My local/unitary authority area was identified as having a high risk of Mesothelioma. Does this mean there is a problem in my area or that I am at higher risk of being exposed to asbestos?

The places that are termed High-Risk are generally areas that are close to industries that previously had high volumes of asbestos used in the past. Such areas include premises like shipyards and asbestos manufacturing corporations. So in theory, people who live in these places are more likely to have worked in such areas, thus meaning they are more prone to develop Mesothelioma in contrast to other areas. This will then lead to a higher average of Mesothelioma cases in comparison to the entire city and neighbouring city's.

The risk to an individual is not really the location where you live, but what your occupation is. So living in one of these areas doesn't necessarily put you at risk, but simply states that the population as a whole, in the past, may have been exposed to higher levels of asbestos relative to other populations. The highest risk people are likely to be building maintenance and renovation jobs.

My occupation was identified as high risk. Does this mean that I should be worried about developing asbestos related disease?

If you are working directly with asbestos then your risk will obviously be higher than people who do not work with asbestos. On the other hand, not all workers are at high risk, but the true risk is generally the timing and amount of asbestos inhaled. Mesothelioma having a very long latency period and death certificates only taking into consideration the last job of the deceased, doesn't truly reflect accurate statistics. The occupation on the death certificate may be different in comparison to the underlying reason when asbestos exposure was at the critical level causing Mesothelioma to set in.  

How do the risks from exposure to different kinds of asbestos differ?

White asbestos has been used more frequently in comparison to the blue and brown asbestos. Hodgson and Darnton in their scientific paper (2000) estimated the risk of Mesothelioma and lung cancer by asbestos fibre type for a range of different exposure scenarios. There results show that the blue variation of asbestos has a risk of about 500 times more chance than that of white asbestos for Mesothelioma and 10-50 times as high for lung cancer. The equivalent risk ratio for brown asbestos is 100 for Mesothelioma and the same as blue (10-50) for lung cancer.

Is there a safe level of exposure below which there is no risk?

Mesothelioma

Many factors make this hard to determine with the main one being that very long latency period. So in general, there is not enough scientific evidence to truly reflect an accurate and real threshold level. So if this cant be quantified, guessing a safe level of asbestos would be at your own risk. This had led ton the HSE not defining a consensus for such threshold levels. If you don't want to be effected, then simply take a threshold level of zero and avoid at all costs if possible.

Asbestosis and lung cancer

Asbestosis on the other hand has a little evidence to suggest patterns and thresholds. It is believed that heavy doses of white asbestos is required to generate high critical levels of lung fibrosis. Levels required to get the same response from blue & brown asbestos is much lower meaning that if such a threshold does exist, then it is very low.

The main cause of lung cancer is smoking. How great is the combined risk of lung cancer due to asbestos exposure and smoking?

The general conception of smoking and asbestos is that this combination will increase the likely hood of lung cancer as both work in conjunction with each other. So those who have been exposed to asbestos and smoke have a higher chance to develop lung cancer in comparison to those individuals who smoke OR are exposed to asbestos.

Asbestos Surveys