Jump to content

A very unsafe cache location


Siftersam
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

I'm going to post this story, it's my final effort to highlight a safety concern at a cache site.

 

The 13th of September was the last day of my late holiday this year. My wife an I had to to kill before the flight so we stopped off at a resort close to the airport and had a walk. We passed this cache so I stopped to try and log a find http://coord.info/GC5QB6H. We were both very concerned to see what we strongly believe is a lot of dumped asbestos cement at the site that is very likely to contain chrysotile fibres.

 

I logged a maintenance warning, added warning detail in various languages in the log the messaged the owner as follows:

 

Regarding GC5QB6H: Oma Stadt – Hi, my wife and i were on our way to the airport today and stopped at this resort for lunch. We had a walk along the coast path mainly to cool off. Eventually we stopped and by chance it was directly opposite your cache. I decided to take a look but had to give up. Unfortunately i have some bad news. The area around has been covered with some dumped material, but much worse was that my wife recognised it as asbestos cement that contains chrysotile fibres. She works in this field in a laboratory. Sadly this means that any person including children would need to be treading around this material trying to find the cache. The best option would be to move the cache but i assume you are in the UK like me. What you do now is your choice as the cache owner. Sorry for the bad news and sorry to read of your loss earlier this year. If you need more info please let me know. I will send a picture shortly as i am currently in the airport with a very slow connection. Regards.

Attached Image

The grey material is mainly crushed asbestos cement. Its the type they recommend leaving alone

 

Since then there have been 8 'Found logs' and I assume numerous people fumbling around generating dust under foot that contains these fibres on a windy island for all in the area to share (children as well no doubt oblivious to the danger). I've had the cache on my watch list and see there are two images of people who found the cache after my report standing right in the middle of the asbestos cement. The cache is listed as temporarily disabled, picture only required, in my opinion that's not good enough. My wife identifies this material in her laboratory almost every day and has done for many years.

 

Anyway, I've done all I can think of other than try and gather some support for having the cache unlisted until it is moved to a new safe location, maybe as little as 20 meters either side of it's current position.

Link to comment

Caching may be dangerous depending on the location. It's just a fact. Asbestos dumped there, the side of a highway, uo a tree, top of a mountain, in space, the bottom of an ocean. Every cache location has the potential to be unsafe. It's up to you to decide if it's worth the risk, not Groundspeak. Otherwise every cache would be a D/T of 1/1.

 

There are more than a million caches out there, if you decide against a few, it's really not that big of a deal.

Link to comment

It's up to you to decide if it's worth the risk, not Groundspeak. Otherwise every cache would be a D/T of 1/1.

 

There are more than a million caches out there, if you decide against a few, it's really not that big of a deal.

We know the risk at this site as we recognise the hazard. Others are not so fortunate. That is the issue.

Link to comment

Caching may be dangerous depending on the location. It's just a fact. Asbestos dumped there, the side of a highway, uo a tree, top of a mountain, in space, the bottom of an ocean. Every cache location has the potential to be unsafe. It's up to you to decide if it's worth the risk, not Groundspeak. Otherwise every cache would be a D/T of 1/1.

 

There are more than a million caches out there, if you decide against a few, it's really not that big of a deal.

 

Asbestos or other hazardous material is not quite in the same category as caches that involve technical skills such as rock or tree climbing, difficult kayaking, and the like. I can recognize caches within my skill set or not, but may not recognize environmental concerns.

 

I agree with others that state that environmental authorities should be contacted, but I also agree that an N/A log is appropriate - although this one seems to be under a reviewers watch. At the very least, it's hard for me to imagine that a landowner would want people to come to such a place - for one reason or the other - so permission might also be a factor.

Link to comment

The cache wasn't disabled due to any safety issue.

 

After the OP's log, the CO turned it into a "virtual" cache.

 

The Reviewer, on 09/13/2015, said:

 

I am temporarily disabling this cache listing because virtual (photo) finds of the cache location have been allowed.

 

This cache listing will be archived if any further virtual logs are not deleted.

 

You can either enable the cache page archive the listing.

 

If the cache has not been replaced and the cache page enabled in about 30 days, I will archive this for you.

 

CO then asked the Reviewer to "clarify".

 

It should be disabled soon, just for being a "virtual".

 

B.

Link to comment

This cache is now "Archived because virtual logs were not deleted, not because of alleged presence of asbestos."

Not only was it covered t=o a virtual, but was a vacation cache to boot. Jeez.

 

From the CO's note

Can you please clarify the below, are you saying a cache is not allowed if the proof of logging the cache is a photo.

This cache was just a memorial to my wife's nan who passed away whilst we were on holiday. We will not be able to replace the cache or move the cache. If photo's are not allowed as proof of locating a cache then this will have to be archived. That would be a shame but if they are the rules then so be it.

 

Bolding is mine.

Edited by jholly
Link to comment

I'd like thank everyone for their input to this topic. The objective was to prevent people from coming into contact with a hazardous material unnecessarily and although the route to achieve that was a bit unexpected it has been completed.

 

Finally, a last couple of comments:

I appreciate it must be difficult for the community / reviewers to take actions based on others opinions. I claimed to have had an 'expert' with me at the time but a reviewers has no proof of my 'experts' competence so I understand the caution.

There were some comments about reporting the material to the authorities, please bear in mind this was a few hours before I left the Island. I am however, still thinking about making some kind of report, to who I don't yet know. Spain is far more relaxed about any H&S issue, particularly on the islands where nothing happens without greasing a palm.

Link to comment
I claimed to have had an 'expert' with me at the time but a reviewers has no proof of my 'experts' competence so I understand the caution.

Just a hunch here, but...

 

Groundspeak is headquartered in a country crawling with lawyers. They may have been advised to keep their hands completely clean of any attempt to regulate safety (the reviewer in this case certainly seemed careful about that), lest someone claim they be responsible for all aspects of safety everywhere, at all caches. And sue them over something at the next cache down the road.

 

I am not a lawyer, but this is the logic they seem to use.

Link to comment

Some safety issues are glaringly obvious:

 

[scary picture removed]

 

I would expect any reasonable person/cacher to do the right thing when they come up on something as obvious as this.

No, my word is not gospel, but it has gotten 100% of the caches I posted NA logs for dealt with, and made caching not only safer but better in my community . So apparently my words do have power.

Bottom line: Step up and do the right thing when you see something that is clearly wrong and places people at risk.

That could be anything from an NA log to let a reviewer decide to removing it on the spot- that would be your call to make.

I do not sit on fences- I take actions.

 

As we have seen other organizations (like the VDOT) are taking actions as well. Bad CO's and cachers made this mess, it will be up to the good ones to try to turn it around.

 

A needs-archived on a clearly unsafe cache doesn't work up here:

 

2ceaeb0c-c707-40be-ab28-116582b9012a.jpg

 

Apparently the reviewers are not the safety police

Link to comment
I claimed to have had an 'expert' with me at the time but a reviewers has no proof of my 'experts' competence so I understand the caution.

Just a hunch here, but...

 

Groundspeak is headquartered in a country crawling with lawyers. They may have been advised to keep their hands completely clean of any attempt to regulate safety (the reviewer in this case certainly seemed careful about that), lest someone claim they be responsible for all aspects of safety everywhere, at all caches. And sue them over something at the next cache down the road.

 

I am not a lawyer, but this is the logic they seem to use.

 

I've seen that kind of logic used in businesses as well. I worked for a company that had a general policy that they would never respond to criticism made by there competitors. If they responded to even the most outlandish claim it left the door open to "they didn't respond so the must agree with us". If GS regulated safety, lawyers would jump on any instance of an incident involving a cache that they didn't regulate.

 

 

Link to comment

If GS regulated safety, lawyers would jump on any instance of an incident involving a cache that they didn't regulate.

As is so often the case, the right answer is: "It depends."

 

I think wise lawyers would jump on certain safety concerns, namely those that rise to the level of gross negligence. To ignore such instances would expose the company to legal peril.

 

I also think wise lawyers would discourage Groundspeak from guaranteeing the safety of all their listed caches.

Link to comment

But if you can summarize to the thread as to why you think it is, and what qualifications you have, I would feel better about meddling with another's cache.

 

For those interested, my wife holds a P401 Identification of Asbestos in Bulk Samples certificate and has been identifying various forms of asbestos under laboratory conditions for the past 14 years. I hold a NEBOSH Diploma, a globally recognised qualifications aimed at professional health and safety advisors and environmental practitioners.

 

Thanks again for all the input into this thread.

Link to comment

But if you can summarize to the thread as to why you think it is, and what qualifications you have, I would feel better about meddling with another's cache.

 

For those interested, my wife holds a P401 Identification of Asbestos in Bulk Samples certificate and has been identifying various forms of asbestos under laboratory conditions for the past 14 years. I hold a NEBOSH Diploma, a globally recognised qualifications aimed at professional health and safety advisors and environmental practitioners.

 

Thanks again for all the input into this thread.

 

The "meddling" is over (see the archive log), but let's hope that those qualifications appease bflentje.

 

B.

Link to comment

I, for one, would be very thankful for the information. I think posting the NA is worth a shot. If the cache were still active I'd appreciate the log stayed near the top and periodically a note was added to warn people of the asbestos. But you'd have to remind yourself to go in and add a note once every week or 2, which could be too much to ask.

Anyway, what you did was a service to fellow geocachers.

Link to comment

I, for one, would be very thankful for the information. I think posting the NA is worth a shot. If the cache were still active I'd appreciate the log stayed near the top and periodically a note was added to warn people of the asbestos. But you'd have to remind yourself to go in and add a note once every week or 2, which could be too much to ask.

Anyway, what you did was a service to fellow geocachers.

 

Well said.

Link to comment

But if you can summarize to the thread as to why you think it is, and what qualifications you have, I would feel better about meddling with another's cache.

 

For those interested, my wife holds a P401 Identification of Asbestos in Bulk Samples certificate and has been identifying various forms of asbestos under laboratory conditions for the past 14 years. I hold a NEBOSH Diploma, a globally recognised qualifications aimed at professional health and safety advisors and environmental practitioners.

 

Thanks again for all the input into this thread.

 

The "meddling" is over (see the archive log), but let's hope that those qualifications appease bflentje.

 

B.

 

Go bully someone else. I qualified my request, which was intentionally or not, trimmed from the reply.

Link to comment

I'm very surprised it appears that the cache was archived over the virtual logs and not because of the rather more serious issue of the presence of asbestos! <_<

In my opinion it should have been archived immediately by the reviewer after the log indicating the presence of the asbestos nearby!

Asbestos is not something to mess with, especially the cement products. It is potentially lethal and unfortunately not everyone would identify it or even be aware of why it is lethal.

Having had relatives who grew up in Wittenoom (a now closed country town covered in asbestos) I am well aware of the dangers of it.

There is absolutely no excuse for encouraging anyone to visit such a site, and if I was the CO I would have archived it to be on the safe side.

 

The grey substance in the image certainly looks very suspicious to me and you are both well qualified to identify it.

The fact that it has been crushed makes it very dangerous since the dust is free to spread through the air if disturbed, especially by people walking all over it. :blink:

 

It was definitely good to warn people about it on the cache logs! :smile:

Edited by spirothebudgie
Link to comment

Turning a traditional cache into a virtual cache is a listing guidelines violation. Safety isn't.

 

If you'd like for all unsafe caches to be archived, it will be quite a long time before the reviewers got around to what is the only "near asbestos" cache I've ever heard of. I'd need to start with all the rope climbing cliff caches, then move to the tree climbing caches. When I finished, I'd resign as a reviewer because I have no interest in becoming a guarantor of the safety of cache locations I've never visited.

Link to comment

I completely understand that and of course safety is your own responsibility when caching. I'm not at all saying all caches need to be overly regulated to make sure they are safe. Of course whenever you go caching you are taking a risk and it is always your responsibility. The moderators and reviewers do a fantastic job for the geocaching community, I did not mean to offend anyone.

 

I just feel strongly about this particular cache because unfortunately asbestos isn't something that everyone can identify and reading the logs makes it very clear that a number of people have searched for the cache not knowing about it. It would have been easy for the CO to just archive it to stop people from visiting.

 

Choosing to take a risk and climb a cliff is a choice you make.

Breathing in potentially deadly fibres you don't know about is not.

Edited by spirothebudgie
Link to comment

Turning a traditional cache into a virtual cache is a listing guidelines violation. Safety isn't.

 

If you'd like for all unsafe caches to be archived, it will be quite a long time before the reviewers got around to what is the only "near asbestos" cache I've ever heard of. I'd need to start with all the rope climbing cliff caches, then move to the tree climbing caches. When I finished, I'd resign as a reviewer because I have no interest in becoming a guarantor of the safety of cache locations I've never visited.

 

As mentioned earlier in the thread and the post above this one keystone, climbing a tree/cliff is a decision a person can make. Taking a kayak out in rough weather is a decision a person can make. Hiking out into alpine terrain is a decision a person can make.

 

Your average person you probably identify the material found at this cache as rubbish and pay no attention to it because many caches have rubbish near them, it is however a highly dangerous substance that leads to terrible suffering as your life comes to an end.

 

The op identified a hazardous situation and it should have been archived for that reason, same as if searching for a caches leads to the photo above with the bare wires.

Link to comment

I completely understand that and of course safety is your own responsibility when caching. I'm not at all saying all caches need to be overly regulated to make sure they are safe. Of course whenever you go caching you are taking a risk and it is always your responsibility. The moderators and reviewers do a fantastic job for the geocaching community, I did not mean to offend anyone.

 

I just feel strongly about this particular cache because unfortunately asbestos isn't something that everyone can identify and reading the logs makes it very clear that a number of people have searched for the cache not knowing about it. It would have been easy for the CO to just archive it to stop people from visiting.

 

Choosing to take a risk and climb a cliff is a choice you make.

Breathing in potentially deadly fibres you don't know about is not.

 

You should direct your ire at the cache owner, not the reviewer. When it comes to the matter of caches being unsafe, only the cache owner should be archiving it for that reason. Not a reviewer, not a Groundspeak lackey, not even Jeremy himself. In this case, the cache was archived correctly when the owner tried turning it into a virtual. As nasty as asbestos is, Groundspeak is not going to get involved in matters of safety, nor should they. Looking at this as an outsider, things went as they are designed to. A cacher came along that realized the cache was hidden near exposed asbestos, realizes the danger, notifies the CO, the CO does nothing beyond trying to turn the cache into a virtual and once a reviewer saw that, they archived the cache. The only shameful thing is that had the CO not done the "photo only" trick, this cache would still be active. That's not due to any fault of the reviewer, but of the CO.

Link to comment
The op identified a hazardous situation and it should have been archived for that reason, same as if searching for a caches leads to the photo above with the bare wires.
In both situations, I see a safety issue that the property owner should deal with (regardless of the presence of a geocache), and I see an issue that makes me question whether the cache has adequate permission.

 

Lack of adequate permission is grounds for archiving a cache.

 

There are any number of risks out there that people may or may not be aware of. Groundspeak and the volunteer reviewers are not in the business of deciding what risks are acceptable, what risks are too great, or what risks are too hidden.

Link to comment
The op identified a hazardous situation and it should have been archived for that reason, same as if searching for a caches leads to the photo above with the bare wires.
In both situations, I see a safety issue that the property owner should deal with (regardless of the presence of a geocache), and I see an issue that makes me question whether the cache has adequate permission.

 

Lack of adequate permission is grounds for archiving a cache.

 

There are any number of risks out there that people may or may not be aware of. Groundspeak and the volunteer reviewers are not in the business of deciding what risks are acceptable, what risks are too great, or what risks are too hidden.

 

I get that it is up to the property owner to fix the problem, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Groundspeak hire a crew to clean it up but archival of the cache and its removal from the map removes the encouragement for people to there and in the case of the OP potentially disturbing the dust.

 

Permission, conversion to virtual and whatever else aside, this is not a tree. Everyone can stand at the bottom of a tree and make the decision for themselves that they either a) Do not want to accept the risks that come with climbing a tree so do not continue; or b ) Accept the risks that come with climbing a tree and continue knowing that any consequences coming from their actions fall solely on their shoulders.

In this situation not everyone who arrives in the area is capable of identifying asbestos or has knowledge of the effects on their health (mesothelioma can develop after only a single fibre lodges in the lungs).

Edited by Tassie_Boy
Link to comment

 

Permission, conversion to virtual and whatever else aside, this is not a tree. Everyone can stand at the bottom of a tree and make the decision for themselves that they either a) Do not want to accept the risks that come with climbing a tree so do not continue; or b ) Accept the risks that come with climbing a tree and continue knowing that any consequences coming from their actions fall solely on their shoulders.

In this situation not everyone who arrives in the area is capable of identifying asbestos or has knowledge of the effects on their health (mesothelioma can develop after only a single fibre lodges in the lungs).

 

I don't think the two scenarios are so different:

 

You can look at a pile of rubbish an may be able to spot dog faeces, broken glass, used syringes and assess the risk based on that; but unless you're a professional you probably won't spot asbestos and any number of other nasties.

 

Similarly you can look at a tree and may be able to spot broken and dead branches and assess the risk based on that; but unless you're a competent arborist you can't tell whether the limbs may be rotten inside, or whether the root system is dieing and the tree is gonna fall over when your weight gets to the top.

 

I agree that GS can't really get into the area of disabling caches because someone thinks they are dangerous.

Link to comment

 

If you'd like for all unsafe caches to be archived, it will be quite a long time before the reviewers got around to what is the only "near asbestos" cache I've ever heard of. I'd need to start with all the rope climbing cliff caches, then move to the tree climbing caches. When I finished, I'd resign as a reviewer because I have no interest in becoming a guarantor of the safety of cache locations I've never visited.

 

Don't forget to archive all caches in the woods. We wouldn't want a lawsuit when somebody slips on a mushroom.

Link to comment
Don't forget to archive all caches in the woods. We wouldn't want a lawsuit when somebody slips on a mushroom.
And ticks carry a whole host of diseases (not just Lyme disease, which is relatively well known). We wouldn't want caches in all those places where people might unknowingly be exposed to ticks.
Link to comment
Don't forget to archive all caches in the woods. We wouldn't want a lawsuit when somebody slips on a mushroom.
And ticks carry a whole host of diseases (not just Lyme disease, which is relatively well known). We wouldn't want caches in all those places where people might unknowingly be exposed to ticks.

 

Over 30,000 deaths in the U.S. are related to the use of motor vehicles. Clearly driving to a geocache is a safety issue.

 

 

Link to comment

There are any number of risks out there that people may or may not be aware of. Groundspeak and the volunteer reviewers are not in the business of deciding what risks are acceptable, what risks are too great, or what risks are too hidden.

If Groundspeak and its reviewers want to avoid legal liability for "gross negligence," then they had better pay some attention to what risks are too great and are too hidden. I know that at least one reviewer has archived a cache when hidden dangers were brought to their attention: "Not archiving it would be negligent on my part."

 

I suspect some people think safety shouldn't have been a factor in deciding whether to archive this cache because they don't know how likely it is that exposure to asbestos cement will cause grave harm to a person.

 

Imagine a somewhat different scenario. Instead of the cache being hidden in the rubble of asbestos cement, let's suppose it's hidden in the middle of an unmarked mine field and there's a 50 percent chance of detonating a landmine while walking to the cache and back.

 

If a military officer (not the land manager) sends an email to Groundspeak informing them of the situation, does anyone here really believe Groundspeak would refuse to archive that cache, claiming they're not in the business of deciding which risks are too great and too hidden? Of course not. Such a claim would be morally reprehensible, and most jurisdictions have gross negligence laws that legally obligate them to act in such a situation.

Link to comment

 

If Groundspeak and its reviewers want to avoid legal liability for "gross negligence," then they had better pay some attention to what risks are too great and are too hidden. I know that at least one reviewer has archived a cache when hidden dangers were brought to their attention: "Not archiving it would be negligent on my part."

 

 

But in that case it seems that the cache itself was a significant part of the danger, not just the location, so it is different to the cases being discussed here.

Link to comment

 

If Groundspeak and its reviewers want to avoid legal liability for "gross negligence," then they had better pay some attention to what risks are too great and are too hidden. I know that at least one reviewer has archived a cache when hidden dangers were brought to their attention: "Not archiving it would be negligent on my part."

But in that case it seems that the cache itself was a significant part of the danger, not just the location, so it is different to the cases being discussed here.

The idea I'm disputing is the notion that Groundspeak shouldn't pay any attention to whether the risks to geocachers are too great and too hidden. Whether those risks are caused by the cache itself and/or their location doesn't matter. If the dangers of cache and/or location rise to the level of "gross negligence," then, of course, Groundspeak should act to mitigate those dangers (e.g., archive the cache). They would be foolish if they didn't do so.

 

Please note that that's a far cry from saying Groundspeak should guarantee the safety of every cache and/or location. They would be foolish if they did that.

Link to comment

I agree. I think if something like that it is seen then it would be appropriate to archive the cache to discourage people from going there. Again, I'm not blaming anyone, I'm just saying that it would have been good if either the CO or a reviewer had done that to discourage people from visiting the area.

 

Of course it isn't Groundspeak's responsibility. But I think that discouraging people from visiting a site is an appropriate action to take in this particular situation. :anibad:

Edited by spirothebudgie
Link to comment

But in that case it seems that the cache itself was a significant part of the danger, not just the location, so it is different to the cases being discussed here.

The idea I'm disputing is the notion that Groundspeak shouldn't pay any attention to whether the risks to geocachers are too great and too hidden. Whether those risks are caused by the cache itself and/or their location doesn't matter. If the dangers of cache and/or location rise to the level of "gross negligence," then, of course, Groundspeak should act to mitigate those dangers (e.g., archive the cache). They would be foolish if they didn't do so.

 

I agree that Groundspeak would be foolish to take any action, or not to take an action, that constitutes gross negligence.

 

There are certain dangers inherent in caching -- without considering permission issues, a cache placed where retrieval might be dangerous (where the cache itself is a significant part of the danger) probably presents less of a problem than failure to warn or to take any action if Groundspeak becomes aware of danger that is not inherent to this game. An analogy might be drawn to the way that my state interprets recreational immunity when it distinguishes between activity that is part of the recreation and matters that are not inherent to the activity at issue.

 

As a practical matter, of course, proving damages relating to a cache based on exposure to asbestos might be a problem. But mitigating dangers - especially hidden dangers -- that are known to Groundspeak would be part of a legal, if not moral, duty.

Edited by geodarts
Link to comment

But if you can summarize to the thread as to why you think it is, and what qualifications you have, I would feel better about meddling with another's cache.

 

For those interested, my wife holds a P401 Identification of Asbestos in Bulk Samples certificate and has been identifying various forms of asbestos under laboratory conditions for the past 14 years. I hold a NEBOSH Diploma, a globally recognised qualifications aimed at professional health and safety advisors and environmental practitioners.

 

Thanks again for all the input into this thread.

huge.16.80838.JPG

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment

Turning a traditional cache into a virtual cache is a listing guidelines violation. Safety isn't.

 

If you'd like for all unsafe caches to be archived, it will be quite a long time before the reviewers got around to what is the only "near asbestos" cache I've ever heard of. I'd need to start with all the rope climbing cliff caches, then move to the tree climbing caches. When I finished, I'd resign as a reviewer because I have no interest in becoming a guarantor of the safety of cache locations I've never visited.

 

As mentioned earlier in the thread and the post above this one keystone, climbing a tree/cliff is a decision a person can make. Taking a kayak out in rough weather is a decision a person can make. Hiking out into alpine terrain is a decision a person can make.

 

Your average person you probably identify the material found at this cache as rubbish and pay no attention to it because many caches have rubbish near them, it is however a highly dangerous substance that leads to terrible suffering as your life comes to an end.

 

The op identified a hazardous situation and it should have been archived for that reason, same as if searching for a caches leads to the photo above with the bare wires.

 

I'm no environmental engineer, but I'm pretty certain that simply walking past a pile of material that contains asbestos once or twice is not likely to be of any measurable risk at all. My father, who lived to his 80's, used to mix asbestos up with his bare hands to apply to furnace pipes. Sure, it isn't good for you, but we've really gone overboard in the US with some of this stuff. Asbestos, you know, is a rock. It exists in that very form in nature.

Link to comment

I completely understand that and of course safety is your own responsibility when caching. I'm not at all saying all caches need to be overly regulated to make sure they are safe. Of course whenever you go caching you are taking a risk and it is always your responsibility. The moderators and reviewers do a fantastic job for the geocaching community, I did not mean to offend anyone.

 

I just feel strongly about this particular cache because unfortunately asbestos isn't something that everyone can identify and reading the logs makes it very clear that a number of people have searched for the cache not knowing about it. It would have been easy for the CO to just archive it to stop people from visiting.

 

Choosing to take a risk and climb a cliff is a choice you make.

Breathing in potentially deadly fibres you don't know about is not.

 

You should direct your ire at the cache owner, not the reviewer. When it comes to the matter of caches being unsafe, only the cache owner should be archiving it for that reason. Not a reviewer, not a Groundspeak lackey, not even Jeremy himself. In this case, the cache was archived correctly when the owner tried turning it into a virtual. As nasty as asbestos is, Groundspeak is not going to get involved in matters of safety, nor should they. Looking at this as an outsider, things went as they are designed to. A cacher came along that realized the cache was hidden near exposed asbestos, realizes the danger, notifies the CO, the CO does nothing beyond trying to turn the cache into a virtual and once a reviewer saw that, they archived the cache. The only shameful thing is that had the CO not done the "photo only" trick, this cache would still be active. That's not due to any fault of the reviewer, but of the CO.

 

I understand what you are saying, and again I'm not blaming anyone. I just think that regardless of who is legally responsible for safety I personally would have had a moral obligation to archive it. If the owner doesn't sort out the problem then a reviewer should have the right to archive the cache on the grounds that it is inherently unsafe. I am all for challenging caches (tree climbs, rock climbs etc) but this is a very different issue because the danger is beyond the control of finders.

 

As a cache owner myself I would certainly have archived the cache, even though I am not legally responsible for anyone's safety. This is a family friendly game and the last thing I would want is for some kids to be rummaging through asbestos just to find my cache.

 

I am very sorry if I came across as rude, I did not mean to cause offence and our reviewers generously volunteer their time to do an amazing job to keep this game running for us all. :D

Edited by spirothebudgie
Link to comment

Turning a traditional cache into a virtual cache is a listing guidelines violation. Safety isn't.

 

If you'd like for all unsafe caches to be archived, it will be quite a long time before the reviewers got around to what is the only "near asbestos" cache I've ever heard of. I'd need to start with all the rope climbing cliff caches, then move to the tree climbing caches. When I finished, I'd resign as a reviewer because I have no interest in becoming a guarantor of the safety of cache locations I've never visited.

 

As mentioned earlier in the thread and the post above this one keystone, climbing a tree/cliff is a decision a person can make. Taking a kayak out in rough weather is a decision a person can make. Hiking out into alpine terrain is a decision a person can make.

 

Your average person you probably identify the material found at this cache as rubbish and pay no attention to it because many caches have rubbish near them, it is however a highly dangerous substance that leads to terrible suffering as your life comes to an end.

 

The op identified a hazardous situation and it should have been archived for that reason, same as if searching for a caches leads to the photo above with the bare wires.

 

I'm no environmental engineer, but I'm pretty certain that simply walking past a pile of material that contains asbestos once or twice is not likely to be of any measurable risk at all. My father, who lived to his 80's, used to mix asbestos up with his bare hands to apply to furnace pipes. Sure, it isn't good for you, but we've really gone overboard in the US with some of this stuff. Asbestos, you know, is a rock. It exists in that very form in nature.

 

Only last week we had a local pcyc hall shut due to dust containing asbestos left over from sheeting removal in the 70's.

 

I'm glad your dad lived a long and full life but many who handled weren't as lucky and the compensation fund set up by the James Hardie company is expected to cost them in the range of $1.5b (2003 estimate, wikipedia). Of the 7000 workers at the Australian Blue Asbestos Company's Wittenoom mine it is expected that by 2020, 700 former employees will have died of mesothelioma (wikipedia).

 

While it may be a "rock" in the ground we are not talking about asbestos buried safely 10 meters under the surface. The entire town of Wittenoom has been wiped of the map and exclusion zones put in place due to the danger posed by the stockpiles, they don't do that for ex uranium mines.

Link to comment

I have read this a few times. I think the OP is right in this should be archived (I know it has) and I am 99.999999% sure they are right in there identification of it. My only thing on it is even if you are sure it is asbestos in my line of work it still has to be tested before you can say for sure it does actually contain asbestos. I run into asbestos tiles or popcorn ceilings that I need to drill threw all the time. I can figure out if the house was built in the 50's or could have seen the exact floor tiles that I know are asbestos but I can't say for sure until they are tested and proven to actually contain it.

Like has been said this is only a game and no reason to take that chance but I can't see GS having to archive a cache because it is possible without any tests or anything being done. The original poster did the right thing in letting everyone know what they found and I for one think it is great! I hate asbestos and avoid it all I can.

Link to comment

The cache owner should have archived it upon learning of the danger. Instead, he tried to make it a photo log virtual. So the reviewer then archived it because of that. Either way, it got archived.

 

Any news on the reporting and clean up of the site? Much as I am all for CITO, doesn't sound like this area would be a good (amateur) CITO effort.

Link to comment

Turning a traditional cache into a virtual cache is a listing guidelines violation. Safety isn't.

 

If you'd like for all unsafe caches to be archived, it will be quite a long time before the reviewers got around to what is the only "near asbestos" cache I've ever heard of. I'd need to start with all the rope climbing cliff caches, then move to the tree climbing caches. When I finished, I'd resign as a reviewer because I have no interest in becoming a guarantor of the safety of cache locations I've never visited.

 

As mentioned earlier in the thread and the post above this one keystone, climbing a tree/cliff is a decision a person can make. Taking a kayak out in rough weather is a decision a person can make. Hiking out into alpine terrain is a decision a person can make.

 

Your average person you probably identify the material found at this cache as rubbish and pay no attention to it because many caches have rubbish near them, it is however a highly dangerous substance that leads to terrible suffering as your life comes to an end.

 

The op identified a hazardous situation and it should have been archived for that reason, same as if searching for a caches leads to the photo above with the bare wires.

 

I'm no environmental engineer, but I'm pretty certain that simply walking past a pile of material that contains asbestos once or twice is not likely to be of any measurable risk at all. My father, who lived to his 80's, used to mix asbestos up with his bare hands to apply to furnace pipes. Sure, it isn't good for you, but we've really gone overboard in the US with some of this stuff. Asbestos, you know, is a rock. It exists in that very form in nature.

 

Only last week we had a local pcyc hall shut due to dust containing asbestos left over from sheeting removal in the 70's.

 

I'm glad your dad lived a long and full life but many who handled weren't as lucky and the compensation fund set up by the James Hardie company is expected to cost them in the range of $1.5b (2003 estimate, wikipedia). Of the 7000 workers at the Australian Blue Asbestos Company's Wittenoom mine it is expected that by 2020, 700 former employees will have died of mesothelioma (wikipedia).

 

While it may be a "rock" in the ground we are not talking about asbestos buried safely 10 meters under the surface. The entire town of Wittenoom has been wiped of the map and exclusion zones put in place due to the danger posed by the stockpiles, they don't do that for ex uranium mines.

Does not the asbestos have to be airborne to be a problem? I'm not implying that this pile is not sometimes airborne, but in my mind's eye, we're talking about stuff that has been wet down and compressed by years of rain. I admit that my visualization of it may not be correct.

 

The workers that you're talking about were exposed to airborne fibers for years, though, were they not? Will walking past the area once to find a geocache really put them in any danger? I'm guessing not.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...