Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Ask RiotACT

Forget about garage sales
More buyers, More profit, Less stress

Should Mr Fluffy be a cause for concern?

By IslandDreaming 13 June 2014 31

asbestos

Another day, another report in the Canberra Times regarding a ‘Mr Fluffy’ house.

I am at a loss why the ACT Government has had very little to say on the ‘Mr Fluffy’ issue. For that matter, I’m surprised there has been very little in the way of posts on here regarding it too. Is everybody hoping this all just blows over? The health issues resulting from this are potentially enormous; not just for the residents of a loose fill asbestos house, but for tradies, friends, and families of the residents who have been in the house and possibly neighbouring houses.

There is no standardisation over the assessment or removal process, nor is there any public information available regarding health assessment of residents. As far as I understand it, this problem doesn’t exist anywhere else in the world. Mr Fluffy was the only company to use this type of loose fill asbestos.

If you are renting, you may not know if you are in a Mr Fluffy house thanks to the ACT Government protecting the rights of the owners instead of considering the health implications to the renters.

As a concerned mother, it’s possible I’m blowing this out of all proportion. Is this something we should be worried about?

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
31 Responses to
Should Mr Fluffy be a cause for concern?
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Tezza7420 7:47 pm 01 Jul 14

Maya123 said :

It’s been said here about loose asbestos, “The problem is unique in the whole world.” A quick net search reveals it is a problem in other places too. These two links are to the UK.
http://www.midlandsasbestossolutions.co.uk/domestic/

http://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/essentials/loosefill.htm

This probably best explains why it is so unique to Canberra …….. “Mr Fluffy was Canberra man Dirk Jansen, a thinker who in the early ‘60s had the bright-spark inspiration to insulate homes with 100 per cent pure loose asbestos. Luckily, he was the only person in the world to have this idea.”

creative_canberran 9:50 am 25 Jun 14

It is dangerous, in that there is no known safe exposure to brown and blue asbestos. What the danger is depends on a range of factors. For example, smoking status and other respiratory conditions will make someone more susceptible.

Generally speaking, the risk of illness is related to the concentration and time of exposure. A study of UK factory workers in the amosite textiles industry found a mortality rate of around 20% at exposures many times higher than the home owners of Mr Fluffy homes would receive. But the fact is statistics like that can only serve to hopefully offer some comfort to the owners and their families about the risk being less likely than likely, it doesn’t negate the fact it takes only one fibre potentially to cause a fatal illness. For most of the owners it may not matter that much, but enter kids into the equation who may be in the prime of their lives when the expected time for an illness to manifest arrives, and you can imagine nothing will reduce that fear.

Maya123 11:51 pm 24 Jun 14

It’s been said here about loose asbestos, “The problem is unique in the whole world.” A quick net search reveals it is a problem in other places too. These two links are to the UK.
http://www.midlandsasbestossolutions.co.uk/domestic/

http://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/essentials/loosefill.htm

Tezza7420 6:48 pm 19 Jun 14

Cerdig said :

Tezza7420 said :

Cerdig said :

Once you tell people they may be breathing deadly fibres if they come through the front door it will be near impossible to get tradesmen, or incredibly expensive.

I really feel for the poor owners.

It’s an utter catastrophe. One way or another those homes are going to have to be removed and the owners compensated.

Why the front door? What about as soon as the tradespeople step over the property line. Perhaps tradespeople will have to be told when they are phoned to come out and quote for work. Perhaps neighbours of Fluffy houses will have to tell their tradespeople that they would be working on a house next door to a Fluffy house as well.

On the other hand, why the need to tell a tradesperson if they are not doing work that is relevant to the house being a Fluffy house (eg landscapers, or someone working in a house extension that is unrelated to the original Mr Fluffy house)? And then, if the owner is left to make the decision of whether the work is relevant or, even, whether a person is a “tradesperson” (for example, would a window washer be considered a tradesperson), how easy will it be for that go wrong?

If all tradespeople have to be told that they would be working on a Fluffy house even if their work is irrelevant, why stop there. Why won’t the owners have to tell all visitors to the house. Perhaps there should be a sign put up at the front of the property warning door knockers and Jehovah’s witnesses even.

I don’t think you really understood my point, which was that once a list of Fluffy house gets around the places will become unrentable, unsellable no-go zones. In the long run, they will end up derelict unless they are demolished.

I am not saying the list should be kept secret, people have a right to know, but the owners should be compensated and helped to deal with the problem.

I understood your point perfectly. My point was that any solution (such as the one that the Government is now considering), other than demolition and site cleaning, will ultimately fail.

banco 5:11 pm 19 Jun 14

Cerdig said :

Tezza7420 said :

Cerdig said :

Once you tell people they may be breathing deadly fibres if they come through the front door it will be near impossible to get tradesmen, or incredibly expensive.

I really feel for the poor owners.

It’s an utter catastrophe. One way or another those homes are going to have to be removed and the owners compensated.

Why the front door? What about as soon as the tradespeople step over the property line. Perhaps tradespeople will have to be told when they are phoned to come out and quote for work. Perhaps neighbours of Fluffy houses will have to tell their tradespeople that they would be working on a house next door to a Fluffy house as well.

On the other hand, why the need to tell a tradesperson if they are not doing work that is relevant to the house being a Fluffy house (eg landscapers, or someone working in a house extension that is unrelated to the original Mr Fluffy house)? And then, if the owner is left to make the decision of whether the work is relevant or, even, whether a person is a “tradesperson” (for example, would a window washer be considered a tradesperson), how easy will it be for that go wrong?

If all tradespeople have to be told that they would be working on a Fluffy house even if their work is irrelevant, why stop there. Why won’t the owners have to tell all visitors to the house. Perhaps there should be a sign put up at the front of the property warning door knockers and Jehovah’s witnesses even.

I don’t think you really understood my point, which was that once a list of Fluffy house gets around the places will become unrentable, unsellable no-go zones. In the long run, they will end up derelict unless they are demolished.

They shouldn’t be sold or rented in their current condition.

Cerdig 4:53 pm 19 Jun 14

Tezza7420 said :

Cerdig said :

Once you tell people they may be breathing deadly fibres if they come through the front door it will be near impossible to get tradesmen, or incredibly expensive.

I really feel for the poor owners.

It’s an utter catastrophe. One way or another those homes are going to have to be removed and the owners compensated.

Why the front door? What about as soon as the tradespeople step over the property line. Perhaps tradespeople will have to be told when they are phoned to come out and quote for work. Perhaps neighbours of Fluffy houses will have to tell their tradespeople that they would be working on a house next door to a Fluffy house as well.

On the other hand, why the need to tell a tradesperson if they are not doing work that is relevant to the house being a Fluffy house (eg landscapers, or someone working in a house extension that is unrelated to the original Mr Fluffy house)? And then, if the owner is left to make the decision of whether the work is relevant or, even, whether a person is a “tradesperson” (for example, would a window washer be considered a tradesperson), how easy will it be for that go wrong?

If all tradespeople have to be told that they would be working on a Fluffy house even if their work is irrelevant, why stop there. Why won’t the owners have to tell all visitors to the house. Perhaps there should be a sign put up at the front of the property warning door knockers and Jehovah’s witnesses even.

I don’t think you really understood my point, which was that once a list of Fluffy house gets around the places will become unrentable, unsellable no-go zones. In the long run, they will end up derelict unless they are demolished.

I am not saying the list should be kept secret, people have a right to know, but the owners should be compensated and helped to deal with the problem.

John Moulis 11:27 am 19 Jun 14

Anti said :

I grew up in a Mr Fluffy home in Curtin. we had it removed (roof off and sealed up for 8 weeks) back in 1989/90. we used to play and hide each other’s toys in the roof as kids. if we get sick in another 10-20 years do you think we will be compensated. NO, I bet.

Sorry to double post but when I was at Melrose High in the early 1970s the school was full of it. The classrooms on the top floor had sound absorbent waffle-type tiles as the ceiling and when you walked into the rooms on Monday morning there was a thin film of asbestos dust on the desktops. In the corridors were heavy fire doors filled with asbestos. Several of them were in disrepair and had the wood veneer either partially missing or stuck on with masking tape. Then there were the asbestos grilles we placed over the bunsen burners in science class. Does anybody else have memories of living with asbestos as kids?

Tezza7420 7:33 am 19 Jun 14

Cerdig said :

Once you tell people they may be breathing deadly fibres if they come through the front door it will be near impossible to get tradesmen, or incredibly expensive.

I really feel for the poor owners.

It’s an utter catastrophe. One way or another those homes are going to have to be removed and the owners compensated.

Why the front door? What about as soon as the tradespeople step over the property line. Perhaps tradespeople will have to be told when they are phoned to come out and quote for work. Perhaps neighbours of Fluffy houses will have to tell their tradespeople that they would be working on a house next door to a Fluffy house as well.

On the other hand, why the need to tell a tradesperson if they are not doing work that is relevant to the house being a Fluffy house (eg landscapers, or someone working in a house extension that is unrelated to the original Mr Fluffy house)? And then, if the owner is left to make the decision of whether the work is relevant or, even, whether a person is a “tradesperson” (for example, would a window washer be considered a tradesperson), how easy will it be for that go wrong?

If all tradespeople have to be told that they would be working on a Fluffy house even if their work is irrelevant, why stop there. Why won’t the owners have to tell all visitors to the house. Perhaps there should be a sign put up at the front of the property warning door knockers and Jehovah’s witnesses even.

screaming banshee 6:39 am 19 Jun 14

Sunny said :

The problem is unique to Canberra, Queanbeyan and a few South Coast homes for the asbestos product was imported by Mr Fluffy. Interesting article in the Age today. Looks like this serious issue is being given the attention is deserves:

http://www.theage.com.au/act-news/commonwealth-hope-for-families-dispossessed-by-mr-fluffy-asbestos-20140617-zsays.html

Problem is the Queanbeyan and south coast homes were never professionally removed. There’s a story from a south coast house they did some renos a few years back and just picked all the stuff up by hand, filled their trailer and drove it to the tip…no control measures whatsoever. NSW govt won’t pitch funds for the cleaning. It’s looking like the Feds are going to do something for the ACT, the NSW govt would want to get on the bandwagon now because I can’t see this getting the same level of attention again if the act issues are addressed to a reasonable standard.

Cerdig 4:24 am 19 Jun 14

Once you tell people they may be breathing deadly fibres if they come through the front door it will be near impossible to get tradesmen, or incredibly expensive. I really feel for the poor owners.

It’s an utter catastrophe. One way or another those homes are going to have to be removed and the owners compensated.

Ray Polglaze 2:51 am 19 Jun 14

Having seen a close relative die from mesothelioma, I think the position with Mr Fluffy Houses is simple. If you are living in a Mr Fluffy House, get out, stop living in it. If that means you go bankrupt, so be it. Don’t wait around while Mr Corbell to consider realistic costs and financial arrangements and what the ACT Government might do. To do that is to risk an early and very cruel death. It’s that blunt and straight forward.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site