• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

lead paint & asbestos in new apt?

jimtron

Illuminator
jimtron
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
3,105
Location
Los Angeles, California
I just signed a lease for an apartment. The contract included disclaimers about potential lead paint and asbestos--this is a newly rehabbed old building. I just signed the lease but wish I had asked if those disclaimers could be removed (of course they said it was highly unlikely that the contamination would be present--they sandblasted etc, but later I realized I should have said, "then why the need or the disclaimers?").

One of the reasons I was quick to sign is that there doesn't appear to be anything that could be a problem (as much as I could tell from a visual inspection). The ceiling and floors are wood, and the walls look like new drywall, as well as exposed brick. I'm attaching a photo.

So, finally to my question: anyone have an idea of the potential risks? I've got a few weeks before I move in, so I was thinking of maybe doing a bit of testing...found this place. I'm not paranoid about this, but just want to be sure because of the lease I signed.
 

Attachments

  • apt.jpg
    apt.jpg
    45.9 KB · Views: 9
I'd be more worried about radon. Asbestos is only a problem when you try to remove it.
 
jimtron said:
I just signed a lease for an apartment. The contract included disclaimers about potential lead paint and asbestos--this is a newly rehabbed old building. I just signed the lease but wish I had asked if those disclaimers could be removed (of course they said it was highly unlikely that the contamination would be present--they sandblasted etc, but later I realized I should have said, "then why the need or the disclaimers?").
Click to expand...

They may be legally required to do so regardless of the presence of any actual contamination. In order to not include such a disclaimer, they might have to go through absurd levels of testing and verification.

So, finally to my question: anyone have an idea of the potential risks?
Click to expand...

Probably pretty damned low. Especially if you don't lick the walls and ceiling.
 
I'd say the disclaimers are largely a CYA exercise by the letting agents. Lead paint could only be a problem if you're in the habit of chewing on the fittings, particularly radiator pipes.

Also, as JWideman says, asbestos is largely innocuous until you try to remove it, creating a large cloud of microscopic needle-like particles to stick in your lungs.

Radon is only ever likely to be a problem in areas where the bedrock is granitic (having a larger concentration of uranium than other bedrocks), and even then, only in basements with poor ventilation since the density of radon means it invariably ends up in basements.
 
There is a disclaimer because there is no reason NOT to have a disclaimer.
Click to expand...
Scaring away prospective tenants is one reason. Also, after the responses I've gotten, I'm not worried, but there is a certain Kafkaesque irony in the logic of: "don't worry, there's no problem, but if there is a problem, you can't sue us for it."
 
Last edited:
I understand some might take the view, 'don't warn about potential hazards, we'll wait until they sue', but surely given the known hazards of lead and asbestos, a judge/jury would come down on them light a ton of bricks in any legal proceedings were it to be found that no warning was issued.
 
commandlinegamer said:
I understand some might take the view, 'don't warn about potential hazards, we'll wait until they sue', but surely given the known hazards of lead and asbestos, a judge/jury would come down on them light a ton of bricks in any legal proceedings were it to be found that no warning was issued.
Click to expand...

From the building owner's point of view, of course they want the disclaimer so they won't be liable. But from the tenant's point of view, if there's a potential hazard we want to know about it, and would prefer not to waive the right to sue. My point about the logic is that there either is a potential danger or there isn't a potential danger; the mouth is implying there's no danger, and the legalese is stating in cold hard ink that there is a potential danger, and if I'm harmed by it they have no liability.

Again, I'm not too concerned about this, but if I had to do it again I would at least look into the possibility of having the disclaimer removed, or if nothing else call them on the double talk.
 
When you buy a house, there is always a lead-based paint form that goes along with it. The form (at least in my experience) usually has three choices: A) There is no lead. B) There is lead. C) We don't know.

I've never seen one that had anything but C marked. Suppose someone didn't do quite the job they ought to have done sandblasting and in some corner of the building there was a significant amount of lead paint left on the bricks before they were repainted. Someone actually tests the walls (because they have kids and are worried about lead paint) and finds lead. Complaints, law suits, repairs, etc. I'd do the same thing if I were them. In any case, there isn't much to worry about.

In an apartment, it's not too likely you've got radon problems, unless part of your apartment is underground (has a basement, that is.)
 
Disclaimers in contracts are about allocating risk. All it means is that you bear the risk in the event of there being a problem with those things and you need to insure against those risks (if they are insurable). The inclusion of the disclaimer doesn't say anything about the likelihood of the risk.
 
If you are worried about lead go to a paint shop and ask for a lead testing kit. Get two or three. Read the instructions. You should practice on the current place you are living.

Lead in paint is a hazard when
1. You try to remove it without taking proper precautions
2. It starts to flake.

If the paint is in good condition then it is not likely to be a problem.

Cannot help you with the other hazards.
 
jimtron said:
Scaring away prospective tenants is one reason. Also, after the responses I've gotten, I'm not worried, but there is a certain Kafkaesque irony in the logic of: "don't worry, there's no problem, but if there is a problem, you can't sue us for it."
Click to expand...

I am sure it is just boiler plate for buildings of a certain age like before 1973 for lead paint, asbestos I don't know the exact date.

And in some municipalities it is a requirement that you have to inform people of the risk.
 
You might try telling them that you need to know the location of any lead paint or asbestos so that you can manage the risks properly (as noted by others they will be OK if not disturbed). This may lead to a more definite statement from them about whether or not there is any present.

Dave
 
Sounds like it may be an insurance requirement. I've seen silly disclaimers in contracts because an insurance company has a universal one contract fits all sorta thing. The last one I remember was some disclaimer about floods and the apartment was on the 25th floor. Sure it rains in Vancouver but not that much.
 
Dancing David said:
I am sure it is just boiler plate for buildings of a certain age like before 1973 for lead paint, asbestos I don't know the exact date.

And in some municipalities it is a requirement that you have to inform people of the risk.
Click to expand...


This is the right answer. I'd go as far as to say "many" municipalities, and perhaps even some states.

Just heed the admonitions to not rip the insulation out of the walls without respiratory protection (not all that healthy even in the absence of asbestos) or consume large quantities of the paint. The later is more problematic for infants, anyway.

By the time legislation mandating such cautions had become common most lead based house paint was buried under so many layers of water based latex that removal, a tough job at best, would have been quite unfeasible. It is generally safer just to leave it there. Unsupervised rugrats crawling around decrepit dumps with strips of paint peeling off the walls and ceilings may be at some risk from lead, although their other risk factors would likely outweigh that one, but you're probably safe.
 
Evilgiraffe said:
Radon is only ever likely to be a problem in areas where the bedrock is granitic (having a larger concentration of uranium than other bedrocks), and even then, only in basements with poor ventilation since the density of radon means it invariably ends up in basements.
Click to expand...

It can also be a problem in old bricks, particularly bricks made before 1950, where uranium oxide was used as a pigment. An old brick factory in Denver is now a superfund site.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom