VAR Is there Asbestos in Patrick Bamford’s Artex bathroom wall?

[Rodley]

We all know about the dangers of Artex in renovation projects, but I was surprised to see Bamford greeting the fans on the official Instagram page in what appeared to be a deceased pensioners bathroom. Presumably he is in the midst of a housing project. However alarm bells rang seeing the familiar pattern of decorative Artex behind him. I know from experience the presence of Asbestos in walling finishes



With a 9 week contract at the club, I’m trying to establish what level of risk there is for our erstwhile saviour. The last thing we need is respiratory issues and coughing distracting the bench / players from hearing CWAK’s touchline instructions.

If someone can post the Insta video by reply, that would be much appreciated.

Vote NOW

 

[dexter101]

The more I look at this, the more it makes me giggle. He even appears to be sat in the bath!

 

[Rodley]

The more I look at this, the more it makes me giggle. He even appears to be sat in the bath!

I’m all for slightly more edgy announcement videos, but the lad looks like he’s about to fill that bath with 30 cans of custard.

If you know you know!

 

[georgebernardshaw]

We all know about the dangers of Artex in renovation projects, but I was surprised to see Bamford greeting the fans on the official Instagram page in what appeared to be a deceased pensioners bathroom. Presumably he is in the midst of a housing project. However alarm bells rang seeing the familiar pattern of decorative Artex behind him. I know from experience the presence of Asbestos in walling finishes

View attachment 225549

With a 9 week contract at the club, I’m trying to establish what level of risk there is for our erstwhile saviour. The last thing we need is respiratory issues and coughing distracting the bench / players from hearing CWAK’s touchline instructions.

If someone can post the Insta video by reply, that would be much appreciated.

Vote NOW

It’ll take a week to cremate him….

 

[Klaatu Barada Nikto]

Good to see us trending back to the glory days of United marketing

 

[Rodley]

Good to see us trending back to the glory days of United marketing

View attachment 225550

“Just hang the red curtain we posted you on the shower rail Pat”

“Erm, OK….what about the panic alarm on the wall?”

“Here …(passes coathanger of Kids Blades shirts)….stick those over it”

 

[Mumbo]

At least he’s not using a bath hoist so he must be fit.

 

[dc_blade]

The grab bar in the back doesn't fill me with confidence about his mobility.

 

[Rodley]

The grab bar in the back doesn't fill me with confidence about his mobility.

Been living in that bath since he was released by Leeds.

 

[Sportbilly /Detroit Blade]

The more I look at this, the more it makes me giggle. He even appears to be sat in the bath!

Or on the throne!

 

[Edgar Allan Poo]

Looks like they gave him one of Harry Souttars old shirts (as he's not staying long) and is planning to shrink it to fit.

 

[dc_blade]

Been living in that bath since he was released by Leeds.

Should've taken the opportunity to work on that bathtub ring. Slovenly.

 

[dexter101]

Or on the throne!

Now I can't not see him doing that thing dogs do, when they go for a poo and stare at you...

 

[Railway Blade]

I voted C as that is the sensible option. However there is no way of establishing if that is his own bathroom.

A slight concern is that if it is the SUFC training ground bath then the concerns you raise, together with with the evidence of a lot of our players blowing out of there arses after 45 mins, might mean the owners might be wise to invest in a new modern suite, instead of p*ssing good money up the wall on has-been players.

 

[Geordie Blade]

I voted C as that is the sensible option. However there is no way of establishing if that is his own bathroom.

But the question is "is there likely to be...". Therefore, we may be able to go on the balance of probabilities. Is it more than or less than 50% likelihood? We can estimate that without a formal survey from a reputable contractor. If the artex was installed after 2000, there should be zero probability of it containing asbestos. If it was furbished before that, then there is an increasing risk that it contains asbestos. The design on Mr Bamford's wall appears to be 1990s in design. However, it could be as late as 2004 or as early as 1986. I'm going to assume that it was installed in 1995, with a triangular distribution either side to capture the uncertainty.

Year - Likelihood of build - Likelihood of substance - Combined probability
1986 1.0% 90.0% 0.9%
1987 2.0% 88.0% 1.8%
1988 3.0% 86.0% 2.6%
1989 4.0% 84.0% 3.4%
1990 5.0% 82.0% 4.1%
1991 6.0% 80.0% 4.8%
1992 7.0% 75.0% 5.3%
1993 8.0% 70.0% 5.6%
1994 9.0% 65.0% 5.9%
1995 10.0% 60.0% 6.0%
1996 9.0% 50.0% 4.5%
1997 8.0% 40.0% 3.2%
1998 7.0% 30.0% 2.1%
1999 6.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2000 5.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2001 4.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2002 3.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2003 2.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2004 1.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Sum - - - - - - - 50.0%


So, in conclusion based on the detailed assessment above, you're right. We have no idea. We'll need to get an independent survey from a reputable contractor.

 

[Edgar Allan Poo]

But the question is "is there likely to be...". Therefore, we may be able to go on the balance of probabilities. Is it more than or less than 50% likelihood? We can estimate that without a formal survey from a reputable contractor. If the artex was installed after 2000, there should be zero probability of it containing asbestos. If it was furbished before that, then there is an increasing risk that it contains asbestos. The design on Mr Bamford's wall appears to be 1990s in design. However, it could be as late as 2004 or as early as 1986. I'm going to assume that it was installed in 1995, with a triangular distribution either side to capture the uncertainty.

Year - Likelihood of build - Likelihood of substance - Combined probability
1986 1.0% 90.0% 0.9%
1987 2.0% 88.0% 1.8%
1988 3.0% 86.0% 2.6%
1989 4.0% 84.0% 3.4%
1990 5.0% 82.0% 4.1%
1991 6.0% 80.0% 4.8%
1992 7.0% 75.0% 5.3%
1993 8.0% 70.0% 5.6%
1994 9.0% 65.0% 5.9%
1995 10.0% 60.0% 6.0%
1996 9.0% 50.0% 4.5%
1997 8.0% 40.0% 3.2%
1998 7.0% 30.0% 2.1%
1999 6.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2000 5.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2001 4.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2002 3.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2003 2.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2004 1.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Sum - - - - - - - 50.0%


So, in conclusion based on the detailed assessment above, you're right. We have no idea. We'll need to get an independent survey from a reputable contractor.

We need 3 quotes as well and acceptance is dependant on receipt of project specific RAMS and appropriate insurance.

 

[Eddiecolquhounsleg]

There’s nothing like a nice bit of Artex, and that is nothing like a nice bit of Artex.

 

[Bladesman]

Did he sign the deal while on the throne?

 

[ThatJa]

Knowing our luck he'll see this thread, pull it all off with no protection and come down with an illness..........

 

[Edgar Allan Poo]

There’s nothing like a nice bit of Artex, and that is nothing like a nice bit of Artex.

It's artex for artex sake.

 

[mattbianco1]

Are we sure that's not City Sauna ?

 

[The Crab]

COH have cut the intro budget to the bone.

Next signing will be going through Pitsmoor pigs bin

 

[de g.]

But the question is "is there likely to be...". Therefore, we may be able to go on the balance of probabilities. Is it more than or less than 50% likelihood? We can estimate that without a formal survey from a reputable contractor. If the artex was installed after 2000, there should be zero probability of it containing asbestos. If it was furbished before that, then there is an increasing risk that it contains asbestos. The design on Mr Bamford's wall appears to be 1990s in design. However, it could be as late as 2004 or as early as 1986. I'm going to assume that it was installed in 1995, with a triangular distribution either side to capture the uncertainty.

Year - Likelihood of build - Likelihood of substance - Combined probability
1986 1.0% 90.0% 0.9%
1987 2.0% 88.0% 1.8%
1988 3.0% 86.0% 2.6%
1989 4.0% 84.0% 3.4%
1990 5.0% 82.0% 4.1%
1991 6.0% 80.0% 4.8%
1992 7.0% 75.0% 5.3%
1993 8.0% 70.0% 5.6%
1994 9.0% 65.0% 5.9%
1995 10.0% 60.0% 6.0%
1996 9.0% 50.0% 4.5%
1997 8.0% 40.0% 3.2%
1998 7.0% 30.0% 2.1%
1999 6.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2000 5.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2001 4.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2002 3.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2003 2.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2004 1.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Sum - - - - - - - 50.0%


So, in conclusion based on the detailed assessment above, you're right. We have no idea. We'll need to get an independent survey from a reputable contractor.

Removal of more than 1sqm of textured coatings falls into the realm of notifiable non-licensed work (NNLW) so it would need to be carried out by a contractor with health monitoring in place for their workers and take all the appropriate precautions to protect workers and Mr Bamford himself.

There are companies where you can send a sample of the material, but I'm not sure that would necessarily be worth the hassle. In a domestic context, I'd be inclined to have it boarded and skimmed, and then any fixings can be drilled with a paste (such as shaving foam) in line with Asbestos Essentials.

 

[Blade 1971]

Best. Thread. Ever.