The deadly asbestos legacy

BY ROB JOHNSTON Throughout history asbestos has been used in the manufacture of many products. The mineral’s ability to resist high temperatures is why it was widely utilised; its properties give protection against corrosion, cold, acids, alkalis, electricity, noise, vibration and energy loss. Yet whatever the different transformation this material has gone through, its dangerous characteristics remain. Asbestos accounts for at least 100,000 deaths a year and medical findings show that all forms of asbestos fibre dust created during mining, transformation and utilisation have the potential to cause cancer in humans. No safe use
Asbestos is a term used for a number of minerals that have crystallised to form long thin fibres and fibre bundles. The three main types of asbestos – commonly known as blue, brown and white asbestos - can still be found in the workplace and there is no safe level of exposure. Contrary to what some producers claim, all types are dangerous. Materials that contain asbestos become highly dangerous when they are damaged or disturbed in such a way that harmful fibres are released into the air. The fibres are like microscopic daggers and, when inhaled, lodge themselves into lung tissue. The body’s defences cannot break them down, so increased or prolonged exposure can cause a build up of fibres, which work their way deeper into the lungs and can cause disease. Inhalation of asbestos fibres can lead to serious diseases such as lung cancer, mesothelioma (a cancer of the lining of the lungs or lower digestive tract) and asbestosis (a chronic fibrosis of the lungs). Decades may pass between first exposure to asbestos and the appearance of related disease symptoms, triggering a public health time bomb in all countries where asbestos is present. The risk of disease is not just confined to workers. Once airborne, asbestos fibres can spread easily and there are examples of others contracting disease, for instance through exposure to asbestos during the cleaning of exposed workers’ overalls. The widespread use of asbestos in the construction industry has also meant that whole communities risk exposure during redevelopment work. Yet no global ban
It has taken three decades of continual effort and the emergence of suitable alternative substances for a comprehensive ban on the manufacture and use of asbestos to be adopted in a number of industrialized countries. The reluctance of some governments to acknowledge the risks associated with asbestos use even extends to a refusal to accept international conventions and guides that, although not as comprehensive as a ban, provide some minimum standards. For example, many governments appear to be in no hurry to ratify and implement the International Convention adopted by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) in 1986, banning some kinds of asbestos. To date this Convention has been ratified by only 27 of the ILO’s 177 member states. Russia, the world’s largest asbestos producer, is estimated to have produced 870,000 tonnes of chrysotile (white) asbestos in 2003, an increase of 16 per cent from 2002, 60 per cent of which it consumes itself. China is estimated to have produced 360,000 tonnes; this production is intended primarily for domestic consumption in the manufacture of asbestos cement products used in the development of the country’s infrastructure. The Canadian chrysotile industry is the world’s third largest producer and it exports 95 per cent of its production having developed major markets in the newly industrializing nations. Increasing demand from China, South Korea, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia have contributed to a growing export market. Asian countries in general are the world’s biggest importers, accounting for about 45 per cent of global demand. As many developed countries have woken up to the dangers of asbestos and have adopted bans, asbestos producers have begun spending millions of dollars on media campaigns to promote the use of asbestos in the developing world. For instance, in October 2004 the Chrysotile Institute (an umbrella organisation of asbestos producers) spent US$1.3 million promoting the benefits of asbestos in national newspapers in Brazil. This follows a similar media onslaught by asbestos cement manufacturers in Indian newspapers. Production increases
Despite the continued controversy surrounding the use of asbestos, demand appears to have expanded in 2003, enabling world production to increase by 5.4 per cent over 2002. A significant increase in the use of asbestos is expected to occur in the short and medium term in a number of Asian countries such as Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines, Vietnam, India, South Korea and China. Consumption in the Middle East (mostly in the United Arab Emirates and Iran) and in Africa (essentially in Algeria, Angola, Morocco and Senegal) accounts for 20 per cent of world demand. The IMF response
The International Metalworkers’ Federation believes that an international ban on the production, import, export and use of asbestos products is necessary. The reason is simple: the risks cannot be adequately controlled by technology or by regulation of work practices. During the IMF Congress a number of activities will take place to raise awareness of the hazards associated with asbestos and to inform delegates of the role they can play in pursuing a global ban. These activities will also be part of a wider campaign supported by other Global Union Federations and the ICFTU, which will culminate in the submission of a resolution calling for a global ban to the ILO in 2006. The legacy from asbestos use will take decades to come to the surface. Already many developed nations have begun to count the cost from previous use. Campaigns such as “Make James Hardie Pay” serve as a reminder of how far some companies will go to try and avoid their responsibilities. Compensation for workers exposed to asbestos is hard to pursue due to the 20 or 30 year period it sometimes takes for signs of illness to appear. Often the burden of proof lies with the worker. In developing countries not only is use increasing but there is little to no education or protection for workers exposed to asbestos. For instance, in shipbreaking each vessel contains on average seven or eight tonnes of asbestos. Yet workers removing it in countries such as India have no protection from its deadly fibres. Raising awareness about the dangers of asbestos exposure is an urgent task. Funding and just transition
Moreover, funding is urgently needed for the development and implementation of new diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to asbestos related diseases. International agencies have a role to play in mobilising financial resources and in co-ordinating global research efforts. In the few countries that still produce asbestos, just transition programmes will need to be implemented in order to help workers retain employment whilst new employment opportunities are developed. Unionisation, job security, worker benefits, seniority, safety, wages, training and education are all central features of a just transition programme that must be adapted to take account of the individual workers affected. This should be done through the relevant trade union. The deadliest workplace hazard ever known has blighted the lives of countless workers and members of their families and communities. It is the duty of the IMF and the international trade union movement to bring this to an end.Apr 12, 2005 – Jesper Nilsson