AJB Temple":18ppnof8 said:
Jonnie - your argument is well written but flawed. You refer to HSE "regulations". In fact, what you are talking about is guidance.
HSE guidance refers to the commercial environment. It does not deal with domestic users and this is reasonable as exposure times and conditions will vary greatly. It is the employer who has the responsibility to provide suitable protection and guidance. The law is not in fact prescriptive about what is suitable, but indicates that following the guidance is likely to result in compliance with the law.
The HSE page that deals with wood dust makes clear that the first line of defence should be extraction. The guidance also then goes on to say "For very dusty jobs such as sanding, additional protection may be needed and a suitable face mask should be worn as well as using the extraction".
The only point I am making here is that there has been a tendency in this thread to extrapolate guidance, ignore the recommended first line so defence, and then treat guidance as if it is law (regulation) when it is not. This is, in itself misleading. The use of face masks should be put into proper context.
The overriding point is surely that it is a good idea to wear face masks of some kind when appropriate to do so. I did not find the Axminster APF10 advertising or product description misleading. I was aware of the HSE guidance and that as a domestic user it does not apply to me in a legislative way and I am aware that better face mask systems are available (at higher cost) but chose one that I knew I would use. In fact I followed the HSE guidance anyway by installing proper extraction (that is the primary requirement), whole air filtering (secondary and using a face mask (third line or defence) when necessary.
The APF 10 is a good product at a sensible price. In my opinion. It is clearly unwise (and not in accord with HSE guidance) to use a face mask system as the only or primary defence mechanism. That is the relevant context.
AJB Temple - I think it's unfair to say my argument is flawed, not least given I made very clear hobbyist users were free to decide for themselves whether to overlook HSE guidance (i.e. employers not having the same freedom).
That aside, what you are saying about the wider extraction/RPE topic overlooks that this isn't only about what purpose this product is fit for going forward - it is a question of whether it had been misrepresented, which would leave EXISTING owners with a right to a refund. The fact is Axminster have been selling the product as "FFP2 respiratory protection", and it is irrefutable that unless a product has been tested to EN149 'Respiratory Protective Devices', which this has not, the product MUST NOT be sold as carrying that certification. There can not be any debate on that point, as it is surely enshrined in consumer law? You can't say a product is Kite Marked when it's only CE marked, then just say they are equivalent. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 protects consumers from products sold 'Not As Described', and the debate over whether it might be adequate dependent on a number of other factors doesn't enter into that. Let's not forget, I was given a full refund without question, as were several other customers.
I don't remember saying a respirator should provide protection on its own, so you're incorrect in implying I have ignored the first line of defence. The Evolution was (as you advise) only one part of my dust control measures, but nevertheless one I expected to perform as it was sold to me ("suitable for hardwoods and MDF").
And when you say better respirators are available but at a HIGHER cost, actually the Trend Airshield Pro currently sells for a good bit LESS than the Evolution, but conforms to the higher TH2P level - that's twice as effective as TH1P, for anyone who isn't sure if these codes make a difference. Your view is the Evolution is a "good product at a sensible price", and that's absolutely your choice (and your opinion valid); but equally if someone decides that twice the protection for 10% less money is a no-brainer (TH1P being half as effective as TH2P), you can't fault that logic. I get that you can only protect yourself within the finances available, but it creates an interesting debate when higher protection (and near identical features) are available for less...you surely can't advise someone not to overprotect themselves?
This was never to cause an argument, or do a "demolition job" as I was accused of; I realised the product wasn't what I thought it was, worked out where I'd been misled, Axminster agreed, and I was refunded. As it turns out, countless other users were in the same position, buying the product on the strength of information/images which Axminster saw fit to remove from their website on Friday (read into that what you will).
