces?

Whilst the risk of the mr fluffy type asbestos is very real the risk is for those working in the roof cavity or when doing renovations that expose what was left behind in wall cavities and up behind cornices and the like. Hence the whole mr fluffy MK II saga.

10
Des 5:44 pm
25 Apr 16
#

If you have concerns, contact Safe Work Australia. The whole point about the ACT Govt doing the demolition is that they wanted to do it all correctly. If you want to be extra careful, I would close all windows and doors during the demolitions.

11
Tezza7420 11:56 am
26 Apr 16
#

Acton said :

JC said :

JC said :

gooterz said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

I’m lucky enough to not live close to Mr Fluffy houses, but I have been following the news with interest (having worked in the Canberra property market for a few years).

While there will obviously be some concerns, I think it’s important to remember to be reasonable. It was reported that so far, the only two demolitions where the materials were compromised were houses that had not opted into the Government buyback scheme. By all accounts, those facilitated by the ACT Government have all been successful and careful thus far.

What was story about the dust plume above the fluffy demolition a couple of months back?

We have opposite us, and had a member of the Taskforce knock on our door for a chat when that house was being “decommissioned”. This was just after the news about the botched demolitions, and I asked how that was possible. Yes, they were undertaken privately. My question remains why such a risky procedure was allowed to be done privately at all once contaminated houses had been identified – seems a rather obvious gap.

Probably because your health is about 1,000,000x more at risk from the Carbon Monoxide and other pollutants you are breathing in every day of the week than it is from a one-off of a few stray fibres of asbestos.

For Blue Asbestos, the risk is this: if you spend 10 years, breating in 2-3million fibres per day, you have a 50% chance of contracting Mesothelioma.
But Mr Fluffy isn’t Blue Asbestos.
For the asbestos causing the current panic, the risk is so infinitesimal it is unquantifable.

…but people do feel so empowered by buying into a moral panic.

I would love to know your source for your stats. Please share.

But, assuming your stats are accurate, does that mean that 1 to 1.5 million fibres per day would result in a 25% chance of mesotheliaoma? What about 100k to 150k fibres? Given that the fibres are microscopic and given many houses were so contaminated they were leaking huge numbers of fibres into living spaces every day, the risk seems much more realistic depending on how you present it.

Oh, and some houses do have blue asbestos. So you need to check at least some of your facts.

And ignoring the health concerns, it appears that you continue to ignore the massive financial cost to many Fluffy owners both in terms of overcapitalising on properties they were compelled to sell earlier than intended and the cost of abandoned (and non compensated) contents.

Where is the evidence fibres were leaking into houses every day and what rule of physics were they using to leak into living spaces?

Whilst the risk of the mr fluffy type asbestos is very real the risk is for those working in the roof cavity or when doing renovations that expose what was left behind in wall cavities and up behind cornices and the like. Hence the whole mr fluffy MK II saga.

I agree that the risk may be temporarily greater for those unknowingly working in certain areas such as roof spaces etc but since this saga commenced, tests repeatedly showed extensive fibres in living spaces of many houses. Obvious entry points were likely to be cracks in walls and cornices, sliding cavity doors, built in cupboards etc. As well, over the years, many people had inadvertently exposed their living areas through renovations and even extremely minor alterations or by storing contents in roof spaces or under houses. Once these fibres were in the house, they often entered heating and air conditioning systems and were then continuously circulated in the air.

The main difference between most workers and residents was that workers were temporarily exposed whereas residents were likely to have lived and breathed in the stuff 24/7.

12
madelini 4:23 pm
26 Apr 16
#

JC said :

dungfungus said :

I’m lucky enough to not live close to Mr Fluffy houses, but I have been following the news with interest (having worked in the Canberra property market for a few years).

While there will obviously be some concerns, I think it’s important to remember to be reasonable. It was reported that so far, the only two demolitions where the materials were compromised were houses that had not opted into the Government buyback scheme. By all accounts, those facilitated by the ACT Government have all been successful and careful thus far.

What was story about the dust plume above the fluffy demolition a couple of months back?

As I said, I am under the impression that the dust plume came from a house that was privately demolished – as in, the owners had opted out of the buyback scheme and employed their own demolition team.

If you live near a Fluffy house where they opted into the scheme (the vast majority), in terms of escaped fibres, you don’t have terribly much to worry about. The Government can’t afford to take risks with this.

13
Masquara 6:40 pm
26 Apr 16
#

JC said :

[
And ignoring the health concerns, it appears that you continue to ignore the massive financial cost to many Fluffy owners both in terms of overcapitalising on properties they were compelled to sell earlier than intended and the cost of abandoned (and non compensated) contents.

Those Fluffy owners should remind themselves and each other that the ACT ratepayer is picking up a massive tab for this. 100 per cent compensation was never on the cards. They should consider themselves very, very lucky that they are getting enough support to be rehoused.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au

Search across the site