Briefing Paper
September
2018
Indian Asbestos and Russian Asbestos cannot
have different adverse health impacts but undue influence of asbestos industry
lobby makes Govts think so
The defamation
case against Google involving writings of Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI) is
scheduled for final hearing in the Supreme Court as per Court’s website[1]
(Supreme Court website, 2018). The case is related to the articles published on
www.asbestosfreeindia.org. The
respondent in this case is Visakha Industries, which is engaged in business of
manufacturing and selling of asbestos cement sheets and allied products.
Asbestos is a carcinogenic mineral fiber banned in some 60 countries. Visakha
is a member of Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers Association (ACPMA),
which represents the interests of the Indian asbestos industry. ACPMA has been
spreading the misinformation and falsehood about the possibility of safe and
controlled use of chrysotile asbestos. The world’s scientific and medical
community has overwhelmingly concluded that chrysotile asbestos causes deadly
diseases, such as asbestosis, mesothelioma and lung and other cancers. The
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the World Health
Organization (WHO) have called for an end to all use of chrysotile asbestos in
order to prevent further tragic epidemics of asbestos-related diseases. Public
institutions like the World Federation of Public Health Associations, the
International Commission on Occupational Health, the International Social
Security Association, the Union for International Cancer Control (representing
770 member organisations in 155 countries, including the Indian Cancer Society
and the Cancer Aid and Research Foundation of India), the International Trade
Union Confederation (representing 175 million workers in 151 countries), the
Collegium Ramazzini, the Joint Policy Committee of Societies of Epidemiology
and the Indian Association of Occupational Health have all recommended
elimination of the use of chrysotile asbestos because safe use of asbestos is
impossible.
It is significant that the Ministry of Mines has
informed that “the Grant of fresh mining leases and renewal of existing mining
leases for Asbestos are presently banned in the country on Health Grounds”.[2]
Government had imposed this ban on mining of all kinds of asbestos in 1986. The
core scientific question is: how can Indian asbestos be poisonous but Russian
asbestos is not. India is the biggest importer of Russian asbestos. Can Indian
Cyanide and Russian Cyanide have different health impacts? The Terms of Reference (TOR) that is
awarded by the Experts Appraisal Committee, Industrial Project, Union Ministry
of Environment & Forests to the project proponents for white
asbestos based roofing factories states that asbestos based companies
should prepare a “Health Management Plan for Mesothelioma, Lung cancer and
Asbestosis related problems in asbestos industries.” A typical asbestos mineral
fibre is about 2,000 times thinner than a human hair. It is believed that
smaller, thinner, `respirable' fibres are the ones which do the most damage.
These asbestos fibres are invisible to the naked eye. Some of the small fibres
remain in the lower parts of the lung for years. Some work their way through
the lung lining inducing cancers[3]
(Perappadan, 2004). The government agencies like Directorate General, Factory Advice Service
and Labour Institutes (DGFASLI) took note of Prevalence of Asbestosis and
Related Disorders in an Asbestos Fiber Processing Unit in West Bengal as early
as in 1996[4]
(DGFASLI, 1996). But unmindful of Supreme Court’s order of 1995 no steps have
been taken by the central and state governments for complete ban on asbestos
despite admitting the “deleterious effect of asbestos on the health” and in
spite of imposing ban on grant, renewal and expansion of asbestos mining in the
year 1986, sixty two years after the first diagnosis of asbestosis was made in
the UK in 1924[5] (Cooke,
1924).
It is
noteworthy that the chairman of ACPMA is the Vice-Chairman of Visakha
Industries is a medical graduate. Doctors have played both positive negative roles
in the “tragic history” of asbestos industry.[6]
The company in question acknowledges that there are “various environmental
issues connected with the Asbestos Cement Industry”[7]
(Visakha website, 2018). It has admitted that asbestos which is “used as raw
material, which is hazardous in nature”. Given the fact that mining of asbestos
is banned in India because of its hazardous nature, the company in question has
informed the government and the public that the chrysotile type asbestos fiber
“will be imported from Brazil[8],
Canada and Russia.” Chrysotile (White Asbestos), the serpentine variety is 95%
of all Asbestos in the global market. It is the only kind that remains to be
totally banned in India. Now the fact is that Brazil[9]
and Canada have banned asbestos but India has emerged as the biggest consumer
of Russian white asbestos although India has banned mining and trade of
asbestos waste (dust and fibers). India should learn from the fall of the
asbestos empire.[10] In
such a backdrop, it is significant that Parmanpur panchayat of Odisha’s Sambalpur
district took a decision to cancel no objection certificate given to Visakha
asbestos company and additional district magistrate approved their decision[11]
(Moyna, 2015).
This case
has emerged in the context of BANI’s some 18 years of relentless struggle to
ensure that preventable deaths from asbestos exposure and asbestos related
incurable diseases are prevented. BANI has been demanding systematic monitoring
and reporting of asbestos related diseases in India. BANI’s work in alliance
with peoples’ movements and trade unions has led to current phasing out of
asbestos roofs from some 8000 railway stations across the country[12]
(Nair, 2018). Such efforts led to the cancellation of asbestos based factories
in Bhojpur[13],
Muzaffarpur[14],
Vaishali, West Champaran and Madhubani[15]
in Bihar[16]
and new rules have been framed in Maharashtra as a step to make the state free
of asbestos[17]. Its
field visits in and around the factories of Visakha Industries Ltd in
Vijaywada, Telangana and in Raebareli, Uttar Pradesh, UP Asbestos Ltd. in
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh and the factory of Ramco Industries Ltd in Maksi, Madhya
Pradesh and in Bhojpur, Bihar brought to light the status of workers in these asbestos
factories in both places. In the aftermath of BANI’s
intervention, Indian railways is beginning to realize that the disposal of
asbestos debris requires proper scientific landfilling to avoid harmful repercussions[18]
but its practice in general in replacing asbestos roofs with harmless
alternative roofing material is exposing unsuspecting passengers to hazardous
asbestos fibers because discarded and broken asbestos roofs are lying strewn
around on the railway platforms. It’s efforts made Bihar State Pollution
Control Board (BSPCB) to cancel the “no-objection certificate” given to
asbestos factory units.[19]
Following BANI's communication to Chief Minister and Minister of Health &
Family Welfare, Delhi Government on the subject of making Delhi India’s first
asbestos free-state, government has issued instructions for appropriate
necessary action[20] (Gupta,
2017).
The SLAPP
case in the Supreme Court must be seen in this backdrop. The Court has sought
the assistance of the Attorney General of India in this case. Attorney General
can assist the Court by seeking help from Indian Council of Medical Research
(ICMR) which has “informed that major health hazards of asbestos include cancer
of lung, mesothelioma of pleura and peritoneum and specific fibrous disease of
lung known as asbestosis. All types of asbestos fibers are responsible for
human mortality and morbidity….Directorate General Factory Advice Service and
Labour Institutes, (DGFASLI) under Ministry of Labour & Employment has
intimated data of workers suffering from Asbestosis in factories registered
under the Factories Act, 1948.As per the information provided by DGFASLI, it is
informed that 21 no. of Asbestosis cases were reported in Gujarat in 2010 and 2
cases in Maharashtra in the year 2012”. This has been shared by the Union
Minister for Health and Family Welfare in a written reply. The SLAPP case in
question is a malicious lawsuit to silence those who are voicing
incontrovertible medical findings.
A paper
titled “The future of
work in the mirror of industrial disaster of Bhopal” points out the unacknowledged public health crisis due to
continued use, manufacture and trade of asbestos and asbestos based products. The
paper was presented at the conference held this year.
It
is noteworthy that in the USA, Dow Chemicals Company has set aside $2.2 billion
to address future asbestos-related liabilities arising out of its purchase of Union
Carbide Corporation (UCC), notorious for industrial disaster in Bhopal. BANI
has been demanding a compensation fund for present and future victims of
asbestos related diseases.
The factsheet of World Health Organisation states that the most efficient way to eliminate
asbestos-related diseases is to stop the use of all types of asbestos and
specifically states that its strategy is particularly targeted at countries
still using chrysotile asbestos. The
asbestos based products include fireproof coatings, concrete and cement,
bricks, pipes, gaskets, insulation, drywall, flooring, roofing, joint compound,
paints and sealants. Asbestos also exists in electrical appliances, plastics,
rubber, mattresses, flowerpots, lawn furniture, hats and gloves. Chrysotile
asbestos is often present in a wide variety of products and materials,
including Chlor Alkali diaphragm membranes used to make chlorine, Drywall and
joint compound (including texture coats), Plaster, Gas mask filters, Vinyl
floor tiles, sheeting, adhesives, roofing tars, felts, siding, and shingles,
acoustic ceilings, fireproofing and dental cast linings.
Since 1984,
environmental monitoring and health surveys have led to in-depth studies in
asbestos based industries in India, highlighting an occupationally vulnerable
worker population. It was noticed that the workers occupationally exposed to
asbestos have a maximum impairment in their pulmonary function test. Workers
employed in the cement-asbestos factories suffer from the exposure to asbestos.
Asbestos dust can be inhaled while
drilling a hole, cutting a pipe, repairing, renovating or demolishing a
building. Its effects are far-reaching, affecting everyone from the person
mining it to the ultimate consumer. The
incubation period of asbestos related diseases is long. It takes as long as 10
to 30 years for the fibers to make their presence felt in the human body but by
then it is incurable. In the rich countries, insurance companies have stopped
covering workers employed in asbestos factories and mines. Even World
Trade Organisation (WTO)'s Dispute Settlement Panel on September 18, 2000, and
its appellate body on March 12, 2001, accepted that white chrysotile asbestos
is an established carcinogen and that "controlled use" is not an effective
alternative to a national ban[21]
(Krishna, 2004).
A
paper presented at World Asbestos Congress, Tokyo argued that
consumption of asbestos is sanctioned and encouraged by a government prepared
to back powerful commercial interests at the expense of public health. There
were some 673 small-scale asbestos based factories in India as of 2004 [22] (Krishna, 2004). The table below provides
details of factories and workers employed in asbestos industry till 2010.
|
S. No.
|
State/Uts
|
No. Of Units
|
No. of workers
|
|
1
|
Andhra Pradesh
|
7
|
1389
|
|
2
|
Assam
|
2
|
45
|
|
3
|
Delhi
|
6
|
231
|
|
4
|
Gujarat
|
13
|
739
|
|
5
|
Haryana
|
19
|
1300
|
|
6
|
Jharkhand
|
2
|
153
|
|
7
|
Karnataka
|
2
|
370
|
|
S
|
Kerala
|
1
|
200
|
|
9
|
Madhya Pradesh
|
11
|
610
|
|
10
|
Orissa
|
1
|
477
|
|
11
|
Rajasthan
|
5
|
61
|
|
12
|
Tamil Nadu
|
S
|
1677
|
|
13
|
Uttar Pradesh
|
11
|
711
|
|
14
|
West Bengal
|
9
|
1200
|
|
15
|
Maharashtra
|
24
|
1338
|
Source: Union Ministry of Environment and
Forests, February 2010
The
number of such asbestos based factories has been increasing in the period after
2010 with scant regard for environmental and occupational health of workers,
communities and consumers. Following a Supreme Court order on October 14, 2003
(Writ petition (civil) 657/1995), the Union Ministry of Labour constituted a
Special Committee under Chairmanship of Director General, Directorate General
Factory Advice Service and Labour Institutes (DGFASLI) on the issue of medical
benefits and compensation to workers affected by handling of hazardous waste,
toxic in nature. This Committee's report, submitted in May 2004, mentions lung
cancer and mesothelioma caused by asbestos in all work involving exposure to
the risk concerned. “Asbestos related radiographic changes were seen in 36.1
percent workers.”[23]
This finding was based on a study on 789 asbestos workers. In general, asbestos workers refer to those
who work in asbestos based manufacturing like asbestos cement industry,
asbestos textile industry, asbestos mining and milling besides thermal power
plants. It also includes the construction industry and the shipbreaking
industry because workers have to handle asbestos based products or embedded
asbestos in the structure of the ship. Besides this asbestos waste from
different industries and end-of-life domestic and foreign ships are also
handled by the workers without knowledge of the harmful effects of asbestos
fibers[24]
(MoEF, 1998). BANI through its engagement and cases in the Supreme Court in the
matter of dumping of foreign asbestos laden end-of-life vessels
like French Le Clemenceau[25], Danish
RIKY[26], American
Blue Lady[27]
and American Exxon Valdez[28]
which reached Gujarat’s Alang beach and American Platinum II[29]
which reached Gopnath anchorage in Gujarat’s Bhavnagar been
instrumental in getting the Shipbreaking Code 2013 adopted by the government. Its case in
the Court led to the study of workers who are exposed to asbestos in
shipbreaking industry. The study “Medical Examination of the Asbestos Handlers”
concluded, “The X ray examination by NIOH showed linear shadows on chest X rays
of 15 (16%) of 94 workers occupationally exposed to asbestos. These are consistent
with asbestosis…”[30]
(TEC Report, 2006). This study is consistent with the study that confirmed
increased incidence of overall cancer, esophagus cancer, and trachea, bronchus,
and lung cancer which has been found associated with the level of exposure to
asbestos among shipbreaking workers[31]
(Wu,
2015).
Epidemiological research shows that
even in countries where asbestos is banned, earlier exposure could be causing
around 30 deaths a day[32]
(Krishna, 2006). In its report titled 'Asbestos: The Iron Grip of Latency',
the International Labour Organisation (ILO) organisation states that the
dumping of asbestos on developing countries will "prove to be a health time
bomb in these countries in 20 to 30 years' time"[33]
(ILO, 2006). But the way National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH) ended
up taking the fiscal support from the chrysotile asbestos industry to do a
study that is to be used at UN’s Rotterdam Convention meeting has made its
outputs non-credible. This study in question was partly funded by the Asbestos
Cement Product Manufacturers Association. It remains surprising given the fact
that this agency had conducted studies in that past that defended workers'
health. The study's terms of reference revealed the government's intent. Here
is 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"[34]
(Krishna, 2008). It demonstrated that NIOH conducted a questionable study which
does not inspire any confidence in the researchers who became complicit in this
unethical work.
Dr Alec Farquhar, as Managing Director,
Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers, Canada said, “We now have
around 500 asbestos cancer cases every year in Ontario from a population of 13
million. If you (India) continue on your current path, you will multiply our
death count by 100 times. That would be 50, 000 Indian workers dying every year
from asbestos. In Ontario, we learned that safe use of asbestos is impossible.
I urge you from the bottom of my heart, please do not make the same mistake as
we made in Canada. Stop using asbestos and use a safe alternative” (Krishna,
2011).[35]
Deeply disturbed by the state of affairs in India with regard to
asbestos consumption, Professor Elihu D Richter MD MPH, Hebrew
University-Hadassah School of Medicine, Israel said, “All form of asbestos
kill. India should bury asbestos, not people. Here is a case for examining
whether those countries which export asbestos to India are committing a crime
against humanity, because they are engaging in willful neglect. India should
not repeat the mistakes of going back some 70 years which will kill tens of
thousands of workers and their families” (Ibid).[36] Richter called on experts in human
rights to reframe the carcinogen as a human rights violation to ban asbestos.
“No
matter what mis-information comes of Canada or the Indian asbestos industry
about Chrysotile, there is no question that science has shown that Chrysotile
causes asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. This is the conclusion of
World Health Organisation. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, and
other organizations that have no biases except for protecting people’s health,”
said Prof. Arthur L Frank, PhD, Department of Environmental and Occupational
Health, Drexel University School of Public Health, US.[37]
By the order dated January 23, 2012, Union Ministry of Labour and
Employment constituted an Advisory Committee of 13 members to develop control
strategies and to review the safeguards in relation to primary exposure to
Asbestos by the workers in pursuance of the judgment of Supreme Court. There are four terms of reference (TOR) of
this Advisory Committee. Two of these TORs deal with ‘ILO guidelines’ and
‘fresh resolution passed by ILO” mentioned in June 2006 resolution[38]
(MoLE, 2012). This Advisory Committee was set up to implement Supreme Court’s
order since International Labour Organization (ILO) has also made certain
specific directions vide its Resolution of 2006 introducing a ban on all
mining, manufacture, recycling and use of all forms of asbestos. In compliance
of the six specific directions with the order of the Court to maintain the
health record of every worker up to a minimum period of 40 years from the
beginning of the employment and for 15 years after the retirement or cessation,
whichever is later[39]
(Supreme Court, 1995). It has been 23 years since the order was passed but
non-compliance with it has become the norm even as some 30 people continue to
die every day.[40]
In a recent order even the National Green Tribunal (NGT) did not deem it
fit to refer to the verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case pertaining to
acts of omission and commission by Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Product
Limited (now Hindustan Industries Limited), Union of India and others. The company in
question undertook mining of asbestos in the Roro hills of Jharkhand from 1963
to 1983 and stopped mining 32 years ago but left the tailings. It did not take
safety measures required for closure, restitution and removal of asbestos dust,
a human health hazard which caused asbestos related diseases notified under the
Mines Act, 1952. But in its very weak and an apparently a non-binding order,
NGT has not given relief to either the victims or the affected local
environment. It has relied on an unsatisfactory joint inspection report. In a
stark act of unacceptable omission the joint inspection team (comprising of
S.I. Minz, Additional Director Mines, (HQ), Department of Mines and Geology,
Jharkhand, B.P. Kerketta, Senior Assistant Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau
of Mines, Kolkata and R.N. Kashyap, Board Analyst, Jharkhand State Pollution
Control Board, Ranchi) constituted by Jharkhand Government in compliance with
NGT’s order. NGT did not set it right by recommending monetary compensation for
damage to the human health and restoration of human environment so far. It has
ended up committing a blunder by failing to distinguish case laws pertaining to
strict and absolute liability as laid down in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India
(1987) and the Principle of strict liability as established of Rylands v
Fletcher (1868)[41] (NGT, 2018).
In such a context, in a significant
development in a communication dated September 22, 2016, Google informed Ban
Asbestos Network of India (BANI) that
it has restored its Asbestos Free India website. This was in response to the
message sent by BANI to Google team. The site was taken off public view
following a complaint by Visakha Industries Ltd, the asbestos based company
which has filed the SLAPP case masquerading as defamation case. BANI is the oldest
and only public interest initiative in India which has consistently and
relentlessly pursued work for a asbestos free future. In its message to Google,
BANI communicated that “the truth about the hazards from asbestos exposure in
India ought to remain in public domain in the interest of present and future
generations. Asbestos is banned in over 50 countries because it causes
incurable lung related diseases. In view of the same, the site may be approved
for public view in public interest.” The site http://www.asbestosfreeindia.org is available for public view since
then.
Disregarding global practices wherein over 50 countries have banned all
kinds of asbestos, India has taken an inconsistent position wherein it has
technically banned mining of all kinds of asbestos but it continues to export
and import asbestos from countries like Russia. This unscientific position is
endangering the life and public health of present and future generations.
For Details: Gopal
Krishna, LLB, PhD, Editor of http://www.asbestosfreeindia.org
and
Convener, Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI), Mb: 9818089660, Email:krishnagreen@gmail.com
[2] (2003), Ban on Asbestos
Mining, Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Mines, February 26,
http://pibarchive.nic.in/archive/releases98/lyr2003/rfeb2003/26022003/r260220035.html accessed on 10 September, 2018
[3] Perappadan,
Bindu Shajan (2004), `Asbestos exposure at any level is lethal', The Hindu, June 29, https://www.thehindu.com/2004/06/29/stories/2004062909920400.htm
accessed on September 10, 2018
[4]
Prevalence of Asbestosis and Related
Disorders in a Asbestos Fiber Processing Unit in West Bengal,
http://www.dgfasli.nic.in/newsletter/jan_march_96.pdf accessed on January 12,
2016
[5] Cooke,
W. E. (1924), Fibrosis of the Lungs due to the Inhalation of Asbestos Dust, British Medical Journal, July 26;
2(3317): 140-2, 147-148, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2304688/pdf/brmedj05824-0015a.pdf,
accessed on January 12, 2016
[6] Castleman, Barry (2000),
In the company of asbestos, The Lancet, Vol 356, September 2,
https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2800%2902668-4, accessed
on September 26, 2018
[8] Casado, Leticia (2017)
Brazilian Supreme Court Bans Use of Asbestos in Brazil
November
30, Brasilia,
https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/business/2017/11/1939473-brazilian-supreme-court-bans-use-of-asbestos-in-brazil.shtml
accessed on September 26, 2018
[9] Allen, Laurie Kazan
(2017), Brazil Bans Asbestos!, December 1, https://tinyurl.com/yaa7pkob,
accessed on September 26, 2018
[10] Ibid, The Fall of the
Asbestos Empire, https://tinyurl.com/yd2mgo5p,
accessed on September 26, 2018
[11] Moyna (2015), Odisha
village wins case against Visaka Industries' asbestos plant
July
4, Down To Earth, https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/odisha-village-wins-case-against-visaka-industries-asbestos-plant--38687 accessed on September 14, 2018
[12]Nair, Manoj R. (2018),
Railways are phasing out asbestos, a suspected health hazard, Hindustan Times, April 23, https://www.hindustantimes.com/mumbai-news/railways-are-phasing-out-asbestos-a-suspected-health-hazard/story-3laDnefgU8P1VgPXMYdTEP.html accessed on September 15, 2018
[13] Gupta, Alok (2015),
Protests at Bihar asbestos unit, Down To
Earth, July 4, https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/protests-at-bihar-asbestos-unit-42000, accessed on September 15, 2018
[14] Tewary, Amarnath (2011),
Student protest halts asbestos factory in Bihar, India, BBC News, February 26, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-12354285 accessed on September 15, 2018
[15] Proposals Approved by
State Investment Promotion Board (SIPB),
industries.bih.nic.in/News/NE-01-20-09-2011.pdf, accessed on September 11, 2018
[16] (2011), Resounding ‘No!’
to asbestos plant in Bihar, Indian
Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol 8, No 2, http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/articles/resounding-no-to-asbestos-plant-in-bihar/?galley=html, accessed on September 15, 2018
[17] Vyas, Sharad (2018), New
Rules to make asbestos free, The Hindu,
https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mumbai/new-rules-to-make-state-free-of-asbestos/article23469360.ece, accessed on September 15, 2018
[18] Aklekar, Rajendra
B.(2018), Mumbai: Railway Stations To Have Environment-Friendly Metal Roofs, Mid Day, April 16, https://www.mid-day.com/articles/mumbai-railway-stations-to-have-environment-friendly-metal-roofs/19324157, accessed on September 15, 2018
[19] Thacker, Teena (2016), Bihar revokes clearance for asbestos
factories, The Asian Age, August 15, 2016, http://www.asianage.com/india/bihar-revokes-clearance-asbestos-factories-026
accessed on September 15, 2018
[21] Krishna, G. (2004), Say
no to white asbestos, Business Standard,
February 12 www.rediff.com/money/2004/feb/12guest2.htm accessed on January 14,
2018
[22] Krishna, G. (2004), The
Plight of Asbestos Victims in India, World Asbestos Congress, Tokyo
[23] Trivedy, R.K. et al.
Occupational Health : Indian Scenario, Journal of Industrial Pollution Control, http://www.icontrolpollution.com/articles/occupational-health--indian-scenario-.php?aid=45473
accessed on January 5, 2018
[24] (1998), Union Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF) informed the
Parliament that “Crocidolite (Blue Asbestos) has been placed on the restricted
list of imports by Ministry of Commerce, Directorate General of Foreign Trade
in October, 1994. Further, import of waste asbestos (dust and fibre) has been
prohibited by Gazette Notification dated October 13
[25] Krishna, G. (2006),
French apex court rules, Clemenceau recalled, February 16, http://indiatogether.org/shipretn-environment, accessed on January 24, 2018
[26] Krishna, G. (2006), The
scrapping of Riky, March 23, http://www.indiatogether.org/riky-environment, accessed on January 24, 2018
[27] Krishna, G. Setting a
precedent for trafficking hazardous waste, October
5,http://www.indiatogether.org/bluelady-environment--3, accessed on January 24, 2018
[28] Division Bench of Supreme
Court comprising of Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice J. Chelameshwar upheld
UN’s Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous
Wastes and Their Disposal but allowed the end of life ex US Ship Exxon Valdez
(MV Oriental N) at Alang beach, Bhavnagar, Gujarat. The implication of this
direction would be that all the ships which are have entered or are entering
the Indian territorial waters have to show compliance of Basel Convention. In
case there is non compliance, all these ships should go back to country of
origin. Exxon Valdez did not follow the Basel Convention and therefore
according to the judgment dated July 6, 2012 it should have been sent back to
the country of export. The Court ought to have applied Precautionary Principle
not for the purpose of dismantling this asbestos laden end-of-life foreign ship
but for sending it back because the principle implies that the pollution of
hazardous nature has to be avoided particularly when its impact on environment
and human health are not known.
[29] Ray, Kalyan (2009), Controversial ship has fake
registration documents, Deccan Herald, November 9,
https://www.deccanherald.com/content/34973/controversial-ship-has-fake-registration.html, accessed on September
24, 2018
[30] (2006), Final Report of
the Technical Experts Committee (TEC) on Management of Hazardous Wastes
relating to Ship breaking presented in to the Supreme Court of India, August 30
[31] Wu WT, Lin YJ, Li CY,
Tsai PJ, Yang CY, et al. (2015) Cancer Attributable to Asbestos Exposure in
Shipbreaking Workers: A Matched-Cohort Study. PLOS ONE 10(7): e0133128.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133128
[32] Krishna, G. (2006), White
asbestos: A ticking time bomb, InfoChange
News & Features,
http://infochangeindia.org/environment/features/white-asbestos-a-ticking-time-bomb.html
accessed on January 12, 2016
[33] (2006), Asbestos: the
iron grip of latency, International Labour Organiosation, January 10
[34] Krishna, G. (2008), A
government under an asbestos roof, Indian
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 12, Issue 1, p.
43-44, http://www.ijoem.com/article.asp?issn=00195278;year=2008;volume=12;issue=1;spage=43;epage=44;aulast=Krishna accessed on January 6,
2016
[35] Krishna, G., Need to Make Tamil Nadu Free of Cancer
Causing Asbestos Fibers, 2011, 29, March, http://www.asbestosfreeindia.org/2011/03/, accessed on 12 September, 2018
[36] Ibid
[37] Op.cit
[38] (2012),
Order, S-25016/16/1993-ISH-II, Ministry of Labour and Employment (MOLE),
Government of India, January 23
[40] Sehgal, Rashme (2011),
Asbestos causing 30 deaths per day in India, Asian Age, Jan 21, http://archive.asianage.com/india/asbestos-causing-30-deaths-day-india-303, accessed on September
24, 2016
[41] (2018), Order of National
Green Tribunal, Kalyan Singh v Hindustan Industries Limited, August 14
