Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Why does a public debate on the dangers of asbestos make the Indian asbestos industry so jittery? The Rs 800 crore sector is ready to go to any lengths to kill public information about the health effects of this deadly material, banned or being phased out in many countries around the world.
Why else would the Asbestos Cement Products Manufactures Association threaten to take "suitable remedial measures which included injunction" against reputed institutions like the Indian Association of Occupational Health (IOAH)? And that merely for including a session entitled `Banning Asbestos in India’, in an international conference to be held in Delhi in early February. The speakers include well-known international and Indian occupational health experts who wish to present the current information on this issue.
Adding to the pressure is surprisingly the director general of Mines-Safety itself. Surely at least he should welcome any attempts to protect the over 110,000 workers hazardously engaged in this sector. Attempts to browbeat public interest scientists who wish to speak their mind are not uncommon, but the arrogance in this instance shows that our industry till lives in the dark ages, and not in the information age.
The use of asbestos in developed countries has declined significantly, with its corresponding rise in developing countries. Attempts to regulate its use and improve conditions under which it is mined and processed have failed. The latest to join the list is Chile with a ban effective from June 2001. Asbestos related diseases has been responsible for over 200,000 deaths in the US and more the a million worldwide. Effects include asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer. Even the WTO recently upheld France’s trade ban on the import of asbestos from Canada. Yet, talking about it seems taboo here.
The asbestos industry’s new markets are in developing countries such as Brazil, Thailand, Nigeria, Mexico, Uruguay and India. Brazil has emerged as one of the world leaders. Previous large producers and users, such as Canada, are wearing an exporter’s hat now, shipping almost 96 per cent of their produce out, a large portion coming to Asia. It is common knowledge that worker conditions in mines and units in India are pathetic, even though exposure standards are more liberal, 2 f/cc as against 0.1 f/cc in other countries. Consumers too are exposed, through decaying asbestos rooftops, degrading water pipes, or exposed insulation linings. `Prove it’, the industry keeps harping, like the chemical industry has been doing unsuccessfully for 50 years.
Paradoxically, scientific `opinion’ is muzzled when it attempts to do that, and the `precautionary principle’ is obviously unheard of. In fact various studies have cautioned against the uncontrolled use of asbestos, recommending that `safer substitute’ materials be considered. In India, `blue’ (crociodolite) asbestos is banned but `brown’ (tremolite) and `white’ (chrysolite) — which is the most commonly used type — are still mined and processed. They all have tiny microfibres two hundred times finer than human hair, and are deadly to the respiratory system. Old asbestos insulated houses in the United States are sealed, covered and stripped down by `hazmen’ teams wearing full bodysuits. Here, the children of construction workers frolic in it.
There seems to be no need to inform these poor unsuspecting folks of what they are handling, since in most cases the diseases hits them years later. Health, especially of the poor worker, does not seem to be of concern. How many consumers would want to use the material if they know that even a single exposure can cause cancer? Maybe that is what the industry fears. A consumer who does not need to see a `body’ but can decide for him/her self given the information. Is that not what the free market is all about?
