She was built in 1950, at Bethlehem Steel in Quincy, Mass., a shining 682-foot steamship big enough to carry 1,000 passengers at 23 knots down the "sun lane" from New York to the Mediterranean. She carried President and Mrs. Truman across the Atlantic in 1958. Advertisers boasted her as the first air-conditioned liner, with "American designs, American fabrics, even an American soda fountain, and true American hospitality." They called her the SS Independence.
Now, 58 years later, airplanes have made her transatlantic voyages redundant and her years as a cruise ship in Hawaii are over. Grass is growing between the teak planks of her sun decks and the flowers painted on her stacks are fading. She has been renamed the SS Oceanic, and the asbestos and chemicals she was built with have environmental groups like the Basel Action Network calling her a floating "toxic time bomb." Today the Oceanic is a rogue ship on the high seas—last seen near Dubai—and is the center of a lawsuit between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the shipbrokers who own her.
But even as she deteriorates, the Oceanic remains a valuable property. Ships like these are in demand for their steel, yielding high profits for the brokers who send them to yards to be dismantled. This is one type of recycling, though, that's not always eco-friendly. Old vessels are filled with contaminants, making them dangerous to tear apart. Few governments want this kind of waste on their doorsteps, so the ship graveyards have concentrated in developing countries where regulations are spotty and migrant labor is cheap. That means places like Alang, the Indian scrapyard that took apart as many as 400 ships annually during its peak years of operation.
Alang is less busy now, due to competition from several even less regulated yards in Bangladesh and Pakistan; only 129 ships were dismantled there in 2007. But experts on the industry believe that when the Oceanic left her San Francisco berth under tow on the foggy morning of Feb. 8, Alang was her most likely destination. Her journey was disrupted when the EPA issued a complaint against her owners, Maryland-based Global Shipping LLC, seeking fines of $32,500 per day of transport for violating the Toxic Substances Control Act by exporting a ship for scrap with polychlorinated biphenyl chemicals (PCBs) onboard. "Federal law prohibits companies from exporting PCBs, including those in ships that are sent overseas to be scrapped," Rich Vaille, an associate director for the EPA's waste program enforcement, said in a statement. "When companies illegally export PCB waste, they are circumventing U.S. requirements for proper disposal," he said.
The Oceanic was owned by Norwegian Cruise Lines until she was sold to Global Shipping shortly before setting sail four months ago. According to the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD), Global Shipping originally submitted an application to MARAD for approval to transfer the Oceanic for scrapping in India, but that application was withdrawn before the ship was towed. MARAD has legal authority to seize a vessel for violation of foreign transfer laws, but MARAD spokeswoman Susan Clark says that in the case of the Oceanic, "We are not aware of any such violation."
Global Shipping denies knowledge of any toxic material on board the ship and says that it does not intend to scrap the Oceanic but is looking for buyers to restore her. "Vessels of this size, build and history can be put to use in several trades, such as floating hotels, casinos or providing accommodations to laborers," says Shashank Agrawal, a spokesman for Global Shipping. "We must place on record that [the] owners are fully cooperating with the EPA in this exercise."
However, according to a waste stream analysis conducted by Werner Hoyt, a ship recycler in Weed, Calif., the Oceanic is carrying 250 tons of asbestos and 210 tons of toxic PCBs—chemicals that were used as fire retardants in paints, cabling, gaskets and flooring until they were outlawed by the EPA in 1978. Hoyt estimates that if sold for scrap the Oceanic's steel could earn Global Shipping a minimum of $8.5 million.
Environmentalists contend that ship owners don't always flag their plans for scrapping contaminated ships. In 2006 Norwegian Cruise Lines told inspecting authorities in Bremerhaven, Germany, that their old, damaged liner, the SS Norway (now the SS Blue Lady), was headed to Malaysia for restoration. She ended up on the beach in India instead, shortly after being sold to Bridgend Shipping, a Liberian company, for just $10, according to a sales receipt. Watchdog groups like India's Ban Asbestos Network claim that Bridgend Shipping was acting as a "proxy buyer," enabling Norwegian to avoid responsibility for costly decontamination while negotiating the ship's real price off the record. AnneMarie Mathews, spokeswoman for Norwegian Cruise Lines, would not comment on why the Blue Lady was sold for $10, citing a lack of information. "We sold the [Blue Lady] a long time ago," Mathews said. Once the longest liner in the world, the Blue Lady is currently being dismantled at Alang, with an estimated 1,200 tons of asbestos onboard.
Global Shipping, the current owner of the Oceanic, is a subsidiary of Global Marketing Systems, a firm that arranges the scrapping of more than 100 ships a year, and environmentalists are worried the company is just weathering the legal storm before sending the ship for dismantling. The reason they expect it to go to Alang is because Global's CEO, Anil Sharma, has a brother there with a ship-breaking plot. "Everybody in the business knows that Anil Sharma wants to scrap this ship," says Jim Puckett, coordinator of the Seattle-based Basel Action Network, a group working to stop the international trade of toxic materials. "It's in the hands of guys who make all their money scrapping ships."
Puckett's group takes its name from the Basel Convention, adopted in 1992 and signed by 170 countries, including India but not the United States. The convention prohibits the international trade of hazardous materials, such as the asbestos, heavy metals, PCBs and other toxic substances aboard almost all old ships. The rules haven't stopped scrapyard workers in Asia from being exposed to contaminants. In 2006 a committee assembled by the Indian Supreme Court found that one in every six workers in Alang shows symptoms of asbestosis—a chronic inflammation of the lungs caused by prolonged exposure to asbestos fibers.
Based on interviews with workers, the International Federation for Human Rights estimates that between 48 and 60 workers die in accidents in Alang every year. In addition to worker safety concerns, Indian environmental groups claim that their country has been the dumping ground for foreign waste for decades.
"These are toxic chemicals," says Gopal Krishna of the Ban Asbestos Network of India. "But the moment these things enter Indian territory they become nontoxic."
Krishna says the responsibility to decontaminate a vessel before scrapping it should lie with the ship's owners, and the legal duty to enforce this should belong to its country of origin. He says the U.S. government hasn't done enough to stop the Oceanic. "The U.S. has a vested interest in allowing the transport of such ships," Krishna says. "It is a nonsignatory to the [Basel] Convention. It facilitates dismantling of the rules as well as dismantling of the ships. This is an act of connivance."
Krishna's group and the Basel Action Network question why the EPA is merely seeking to fine the Oceanic's owners instead of ordering the ship to return to U.S. waters immediately. In 2006 the French government ordered the return of its asbestos-laden aircraft carrier, the Clemenceau, which was seeking admission into Indian waters for scrapping. The ship was recalled before the Indian Supreme Court reached a decision on the matter.
Spokesmen for both the EPA and Global Shipping will not comment on the legal proceedings involving the Oceanic, but Dean Higuchi, EPA spokesman in Hawaii, says, "All ships need to meet our EPA regulations, especially if they are going to be scrapped." But he concedes that the agency's control over the ship was limited once she reached the high seas. "In general the EPA does not have the ability to recall a ship from international waters," Higuchi says.
In September 2007 the Indian Supreme Court issued two rulings on the ship-breaking industry, which maintained India's ability to scrap all types of ships, though requiring the documentation of any toxic materials on board.
"India has the capability to recycle warships, nuclear vessels, passenger carriers and all kinds of ships," says Atul Sharma, environmental engineer at the Gujarat Maritime Board, the authority responsible for monitoring the Alang shipyard.
Praveen Nagarsheth, president of the Indian Ship-Breakers Association, is equally confident. "As far as I'm concerned, the Supreme Court has allowed any ship to come to India," he said. "Now the question comes about American law. If the American government doesn't intervene, [the Oceanic] will come to India and be broken."
Jacob Baynham
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jun 12, 2008
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/141127
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
BANI appreciates Holcim's Asbestos Position
Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI) appreciates Swiss cement major Holcim's submission regarding asbestos before the Securities Appellate Tribunal following imposition of Rs 25-crore penalty by Securities & Exchange Board of India.
The fact that ACC held a 76 per cent stake in Everest Industries makes both the companies guilty of knowingly exposing human beings to asbestos that constitutes a blatant case of human rights violation. Asbestos banned in 50 countries, claims 30 lives/day in India.
Securities Appellate Tribunal sets aside Sebi penalty on cement major Holcim
The Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) today set aside the Rs 25-crore penalty imposed by capital markets regulator Securities & Exchange Board of India (Sebi) on Swiss cement major Holcim for its failure to comply with the takeover regulations during its acquisition of ACC stake last year.
This was the biggest monetary penalty imposed by Sebi on any corporate entity.
In its August 2006 order, Sebi had said that Holcim had violated takeover guidelines as it failed to come out with an open offer for Everest Industries, in which ACC held a 76 per cent stake.
Holcim had directly bought a 13.82 per cent stake in ACC from Ambuja Cement India, and subsequently scaled up its stake to 34.72 per cent through an open offer. This triggered the takeover code in Everest Industries, a listed entity, but the Swiss cement-maker did not comply with this rule, said Sebi. The Sebi order had asked Holcim to pay the penalty within 45 days. However, the company filed appeal before SAT against the Sebi order.
The matter dates back to January 2005 when the Swiss MNC acquired a 67 per cent stake in Ambuja Cement India, which held stake in ACC. Subsequently, Holcim, along with persons acting in concert (PAC), made an open offer to raise its combined holding in ACC to 52 per cent.
Since ACC held a 76 per cent stake in Everest Industries, it was alleged that the Holcim's acquisition of ACC led to its indirect control of Everest.
However, Holcim countered the allegation by saying Everest was in an unrelated business of asbestos and the MNC did not plan to enter this segment in India.
Holcim had globally divested non-core assets worth $1.25 billion in four years beginning 2002. In its submissions before Sebi, Holcim said it did not want to manufacture products using asbestos in India as part of its global strategy.
May 30, 2008, Business Standard
India's Sterlite to buy US copper miner Asarco assets
sans asbestos liabilities
NEW DELHI (AP) — The U.S. copper mining company Asarco LLC will sell virtually all its operating assets to Sterlite Industries (India) Limited for $2.6 billion in cash, Sterlite said.
Tucson, Ariz.-based Asarco, formerly known as American Smelting and Refining Company, is the third-largest copper producer in the United States.
Sterlite is a subsidiary of Vedanta Resources, a London-based FTSE 100 metal and mining group.
The assets being acquired include three open-pit copper mines and a copper smelter in Arizona, as well as a copper refinery, rod and cake plant and precious metals facility in Texas, the company said.
The two companies have signed an agreement on the deal, which is still subject to approval by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, Sterlite said.
Asarco is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, which include the question of who is in charge of the company — the Mexican mining giant Grupo Mexico, which bought Asarco in 1999; or Asarco LLC, a board of creditors who claim Grupo Mexico bought Asarco only to strip it of its assets.
Sterlite said it will assume operating liabilities, but not Asarco's liabilities for asbestos and other environmental claims for closed operations. Asarco faces huge liabilities — estimated in the billions of dollars — for the cleanup of polluted mine sites and waterways and in asbestos claims.
Asarco has assumed responsibility at more than 100 sites across the United States for environmental claims and has been settling with states and the federal government over the past year. It is required to settle or liquidate the claims before it can emerge from bankruptcy protection.
"We are delighted to have reached agreement on this important acquisition, which is a significant milestone for our group," Sterlite's Chairman Anil Agarwal said.
The statement quoted Asarco's President and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Lapinsky as saying the agreement was a giant step forward in Asarco's quest to successfully emerge from Chapter 11.
"The sale will achieve the overall best value for Asarco, its employees, creditors and the local communities in which we operate," Lapinsky said.
Asarco produced 259,043 tons of refined copper in 2007. It had total revenues of nearly $1.9 billion for the year ending December 2007, the statement said.
Sterlite said it would finance the asset acquisition through a mix of debt and existing cash resources.
By ASHOK SHARMA – May 31, 2008
Associated Press
The fact that ACC held a 76 per cent stake in Everest Industries makes both the companies guilty of knowingly exposing human beings to asbestos that constitutes a blatant case of human rights violation. Asbestos banned in 50 countries, claims 30 lives/day in India.
Securities Appellate Tribunal sets aside Sebi penalty on cement major Holcim
The Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) today set aside the Rs 25-crore penalty imposed by capital markets regulator Securities & Exchange Board of India (Sebi) on Swiss cement major Holcim for its failure to comply with the takeover regulations during its acquisition of ACC stake last year.
This was the biggest monetary penalty imposed by Sebi on any corporate entity.
In its August 2006 order, Sebi had said that Holcim had violated takeover guidelines as it failed to come out with an open offer for Everest Industries, in which ACC held a 76 per cent stake.
Holcim had directly bought a 13.82 per cent stake in ACC from Ambuja Cement India, and subsequently scaled up its stake to 34.72 per cent through an open offer. This triggered the takeover code in Everest Industries, a listed entity, but the Swiss cement-maker did not comply with this rule, said Sebi. The Sebi order had asked Holcim to pay the penalty within 45 days. However, the company filed appeal before SAT against the Sebi order.
The matter dates back to January 2005 when the Swiss MNC acquired a 67 per cent stake in Ambuja Cement India, which held stake in ACC. Subsequently, Holcim, along with persons acting in concert (PAC), made an open offer to raise its combined holding in ACC to 52 per cent.
Since ACC held a 76 per cent stake in Everest Industries, it was alleged that the Holcim's acquisition of ACC led to its indirect control of Everest.
However, Holcim countered the allegation by saying Everest was in an unrelated business of asbestos and the MNC did not plan to enter this segment in India.
Holcim had globally divested non-core assets worth $1.25 billion in four years beginning 2002. In its submissions before Sebi, Holcim said it did not want to manufacture products using asbestos in India as part of its global strategy.
May 30, 2008, Business Standard
India's Sterlite to buy US copper miner Asarco assets
sans asbestos liabilities
NEW DELHI (AP) — The U.S. copper mining company Asarco LLC will sell virtually all its operating assets to Sterlite Industries (India) Limited for $2.6 billion in cash, Sterlite said.
Tucson, Ariz.-based Asarco, formerly known as American Smelting and Refining Company, is the third-largest copper producer in the United States.
Sterlite is a subsidiary of Vedanta Resources, a London-based FTSE 100 metal and mining group.
The assets being acquired include three open-pit copper mines and a copper smelter in Arizona, as well as a copper refinery, rod and cake plant and precious metals facility in Texas, the company said.
The two companies have signed an agreement on the deal, which is still subject to approval by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, Sterlite said.
Asarco is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, which include the question of who is in charge of the company — the Mexican mining giant Grupo Mexico, which bought Asarco in 1999; or Asarco LLC, a board of creditors who claim Grupo Mexico bought Asarco only to strip it of its assets.
Sterlite said it will assume operating liabilities, but not Asarco's liabilities for asbestos and other environmental claims for closed operations. Asarco faces huge liabilities — estimated in the billions of dollars — for the cleanup of polluted mine sites and waterways and in asbestos claims.
Asarco has assumed responsibility at more than 100 sites across the United States for environmental claims and has been settling with states and the federal government over the past year. It is required to settle or liquidate the claims before it can emerge from bankruptcy protection.
"We are delighted to have reached agreement on this important acquisition, which is a significant milestone for our group," Sterlite's Chairman Anil Agarwal said.
The statement quoted Asarco's President and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Lapinsky as saying the agreement was a giant step forward in Asarco's quest to successfully emerge from Chapter 11.
"The sale will achieve the overall best value for Asarco, its employees, creditors and the local communities in which we operate," Lapinsky said.
Asarco produced 259,043 tons of refined copper in 2007. It had total revenues of nearly $1.9 billion for the year ending December 2007, the statement said.
Sterlite said it would finance the asset acquisition through a mix of debt and existing cash resources.
By ASHOK SHARMA – May 31, 2008
Associated Press
Scientists call on federal government of Canada to release asbestos study
Two internationally recognized experts who contributed to a Health Canada study on the cancer risks of asbestos are appealing to the federal health minister to make their report public.
The federal agency hired seven scientific and medical experts from around the world last November to examine the risks.
After submitting their report in March, the experts said they were told it would be made public within weeks, but it still hasn't been released.
Health Minister Tony Clement's office told the CBC the report will be made public once his officials have reviewed it.
Leslie Stayner, head of the School of Public Health at the University of Illinois, as well as Trevor Ogden, the chair of the panel of experts, have each written letters to Clement decrying the delay.
"It is simply unacceptable for this report to continue to be withheld from the public, while individuals who have seen the report and our comments make erroneous allegations about what it contains to suit their political objectives," Stayner wrote in his letter.
Last week, Bloc Québécois MP André Bellavance rose in the House of Commons to argue against growing calls to ban chrysotile, a form of asbestos, implying Health Canada's new study supports his view.
Both Stayner and Ogden, however, said the panel was never asked its opinion on whether a ban on any form of asbestos was appropriate, and that it was only charged with examining the relative potency of exposure to chrysotile versus other forms of asbestos, and how best to estimate the risk of cancer from exposure.
"I want to make the record clear that nothing in the report would argue against the sensibility of an asbestos ban in Canada or for that matter anywhere else in the world," Stayner told CBC.
Canada is the only developed nation still producing asbestos, called a deadly threat by the International Labour Organization, the World Health Organization, the International Association for Cancer Research and many more health agencies.
The Canadian government believes asbestos is safe if handled properly and has spent nearly $20 million in the past two decades to promote exports of the mineral, almost all of it going to developing nations such as India, Indonesia and Pakistan for use in construction material.
Labour congress wants compensation for miners
Michel Arsenault, president of the Quebec Federation of Labour, in February convinced his colleagues at the Canadian Labour Congress not to call for a ban on asbestos mining until after the Health Canada study was completed and made public.
Even though that hasn't happened, the executive council of the CLC passed a resolution on the weekend on behalf of its members calling for an end to asbestos production, as well as economic transition support for the roughly 700 Quebec asbestos miners who would be affected by a shutdown of the industry.
In his letter, Stayner said that while the panel was not asked to rule on whether chrysotile asbestos can be used safely, "from a pragmatic point of view, my answer to this question would be that it [safe use] is simply not possible."
Quebec's asbestos industry includes Canada's only two asbestos mines. The province has one of the highest rates of mesothelioma — cancer almost always related to asbestos exposure — in the world.
Asbestos has been banned by nearly every developed country, as well as a growing number of developing nations. The World Health Organization has estimated as many as 100,000 people around the world die annually from asbestos-related diseases.
May 26, 2008
CBC
The federal agency hired seven scientific and medical experts from around the world last November to examine the risks.
After submitting their report in March, the experts said they were told it would be made public within weeks, but it still hasn't been released.
Health Minister Tony Clement's office told the CBC the report will be made public once his officials have reviewed it.
Leslie Stayner, head of the School of Public Health at the University of Illinois, as well as Trevor Ogden, the chair of the panel of experts, have each written letters to Clement decrying the delay.
"It is simply unacceptable for this report to continue to be withheld from the public, while individuals who have seen the report and our comments make erroneous allegations about what it contains to suit their political objectives," Stayner wrote in his letter.
Last week, Bloc Québécois MP André Bellavance rose in the House of Commons to argue against growing calls to ban chrysotile, a form of asbestos, implying Health Canada's new study supports his view.
Both Stayner and Ogden, however, said the panel was never asked its opinion on whether a ban on any form of asbestos was appropriate, and that it was only charged with examining the relative potency of exposure to chrysotile versus other forms of asbestos, and how best to estimate the risk of cancer from exposure.
"I want to make the record clear that nothing in the report would argue against the sensibility of an asbestos ban in Canada or for that matter anywhere else in the world," Stayner told CBC.
Canada is the only developed nation still producing asbestos, called a deadly threat by the International Labour Organization, the World Health Organization, the International Association for Cancer Research and many more health agencies.
The Canadian government believes asbestos is safe if handled properly and has spent nearly $20 million in the past two decades to promote exports of the mineral, almost all of it going to developing nations such as India, Indonesia and Pakistan for use in construction material.
Labour congress wants compensation for miners
Michel Arsenault, president of the Quebec Federation of Labour, in February convinced his colleagues at the Canadian Labour Congress not to call for a ban on asbestos mining until after the Health Canada study was completed and made public.
Even though that hasn't happened, the executive council of the CLC passed a resolution on the weekend on behalf of its members calling for an end to asbestos production, as well as economic transition support for the roughly 700 Quebec asbestos miners who would be affected by a shutdown of the industry.
In his letter, Stayner said that while the panel was not asked to rule on whether chrysotile asbestos can be used safely, "from a pragmatic point of view, my answer to this question would be that it [safe use] is simply not possible."
Quebec's asbestos industry includes Canada's only two asbestos mines. The province has one of the highest rates of mesothelioma — cancer almost always related to asbestos exposure — in the world.
Asbestos has been banned by nearly every developed country, as well as a growing number of developing nations. The World Health Organization has estimated as many as 100,000 people around the world die annually from asbestos-related diseases.
May 26, 2008
CBC
Health panel reports on chrysotile Asbestos withheld by Canadian government
Health Canada's panel reports on chrysotile asbestos have been withheld by the government and misrepresented in Parliament, provoking panel epidemiologist Leslie Stayner to give an interview to CBC which was aired on 24th May, 2008. Also, panel chairman Trevor Ogden publicly blasted Health Canada for withholding the reports (below).
CBC WORLD REPORT - LINK TO SHOW OF
SATURDAY MAY 24 - GOOD TILL 0500 EDT (GMT -5) SUNDAY MAY 25
http://www.cbc.ca/worldreport/latestshow.html
From: "Trevor Ogden"
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 2:10 PM
Subject: Chrysotile Report delay
The Honourable Tony Clement
Minister of Health
Ottawa
Dear Minister
I was chair of the expert panel convened by
Health Canada last November to report on the
health risks of chrysotile asbestos.
Professor Leslie Stayner has written to you (at
Clement.T@parl.gc.ca) about the delay in issuing
the reports of the Panel. I share his
concern. Health Canada is already committed to
issuing the reports on the Web without
alteration, and the main reports have been with
Health Canada for over two months. I was a civil
servant myself for 19 years, and know the
importance for a government to be able to give a
plausible policy reaction to a report; but I also
know that consultation and preparation of such a
response only needs to take about 12 hours. The
two months delay is inexplicable.
On 12th May, André Bellavance made a statement in
the House which clearly implied that the Report
supports controlled use for chrysotile as opposed
to a ban. As Professor Stayner says, this
question was not addressed by the Panel, and Mr
Bellavance's statement misrepresents it. I do
not believe that he has seen the report, but he
is exploiting the uncertainty to promote his own
views. This kind of thing can only increase with time.
In this delay, Health Canada is breaking faith
with the scientists who took part in the
panel. You will know that Canada has a pretty
bleak reputation in most of the health science
world, and those who took part in the Panel were
risking reputations with their colleagues. I
believe that we all took part because this did
seem an honest attempt by Health Canada to
understand what degree of consensus and range of
opinions existed, as a basis for policy. We are
now all constrained not to reveal what is in the
report, but cannot give any reasonable explanation for the delay.
I do urge you both as Minister of Health and
Chair of the Cabinet's Social Affairs Committee
to see that the reports are made public
forthwith. I believe that the authoritative
scientific opinions which they contain will
strengthen Canada in this field, and ensure that
its policies are on a sound scientific base.
Yours sincerely
Trevor Ogden
Dr TL Ogden
Chair, Health Canada Expert Panel on Chrysotile Asbestos
ogden@ogs.org.uk
CBC WORLD REPORT - LINK TO SHOW OF
SATURDAY MAY 24 - GOOD TILL 0500 EDT (GMT -5) SUNDAY MAY 25
http://www.cbc.ca/worldreport/latestshow.html
From: "Trevor Ogden"
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 2:10 PM
Subject: Chrysotile Report delay
The Honourable Tony Clement
Minister of Health
Ottawa
Dear Minister
I was chair of the expert panel convened by
Health Canada last November to report on the
health risks of chrysotile asbestos.
Professor Leslie Stayner has written to you (at
Clement.T@parl.gc.ca) about the delay in issuing
the reports of the Panel. I share his
concern. Health Canada is already committed to
issuing the reports on the Web without
alteration, and the main reports have been with
Health Canada for over two months. I was a civil
servant myself for 19 years, and know the
importance for a government to be able to give a
plausible policy reaction to a report; but I also
know that consultation and preparation of such a
response only needs to take about 12 hours. The
two months delay is inexplicable.
On 12th May, André Bellavance made a statement in
the House which clearly implied that the Report
supports controlled use for chrysotile as opposed
to a ban. As Professor Stayner says, this
question was not addressed by the Panel, and Mr
Bellavance's statement misrepresents it. I do
not believe that he has seen the report, but he
is exploiting the uncertainty to promote his own
views. This kind of thing can only increase with time.
In this delay, Health Canada is breaking faith
with the scientists who took part in the
panel. You will know that Canada has a pretty
bleak reputation in most of the health science
world, and those who took part in the Panel were
risking reputations with their colleagues. I
believe that we all took part because this did
seem an honest attempt by Health Canada to
understand what degree of consensus and range of
opinions existed, as a basis for policy. We are
now all constrained not to reveal what is in the
report, but cannot give any reasonable explanation for the delay.
I do urge you both as Minister of Health and
Chair of the Cabinet's Social Affairs Committee
to see that the reports are made public
forthwith. I believe that the authoritative
scientific opinions which they contain will
strengthen Canada in this field, and ensure that
its policies are on a sound scientific base.
Yours sincerely
Trevor Ogden
Dr TL Ogden
Chair, Health Canada Expert Panel on Chrysotile Asbestos
ogden@ogs.org.uk
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Exposing humans to Asbestos, human rights violation
Exposing any human being to asbestos is a blatant case of human rights violation becasue it causes preventable but incurable diseases like Asbestosis, Mesothelioma and Lung Cancer.
An epedemic of asbestos diseases in EU, UK, US, Australia, Japan and several other countries has set the aalarm bell ringing. But Indian government would have its citizens- both workers and consumers of asbestos products-believe that Indians are immune to asbestos disease as if this killer fiber becomes automatically non-poisonous and non-carcinogenic as soon as it enters Indian borders.
So far 50 countries have banned all kinds of asbestos including chrysotile (white asbestos) variety.
Indeed, "The widespread use of asbestos in India is a matter of global concern. It is a silent killer and its use in water-pipes and roofing material is being phased out. It can lead to a rare form of mesolithelioma cancer, and is linked to lung cancer. Asbestos fibres are so light that they remain suspended in the air and are easily inhaled.
The International Labour Organisation has estimated that asbestos kills one lakh people worldwide every year. A study in India has shown that more than 6000 workers are affected by asbestosis (an incurable lung ailment)." (Special Article, 30 May, 2008, Y P Gupta, THe Statesman) It is noteworthy that the US Senate has passed the Ban Asbestos America Act 2007. While "The Supreme Court has ruled that an asbestos worker's right to health and medicare during service and after retirement is a fundamental right under the Constitution" but this right has been violated by the Indian government by making asbestos products artificially cheaper. Russians and Canadians are dumping their asbestos raw material in India with the active promotion by the Union Commerece Ministry.
The ILO Resolution of 14th June 2006 calls for elimination asbestos since no "safe" and "controlled" use of asbestos and asbestos products is possible. The WTO Appellate Body in the Canada vs European Comunitiy also upheld the right of France to ban asbestos since no safe use is possible. Unmindful of this in India, Asbestos consumption is rising at an alarming rate causing estimated 30 deaths every day. And given the fact that asbestos studies in National Institute of Occupational Health, the only agency authorised to certify incuarable asbestos diseases is admittedly funded by asbestos industry, the number Indian asbestos victims would continue to rise without discrimination to the class of people.
Asbestos is a ticking Time Bomb.
An epedemic of asbestos diseases in EU, UK, US, Australia, Japan and several other countries has set the aalarm bell ringing. But Indian government would have its citizens- both workers and consumers of asbestos products-believe that Indians are immune to asbestos disease as if this killer fiber becomes automatically non-poisonous and non-carcinogenic as soon as it enters Indian borders.
So far 50 countries have banned all kinds of asbestos including chrysotile (white asbestos) variety.
Indeed, "The widespread use of asbestos in India is a matter of global concern. It is a silent killer and its use in water-pipes and roofing material is being phased out. It can lead to a rare form of mesolithelioma cancer, and is linked to lung cancer. Asbestos fibres are so light that they remain suspended in the air and are easily inhaled.
The International Labour Organisation has estimated that asbestos kills one lakh people worldwide every year. A study in India has shown that more than 6000 workers are affected by asbestosis (an incurable lung ailment)." (Special Article, 30 May, 2008, Y P Gupta, THe Statesman) It is noteworthy that the US Senate has passed the Ban Asbestos America Act 2007. While "The Supreme Court has ruled that an asbestos worker's right to health and medicare during service and after retirement is a fundamental right under the Constitution" but this right has been violated by the Indian government by making asbestos products artificially cheaper. Russians and Canadians are dumping their asbestos raw material in India with the active promotion by the Union Commerece Ministry.
The ILO Resolution of 14th June 2006 calls for elimination asbestos since no "safe" and "controlled" use of asbestos and asbestos products is possible. The WTO Appellate Body in the Canada vs European Comunitiy also upheld the right of France to ban asbestos since no safe use is possible. Unmindful of this in India, Asbestos consumption is rising at an alarming rate causing estimated 30 deaths every day. And given the fact that asbestos studies in National Institute of Occupational Health, the only agency authorised to certify incuarable asbestos diseases is admittedly funded by asbestos industry, the number Indian asbestos victims would continue to rise without discrimination to the class of people.
Asbestos is a ticking Time Bomb.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Doubts over asbestos cancer chemotherapy
Chemotherapy treatments which aim to prolong patients' lives and reduce suffering from asbestos-related cancer do not work, UK researchers suggest.
Mesothelioma, caused by asbestos exposure, is usually incurable, but some specialists hope chemo could delay death and improve quality of life.
The study in the Lancet found hundreds of patients saw no benefit.
However, a US expert said other combinations of chemotherapy drugs could work better.
Despite legislation controlling the use of asbestos, there are approximately 2,000 deaths from mesothelioma in the UK every year.
Any treatment can have serious side effects for patients and these findings highlight that people should not have treatment that is not of proven benefit
Kate Law Cancer Research UK
The decades-long delay between exposure and the onset of the disease, means numbers are expected to keep rising for at least half a decade.
Treatment for mesothelioma is aimed principally at reducing its symptoms, and hopefully slowing down the progression of the illness.
It is generally recommended that patients are given steroid drugs and radiotherapy sessions.
No proof
The latest study looked at 409 patients, mainly from the UK, who were all given these standard treatments.
Some were additionally given doses of chemotherapy, and the effect on their disease compared.
While the chemotherapy patients did live slightly longer on average than those given just standard treatment, the researchers said the finding did not represent statistical proof, and could be misleading.
There was no improvement in quality of life among the chemotherapy patients.
One of the authors of the study, Dr Richard Stephens from the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, said: "While thousands are and will be affected by this deadly disease, our trial, which is one of the few large trials ever conducted in this disease, emphasises how difficult mesothelioma is to treat.
"This is mainly because mesothelioma forms in the lining of the lung. This makes it hard to target."
Kate Law, Cancer Research UK's director of clinical trials, added: "These results showed no real benefit from adding these chemotherapy drugs compared with just treating the symptoms of the disease.
"Any treatment can have serious side effects for patients and these findings highlight that people should not have treatment that is not of proven benefit."
However, one US-based expert said that results from other trials into chemotherapy had been more positive.
Dr Nicholas Vogelzang, from the Nevada Cancer Institute, also writing in The Lancet, said that different combinations of drugs had, in one study, meant that half the patients involved survived a year or more.
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7402650.stm
Mesothelioma, caused by asbestos exposure, is usually incurable, but some specialists hope chemo could delay death and improve quality of life.
The study in the Lancet found hundreds of patients saw no benefit.
However, a US expert said other combinations of chemotherapy drugs could work better.
Despite legislation controlling the use of asbestos, there are approximately 2,000 deaths from mesothelioma in the UK every year.
Any treatment can have serious side effects for patients and these findings highlight that people should not have treatment that is not of proven benefit
Kate Law Cancer Research UK
The decades-long delay between exposure and the onset of the disease, means numbers are expected to keep rising for at least half a decade.
Treatment for mesothelioma is aimed principally at reducing its symptoms, and hopefully slowing down the progression of the illness.
It is generally recommended that patients are given steroid drugs and radiotherapy sessions.
No proof
The latest study looked at 409 patients, mainly from the UK, who were all given these standard treatments.
Some were additionally given doses of chemotherapy, and the effect on their disease compared.
While the chemotherapy patients did live slightly longer on average than those given just standard treatment, the researchers said the finding did not represent statistical proof, and could be misleading.
There was no improvement in quality of life among the chemotherapy patients.
One of the authors of the study, Dr Richard Stephens from the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, said: "While thousands are and will be affected by this deadly disease, our trial, which is one of the few large trials ever conducted in this disease, emphasises how difficult mesothelioma is to treat.
"This is mainly because mesothelioma forms in the lining of the lung. This makes it hard to target."
Kate Law, Cancer Research UK's director of clinical trials, added: "These results showed no real benefit from adding these chemotherapy drugs compared with just treating the symptoms of the disease.
"Any treatment can have serious side effects for patients and these findings highlight that people should not have treatment that is not of proven benefit."
However, one US-based expert said that results from other trials into chemotherapy had been more positive.
Dr Nicholas Vogelzang, from the Nevada Cancer Institute, also writing in The Lancet, said that different combinations of drugs had, in one study, meant that half the patients involved survived a year or more.
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7402650.stm
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Asbestos hotzone
Petrochemical heartland home to vigilant MDs
The Sarnia area is home to several large industrial plants. According to a report by Ecojustice, evidence suggests the local environment— and the health of its residents—has been severely compromised.
In Sarnia, Ontario, caregivers are constantly on guard for workplace-related health problems, while advocating for a cleaner community
SARNIA, ONTARIO. | It isn’t very often that a small medical clinic gets credit in a high-profile report by an influential environmental group.
But then few clinics are as focused on the health impact of a specific area’s environmental and workplace pollutants as the Occupational Health Clinic for Ontario Workers (OHCOW) office in Sarnia, Canada’s petrochemical heartland.
Sarnia’s roughly 75,000 residents contend with arguably the worst air pollution in the country, according to the report published in October by Toronto-based Ecojustice (formerly the Sierra Legal Defence Fund).
To whit: According to industry data compiled by Environment Canada and cited by Ecojustice, there are 46 large effluence-emitting industrial plants in Ontario within 25 km of Sarnia. On the U.S. side of the St. Clair River, the body of water on which Sarnia sits, there are 16 similar facilities. In 2005, the Canadian smokestacks alone emitted more than 5 million kg of pollutants deemed to be toxic, Ecojustice said.
“The toll these emissions are taking is dramatic and there is growing evidence that the health of the residents of Sarnia and the Aamjiwnaang First Nation (a Sarnia-area reserve), and the local environment has been severely compromised,” said Ecojustice.
Yet while that report focused on the air pollution, all elements of Sarnia’s natural surroundings are affected by the region’s concentration of heavy industry. As a result, the OHCOW clinicians “see no distinction between the ambient environment and the workplace,” when they contemplate the health of the region’s population, said Dr. James Brophy, (PhD), executive director of the Sarnia office.
It is because of that lack of distinction that Dr. Brophy, who is also an occupational and environmental cancer researcher, and his physician colleagues decided to work with Ecojustice, he explained in an interview.
“We believe Ecojustice has performed an important public health role in alerting the community about the extent of environmental exposures emanating from the petrochemical industry,” said Dr. Brophy.
OHCOW is a six-city clinic, born of the provincial labour movement in the late 1980s, and specializes in handling workplace-related health problems. Its physician services and office overhead are largely funded by the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.
While OCHOW’s core patient population is current and past workers of the major industries, its Sarnia health professionals worry about the risks the wider Sarnia population faces, including outdoor workers such as construction crews, landscapers and home remodellers, people “who are out there in this environment every day,” said Dr. Brophy.
Despite clear and ample evidence that much of Sarnia’s population faces a frightening day-to-day reality as a result of the pollution, the doctors must nevertheless keep their medical objectivity.
Dr. Abe Reinhartz, a general practitioner here, explained “patients often come to us with undifferentiated health complaints, and they are interested in exploring whether or not there is a workplace connection.”
A worker memorial stands guard in Sarnia.
He continued, “Often, we can make a diagnosis here of some other ailment that is not work-related, and get patients to communicate with their primary-care physician or initiate a referral ourselves to get a problem sorted out.”
Dr. Reinhartz noted that despite their concerns about Sarnia’s pollution, for physicians such as himself, “it is not so easy to clinically tease out the environmental exposures in terms of health effects in an individual.”
He said wider, epidemiological studies are better suited to revealing those negative health implications of pollution than individual patient investigations.
Dr. Reinhartz, for one, doesn’t see himself and his colleagues as environmental activists as the term is popularly understood, despite their involvement with Ecojustice and an Aamjiwnaang environmental committee, but more as “patient advocates for their medical-legal rights.”
The OHCOW doctors said their public profile has led to occasional negative feedback from other doctors, ones who to Dr. Reinhartz “are paid by corporate entities to provide medical services and are very willing to toe the party line.”
“We should be aiming for zero emissions or zero releases, and supporting industry in that way.”
—Dr. John Howard
Real-world laboratory
For Dr. John Howard, a professor of pediatrics and medicine at the University of Western Ontario Schulich School of Medicine in London, Ont., Sarnia, in Ontario’s extreme southwest, offers an unintentionally perfect real-world laboratory for bringing home the lessons of the ecosystem health courses he teaches to his school’s medical students.
Dr. Howard, who has been to Sarnia many times and works closely with Sarnia’s OHCOW clinic, recalled grimly an image that to him typifies the plight of the area. On the Aamjiwnaang reserve, “right by the river . . . there is this sign that says, ‘Doing anything in this water is toxic.’ ”
Ecosystem health is geared toward training doctors to “think of (a patient’s) health in a very broad sense . . . to try to think of the sickness in the human as a symptom of the environment.”
In February, the governing federal Conservatives, a party critics say is not given to especially sensitive views on the environment, called the St. Clair River “severely contaminated,” especially immediately downstream of Sarnia, and would spend up to $3.3 million to clean it up.
Dr. Howard said he believed the river clean up would have a benefit for Sarnia, but “we should be aiming for zero emissions or zero releases, and supporting industry in that way.”
The Sarnia OCHOW clinic spends a lot of time dealing with what Dr. Brophy called the largest documented cohort of asbestos diseases—patients with pleural plaques, asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma—in Canada. Asbestos, a high-profile pollutant in the 1970s and 1980s, remains a major environment-related killer in Sarnia. “There is barely a blue-collar family that hasn’t been directly affected or doesn’t know somebody who has.”
Asbestos is so prevalent in some parts of the city that the soil is toxic. Dr. Reinhartz’s colleague, Dr. James Mackenzie, recounted how several years ago the province proposed a new offramp of Highway 402 in an asbestos hotzone. The clinic’s doctors took part in a community (and government) awareness-raising campaign about the soil’s toxicity.
The offramp was eventually built, but the ground was treated like the toxic waste site it was: The area needed to be decontaminated by construction crews who had to don hazmat gear, while their equipment—even their trucks and tractors—needed to be constantly scrubbed down, recalled the doctors.
They physicians have also taken other high-visibility roles, such as after a news release in 2000 in Sarnia, “publicly indicating what the risks of benzene exposure are,” among other things.
Matthew Sylvain
May 06, 2008
www.medicalpost.com
The Sarnia area is home to several large industrial plants. According to a report by Ecojustice, evidence suggests the local environment— and the health of its residents—has been severely compromised.
In Sarnia, Ontario, caregivers are constantly on guard for workplace-related health problems, while advocating for a cleaner community
SARNIA, ONTARIO. | It isn’t very often that a small medical clinic gets credit in a high-profile report by an influential environmental group.
But then few clinics are as focused on the health impact of a specific area’s environmental and workplace pollutants as the Occupational Health Clinic for Ontario Workers (OHCOW) office in Sarnia, Canada’s petrochemical heartland.
Sarnia’s roughly 75,000 residents contend with arguably the worst air pollution in the country, according to the report published in October by Toronto-based Ecojustice (formerly the Sierra Legal Defence Fund).
To whit: According to industry data compiled by Environment Canada and cited by Ecojustice, there are 46 large effluence-emitting industrial plants in Ontario within 25 km of Sarnia. On the U.S. side of the St. Clair River, the body of water on which Sarnia sits, there are 16 similar facilities. In 2005, the Canadian smokestacks alone emitted more than 5 million kg of pollutants deemed to be toxic, Ecojustice said.
“The toll these emissions are taking is dramatic and there is growing evidence that the health of the residents of Sarnia and the Aamjiwnaang First Nation (a Sarnia-area reserve), and the local environment has been severely compromised,” said Ecojustice.
Yet while that report focused on the air pollution, all elements of Sarnia’s natural surroundings are affected by the region’s concentration of heavy industry. As a result, the OHCOW clinicians “see no distinction between the ambient environment and the workplace,” when they contemplate the health of the region’s population, said Dr. James Brophy, (PhD), executive director of the Sarnia office.
It is because of that lack of distinction that Dr. Brophy, who is also an occupational and environmental cancer researcher, and his physician colleagues decided to work with Ecojustice, he explained in an interview.
“We believe Ecojustice has performed an important public health role in alerting the community about the extent of environmental exposures emanating from the petrochemical industry,” said Dr. Brophy.
OHCOW is a six-city clinic, born of the provincial labour movement in the late 1980s, and specializes in handling workplace-related health problems. Its physician services and office overhead are largely funded by the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.
While OCHOW’s core patient population is current and past workers of the major industries, its Sarnia health professionals worry about the risks the wider Sarnia population faces, including outdoor workers such as construction crews, landscapers and home remodellers, people “who are out there in this environment every day,” said Dr. Brophy.
Despite clear and ample evidence that much of Sarnia’s population faces a frightening day-to-day reality as a result of the pollution, the doctors must nevertheless keep their medical objectivity.
Dr. Abe Reinhartz, a general practitioner here, explained “patients often come to us with undifferentiated health complaints, and they are interested in exploring whether or not there is a workplace connection.”
A worker memorial stands guard in Sarnia.
He continued, “Often, we can make a diagnosis here of some other ailment that is not work-related, and get patients to communicate with their primary-care physician or initiate a referral ourselves to get a problem sorted out.”
Dr. Reinhartz noted that despite their concerns about Sarnia’s pollution, for physicians such as himself, “it is not so easy to clinically tease out the environmental exposures in terms of health effects in an individual.”
He said wider, epidemiological studies are better suited to revealing those negative health implications of pollution than individual patient investigations.
Dr. Reinhartz, for one, doesn’t see himself and his colleagues as environmental activists as the term is popularly understood, despite their involvement with Ecojustice and an Aamjiwnaang environmental committee, but more as “patient advocates for their medical-legal rights.”
The OHCOW doctors said their public profile has led to occasional negative feedback from other doctors, ones who to Dr. Reinhartz “are paid by corporate entities to provide medical services and are very willing to toe the party line.”
“We should be aiming for zero emissions or zero releases, and supporting industry in that way.”
—Dr. John Howard
Real-world laboratory
For Dr. John Howard, a professor of pediatrics and medicine at the University of Western Ontario Schulich School of Medicine in London, Ont., Sarnia, in Ontario’s extreme southwest, offers an unintentionally perfect real-world laboratory for bringing home the lessons of the ecosystem health courses he teaches to his school’s medical students.
Dr. Howard, who has been to Sarnia many times and works closely with Sarnia’s OHCOW clinic, recalled grimly an image that to him typifies the plight of the area. On the Aamjiwnaang reserve, “right by the river . . . there is this sign that says, ‘Doing anything in this water is toxic.’ ”
Ecosystem health is geared toward training doctors to “think of (a patient’s) health in a very broad sense . . . to try to think of the sickness in the human as a symptom of the environment.”
In February, the governing federal Conservatives, a party critics say is not given to especially sensitive views on the environment, called the St. Clair River “severely contaminated,” especially immediately downstream of Sarnia, and would spend up to $3.3 million to clean it up.
Dr. Howard said he believed the river clean up would have a benefit for Sarnia, but “we should be aiming for zero emissions or zero releases, and supporting industry in that way.”
The Sarnia OCHOW clinic spends a lot of time dealing with what Dr. Brophy called the largest documented cohort of asbestos diseases—patients with pleural plaques, asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma—in Canada. Asbestos, a high-profile pollutant in the 1970s and 1980s, remains a major environment-related killer in Sarnia. “There is barely a blue-collar family that hasn’t been directly affected or doesn’t know somebody who has.”
Asbestos is so prevalent in some parts of the city that the soil is toxic. Dr. Reinhartz’s colleague, Dr. James Mackenzie, recounted how several years ago the province proposed a new offramp of Highway 402 in an asbestos hotzone. The clinic’s doctors took part in a community (and government) awareness-raising campaign about the soil’s toxicity.
The offramp was eventually built, but the ground was treated like the toxic waste site it was: The area needed to be decontaminated by construction crews who had to don hazmat gear, while their equipment—even their trucks and tractors—needed to be constantly scrubbed down, recalled the doctors.
They physicians have also taken other high-visibility roles, such as after a news release in 2000 in Sarnia, “publicly indicating what the risks of benzene exposure are,” among other things.
Matthew Sylvain
May 06, 2008
www.medicalpost.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
