90. Which of the following is true about asbestos?
Answer: A
Encapsulation of damaged asbestos can be safer than removal.
Encapsulation is often considered a safer alternative to the removal of asbestos when it is in good condition, as it can prevent the release of fibers into the air. This method involves sealing the asbestos material to contain it and minimize exposure risks.
A) Encapsulation of damaged asbestos can be safer than removal.
This statement is true because encapsulation helps to manage asbestos hazards by sealing it off, thus preventing fiber release. In many cases, leaving asbestos in place and encapsulating it can be less disruptive and safer than removal, which can generate harmful dust and fibers if not done correctly.
B) Latex paint should be used to seal damaged sections of asbestos.
This option is incorrect. While sealing damaged asbestos is a method of encapsulation, latex paint is not a recommended sealing agent. Specialized encapsulants designed for asbestos are necessary to effectively contain the material and ensure safety.
C) Most lenders will not provide mortgage funds to homes with asbestos.
This statement is not entirely accurate. While some lenders may have concerns about properties with asbestos, many will still finance homes with asbestos as long as proper inspections and disclosures are made. Thus, this option oversimplifies the complexity of lending policies regarding properties with asbestos.
D) It should be removed from houses and public buildings, regardless of its condition.
This is incorrect. The removal of asbestos is not always necessary or the safest option, especially if the material is undamaged and not creating a risk. As per safety guidelines, removal is only recommended when the asbestos is in poor condition or poses a significant health risk.
Conclusion
The correct answer highlights the importance of encapsulation as a viable method for managing asbestos safely, rather than immediate removal. Other options either present incorrect procedures, oversimplify lending practices, or advocate for unnecessary removal, illustrating a lack of understanding of the appropriate management of asbestos-related risks.