Brakewel Automotive Components India Private Limited (BACIPL) head quartered in
Noida is a leading friction material manufacturer since 1983. It has technical collaboration with ASK Technica Japan which is the most reputed friction material OE manufacturer. It xports to 20 countries including Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Saudi Arabia, UAE and U.K. etc. . Its present production capacity is 3 million sets.
The products of M/s ASK are supplied as OE to all the OEMs in Japan like Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mitsubishi, and Suzuki etc. for the full range of vehicles from Passenger cars, Utility Vehicles, HCV's, LCV's and Tractors.
It has a work force of over 350 employees. Brakewel has a facility to manufacture a wide range of both Non Asbestos and asbestos clutch facing. It was one of the first company to introduce asbestos free clutch facing in India. The group is proud of manufacturing worlds best clutch facings with a Japanese collaboration and is supplying to all major Original equipment manufacturer, or OEM.
Brakewel manufactures both Asbestos free and asbestos brake lining and is O.E. supplier to all reputed companies in India. It manufactures brake lining for cars, tractors and brake blocks forlight commercial vehicles, heavy commercial vehicles, overhead cranes, hoist, mining equipments and winches..
Brakewel manufacturers a wide range of brake shoe. Its auto brake shoe are available in both asbestos free and asbestos material.
Flexible roll linings are manufactured in both asbestos free and asbestos material. Its auto roll linings are available in both molded and woven material which can be turned to any radius.
Brakewel manufacturers a wide range of teeth linings for both asbestos free and asbestos material. It is used in various industrial machines and cranes.
Brakewel manufacturers a wide range of Disc pads. Our automotive disc pad is available in both asbestos free and asbestos material.
Brakewel manufacturers a wide range of sheet linings in both asbestos free and asbestos material.
Brakewel manufacturers a wide range of brake bands in both asbestos free and asbestos material.
Brakewel manufacturers a wide range of Disc pads. Its automotive disc pad is available in both asbestos free and asbestos material.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Tamil Nadu exempts sales tax on purchase of Toxic Asbestos Cement Sheets
Tax-Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 – Tsunami Relief Work - Exemption from payment of sales tax on the purchase of Cement, A.C. Sheets and other goods from Tvl,. Tamil Nadu Cement Corporation Limited (TANCEM)
Role of IAOH on asbestos under scanner
A debate has broken out in the pages of the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health (IJOEH) on the corporate influence on occupational health organisation. The original critique of the American College of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) was published in 2007 in this very journal.
A letter on industry's influence on the Indian Association of Occupational Health. The website for the journal is www.ijoeh.com/index.php/
Given the fact that Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine is the official Publication of Indian Association of Occupational Health (IAOH), it would also be relevant for it to take a position on it. So far it has maintained silence on the issue.
Earlier, it has now been proven with documentary evidence that National Institute of Occupational Health, Ahmedabad has compromised its credentials by taking the fiscal support from the chrysotile asbestos industry to do a study that is to be used at the
upcoming Rotterdam Convention meeting.
The study will enable the Indian government to go to Rome in October 2008 and argue in favour of unrestricted trade of white asbestos under the Rotterdam Convention. India along with Canada and Russia is seen as the dirtiest player in the international negotiations to bring white asbestos in the 'prior informed consent' (PIC) list of the
convention, which will require exporting countries to obtain the prior consent of importing countries.
The study on which the ministry's report is based is partly funded by the Asbestos Cement Product Manufacturers Association, which paid Rs 16 lakh while the government paid Rs 43.66 lakh. What surprised occupational safety campaigners is the agency that conducted the study: the National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH), which in
the past has come out with studies defending workers' health.
The study's terms of reference reveal the government's intent. Here's what the ministry's April 2006 letter demanded of NIOH: "The deliverables will include generation of data which would justify the safe standards of its usage and the reasons justifying its non-inclusion/or otherwise in the pic ambit." The minutes of an April 2007 meeting of the ministry's review committee (half of which comprises asbestos industry representatives) gave NIOH a sharper focus: "It will specifically indicate as to how technology has made working conditions better. The same will include relevant photographs showing protective measures being undertaken." The minutes of the Review Committee obtained recently through Right to Information Act
dated 19 December, 2006 reads: "The report will be finalised after due discussions with the asbestos industry." Another meeting minutes dated 18 April, 2007 reports that "...the results of the study which was underway could not be shared [with public] till the same was finalised."
On April 18, 2007, the review committee felt the report didn't adequately address the industry's requirements: "S Ganesan of ICC (Indian Chemical Council) and NIOH representatives will redraft/re-word the Kolkata report keeping in view the international sensitivities." Ganesan's claim for the job: expertise in championing
the pesticide industry in international negotiations.
Clearly, a scientific study that is finalised after discussion with the corporate interests is grossly conflict of interest ridden and deserves to be scrapped. It is now time for Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine to take note of it as well.
Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) was published in 2007 in this very journal.
A letter on industry's influence on the Indian Association of Occupational Health. The website for the journal is www.ijoeh.com/index.php/
Given the fact that Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine is the official Publication of Indian Association of Occupational Health (IAOH), it would also be relevant for it to take a position on it. So far it has maintained silence on the issue.
Earlier, it has now been proven with documentary evidence that National Institute of Occupational Health, Ahmedabad has compromised its credentials by taking the fiscal support from the chrysotile asbestos industry to do a study that is to be used at the
upcoming Rotterdam Convention meeting.
The study will enable the Indian government to go to Rome in October 2008 and argue in favour of unrestricted trade of white asbestos under the Rotterdam Convention. India along with Canada and Russia is seen as the dirtiest player in the international negotiations to bring white asbestos in the 'prior informed consent' (PIC) list of the
convention, which will require exporting countries to obtain the prior consent of importing countries.
The study on which the ministry's report is based is partly funded by the Asbestos Cement Product Manufacturers Association, which paid Rs 16 lakh while the government paid Rs 43.66 lakh. What surprised occupational safety campaigners is the agency that conducted the study: the National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH), which in
the past has come out with studies defending workers' health.
The study's terms of reference reveal the government's intent. Here's what the ministry's April 2006 letter demanded of NIOH: "The deliverables will include generation of data which would justify the safe standards of its usage and the reasons justifying its non-inclusion/or otherwise in the pic ambit." The minutes of an April 2007 meeting of the ministry's review committee (half of which comprises asbestos industry representatives) gave NIOH a sharper focus: "It will specifically indicate as to how technology has made working conditions better. The same will include relevant photographs showing protective measures being undertaken." The minutes of the Review Committee obtained recently through Right to Information Act
dated 19 December, 2006 reads: "The report will be finalised after due discussions with the asbestos industry." Another meeting minutes dated 18 April, 2007 reports that "...the results of the study which was underway could not be shared [with public] till the same was finalised."
On April 18, 2007, the review committee felt the report didn't adequately address the industry's requirements: "S Ganesan of ICC (Indian Chemical Council) and NIOH representatives will redraft/re-word the Kolkata report keeping in view the international sensitivities." Ganesan's claim for the job: expertise in championing
the pesticide industry in international negotiations.
Clearly, a scientific study that is finalised after discussion with the corporate interests is grossly conflict of interest ridden and deserves to be scrapped. It is now time for Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine to take note of it as well.
A debate has broken out in the pages of the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health (IJOEH) on the corporate influence on occupational health organisation. The original critique of the American College of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) was published in 2007 in this same
journal.
Of interest to Indian readers is a letter on industry's influence on
the Indian Association of Occupational Health. He writes about his
experiences as the scientific committee
chair at a past IAOH conference. The website for the journal is
www.ijoeh.com/index.php/
Given the fact that Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine is the official Publication of Indian Association of
Occupational Health (IAOH), it would also be relevant to bring to your
notice the way National Institute of Occupational Health has
compromised its credentials by taking the fiscal support from the
chrysotile asbestos industry to do a study that is to be used at the
upcoming Rotterdam Convention meeting.
The Indian government has traditionally preferred the interests of the
asbestos cement industry, consistently ignoring evidence of its harms.
The report will enable the Indian government to go to Rome in October
2008 and argue in favour of unrestricted trade of white asbestos under
the Rotterdam Convention. India along with Canada and Russia is seen
as the dirtiest player in the international negotiations to bring
white asbestos in the 'prior informed consent' (PIC) list of the
convention, which will require exporting countries to obtain the prior
consent of importing countries.
The study on which the ministry's report is based is partly funded by
the Asbestos Cement Product Manufacturers Association, which paid Rs
16 lakh while the government paid Rs 43.66 lakh. What surprised
occupational safety campaigners is the agency that conducted the
study: the National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH), which in
the past has come out with studies defending workers' health.
The study's terms of reference reveal the government's intent. Here's
what the ministry's April 2006 letter demanded of NIOH: "The
deliverables will include generation of data which would justify the
safe standards of its usage and the reasons justifying its
non-inclusion/or otherwise in the pic ambit." The minutes of an April
2007 meeting of the ministry's review committee (half of which
comprises asbestos industry representatives) gave NIOH a sharper
focus: "It will specifically indicate as to how technology has made
working conditions better. The same will include relevant photographs
showing protective measures being undertaken." The minutes of the
Review Committee obtained recently through Right to Information Act
dated 19 December, 2006 reads: "The report will be finalised after due
discussions with the asbestos industry." Another meeting minutes dated
18 April, 2007 reports that "...the results of the study which was
underway could not be shared [with public] till the same was
finalised."
On April 18, 2007, the review committee felt the report didn't
adequately address the industry's requirements: "S Ganesan of ICC
(Indian Chemical Council) and NIOH representatives will
redraft/re-word the Kolkata report keeping in view the international
sensitivities." Ganesan's claim for the job: expertise in championing
the pesticide industry in international negotiations.
Clearly, a scientific study that is finalised after discussion with
the corporate interests is grossly conflict of interest ridden and
deserves to be scrapped. It is now time for Indian Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine to take note of it as well.
Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) was published in 2007 in this same
journal.
Of interest to Indian readers is a letter on industry's influence on
the Indian Association of Occupational Health. He writes about his
experiences as the scientific committee
chair at a past IAOH conference. The website for the journal is
www.ijoeh.com/index.php/
Given the fact that Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine is the official Publication of Indian Association of
Occupational Health (IAOH), it would also be relevant to bring to your
notice the way National Institute of Occupational Health has
compromised its credentials by taking the fiscal support from the
chrysotile asbestos industry to do a study that is to be used at the
upcoming Rotterdam Convention meeting.
The Indian government has traditionally preferred the interests of the
asbestos cement industry, consistently ignoring evidence of its harms.
The report will enable the Indian government to go to Rome in October
2008 and argue in favour of unrestricted trade of white asbestos under
the Rotterdam Convention. India along with Canada and Russia is seen
as the dirtiest player in the international negotiations to bring
white asbestos in the 'prior informed consent' (PIC) list of the
convention, which will require exporting countries to obtain the prior
consent of importing countries.
The study on which the ministry's report is based is partly funded by
the Asbestos Cement Product Manufacturers Association, which paid Rs
16 lakh while the government paid Rs 43.66 lakh. What surprised
occupational safety campaigners is the agency that conducted the
study: the National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH), which in
the past has come out with studies defending workers' health.
The study's terms of reference reveal the government's intent. Here's
what the ministry's April 2006 letter demanded of NIOH: "The
deliverables will include generation of data which would justify the
safe standards of its usage and the reasons justifying its
non-inclusion/or otherwise in the pic ambit." The minutes of an April
2007 meeting of the ministry's review committee (half of which
comprises asbestos industry representatives) gave NIOH a sharper
focus: "It will specifically indicate as to how technology has made
working conditions better. The same will include relevant photographs
showing protective measures being undertaken." The minutes of the
Review Committee obtained recently through Right to Information Act
dated 19 December, 2006 reads: "The report will be finalised after due
discussions with the asbestos industry." Another meeting minutes dated
18 April, 2007 reports that "...the results of the study which was
underway could not be shared [with public] till the same was
finalised."
On April 18, 2007, the review committee felt the report didn't
adequately address the industry's requirements: "S Ganesan of ICC
(Indian Chemical Council) and NIOH representatives will
redraft/re-word the Kolkata report keeping in view the international
sensitivities." Ganesan's claim for the job: expertise in championing
the pesticide industry in international negotiations.
Clearly, a scientific study that is finalised after discussion with
the corporate interests is grossly conflict of interest ridden and
deserves to be scrapped. It is now time for Indian Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine to take note of it as well.
Friday, February 22, 2008
A government under an asbestos roof
First up, another tribute is due to all the people that campaigned and supported the Right To Information Act, 2005. But for this vital legislation, we would have been so much the poorer for not learning what a national disgrace India’s union government’s ministry of chemicals and fertilizers is. Kudos are also due to occupational safety researchers—it is our collective fortune that there are too many to name here—who have battled India’s bureacracy relentlessly to ferret out information on how the ministry’s officials work as the menials of the asbestos industry. The information obtained through an rti application shows the ministry officials stripped of all moral clothing, willingly surrendering all agency to an industry that profits from the death and disease of thousands of poor people.
Science has long established—beyond all reasonable doubt—that asbestos is carcinogenic. It kills more people than any other industrial toxin; 40 countries have banned it. Occupational health researchers have been trying for three years to get the mineral listed in the pic (prior informed consent) list of the Rotterdam Convention. This would regulate the international business of this toxin, which is present in numerous products in our daily lives; from asbestos cement sheets to automobile brake linings. The pic listing would create something of an international ‘right to information’ on trade of asbestos, with exporting countries bound to disclose information to importers. The asbestos lobby does not allow cheaper and safer alternatives to be established in the market. Not only are they anti-worker, they are also opposed to fair competition.
India, along with Canada and Russia, has played a critical role to thwart a pic listing for asbestos. Canada and Russia are both producers of the mineral, so they are protecting their industry. India is only an importer. What prevents it from adopting an alternative to a mineral that kills so many? The asbestos industry does.
While there are alternatives to asbestos, its industry doesn’t see options. It has too much money locked up in white asbestos, or chrysotile. It has no plan—intention even—to switch. So, in 2006, it got the Indian government to play a dirty game in international negotiations. Subsequently, the government felt a pressing need for scientific evidence to back its diabolical position. A study was commissioned to a government agency with a reputation, the National Institute of Occupational Health. The ministry’s review committee gave it specific instructions on the ‘scientific output’ required of the study. Now, the committee has called the services of a lobbyist known to defend the interests of industries that profit from hazardous chemicals.
There are very few stories with such obvious villains. And such heroes as our health researchers.
Down To Earth
Science has long established—beyond all reasonable doubt—that asbestos is carcinogenic. It kills more people than any other industrial toxin; 40 countries have banned it. Occupational health researchers have been trying for three years to get the mineral listed in the pic (prior informed consent) list of the Rotterdam Convention. This would regulate the international business of this toxin, which is present in numerous products in our daily lives; from asbestos cement sheets to automobile brake linings. The pic listing would create something of an international ‘right to information’ on trade of asbestos, with exporting countries bound to disclose information to importers. The asbestos lobby does not allow cheaper and safer alternatives to be established in the market. Not only are they anti-worker, they are also opposed to fair competition.
India, along with Canada and Russia, has played a critical role to thwart a pic listing for asbestos. Canada and Russia are both producers of the mineral, so they are protecting their industry. India is only an importer. What prevents it from adopting an alternative to a mineral that kills so many? The asbestos industry does.
While there are alternatives to asbestos, its industry doesn’t see options. It has too much money locked up in white asbestos, or chrysotile. It has no plan—intention even—to switch. So, in 2006, it got the Indian government to play a dirty game in international negotiations. Subsequently, the government felt a pressing need for scientific evidence to back its diabolical position. A study was commissioned to a government agency with a reputation, the National Institute of Occupational Health. The ministry’s review committee gave it specific instructions on the ‘scientific output’ required of the study. Now, the committee has called the services of a lobbyist known to defend the interests of industries that profit from hazardous chemicals.
There are very few stories with such obvious villains. And such heroes as our health researchers.
Down To Earth
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Russia, largest supplier of asbestos to India
The recent UN statistics indicates that India imported roughly 306,000 MT of asbestos in 2006. Out of which 152, 820 MT was imported from Russia. The rest came from Canada,Kazakhstan and Brazil.
"Asbestos is a threat to everyone, not just workers. From children in schools, to young and old in private and public buildings where asbestos is present and to whole communities where it exists as a pollutant".
Perversely, the extent of the damage in industrialized countries is now being measured only after consumption has been slashed or halted altogether. This is because of the long latency for the development of asbestos-related cancers.
Generally, the mortality curve for asbestos-related cancers follows the asbestos consumption curve with a lag of about 30 to 40 years. In Europe, the mortality peak will be reached only around 2020.
The production and marketing started in Russia in the Urals at the start of the 19th century. By the onset of World War I, Russia was the world’s second biggest asbestos producer, although well behind Canada. Essentially halted by the world war and civil war, asbestos production took off again from the late 1920s. Modernisation of the rail network enabled the intensive development of the Uralasbest mine. By the late 1930s, Soviet industry had a widely diversifi ed asbestos productsindustry. In 1975, Soviet Russia overtook Canada as the world’s leading asbestos producer, and remains
so today.
The early 1990s, however, saw a dramatic collapse in asbestos production due to the general upheaval in manufacturing industry and construction, and nothing to occupational health or environmental protection concerns. It was the result of shock therapy from the reintroduction of capitalism. The country’s principal
asbestos mine (Uralasbest) was privatised, partly sold off to German investors, eventually ending up under the control of new Russian capitalists. It was
even declared bankrupt in 1997, only to resume its activities afterwards.
There was virtually no debate on asbestos either under the Soviet regime or since. Following the banning of asbestos in the European Union, the Putin government
set up a panel of experts to give an opinion on a possible Russian asbestos ban. The panel mainly consisted of occupational medicine specialists. Its final report is an impassioned defence of asbestos use. The Russian press tends to take a jingoistic
approach to the asbestos issue. The struggle by world trade unions and victim support groups to get asbestos banned is sometimes portrayed as the product of a trade war waged with “the deep pockets of transnational trusts”. The pro-Russian asbestos lobby claim that it holds relatively little danger for health.
With the same arguments coming out of Canada, Zimbabwe and Brazil, asbestos victims must count themselves really unlucky not to have been exposed just to these pure national varieties of chrysotile.
The Russian authorities continue to deny the health havoc wrought by asbestos. This rose-tinted view is challenged by the figures from Eastern European countries that imported Soviet asbestos almost exclusively.
Russian press voiced concern about the practise of asbestos-using firms handing out production residues to private individuals as filling material, bumping up
asbestos pollution of the environment. Still, Russian government's position remains caught in a time warp.
"Asbestos is a threat to everyone, not just workers. From children in schools, to young and old in private and public buildings where asbestos is present and to whole communities where it exists as a pollutant".
Perversely, the extent of the damage in industrialized countries is now being measured only after consumption has been slashed or halted altogether. This is because of the long latency for the development of asbestos-related cancers.
Generally, the mortality curve for asbestos-related cancers follows the asbestos consumption curve with a lag of about 30 to 40 years. In Europe, the mortality peak will be reached only around 2020.
The production and marketing started in Russia in the Urals at the start of the 19th century. By the onset of World War I, Russia was the world’s second biggest asbestos producer, although well behind Canada. Essentially halted by the world war and civil war, asbestos production took off again from the late 1920s. Modernisation of the rail network enabled the intensive development of the Uralasbest mine. By the late 1930s, Soviet industry had a widely diversifi ed asbestos productsindustry. In 1975, Soviet Russia overtook Canada as the world’s leading asbestos producer, and remains
so today.
The early 1990s, however, saw a dramatic collapse in asbestos production due to the general upheaval in manufacturing industry and construction, and nothing to occupational health or environmental protection concerns. It was the result of shock therapy from the reintroduction of capitalism. The country’s principal
asbestos mine (Uralasbest) was privatised, partly sold off to German investors, eventually ending up under the control of new Russian capitalists. It was
even declared bankrupt in 1997, only to resume its activities afterwards.
There was virtually no debate on asbestos either under the Soviet regime or since. Following the banning of asbestos in the European Union, the Putin government
set up a panel of experts to give an opinion on a possible Russian asbestos ban. The panel mainly consisted of occupational medicine specialists. Its final report is an impassioned defence of asbestos use. The Russian press tends to take a jingoistic
approach to the asbestos issue. The struggle by world trade unions and victim support groups to get asbestos banned is sometimes portrayed as the product of a trade war waged with “the deep pockets of transnational trusts”. The pro-Russian asbestos lobby claim that it holds relatively little danger for health.
With the same arguments coming out of Canada, Zimbabwe and Brazil, asbestos victims must count themselves really unlucky not to have been exposed just to these pure national varieties of chrysotile.
The Russian authorities continue to deny the health havoc wrought by asbestos. This rose-tinted view is challenged by the figures from Eastern European countries that imported Soviet asbestos almost exclusively.
Russian press voiced concern about the practise of asbestos-using firms handing out production residues to private individuals as filling material, bumping up
asbestos pollution of the environment. Still, Russian government's position remains caught in a time warp.
Asbestos Mineral 'a major killer': Indian labour
Quebec, home to Canada's only two asbestos mines, has one of the highest rates of mesothelioma — an asbestos-related cancer — in the world.
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 for use in construction material.
But Georgetti argued any appeal by the Canadian Labour Congress(CLC)wouldn't immediately end the practice of asbestos mining in Canada. He called for the federal government to take a lead role in closing the mines, including providing financial support for the miners, and their families and communities when the industry finally ceases production.
"If they did that, the decision for our council would be very easy," he said.
Last week, the All India Trade Union Congress, the second largest union in India, appealed for help from Georgetti and the CLC in urging the Canadian government to stop exports of Canadian asbestos to India, calling the mineral "a major killer."
Roughly 97 per cent of Canada's production of asbestos is exported — mostly to developing countries including India, Indonesia and Pakistan.
Asbestos has been banned by nearly every developed country, as well as a growing number of developing nations. WHO has estimated as many as 100,000 people around the world die annually from asbestos-related diseases.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
