# Assuming Asbestos Tile



## 26yrsinflooring (Jul 1, 2008)

What year is the house?
What size are the tiles?

The only way the asbestos can be activated is with sanding the floor, it is the lowest form of absestos ever introduced to the market


----------



## mcconnre (Nov 8, 2008)

early 1970's 9X9 tiles pic attached, I am having it tested there was a black glue attached to wood backing...I recently demod a approx 40 sq ft area, not knowing the potential risks


----------



## 26yrsinflooring (Jul 1, 2008)

It has asbestos, I can tell by looking at it,that pattern was very common in the 70s.
The glue also had asbestos in it, the glue is called cutback.
Your best solution is to escapulate the floor in concrete this will make the asbestos a moot issue. then over lay with ditra prior to tile install.

Remeber; the only to activate the fibers from asbestos is to sand the floor or do a removal that creates a heavy dust issue. if you leave it be it will be fine, just keep it overlaid with something.


----------



## mcconnre (Nov 8, 2008)

*tiling ctd*

The attached pic shows, that all the assumed tile is covered with a 1/4" underlay, some type of sheeting, like I said its solid and level, am I okay to ditra right over this...is the asbestos contained, it is already drilled in place, however do I need to reinforce with more screws (ie every 4 inches). Is drilling into this a concern...
My main concern is the asbestos risk, to avoid tiling and drilling, I am considering just using a laminite. I was hoping to tile right over this underlay.I appreciate your expertise as I am a definite rookie and am trying to do this the most cost effective way, while still trying to do quality workmanship.By concrete do you mean a thinset mortar and then ditra, or actually pour concrete...is this a diy job??Thanks for your help


----------



## 26yrsinflooring (Jul 1, 2008)

In theory you should not lay Ditra over 1/4 launn, but with the asbestos issue it may be your only choice.
Unless you overlay the floor up with 1/2 osb or plywood, the luann is still the weak link.
If you lay right over the luann be sure to nail it down with 1/ 1/4 ring shank nails set on 4-6" centers. Screws will only set right through it.
I have a lot of confidence in the Ditra I think it will work under these circumstances


----------



## mcconnre (Nov 8, 2008)

Thanks again for your expertise, I think I will use 1/2" plywood(screwed down) then ditra then tile, dont want to take any chances. The other tile located in my daughters playroom of all things...I think I will lay some laminate overtop to contain
Thanks Again


----------



## JazMan (Feb 17, 2007)

26 years,

You've given good advice,except for one thing. You didn't pay attention that this flooring is in a basement over concrete. Therefore your advice is all wrong.:no:

The luaun needs to be removed along with the asphalt or vinyl asbestos tiles under it. Doing this will not create an asbestos situation. If the tiles break while removing, there should not be any asbestos that goes airborne. BUT, just to be safe, why not simply mist the work areas with water as you go? 

The remaining black adhesive (cut back), should be cut away with a razor scraper available at any hardware. Cut the adhesive until only a thin film remains. Then use an appropriately compatible modified thin set to install the tiles.

Jaz


----------



## 26yrsinflooring (Jul 1, 2008)

In the picture he shows a wood floor he did not say this wood floor is in the basement.
It would be rare to see luann overlaid on concrete I am not saying this is not the case. I assumed the floor in the area shown was in the upstairs.
The first picture shows the concrete area.

If I am incorrect I humbly beg for your forgiveness.

I would say the bad advice would be to suggest any removal of asbestos by a layman or home owner unless you have a low decuctable on your General Liabilty and you are above lawsuits. 
So if in fact the picture is of luann over laid on concrete I would be wrong in suggesting to screw 1/2 plywood over it to the floor joist.......

However the greater error is to advise removal of any asbestos without a EPA Certified Abatement specialist, this is not only for the removal but for the disposal.
Since you are :Tileman- Manufactures Rep this should be common knowledge to you.


----------



## mcconnre (Nov 8, 2008)

so tear it all up,and lay right on concrete....all said and done...a little asbestos never hurt anyone right


----------



## JazMan (Feb 17, 2007)

It's no big deal that you missed the fact that this is a basement renovation as it says in the first line. You're right that seeing the luaun caught us by surprise.

If MC was hiring a contractor to do the removal, I would agree to the defensive position concerning the removal of the tiles. Even though there is zero chance that simply removing the tiles would cause any harm. I would probably think the same way in these litigious times. 

However as a homeowner, he can remove the tiles safely by using a little common sense. That being, do not sand the tiles which could cause the release of embedded asbestos fibers to become friable, airborne. We won't argue about how many years of breathing a concentrate of fibers while in an enclosed room it would take to cause any harm. I agree it shouldn't be done at all.....the sanding I mean. 

In case you haven't figured it out yet, much of the asbestos abatement is a scam. Perfectly safely installed asbestos was removed just so that is could be eliminated from buildings just in case someone disturbed it one day. A lawyer's dream. I'm glad that it is not used much or at all these days. The main place it was harmful was at the mining and manufacturing operations where workers were exposed to it for many years.

Remember, when you remove tiles containing asbestos, you are removing tile not asbestos. Don't sand it, don't eat it, you'll be fine.

Jaz


----------



## 26yrsinflooring (Jul 1, 2008)

I have complete portfolio of the history of Asbestos. Including facts from the first law suit involving the vermiculite mine in Libby MT.

My years spent working for Sears, Lowes & Home Depot required an intense look into the issue. Back in 1985 I believe, Home Depot had to buy a house after an improper flooring removal.
I also worked closely with an abatement company while redoing the floors in a JC Pennys back in the early 90s.

I have good friend that owns an abatment company here in Indiana so I can tell you first hand that people cry scam until they are standing in court.

I almost went into the abatement business, I tried but I could not get time off for the schools and cert programs and the expense was to great.

To me the danger is suggesting an unathorized removal.
A home owner can do as he wishes but we pros must maintian a degree of responsibility.


----------



## JazMan (Feb 17, 2007)

I agree with all that. We have to continue to refuse to do the prep because some lawyer will get you regardless of any affect.

No large company will or should have their employees or subs remove flooring these days. The reason is lawyers that know where the money is. These companies would rather install flooring incorrectly if necessary as long as they don't remove the old stuff. 

I agree there is no good reason to remove friable asbestos without the proper training and equipment. Removing asphalt or vat tiles does not fall in that category though. 

Jaz


----------



## Maintenance 6 (Feb 26, 2008)

To the OP. Any breakage of the tile will release airborne fibers. To be sure, have it tested. There is no positive way to tell if asbestos is present by looking at it, unless it's under a microscope. If the tile contains asbestos and you remove it improperly and without training, you can contaminate the area with asbestos dust that can linger in minute quantities for years. Have the glue tested as well. Many mastics from this time frame, regardless of color, also contained asbestos. Left undisturbed, asbestos will not harm you. Any abrasion that fractures the tile can and will release material. Broken or crumbled tiles should be removed. Getting the tiles up is one thing. Getting rid of the debris is another. If you decide to do some DIY asbestos abatement, you will have a pile of broken tile, a bunch of scraped up mastic and a bag of damp asbestos containing rags to get rid of. If you knowingly discard of friable asbestos debris in an unapproved manner you are committing a felony. There are no laws that I know of to prevent a homeowner from removing asbestos in his own home. (not that it makes good sense though) There are plenty to prevent him from transporting it and disposing of it. Even asbestos that is properly removed and handled still belongs to the original owner. It's one of the cradle to grave materials. (In case you are interested). (certified in asbestos abatement for 10+ years)

Now, all that being said, I would consider leaving it in place if there is nothiong under it that would require attention down the road and cover it over with a substrate that is compatible with your new floor surface. If the old floor is covered over, it will not cause any harm.


----------



## DUDE! (May 3, 2008)

I'm not really adding to op's solution, but locally, they were removing asbestos tiles from 911 call center, the solvent they were using to clean with sent some of the staff to the hospital with breathing problems, not once but twice and of course the workers wore proper gear but they allowed the staff to man the area.


----------



## Nestor_Kelebay (Jun 17, 2008)

The bottom line is that asbestos is one of the most abundant minerals in the Earth's crust, and we all get some exposure to it every time we go outside. Like every other mineral, asbestos is more common in some areas than others, so it's wrong to assume that the amounts of asbestos we're exposed to outdoors is very small. It isn't. It all depends on where you live. People enjoying the parks in the San Fransisco area can be exposed to levels that are far higher than would be allowed by the OSHA in a workplace without the workers wearing special protective equipment to prevent exposure to asbestos. That is, many of us get exposed to higher levels of asbestos just enjoying the great outdoors than we ever would removing the tiles in the floor we're talking about. And, that's the truth of the matter regardless of what your government tells you.

PS: You don't need to read the rest.

I think the one point that's not being mentioned is that we're all exposed to asbestos every time we go outside, and at concentrations a lot higher than we presume. Some of us are regularily exposed to high levels of the stuff on a regular basis without our even knowing about it.

But, the thing about asbestos is that some people can have a small exposure to the dust and contract mesothelioma right away, or years and even decades later. Other people can be exposed to much greater concentrations of asbestos dust and not have it affect them at all. Asbestos is a Y2K, it's something that we know is a potential hazard, but that seems to be the sum total of all we know for sure.

For example, did you know that asbestos is still being used to reline old brake shoes? Did you know that even though asbestos was banned in most products in 1986, that as recently as 2000 GM was still using asbestos lined brake shoes and brake pads on their Cavalier and Sunbird models?

People presume that brake shoes and pads don't contain asbestos anymore and that asbestos in brake shoes and pads MUST HAVE been banned by now, but that's the danger of making a reasonable assumption. (You can drown walking across a stream that has an average depth of 12 inches.) Apparantly, in the USA, various government agencies have been squabbling over who had the responsibility to regulate brake shoes and brake pads, and as a result, there simply hasn't been any regulation of brake shoes and pads so they were still being made of asbestos as recently as 2000 and probably still are being made of asbestos.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/uncivilaction/brks16.shtml

In fact, that article written in 2000 predicted that because of the time between exposure and the contraction of asbestos related lung diseases, we'd be seeing a PEAK in the number of deaths of automechanics from mesothelioma and other asbestos related lung cancers some time around 2012. Well, here we are only a few weeks away from 2009, and we aren't seeing any increase in the number of deaths of automechanics or brake and clutch technicians (from asbestos related lung diseases or any other cause either).

On the one hand, we wear moon suits to remove asbestos floor tiles from a house... tiles that, for the most part, break cleanly off the floor or into nice big chunks that hardly release any dust at all when they break. And, on the other hand, the mechanic in the garage down the street pulls off a brake drum and lets it drop to the concrete floor so that all the dust comes bellowing out of it in a brown clowd upon impact. Then he takes an air hose and blows off the backing plate to clean the dust off it in the mistaken assumption that asbestos must have been banned in brake shoes by now. And all this has been going on even in winter when the doors and windows of the garage are normally left closed, keeping the dust in the building.

So, how about it? Why aren't we seeing an alarming correlation between asbestos related lung cancers and people who worked as mechanics, especially as brake and clutch technicians? Why aren't the wives and children of garage mechanics also dying off from lung related diseases (since a mechanic who gets that dust all over his clothes and in his hair would contaminate his car and his home with asbestos dust too).

Don't bother answering. No one else on the planet knows, so any explanation that anyone offers up here would be, at best, a lucky guess.

My guess is that it all boils down to the fact that we're all individuals with different DNA and a different propensity to contract certain diseases. Also, probably like anything else, the liklihood of contracting an asbestos related lung disease depends largely on one's cumulative exposure to asbestos, and few of us ever accumulate enough total exposure to asbestos to contract a lung disease. But, that's the guess that one would expect, and nature isn't constrained to act the way we think she should. It could be something as simple as what a person had to eat or drink prior to being exposed to airborne asbestos fibers.

Did you know that the airborne asbestos fiber count in the PARKS in the San Fransisco area has been measured to be fifty (50) times higher than the OSHA would allow in a workplace without the employees wearing special protective equipment to protect them? It's true. Asbestos is one of the most abundant materials in the Earth's crust and the rocks in all of California and North Carolina are particularily high in asbestos content. This rock is used to make the gravel roads through the parks in California, and when cars drive over that gravel, the stones rub together and create airborne asbestos dust. On a long weekend where there's a lot of traffic, even being downwind of a gravel road in southern California will result in your being exposed to more airborne asbestos fibers than would be allowed by the OSHA in a workplace without worker protection.

Also, the rock around the Great Lakes is high in asbestos, and over the millenia the erosion of that rock has resulted in the soil and ground water in the Great Lakes region also being high in asbestos. Someone living in Duluth, Minnesota swallows approximately 7,000 asbestos fibers with every glass of drinking water that comes out of a faucet or water fountain or is provided free of charge in a restaurant. However, we're not yet aware of any health effects of swallowing asbestos fibers.

These facts came right from the OSHA's own web site on Asbestos abatement, but they have since removed those statistics, and that whole website since I haven't been able to find that source for some time now.

The bottom line here is that asbestos is one of the most common minerals on this Earth, and we simply can't avoid being continually exposed to it as long as we live on this planet. Most of us only get low levels of exposure, but even people who live where there is more asbestos in the rock and get higher levels of exposure to asbestos seem to live long healthy lives too. That's the connundrum of asbestos. The vast majority of us won't be affected by that exposure, but some of us will. That's just due to the diversity of evolution. If nothing else, diversity is the life blood of evolution. We are all different in minute ways, and those differences make some of us more prone to some diseases than others.

So, here we are talking about removing a floor which probably contains asbestos. In all liklihood, the home owner can pull out those tiles and the cutback holding them down too, and never be affected by the asbestos he becomes exposed to as a result. But, if he tried to hire someone to do that work for him, the person doing the work would probably be wearing a HazMat suit on the insistance of his employer who is only following the abatement requirements put in place by the government. And, it's all because we all know that if that employee ever contracts any form of asbestos related lung disease, then everyone is going to point to his job as the cause and be looking to decide who has enough money to sue over the matter.

Really, that employee could have contracted an asbestos related lung disease even if he'd worked making computer chips in a clean room, but no one can prove that, and that's what matters in court.

In that respect, we're kinda like the British Parliament in the 1830's. Back in the 1830's, the British Parliament seeking to protect Britain from the cholera epidemic that was sweeping across Europe at the time posted ARMED GUARDS at all British ports of entry. (Clearly an act of desperation.) They had no idea what caused cholera, and did the only thing they could... post armed guards. (Which did no good at all.)

Then, as now, we're simply doing whatever we can to deal with the unknown.


----------



## Maintenance 6 (Feb 26, 2008)

There was never a complete ban of asbestos in products manufactured or sold in the U.S. Where a suitable alternative could not be identified, asbestos has been allowed to be continued in use. No one can control the inadvertant exposure to asbestos fibers in the environment. It only makes sense therefore, to limit exposure where we can. Properly managing asbestos in one's home, where one spends the greatest amount of time is certainly one way to limit that exposure. The fact that it is a naturally occurring element should not be construed to mean that a given level of exposure is inevitable and therefore somehow made more safe. Radon, Radium, Plutonium, Uranium and others are all naturally occuring elements as is Asbestos. We are all exposed to different, naturally occurring background levels of these elements, however no one should be knowingly exposing themselves to "extra" unnecessary doses to any of these. Conducting some uneducated DIY asbestos abatement is doing just that. Exposing one's self and family to an extra unnecessary dose.


----------



## Nestor_Kelebay (Jun 17, 2008)

Apparantly I was wrong about there being no increase in auto mechanics dying of asbestos related diseases.

This web site:
http://www.asbestos.com/automotive/

includes the following item:

Deaths expected to Rise
It is estimated that more than six million mechanics have been exposed to asbestos in brakes since 1940, and those exposures are now resulting in about 580 excess asbestos-related cancer deaths a year. Many analysts also believe that over the next 10 years, the expected rate of mesothelioma deaths as a result of exposure to break dust will reach 200 (sic: prolly means "2000") a year, acknowledging that for every mesothelioma case diagnosed there may be dozens of cases of asbestosis. Deaths caused by exposure to asbestos brake products had been previously expected to peak around the year 2012, however, because asbestos is still in some brakes being sold today, it could mean the deaths would continue to climb.

So, apparantly, asbestos is still being used in some car brake shoes and pads even today.

Unfortunately, there has to be something wrong with that web site's math. Even if there were now 600 (instead of 580) excess asbestos related cancer deaths per year because 6,000,000 people were heavily exposed to brake dust since 1940, it would take 10,000 years for all of those mechanics to croak. Even if we assume that the dying goes on at the peak rate of 2000 per year, that peak rate needs to be maintained for 3000 years before every last one of those 6 million mechanics dies. Obviously, no one is going to live for 3000 years.

The only thing one can presume from this is that either their estimate of 580 deaths per year or 2000 deaths per year is way out to lunch, or that no more than 1 in 30 mechanics that were frequently exposed to heavy doses of asbestos dust would die of an asbestos related cancer. I got that 1 in 30 guestimate by saying that if it takes 3000 years for ALL of the mechanics to die of asbestos related cancers, and no mechanic is going to live past 100, then only about 1 in 30 will die of asbestos related cancer. The others will die of other causes.

Also, if you Google "naturally occuring asbestos" mesothelioma California, you'll that there's been plenty of studies done in California that show that the risk of contracting mesothelioma increases in people that live near naturally occuring asbestos deposits.

Apparantly, 10 percent of all the people who die from mesothelioma in the United States had no known exposure to asbestos fibers. Since exposure to asbestos is the only known cause of the disease, it is believed that these 10 percent died from exposure to naturally occuring asbestos.

This web page:

http://www.asbestos.com/states/california/

relates the results of studies done by the California EPA into asbestos exposure in the very affluent "El Dorado Hills" area in El Dorado County in California which was built right on top of a large naturally occuring asbestos deposit:

"In February 2002, during the constructions of two new soccer fields at the community's Oak Ridge High School, veins of minerals bearing asbestos were discovered. When a citizen petitioned the EPA to test for asbestos, the EPA decided to assess the threat of NOA in the area - regardless of strong opposition from some civic leaders in El Dorado Hills. In October 2004, donning protective white jumpsuits and safety respirators, EPA agents played in parks as local children would, tossing balls, kicking soccer balls around, biking and running - all the while taking air samples. More than 450 air samples were taken throughout the community, and in May 2005 the EPA released its findings. Almost every one of the samples contained asbestos fibers. Oddly enough, the EPA didn't feel it necessary to detail the results, as the report does not specify the toxicity level of samples, nor does it clearly quantify the potential health risks to residents. Instead, the report simply states that test results and exposure levels are "of concern."

That web page goes on to talk about one of the large nature preserves in California that just happens to be located in one of the largest naturally occuring asbestos deposits in the world:

"Another location of EPA focus in California is the Clear Creek Management Area (CCMA), an enormous and extremely popular area of recreational land. Geologists are not surprised by the EPA's concern for the area, as CCMA is located on one of the world's largest naturally occurring asbestos deposits. Each year, thousands of visitors enjoy CCMA's scenic landscape, rugged terrain, barren slopes, bald ridges, and unique ecology. The 70,000-acre area encompasses a 30,000-acre deposit of serpentine rock, and holds a rich history in the mining industry. In September 2004, the EPA began the first of four sampling events at CCMA. 
Sporting protective clothing, safety respirators, and air monitoring equipment, crews of federal contractors and the U.S. Coast Guard's Pacific Strike Team took air samples while riding ATVs and dirt bikes, hiking, driving SUVs, pitching tents, and other common activities guests enjoy at CCMA. When compared to health standards, test results revealed recreational users of the management area are exposed to "very high" levels of asbestos. The EPA's website states samples taken in November 2004 and February 2005 are currently being analyzed, and that a final report will be released after the final sampling event (which was scheduled for July 2006). Though 2008 has arrived, no final report or updated information has been made available by the EPA."

My guess is that the EPA doesn't want to issue a final report because according to it's own standards, all the people involved in gathering those air samples should be dead (or close to) by now. Really, this is a case where the government doesn't want to take action because they know that any action they do take won't solve the problem. There's abundant naturally occuring asbestos throughout California (and many other states as well), so what can you really do? Tell people not to disturb the ground or create dust by building anything?

If it wasn't so serious, the notion of EPA scientists playing in parks and riding ATVs in California parks wearing protective moon suits would be comical.

Regarding the gravel roads in California and the danger they pose, this web site:

http://www.asbestos.com/states/california/

states the following:

"Even though mankind has been aware of asbestos' health hazards since the time of the Greeks, it wasn't until 1990 that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) began to regulate the amount of asbestos in crushed serpentine and ultramafic rock used in surfacing applications (such as gravel on unpaved roads). With an original limit of asbestos contamination (in rock and soil for surfacing) set at 5 percent, the CARB revised the allowable limit to less than 0.25 percent in 1998. The board also added regulations regarding dust emissions from construction, grading, and surface mining in areas with serpentine and ultramafic rock. The California Environmental Protection Agency reports several sources of naturally occurring asbestos emissions, which include unpaved roads or driveways surfaced with ultramafic or serpentine rock, construction activity in ultramafic or serpentine rock deposits, or rock quarrying activities where ultramafic or serpentine rock is present."

I expect that that air sampling study that determined the airborne asbestos fiber content in the parks in the San Fransisco area was 50 times higher than allowable in a workplace without worker protection musta been done prior to 1990 when they made gravel roads entirely out of that asbestos containing serpentine rock.

So much for the notion that we're only exposed to low doses of airborne asbestos fibers outdoors. Most of California is loaded with asbestos bearing rock, and most Californians are exposed to dangerous levels of the stuff simply by being outdoors.

So, the question remains: Why isn't all of Southern California coming down with asbestos related cancers? I still contend that it's because our science cannot account for the fact that we're all different, and those differences make some of us more susceptible to asbestos related diseases than others. So, you simply can't determine a "safe" level of exposure to airborne asbestos fibers because what's safe for most of us will be a lethal dose for some of us. So, how do you regulate exposure to asbestos? The method the government is using is to assume we're all highly susceptible to the stuff and set the exposure limits accordingly. 

That makes those exposure limits silly for the vast majority of us.


----------



## 26yrsinflooring (Jul 1, 2008)

Nestor you are a smart man!
 and long winded.....

Asbestos was removed from flooring products in 1976 but the stock in production and in the warehouse was not affected by this action. It was allowed to be sold so....for the next few years it was a toss up to see if you had some flooring with asbestos in it or not,nobody knew. It was still being sold in offending stock as late as 1980.

The glue; cutback also contained asbestos, when it was removed the glue started losing its bond with everything so it had to be reformulated as well.

As Jaz has said it is the nofriable type but it is still not advised for self removal and certainly if any one in the house has any type of lung issue.

The nightmare in the 911 call center mentioned is the kind that put abatement companies out of business! That is blatant ignorance and they should have shut them down! I know OSHA would have ran them out of town on rail and they would never have worked in the abatement industry again.


----------



## Nestor_Kelebay (Jun 17, 2008)

I just wanted to drive home the point that asbestos is abundant on this Earth, and we're routinely exposed to far more of it than we realize. But, the vast majority of us are unaffected by it.

California is particularily bad, but there are asbestos outcroppings all over the world.

So, I'll stop now and let people draw their own conclusions about people dressing up in moon suits with taped gloves and booties and full head respirators to remove floor tiles that contain asbestos. Especially if they're removing it from a house in California.


----------



## Floorwizard (Dec 5, 2003)

> So, I'll stop now and let people draw their own conclusions about people dressing up in moon suits with taped gloves and booties and full head respirators to remove floor tiles that contain asbestos. Especially if they're removing it from a house in California.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think a good point would be that you could go ahead and drive without a seatbelt and probably be fine.
But if we were to SUGGEST one way or another...as a PRO..we should suggest the safest route.


----------



## Nestor_Kelebay (Jun 17, 2008)

FloorCraft:

Wearing a moonsuit to remove vinyl asbestos tiles from a house in (most of) California is like wearing a seat belt on the way to play Russian Roulette.


----------



## Floorwizard (Dec 5, 2003)

> wearing a seat belt on the way to play Russian Roulette


And I would suggest you do NOT do that


----------



## mcconnre (Nov 8, 2008)

appreciate all the advice but fortunately dont need to worry as it was tested and it doesnt contain asbestos
so i am okay...to tear away....wooo hoooo


----------



## Nestor_Kelebay (Jun 17, 2008)

Go nutz.


----------



## mcconnre (Nov 8, 2008)

ha ha the drama continues, no asbestos concern, but the whole floor is built up in the basement, therefore the bar and all walls etc...
I tried peeling some tiles to see what was there. So herein lies my problem, I cant get down to the concrete, as the whole basement is built on this subfloor, is there anything I can put over this tile to get adequate subfloor to lay tile, as my wife isnt happy unless its tile


----------



## 26yrsinflooring (Jul 1, 2008)

Install the Ditra right over the tile!

Somebody tell Jaz he owes me an apology.


----------



## JazMan (Feb 17, 2007)

I'll gladly apologize....but I'm not sure for what. :huh:

Now I'm confused and not sure what the situation is. 

I would bet a lot of $$$ that those tiles contain asbestos. If they were made in the '70's or earlier they should contain asbestos. The only possibility is if they are rubber tiles, which is highly unlikely!:no: Do you trust the test?  Are the tiles from the '70's, or could it be the '80's? 

I am also confused about the construction of the basement floor. Apparently someone build a wooden floor over the slab. Is the plywood bonded and fastened direct to the slab, or was it built up? Either way, this is not an approved method, but it is done now and then. 

In any case it is possible to install tile over vinyl floors, it's just not a good idea since the bond between the vinyl tiles and the substrate can easily fail. 

Jaz


----------



## mcconnre (Nov 8, 2008)

trust the test, it was done at a large industrial lab, they grounded up the tiles, and clue etc, and came back negative..reputable source..Could be the tiles are from the 80's, I am unsure but defenitley trust the source.The floor is built up off the concrete ~1" and is throughtout the basement. I probally should have left the existing subfloor that was screwed down to the tiles, but thought there would be concrete underneath. Now I was going to rescrew 1/2" spruce down, and then apply tiles...


----------



## JazMan (Feb 17, 2007)

Well......IF the tiles are from the '80's, then that changes everything! :yes: 

Jaz


----------



## 26yrsinflooring (Jul 1, 2008)

*Yes it does!*

It gives use a chance to issue retractual statements that may have lead to misinformation.:yes:

Therefore... I retract everything I said based on the lack of asbestos in
the tile.

Since we know the core of this issue was based on the improprites of the Bush admistration's failed policies I think I can safely say that January will bring a new light to the presented problem.

With all that being said I concluded that the magic bullet for this application is....can we all say it together>>>> Ditra!

Oh Jaz.. I accept your refined apology for the non-issue that brought us to this conclusive point.
I apologize as well for ass-uming the content of the said tile.


----------



## JazMan (Feb 17, 2007)

I would still like to know how the heck this floor is built. I would also recommend a mold test because of the plywood. If the basement is slightly humid as most, it wouldn't surprised me if the spores count were on the high side. 

I fully agree, we should use Ditra whenever possible.:thumbup:

Jaz


----------



## Nestor_Kelebay (Jun 17, 2008)

It seems to me that new homeowners somehow acquire an instinctive compulsion to cover everything in their newly acquired homes with ceramic tile. Walls, counter tops, floors, everything needs to be covered with ceramic tile.

There are lots of good choices when it comes to choosing and installing durable flooring. Ceramic tile is NOT the only game in town. If this old resilient tile dates from the 80's, then it's at least 18 years old now, and could have lasted much longer except for the uncontrollable urge to clad with ceramic tile.

McConnre:
Have you given any thought to simply stripping whatever floor finish there is on these tiles and simply installing new, more attractive, resilient tiles over them? Or, removing the existing tiles and putting down new resilient tiles.

With resilient tiles you don't need to put down the Ditra nor remove the plywood you apparantly have as some sort of underlayment/subfloor. And, there are fewer pitfalls to getting a successful installation. You don't have the problems with changes in floor height. You don't run into the myriad of problems newbies encounter in their first few ceramic tiling projects, like removing the grout haze after grouting, or the grout drying to the wrong colour, or the grout not drying to a uniform colour, or the grout lines cracking in time (for whatever reason).

I just can't help thinking that if there hasn't been any problem with the existing flooring material for 18+ years, there's a certain wisdom in sticking with the same flooring material, and learning how to maintain it's appearance rather than switching to ceramic tile in the hopes that it'll be so well done and durable that it will never require any repairs or maintenance to keep up it's appearance.


----------



## Maintenance 6 (Feb 26, 2008)

Jazman. I've seen 9x9 tiles that I know were installed in the 60s that tested asbestos free and 12x12s from the early 80s that were positive. Go figure.


----------



## JazMan (Feb 17, 2007)

Yes I know. But those tiles were not vinyl asbestos (VAT) or asphalt tiles. They also make solid vinyl and rubber tiles. They even used to make linoleum tiles, with backing and all up to the late '60's I believe? 

In this case MC just got the time frame wrong, the tiles must have been made in the '80's. I believe there were still some VAT made into the '80's, so there is no definite date certain cut off point. Even when there was no more production, old stock hung around for years after.

Jaz


----------



## Floorwizard (Dec 5, 2003)

> they grounded up the tiles, and clue etc, and came back negative.


Would it be correct to assume they got a hold of some of the adhesive to test that as well?


----------

