According to the World Health Organisation, 17.8 deaths per million of the UK population are caused by mesothelioma, as a direct result of exposure to asbestos fibres. Asbestos related diseases are the biggest killer in UK trades, with around 5000 people dying every year. These figures are, per capita, the highest in the world. From WWII to the end of the 20th century the UK was highly reliant on low cost asbestos products, and the post-war rebuilding effort saw ACMs (Asbestos Containing Materials) incorporated into almost every project. Thousands of workers were employed – without adequate safety measures – to work the raw minerals into usable asbestos products. Over 5 million tons of raw asbestos were imported into the UK since 1940 – reaching a peak of 187 000 tons in 1964 – with imports still substantial until the complete ban of asbestos products in 1999.
But during the same period asbestos was (and in some cases still is) mined prolifically in South Africa, Australia, Canada, Russia, China, Zimbabwe and India. According to the US Geological Survey, 2.18 million tons were mined worldwide in 2008, and the Indian Government has recently lifted a ban on the mining of indigenous chrysotile (white asbestos). Importation and installation of ACMs is still common practice in many countries throughout the world. With the asbestos industry still booming globally, why does the UK diagnose more sufferers of asbestos related diseases than any other country in the world?
Fifteen years ago, anti-climate change protesters were shouting louder than scientists. Scientific research was empirically able to demonstrate the effects on our world of the industrialised behaviours of humans, but still there was international doubt. The clear message was being impeded. Arguments and counter arguments were being floated on global news networks, while oil producers searched for ways to delay the inevitable. Fifteen years later, a tipping point has been reached. The global community is at least aware of the facts, if not unanimous in its approach, and the kicking and screaming of the opposition lobbyists has all but faded away. The EU and G8 have set targets for reduction of carbon emissions, which are subject to continual review. The world is beginning to take responsibility for climate change.
It could be argued that the same tipping point has been reached in the UK with regards to asbestos. As such, the UK is beginning to take responsibility for it’s asbestos use. Effective means of controlling ACMs in current stock have been rolled out nationwide and enshrined in law, with vigorous penalties issued to transgressors. Sufferers of mesothelioma and other asbestos related diseases, along with bereaved families, are beginning to see improvements in how cases for damages are settled. The UK is starting to take responsibility and – although big changes take time – her citizens are being proactive in lobbying for further controls in areas where current strategies are insufficient (e.g. schools).
It’s true to say that control of imports is comparatively straightforward for an island nation. But the UK is also fortunate to be only lightly touched by the pro-chrysotile lobbies who, in countries where asbestos is still on the debating table, work tirelessly to delay bans and strategies for controlling its production and use. They expound upon cases of ‘misdiagnosis’, citing cynical exploitation of laws around workers rights. They have powerful connections (see the Chrysotile Institute: a pro-asbestos lobby group funded by the Canadian Government itself. Amongst their favourite ‘experts’ is Christopher Booker: a UK journalist who is recorded as considering harm from tobacco smoke, lead in petrol, and climate change hilarious hoaxes alongside chrysotile-related disease).
They present fudged figures (see Dr Jacques Dunnigan: long time employee of the Chrysotile Institute who – on behalf of the Pro-Chrysotile Movement – presented an irrelevant and erroneous report, originally sourced from the US Dept of Health, in an effort to eradicate fears of asbestos related disease. Hilariously, had Dr Dunnigan fully read his own report, he would have noted that Chrysotile sat alongside plutonium in terms of dangerousness, and does in fact sit above amosite (brown asbestos); widely acknowledged, even by the Pro-Chysotile Movement, as an extremely highly harmful asbestos type.)
They hound their opponents (see the “No Chrysotile Ban” newsletter – http://nochrysotileban.com – which defames many and various anti-asbestos lobbyists, scientists and lawyers on spurious grounds in tabloid lexis. Note the particular venom reserved for Laurie Kazan-Allen in a short but patronising article, in which the UK based lobbyist’s global awareness efforts are seemingly undermined by her “living in a state-subsidised council house”).
It is chilling to consider how far the influence of these lobbyists may stretch, but it can be safely assumed that their incentives are born from considerable stakes held in the ‘health’ of the asbestos industry. It is sobering to contemplate why, in other countries where asbestos production and use is historically rife, doctors seem unable to diagnose asbestos related diseases and cancers. Or the reasons why public records do not demonstrate the severity of the impact of asbestos exposure. To suppose that the UK’s citizens are uniquely vulnerable to asbestos fibres would be an egregious aberration.
Presuming that you fired up your computer at 8.00am, two UK tradespeople will have died by the time you pause for lunch. Then there are our nation’s teachers; unwittingly breathing fibres when posting students’ work on Asbestos Insulating Board pin boards. The asbestos workers of the seventies are all but gone. We know all this to be fact. But at this time, the global extent of this humanitarian disaster is borne in scant and deliberately clouded data. And as long as this is the case, the industry will roll on, the pro-lobbyists will prosper, and innocent victims will continue to multiply into the millions.”
