Mr Addy, I stand by my previous post, that it is the proposal of 600+ new homes that is the beef of you and your army of campaigners. That much I do know. If, as your campaign says, the new properties would be such a health issue, surely it would be wiser to build the houses. After the negative publicity, nobody in their right mind will want to live in them, the result being Countryside Properties would be the main losers ??" IN THEIR POCKETS. Alternatively, is it the rumours that some of the new houses may be council owned properties, that is giving you and your nimbys ants in your pants?

   Mr Entwistle. You are entitled to your opinion but please do not attempt to peddle such unsubstantiated views as fact. -Who have you spoken to in the Save Spodden Valley campaign that has 'confided' to you that they are 'closet NIMBYs'.

NIMBY - "Not in My Backyard" The term of abuse used by property speculators and their ilk in vain attempts to make people look narrowminded.

This ain't leafy Hampshire Mr Entwistle- Our concerns are real and legitimate.

As a community, we have have lived with the asbestos factory 'in our backyards' for decades. We now live with an eyesore 'in our backyards'. We have the potential for tens of thousands of tonnes of dumped asbestos 'in our backyards'. Yet there have NEVER been calls made to have it removed. This asbestos needs to be undisturbed and encapulated in a safe and permanent way. Hardly NIMBYism.

The Spodden Valley issues concern the whole Borough- For instance: when asbestos factory rubble left the site and was driven through Heywood town centre - we were vocal- FOR THE PEOPLE OF HEYWOOD - hardly the work of NIMBY's.

Sticks and stones Mr Entwistle- obviously this health and safety campaign is upsetting you. The truth is coming out about the site and safe decisions will be made.

Petty name calling and unsustantiated allegations against a campaign that has widespread support won't wash.

   Looking at this controversial subject from another angle, it is the fact that 600 new homes are going to be built that is frightening these Nimbys - they do not want the influx of all these people moving near to them. It is not all about asbestos because I have had privy conversations with Save Spodden Valley campaigners and they have said as much.

    MMC and Countryside Properties say they are now going to listen to local people, Residents told them again and again of the asbestos on site, but they constantly denied that asbestos was a problem. Why should our lives and future health be in the hands of developers who have deliberately covered up the truth from residents? Knowing its past history, this site should never have been put forward as suitable for housing. The developers were going to crash on and build on this land. Who would be left with the problem if some poor soul buying their dream home then develops asbestosis? Will MMC and Countryside Properties still be around to compensate the victims. Sylvia Conway

   The demolition of the site is far to hazardous to the health of the people, of whom live in Rochdale and the contractors. Contaminating the air- the fibres which are invisible to the eye will be disturbed in abundance. There is no safe level with asbestos - plain and simple it is killed many people before, it is indistructable. This project should never have been started.

   I moved to Rochdale from the North-East of England in 1987. I bought a house in Rooley Moor Road 21 years ago - totally unaware of the existance of an asbestos factory at the botton of my road.

I had father who was a builder and worked with asbestos - in the days before it was realised what a problem it would be. His sudden death, a combination of heart, chest and cigaret smoking was a total shock. We have no way of knowing if the asbestos played a part in it.

I feel very sorry for the 600 families who could potentially buy a house in a high risk area with no knowledge of what used to be there. Certainly if I had know, I wold have looked elsewhere for a house!

   If the rubble on the Site is not hazardous to human health,why are the method statements and risk assessments associated with it`s removal more secret than classified documents? It is likely that files relating to the content of that rubble will never be made public. The reason that Jim Dobbin took the unusual step of raising the question with Tony Blair is because he shares the concerns of the Save Spodden Valley campaigners and a great number of his other constituents who have tried in vain for 18 months to gain answers from all Official Bodies concerned with the site that safe decisions will be made. The nett result of this effort is beaurocratic buck-passing and obfuscation which only reinforces the impression that few people in authority give a damn about one of the driving maxims of the portesters which is that one further death as a result of that site is a price to high to pay for development. Jim Dobbin is to be highly applauded for his strenuous efforts to get proper answers and accountability on these vital questions of Public Health.

   Tina seems to be confiused about what asbestos actually is!! She writes of tiny microbes.. asbestos is a mineral and it made up of microscopic fibres - 2 million fibres can fit on a pin head - which is why it is so dangerous as it can be inhaled into the lungs.

   The sites owners are NOT Federal Mogul- the site was sold in 2004, with apparent full knowledge as a contaminated site, at a knock-down price to property developers MMC Developments Ltd and an offshore company called Rathbone Jersey Ltd. Countryside Properties have an option on the site if planning permission is granted to build over 600 homes and a children's nursery there- slap bang in the middle of what was the world's biggest asbestos textile factory. The Guardian Media group should know this- because they recently took a large undisclosed sum in advertising from these property developers to distribute 50,000 glossy brochures claiming to be "Spodden Valley Regeneration - Community news. The Advertising Standards Agency are currently investigating allegations that the brochure contains misleading, untruthful and unsubstantiated claims. But if you Google "Countryside Properties" and "asbestos", or listen to BBC Radio 4 or read Private Eye magazine- you will find that the developers have been in a lot of bother over this for months.