An expert said the drastic safety measures undertaken at the Bradfield Street property - which began to be sealed on Monday under a giant plastic wrap - appeared ironic given the likelihood some commercial buildings also contain the fluffy asbestos but these have neither been checked nor remediated by the ACT government.

Keith McHenry headed the ACT's asbestos removal program from 1989, when 1050 homes across the territory were found to contain amosite asbestos installed by the now infamous "Mr Fluffy".

At the time, Dr McHenry voiced his concerns that none of the non-residential buildings in the ACT were ''within the scope'' of a $100 million screening program and clean-up funded by the federal government and ACT through the late 1980s and early 1990s. This was because neither the federal nor ACT government wanted to be liable for additional costs - leaving commercial property owners to handle the issue privately.

Dr McHenry has reignited his call for all ACT non-residential buildings with a gable roof - which allowed tiles to be lifted and loose asbestos to be pumped in - and which were built before Mr Fluffy stopped trading in 1978, to be part of a scoping study. He also described as "criminally negligent" the inaction by NSW to clean up the asbestos known to have been installed by Mr Fluffy in at least 50 Queanbeyan homes.

When asked what commercial buildings in the ACT were believed to contain loose asbestos, a spokesman for the Chief Minister and Treasury Directorate said: "We do not have at hand specific information relating to the presence of loose-fill asbestos insulation in non-residential premises.

"Documentation held indicates that there were a small number of non-residential properties that contained loose-fill asbestos insulation. The exact number of premises and any further information would only be ascertainable after a review of the extensive documentation relating to the program, which would take a considerable amount of time."

The spokesman also noted that the Commonwealth undertook an asbestos assessment and removal program in relation to its own buildings in the early 1980s that covered all types of asbestos and asbestos-containing materials.

Dr McHenry knew of at least one day care centre in Woden - which has long since stopped operating - which discovered it had Mr Fluffy asbestos and had it removed at its own cost.

"The ACT authorities who decided not to extend the audit beyond houses have something to answer for when all logic would suggest that you look at all potential sites of loose asbestos," Dr McHenry said.

He said it was unlikely that a large number of buildings were at risk but suggested some of the older suburban shopping centres with gable roofs might have potentially been affected.

"We just don't know. We definitely know there are some Queanbeyan homes affected, but there may or may not be some places in Canberra which are affected. To me the public

homes affected, but there may or may not be some places in Canberra which are affected."

"To me the public risk is clear…The Government recognises the importance of spending $2 million to safely remove the asbestos from the house in Downer, but how can you turn a blind eye to the possibility it may be in other buildings?"

The Downer home is the fourth to be found to contain Mr Fluffy asbestos after failing to be picked up in the initial screening program back in the late 1980s.

Dr McHenry said it was unfortunate any home was missed and he was unaware of the circumstances of how they were missed - having come into the job after the survey had begun.

Meanwhile the ACT Government had begun another series of internal audits to determine whether other houses may have been missed.

In 2005, Dr McHenry unsuccessfully appealed to Chief Minister Jon Stanhope to conduct an asbestos audit of potentially affected commercial properties.

"The number may not be large, and given that only a small minority of ACT homes were found to be affected it is possible that very few, and perhaps no, non-residential buildings were contaminated. The problem is, we simply don't know," he wrote to Mr Stanhope at the time.

"It is a matter for judgment whether the potential risk to public health in the ACT from loose asbestos insulation warrants government action in regard to non-residential leases. My view that it did was not shared by my superiors in the ACT Administration in the late 1980s; a new generation of administrators, looking now at the matter afresh in the light of contemporary knowledge of the public health risks presented by asbestos, might well take a different view," he said.