feeds from sacw.net
print versionPress Release
Exposing Workers to Asbestos Fibers is Human Rights Violation
Ban asbestos completely else lift ban on its mining, says Ministry of Mines
Civil Society demands ban on mining, manufacturing and use of asbestos
New Delhi 28/4/2010: Union Ministry of Mines held a meeting today in the Sashtri Bhavan on the possibility of lifting the current technical ban on mining chrysotile asbestos, amidst Kerela Human Rights Commission’s order banning use of asbestos in schools and a pending case in the National Human Rights Commission in the same matter.
Occupational and environmental groups present at the meeting called for complete ban on asbestos of all kinds because asbestos fibers cause incurable diseases like cancer and sought Mines Ministry’s support in getting a ban imposed on import chrysotile asbestos. The draft guidelines prepared by Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM), Union Ministry of Mines on possibility of safe mining of chrysotile asbestos drew severe criticism. Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI), an alliance of public health, occupational health, human rights and environment researchers and activists argued, “it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that no safe and controlled mining, production and use of asbestos and its products possible.â€
Ms Shanta Sheela Nair, Secretary, Union Ministry of Mines supported BANI’s position but argued, “Asbestos should be banned completely if not then why mining of asbestos within India should be not be allowed as well.â€
Under manifest pressure from the “mine owners of Chrysotile Asbestos Mines†from Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh and Jharkhand, the Ministry seems to be acting like a rubber stamp for the asbestos mining industry’s proposal to lift the ban on mining of asbestos although Supreme Court has held that “The development of the carcinogenic risk due to asbestos or any other carcinogenic agent, does not require continuous exposure. The cancer risk does not cease when the exposure to the carcinogenic agent ceases, but rather the individual carries the increased risk for the remaining years of life. The exposure to asbestos and the resultant long tragic chain of adverse medical, legal and societal consequences, reminds the legal and social responsibility of the employer or producer not to endanger the workmen or the community or the society. He or it is not absolved of the inherent responsibility to the exposed workmen or the society at large. They have the responsibility-legal, moral and social to provide protective measures to the workmen and to the public or all those who are exposed to the harmful consequences of their products. Mere adoption of regulations for the enforcement has no real meaning and efficiency without professional, industrial and governmental resources and legal and moral determination to implement such regulations.†Occupational and environmental groups demand that Ministry of Mines must come out with a status paper on asbestos victims in India’s asbestos mines and the action it has taken to provide compensation and medical remedy to them.
Notably, BIS Standard mentioned in the proposed guidelines in this regard is mere paper work with no teeth to act. There is reference to how “No person shall be allowed to enter or remain in any work place which contains airborne asbestos dust at any time, exceeding the TLV (threshold limit value) of 1 fibre per cc, perceptible through standard monitoring procedures†and “No person shall enter or remain in any place which contains airborne asbestos dust at any time exceeding the limit of 1 fibre per cc in the working atmosphere, as observed in standard monitoring, unless such person is wearing approved type respiratory equipment to prevent the inhalation of such dust.†The fact is that WHO’s conclusions and recommendations for protection of human health in Environmental Health Criteria 203 for Chrysotile Asbestos concludes, “No threshold has been identified for carcinogenic risks†. Also it says, “The impact of chrysotile/serpentine presence and degradation on the environment and lower life forms is difficult to gauge. Observed perturbations are many but their long-term impact is virtually unknown.†In such grave circumstances, it is blind lust for profit at cost alone that makes people propose standards when there is no level at which it is deemed safe.
BANI drew the attention of the Ministry towards the resolution of International Labour Organization (ILO) adopted by the 95th Session of the International Labour Conference, in June 2006, which stated that “all forms of asbestos, including chrysotile, are classified as known human carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a classification restated by the International Programme on Chemical Safety (a joint Programme of the International Labour Organization, the World Health Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme)†. The resolution noted that “an estimated 100,000 workers die every year from diseases caused by exposure to asbestos and resolved that “the elimination of the future use of asbestos and the identification and proper management of asbestos currently in place are the most effective means to protect workers from asbestos exposure and to prevent future asbestos-related diseases and deaths†. This shows that the proposed guidelines by the chrysotile mining ministry is blind to the global trend, domestic occupational health conditions and the preventable deaths that occurs due to asbestos mining and its subsequent uses.
Notwithstanding the fact that the current legal position with regard to asbestos is that there is ban on the import/export of waste asbestos (dust & fibers) under the Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008, the proposed guidelines misleadingly says, “Asbestos containing residue is covered under the Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989. Accordingly, hazardous waste may be transported, treated and disposed of as per Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989†. The meeting was attended by representatives of Ministry of Labour and Environment besides representatives from Central Pollution Control Board, National Institute of Occupational Health, Mining and Geology Department, Rajasthan, Mining and Geology Department, Andhra Pradesh, Mining and Geology Department, Jharkhand, Directorate General of Mines Safety, National Institute of Miners’ Health, Campaign for Prevention of Silicosis & PRASAR.
For Details: Gopal Krishna, convener, Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI)
Mb: 9818089660, E-mail:krishna2777@gmail.com, Web: www.toxicswatch.com
Blog: banasbestosindia.blogspot.com
