Blanket ban will hit industry:

Asbestos battle hots up

by Lalin Fernandopulle

The battle between those who advocate the benefits of the use asbestos for the industry and the country and those against it on grounds of health concerns, flared up gain at a seminar last week in Colombo. It was organised by the Chamber of Construction Industry (CCI) and the Chrysotile Information Centre.

Representatives of the construction industry said a blanket ban without a proper evaluation of the ill-effects of asbestos by policy makers would have an adverse impact on the industry which makes a salient contribution to the economy.

Secretary General and CEO, CCI, Nissanka Wijeratne said the CCI is concerned over the adverse effects a blanket ban on asbestos based products could have on industry stakeholders, without a proper study of the health and the economic impact on the use of the roofing sheet. Experts said all forms of asbestos were used in the West and sprayed extensively on ceilings and structures of industrial buildings and houses for thermal insulation.

Crysotile is used primarily in Sri Lanka as an ingredient in fibre cement roofing sheets. Chrysotile fibres are firmly locked in or encapsulated within the cement matrix during the manufacturing process as such the fibre cannot be released into the atmosphere under normal use and poses little health risk to the environment or people.

“Despite higher manufacturing cost and technological research and development a substitute for fibre based friction products, it still poses performance problems for certain types of vehicles.

A ban on chrysotile would have a direct impact on manufacturers and employees in the chrysotile industry, consumers, households, the business sector,” a CCI official said.

The negative impact is loss of jobs for workers in plants where chrysotile is used in the manufacturing process. The ban on chrysotiles could lead to unexpected litigation and insurance costs for the business sector. In countries where all forms of asbestos are banned, litigation cases demanding compensation have forced not only defendant firms but also governments to make large payments.

In Japan where litigation is ongoing, the Japanese Government has had to pay around US$ 31 billion to stakeholders after the ban. The British government was sued and was made to pay US$ 16.5 billion to stakeholders.

Chrysotiles is one of the safest industrial fibres. Studies have revealed it has little or no potential to cause disease at current levels of exposure under high standard safe-use guidelines.

Chrysotile is a substance found in almost two thirds of the earths crust. Studies have revealed that depending on the region and independent of human or industrial activity, every person breaths around 10,000 to 15,000 fibres a day without harm to health.

Developing countries have been using asbestos extensively as a cheap material. However, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has categorically said that all forms of asbestos are carcinogenic. According to the final text adopted by the World Health Association, the official position is to eliminate asbestos related disease (ARD) and not a ban on chrysotile bearing in mind a differentiated approach to regulate its various forms.

The International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 162 on ‘Safety in the use of asbestos’ and Recommendation 172 on controlled-use approach for crysotile asbestos were approved by 143 countries in 1986.

The European Union has banned all types of asbestos and has introduced substitutes. The EU Science Committee encourages the study of substitutes.

A construction industry official said he had been in the chrysotile industry, which employs around 3,000 workers, for the past 30 years and but has not found a single person being affected by the roofing sheet material. He said if the WHO is so keen to ban asbestos why is it not advocating the banning of alcohol and cigarettes.

ICA Legal Advisor, Belgian Emiliano Alonso speaking on WHA and WHO’s position on chrysotile, said the WHO makes recommendations and it is up to individual countries to decide on health related issues.

A participant at the seminar said the letter sent by the WHO on the elimination of ARD should be read for the benefit of the participants and the media. However, the organizers declined to undertake the task as there were representative of the WHO at the event.

Dr. David Bernstein from Switzerland said Sri Lanka which had banned amphibole asbestos is more advanced that many Western countries. Amphiboles are hazardous to health and should be banned.

A university don said asbestos got a bad name because of the blue amphiboles which cause mesothelioma, a cancer of mesothelial tissue, associated with exposure to asbestos. Research and past studies reveal that chrysotile is not responsible for diseases.

“I blame the asbestos industry for not undertaking a serious study on the health impact of asbestos. Not a single study has been done on mesothelioma related to asbestos. An extensive study of all employees in the industry should be carried out,” he said.

Prof. S.M.A. Nanayakkara of the University of Moratuwa said people should go beyond the cost factor considering thermal performance, durability, strength, esthetic and health hazards in deciding the roofing material.

Clay roofing tiles, concrete roofing tiles, GI roofing sheets, pressed cement tiles and Zinc/Aluminium sheets are some of the alternative roofing material.

Asbestos is the generic trade name of a group of natural minerals whose crystals occur in fibrous forms.

The main technical properties of asbestos containing products are high tensile strength, elasticity and fire resistance. Amphiboles (blue and brown asbestos) and crysotile (white asbestos) are the two main forms of asbestos.

The major differences between crysotile and amphiboles is in its composition, acid resistance properties and effects on health. In contrast to amphiboles, chrysotiles do not persist in the lungs after inhalation. It is quickly eliminated from the body. Amphiboles also cause pulmonary diseases and can cause illness even after short exposure.

In Sri Lanka there have been no known medical studies or statistics to show that chrysotiles cause health problems for workers or users. However, if a ban on chrysotiles were to be imposed there are a number of impacts that would emerge, a construction industry expert said.

He said substitution does not mean being risk free. Recent studies have shown that fibres used to replace asbestos in many products may be equally or more hazardous than crysotile.

In addition to health problems, many non-asbestos friction materials may have inferior physical and technical characteristics.