Nagasaki Peace Declaration 2025: Full Text
-
*Statement issued by Nagasaki Mayor Suzuki Shiro, on the 80th year of
nuclear bombing.*
The post Nagasaki Peace Declaration 2025: Full Text appeared firs...
Latest Post
Showing posts with label Asbestos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Asbestos. Show all posts
Dry colors may have cancer causing asbestos dust and other toxic substances
Written By mediavigil on Friday, March 18, 2022 | 8:28 PM
Briefing Paper
March 2022
Dry colors may have cancer causing asbestos dust and other toxic substances
Brighter the color, greater the danger of toxicity
Holi, a festival of myriad colors -- red, yellow, blue, green, magenta, purple, orange, golden, black, silver etc marks the harvest of rabi crop and the arrival of spring which was traditionally celebrated using natural colored extracts from herbs and plants.
In the current industrial chemical dye age, unwittingly these natural herbs and plants got replaced by synthetic dyes, most of which contain a plethora of chemicals. In general there are three categories of colors in the market – pastes, dry powder and water colors. These could be hazardous. If hazardous ones are mixed with oil and applied to the skin, the harmful chemicals can enter easily through the skin into the body system with both short-term and long-term adverse health consequences. Playing with toxic industrial dyes often results in various skin and eye related complaints in a significant number of people immediately following the celebration.
Looks of seemingly harmless and apparently pleasing colors could be toxic. This is because of the presence of cheap materials like mica, acids, alkalis, pieces of glass, which not only induce skin disorders like abrasion, irritation, itching but can impair vision, cause respiratory problems and also cancer.
The green/bluish-green colors are related to higher incidence of ocular toxicity. Analysis of eyewash fluid collected from the patients exposed to these colors revealed it.
Medical researchers recommend that use of such toxic colors should be discouraged, and all doctors should caution people against using synthetic dyes. This case report highlights the need to put manufacturing of Holi colors under guidelines of the Food and Drug Cosmetic Act and the Bureau of Indian Standards. Colors which are used during the festival merit examination.
Medical researchers recommend that use of such toxic colors should be discouraged, and all doctors should caution people against using synthetic dyes. This case report highlights the need to put manufacturing of Holi colors under guidelines of the Food and Drug Cosmetic Act and the Bureau of Indian Standards. Colors which are used during the festival merit examination.
Pastes
Holi pastes contain very hazardous chemicals that can have severe health effects. Some of them are listed below according to their color:
Color Chemical Health Effects
Black Lead oxide Renal Failure
Green Copper Sulphate Eye Allergy & Temporary Blindness
Silver Aluminium Bromide Carcinogenic
Blue Prussian Blue Contract Dermatitis
Red Mercury Sulphite Highly toxic can cause skin cancer
Dry Colors
Dry colors or gulals have two components—a colorant which is toxic and a base which could either be asbestos or silica both of which are capable of causing health hazards.
Silica may dry as well as chap the skin and lung infections.
Dry colors or gulals have two components—a colorant which is toxic and a base which could either be asbestos or silica both of which are capable of causing health hazards.
Silica may dry as well as chap the skin and lung infections.
Asbestos, a known human carcinogen enters the lung. It can result in lung cancer even in micro-quantities i.e. the slightest of exposure increases risk. Asbestos
is a group of naturally occurring fibrous minerals with current or
historical commercial usefulness due to their extraordinary tensile
strength, poor heat conduction, and relative resistance to chemical
attack. For these reasons, asbestos is used for insulation in buildings
and as an ingredient in a number of products, such as roofing shingles,
water supply lines, and fire blankets, as well as clutches and brake
linings, gaskets, and pads for automobiles.The main forms of
asbestos are chrysotile (white asbestos) and crocidolite (blue
asbestos). Other forms include amosite, anthophylite, tremolite and
actinolite. All forms of asbestos
are carcinogenic to humans. Exposure to asbestos, including chrysotile,
causes cancer of the lung, larynx, and ovaries, and also mesothelioma (a
cancer of the pleural and peritoneal linings). Asbestos exposure is
also responsible for other diseases such as asbestosis (fibrosis of the
lungs), and plaques, thickening and effusion in the pleura.All forms of asbestos is banned in some 70 countries. India has banned mining of asbestos minerals but not its trade, manufacture and use. 85 % of asbestos used in India comes from Russia. World Health Organisation (WHO) has recommended its ban for elimination of asbestos related diseases.
With resolution 60.26, the World Health Assembly requested WHO to carry out a global campaign for the elimination of asbestos-related diseases "…bearing in mind a differentiated approach to regulating its various forms - in line with the relevant international legal instruments and the latest evidence for effective interventions…". Cost-effective interventions for prevention of occupational lung diseases from exposure to asbestos are among the policy options for implementing the "Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases" (2013-2020), as endorsed by the Sixty-sixth World Health Assembly in resolution WHA66.10 in 2013.
Eliminating asbestos-related diseases is particularly targeted at countries still using chrysotile asbestos, in addition to assistance in relation to exposures arising from historical use of all forms of asbestos.
WHO, in collaboration with the International Labour Organization (ILO) and other intergovernmental organizations and civil society, works with countries towards elimination of asbestos-related diseases by:
recognizing that the most efficient way to eliminate asbestos-related diseases is to stop the use of all types of asbestos;
providing information about solutions for replacing asbestos with safer substitutes and developing economic and technological mechanisms to stimulate its replacement;
taking measures to prevent exposure to asbestos in place and during asbestos removal (abatement);
improving early diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation services for asbestos-related diseases;
establishing registries of people with past and/or current exposures to asbestos and organizing medical surveillance of exposed workers; and
providing information on the hazards associated with asbestos-containing materials and products, and by raising awareness that waste containing asbestos should be treated as hazardous waste.
The major constituent of the colorants in gulals are mostly heavy metals that are known systemic toxins. These heavy metals not only get deposited in the kidneys, liver and bones but are also capable of disrupting the metabolic functions.
Heavy metals Health effects
Lead Learning disability
Chromium Bronchial asthma, Allergies
Cadmium Itai Ita disease (fragile bones)
Nickel Dermatitis pneumonia
Mercury Minimata disease (disorder of the nervous system)
Zinc Fever
Iron Skin becomes sensitive to light
Lead is the most dangerous of all the heavy metals found in holi colors. It can affect the nervous system, kidneys and the reproductive system. Among children, it can affect the physical and mental growth, even in small quantities. If a pregnant woman is exposed to lead, it can be carried to the unborn child and damage its nervous system. It can even result in premature birth, low birth weight, miscarriage or abortion.
Cadmium has been classified a probable human carcinogen. In an attempt to ascertain the presence of heavy metals in gulals,
Red colors are likely to contain mercury which is a very toxic metal that can enter the body through the skin and even by inhalation. It has the potential to pass through the brain barrier and the placental barrier and is also known to affect the sensitive organs like kidney, liver and the central nervous system.
Blue colors are likely to have copper. The organs that are targeted by this metal are eyes, skin, respiratory system, liver and the kidneys.
Water Colors
Gentian violet, a widely used color concentrate during holi can cause skin discolouration, dermatitis, develop skin allergy or irritation of mucous membrane. It is very toxic in concentrated form and can lead to keratoconjunctivitis and dark purple staining of the cornea.
Exposure to Holi colors that have an alkaline base can cause injury, the severity of which depends upon the area of contact and the degree of penetration. For example, if the color enters the eye, it can damage the ocular surface and cause temporary visual disability, discomfort and complications that pose a great danger to the vision.
Sensitive areas like the eyes should be avoided while playing with colors. If a colour comes in contact with the eye, one should immediately wash it with large amounts of water and incase irritation persists, medical aid should be sought immediately.
Organic Holi Colors
Organic holi colors made from vegetable dyes are harmless. Those who cannot lay hands on these organic colors, return to the traditional way and celebrate using tesu flowers. These flowers can be boiled and soaked overnight to get a rich yellow color. If one is not able to find these flowers in the market, use household recipes to get some nice shades and colors. One can boil the petals of marigold flowers or the peels of pomegranate (Anar)and soak them overnight to get yellow colour. For rich magenta red, use beetroot or the stem of castor (Aran) and for orange red try henna leaves (mehndi).
One can use turmeric or even red sandalwood powder to make holi pastes. These would not just impart color but would also be good for skin as they are endowed with some therapeutic values.
In India, production and sale of Holi colors is done without any quality checks. Even in cases where colors are available in a packaged form, there is little or no information for the consumer about the source of the colors, their contents, and possible toxic effects. While it is about time Union Ministry of Chemicals and Bureau of Indian Standards, Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs regulated the industrial color production and sale, consumers ought to say no to toxic chemical colors forever.
Gopal Krishna
References
Sudip Kumar Ghosh et al (2009). The ‘Holi’ Dermatoses: Annual Spate of Skin Diseases following spring festival in India, Indian Journal of Dermatology, Jul-Sep; 54(3): 240–242
Gopal Krishna (2003). The Ugly Truth Behind The Colourful World, india.indymedia.org/en/2003/03/3761.shtml
T. Velpandian et al (2007) Ocular hazards of the colors used during the festival-of-colors (Holi) in India—Malachite green toxicity, Journal of Hazardous Materials, Volume 139, Issue 2, 10 January, p. 204–208
(2007).Bilateral periorbital necrotizing fasciitis following exposure to Holi colors: A case report, http://www.ijo.in/article.asp?issn=0301-4738;year=2007;volume=55;issue=5;spage=373;epage=374;aulast=Chauhan
(2018) Asbestos: elimination of asbestos-related diseases, World Health Organisation, 15 February, https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/asbestos-elimination-of-asbestos-related-diseases
Complaint to CDSCO regarding ongoing exposure of Indians to hazardous asbestos mineral fibers contaminated Talcum Powder of Johnson & Johnson
Written By mediavigil on Wednesday, May 27, 2020 | 2:37 AM
To
Drugs Controller General of India
Central Drugs Standard Control
Organization (CDSCO),
Directorate General of Health Services
Union Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare,
Government of India
FDA Bhavan, ITO, Kotla Road,
New Delhi -110002
Date: May 27, 2020
Subject-
Complaint regarding ongoing exposure of Indians to hazardous asbestos mineral fibers
contaminated Talcum Powder of Johnson & Johnson
Sir,
This
is to draw your immediate attention of CDSCO towards the announcement dated May
19, 2020 by Johnson & Johnson, a multinational company headquartered in New
Brunswick, New Jersey, USA stating that it will discontinue sale of its Talcum Powder
products in North America. This announcement is aimed at safeguarding the
health of residents and citizens of North America but not the residents and
citizens of India. Such doublespeak and double standard in matters of public
health in general and children’s health in particular merits urgent intervention
of the CDSCO. (Reference: Statement of Johnson & Johnson, May 19, 2020, https://www.jnj.com/our-company/johnson-johnson-consumer-health-announces-discontinuation-of-talc-based-johnsons-baby-powder-in-u-s-and-canada)
We
wish to point out that “the Company will wind down the commercialization of
talc-based Johnson’s Baby Powder in the U.S. and Canada in the coming months.
Existing inventory will continue to be sold through retailers until it runs
out.” The news report titled Johnson
& Johnson to End Talc-Based Baby Powder Sales in North America published
in The New York Times merits
attention as well. (Reference: Tiffany Hsu and Roni Caryn Rabin, May 19, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/19/business/johnson-baby-powder-sales-stopped.html).
We
submit that a study titled "Asbestos in commercial Indian talc"
published in the American Journal of
Industrial Medicine states that “this product study of various talcum
powders marketed to combat prickly heat, purchased from Indian retailers both
over‐the‐counter and online,
demonstrates the ease of general population access to such products and the
potential for significant exposure to asbestos. The analytical results of this
study confirm that asbestos exposure of the Indian and potentially greater
Southeast Asian populations is not limited to traditional occupational
settings.” The findings of this study “imply that the asbestos‐related medical and public
health implications to consider will need to extend to persons of both genders
and all ages among this population group. This study's confirmation of an
underappreciated source of asbestos exposure, through personal care products,
also highlights the risk that anyone within breathing range of these
aerosolizeable, contaminated, talcum products incurs.” The authors of the study
observe, “"Until asbestos is also viewed as a hazard in India and banned,
there will still be considerable risk to health." There is a need to
identify the source of their talc supply as well. (Reference: : Fitzgerald S,
Harty E, Joshi TK, Frank AL. Asbestos in commercial indian talc. American
Journal of Industrial Medicine. 2019; 1‐8. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22969
)
We
submit that Word Health Organisation (WHO)’s International Agency for Cancer
Research (IARC) has recognized presence of asbestos in talcum powder. IARC Monograph on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic
Risks to Humans on Carbon Black, Titanium Dioxide, and Talc (2010) refers
to the presence of asbestos in talcum powder. It also refers to "Use of
talc for feminine hygiene". The use of body powder for feminine hygiene
can be estimated from the prevalence reported for controls in case–control
studies that investigated the association between the use of cosmetic talc for
feminine hygiene and the risk for ovarian cancer. It refers to exposure to
respirable dust during the use of talcum powders on the face, body and babies.
Talc is used as a surface lubricant on the majority of condoms manufactured;
contact with condoms may also represent a direct means of exposure of the
female genital tract to talc. Exposure to talc can also occur during surgical procedures
when using powdered gloves. Talc particles were observed in the navels of small
children, in the testes, on the vocal cords, in the urinary bladder tract and after
removal of varicous veins. Besides this the Food Chemical Codex (2003) provides
specifications for food-grade talc, including the statement that “talc derived
from deposits that are known to contain associated asbestos is not food grade.”
Under the voluntary guidelines initiated in 1976, the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and
Fragrances Association stated that all cosmetic talc should contain at least
90% platy talc (hydrated magnesium silicate) that is free from detectable amounts
of fibrous, asbestos minerals. Meanwhile, some 67 countries have banned all
kinds of asbestos. World Health Organisation (WHO)’s recommendations have
established the infectious nature of Covid-19, the same WHO has underlined that
“All types of asbestos cause lung cancer, mesothelioma, cancer of the larynx
and ovary, and asbestosis (fibrosis of the lungs).” (Reference: https://www.who.int/ipcs/assessment/public_health/asbestos/en/
and https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/asbestos-elimination-of-asbestos-related-diseases)
Fitzgerald
S et al observe, “With products of this nature being readily available and
appealing to both genders, it is necessary to consider what the potential
health risks and burdens of disease are for millions of exposed women of
childbearing age and the children for whom they provide care. IARC has
confirmed the causal association of asbestos with ovarian cancer and other
cancers”.
We
submit that the CDSCO must undertake the enviro-occupational health audit of
the workers who handle asbestos laden talcum powder in the manufacturing
facilities of talcum powder products in general besides the health audit of the
communities who are in the vicinity of such factories and recommend adequate
compensation for those who are exposed to the carcinogenic mineral fibers and
are suffering from asbestos related diseases. This will be also relevant for
assessing the harm which the unsuspecting consumers continue to face. These
consumers include all judges, legislators, officials, their children and grandchildren
and the residents of India.
Earlier,
an investigative report titled “Johnson & Johnson knew for decades that
asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder” was published on December, 14, 2018 which
too is relevant for protecting the human rights of Indians. The investigation
was conducted by Reuters, a 167 year old international news agency
headquartered in London. This investigative report is consistent with the
findings of a study by India’s Industrial Toxicology Research Centre (IITR),
Lucknow, a constituent laboratory of Council of Scientific & Industrial
Research (CSIR), Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India on
“Exposure risk to contaminants in pharmaceutical and cosmetic powders” has found
that “There are different types of cosmetic powders such as body powder, baby
powder, face powder, eye shadow and powdered blush as well as pharmaceutical
powders available in the market. Both the sexes of all age groups are using
these powders. These are talc - based. Talc is a mineral product and often
contaminated with asbestos fibres.”
The
aim of the IITR study “was to investigate the safety of such powders being sold
in the market, initially by analyzing the asbestos content. Five branded
samples of talcum powder were analysed and all were found contaminated with
asbestos fibres. Asbestos fibre contamination in these powders ranged from 10.3
– 15.4%. Fibre length study on two samples revealed that asbestos fibres were
22.8 – 34.7%, 48.2 – 55.1% and 17.1 – 22.1% in the range of <10 10="" 20="" and="" m=""> 20µm, respectively. The study indicates risk of human exposure
to asbestos through the use of naturally contaminated talcum powder. It is
noteworthy that asbestos takes many years to cause asbestosis and carcinogenic
malignancies which are irreversible. It also necessitates a regular monitoring
and surveillance on all the cosmetic and pharmaceutical powders being marketed
for asbestos contamination.” This has been published in the Annual Report
Annual Report 2005-2006 of IITR. IITR is accredited by National Accreditation
Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) for chemical and
biological testing and is recognized for GLP (Good Laboratory Practice)
toxicity testing. (Reference: http://www.itrcindia.org/ITRC_Annual_Report_2005-06.pdf
)
The
investigation by Reuters corroborates the findings of IITR. This recent
investigation was undertaken in the wake of three verdicts in New Jersey,
California and St. Louis awarding compensation to plaintiffs who blamed
asbestos-tainted Johnson & Johnson talc products for their mesothelioma, a
type of cancer that develops from the thin layer of tissue that covers many of
the internal organs. The connection between asbestos exposure and mesothelioma
was discovered in the 1970s. The third verdict was a watershed in in St. Louis:
The 22 plaintiffs were the first to succeed with a claim that asbestos-tainted
Baby Powder and Shower to Shower talc, a longtime brand the company sold in
2012 that caused ovarian cancer, which is much more common than mesothelioma.
The jury awarded them $4.69 billion in damages. Most of the talc cases have
been brought by women with ovarian cancer who say they regularly used Johnson
and Johnson talc products as a perineal antiperspirant and deodorant. The
inclusion of ovarian cancer besides mesothelioma has broadened the potential
liability of Johnson & Johnson, a 132 year old multinational medical
devices, pharmaceutical and consumer packaged goods manufacturing company
headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
Earlier,
British Medical Journal (BMJ) published an article titled “Jury awards $4.7bn
damages against Johnson & Johnson in talcum cancer case” published in the
renowned British Medical Journal (BMJ). As per BMJ’s article, “More than 9000
former US talcum customers have lodged suits against the company. Most claim
damages for ovarian cancer, but some allege that using the product led them to
develop mesothelioma. The award is by far the biggest yet against Johnson and
Johnson in litigation relating to talcum powder and the first case in which
plaintiffs alleged that asbestos in talcum powder caused their disease. The
verdict was handed down in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis. ((Reference:
BMJ 2018; 362 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k3135)
We reiterate
that this investigative report is of deep relevance for the public health of
present and future generation of Indians given the fact that Johnson &
Johnson company has admittedly been in India for last 70 years. The company has
brought many products in consumer healthcare, medical devices and
pharmaceuticals. In 1947, Johnson & Johnson expanded into India, marketing
Johnson’s Baby Powder. In September 1957, Johnson & Johnson incorporated as
a legal entity in India. The production in its first manufacturing facility
began in 1959 at the Johnson & Johnson India plant in Mulund, Mumbai, for
Johnson’s Baby Powder and other specialized products. In 1968, the company
introduces the Stayfree brand to India. A situation emerged wherein Johnson
& Johnson reached almost every household in India.
The
Reuters investigative report refers to the findings of Dr. Irving J. Selikoff
who had conclusively established a link between the inhalation of asbestos
particles and lung-related ailments in the 1960s itself that paved the way for
ban on asbestos of all kinds in some 60 countries. Dr. Selikoff was the
director of the Environmental and Occupational Health Division of Mount Sinai
Hospital in New York. It is significant that Ms Lisa Girion of Reuters has
shared the official documents on the basis of which she has made these
startling claims in her investigative report.
We wish
to reiterate that in a Terms of Reference dated October 25, 2010 issued by
Union Environment & Forests Ministry for a proposed Asbestos cement sheet
and accessories manufacturing unit of 1,80,000 Tonnes Per Annum capacity at
Narsimharaopalem Village, Veerulupadu Tehsil, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh
by M/s Sahyadri Industries Limited made reference to "talc and
chrysotile”.
Prior
to the Reuters report, a 2014 paper published in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health
titled "Asbestos in commercial cosmetic talcum powder as a cause of
mesothelioma in women" by Ronald E Gordon et al concluded "we found
that a specific brand of talcum powder contained identifiable asbestos fibers
with the potential to be released into the air and inhaled during normal
personal talcum powder application. We also found that asbestos fibers
consistent with those found in the same cosmetic talc product were present in
the lungs and lymph node tissues of a woman who used this brand of talc powder
and developed and died from mesothelioma. This study was published in October
2014. (Reference: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4164883/)
We
submit that the investigation by Reuters reveals that “Johnson & Johnson
developed a strategy in the 1970s to deal with a growing volume of research
showing that talc miners had elevated rates of lung disease and cancer: Promote
the positive, challenge the negative. That approach was summed up by a J&J
applied research director in a “strictly confidential” March 3, 1975, memo to
managers of the baby products division, which used the talc in J&J’s
signature Baby Powder. Its approach reads: “Our current posture with respect to
the sponsorship of talc safety studies has been to initiate studies only as
dictated by confrontation,” the memo said. “This philosophy, so far, has
allowed us to neutralize or hold in check data already generated by investigators
who question the safety of talc.” It reveals that scientific ghostwriters have
been hired for long to hide evidence of “cancer concern associated with
exposure to talc.” Based on an Italian study, one such ghost authored article
that appeared in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, in
1976 found no mesothelioma, the signature cancer of asbestos exposure. The
Italian study in question has been updated three times – in 1979, 2003 and 2017
– “confirming the lack of association between exposure to asbestos-free talc,
lung cancer and mesothelioma.” The investigative underlines that Johnson &
Johnson got a lot of mileage out of the study. It was cited in a review article
titled “The Biology of Talc,” published Nov. 1, 1976, in the British Journal of
Industrial Medicine.
In
addition to dozens of published studies, the review cited unpublished research,
including one experiment that used a doll as a proxy for infants and that
supported the company’s position on the safety of talc. It didn’t disclose that
Johnson & Johnson had commissioned the unpublished research. The author of
the review article concluded that the “concern that has been expressed about
the possible health hazard from consumer exposure to cosmetic talc is
unwarranted … There is no evidence that its normal use poses a hazard to
health.” The author was Hildick-Smith, the Johnson & Johnson physician
executive who had overseen the Italian study and played a key role in the
company’s talc safety research. The article did not disclose his Johnson &
Johnson connection, identifying him only as a Rutgers University Clinical
Assistant Professor of Pediatrics.
In a
related event, I was a panelist at a Round Table Conference on Issues Related
to Asbestos Use in India held at India International Centre, New Delhi on
December 21, 2009, wherein Dr Iqbal Ahmad, a scientist from IITR, Lucknow said
that there are many different sources of asbestos exposures which need to be
looked at. He identified talc (powder) as a major source which has asbestos
contamination and exposes a large section of population, especially children
and women. Talc is used in several industries as raw material. He said that we
do have numbers of talc based cosmetic powders in India. China is the largest
producer of talc. Some 47 companies which used to procure Chinese talc powder
had to withdraw their product from market in South Korea due to high asbestos
contamination.
We submit that CDSCO’s intervention will be germane in the
light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Consumer Education and
Research Centre (CERC) Vs Union of India (1995 AIR 922, 1995 SCC (3) 42)
that recognized right to health as part of right to life and had directed
central and state governments to revise their law related asbestos in keeping
with fresh resolutions of International Labour Organisation (ILO). ILO’s asbestos
related resolution of June 2006 is relevant in this regard (Reference: https://www.ilo.org/safework/info/standards-and-instruments/WCMS_108556/lang--en/index.htm
. The ILO resolution was followed by a joint
publication of WHO and ILO titled "Outline for the Development of National
Programmes for Elimination of Asbestos-Related Diseases" published in
December 2007. It creates a logical compulsion for urgent remedial action. (Reference:
https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/safety-and-health-at-work/resources-library/publications/WCMS_108555/lang--en/index.htm)
In
view of the above, we submit that instead of waiting for the coo withdraw its asbestos-laden
talcum powder products-both baby powder and adult powder, the CDSCO must prevent
preventable diseases and deaths by banning these products with immediate effect.
Thanking You
Yours faithfully
Gopal Krishna
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
Occupational Health India (OHI)
E-mail:krishnaruhani@gmail.com
Web:www.toxicswatch.org
Asbestos company's case against Govt all set to be dismissed by Patna High Court
Written By Krishna on Friday, August 18, 2017 | 7:47 AM
Tamil Nadu’s Nibhi asbestos company’s case against Bihar State Pollution
Control Board (BSPCB), Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA) and
Bihar Government is listed for order before Justice Shivaji Pandey’s bench of
Patna High Court after cancellation of permission of the carcinogenic asbestos
based hazardous factory by Pollution Control Board. The matter is listed for
order on August 21, 2017. The
asbestos company has filed the case against State of Bihar, Department of
Industries, Govt. of Bihar and Bihar Industries Development Authority (BIADA).
In
its counter affidavit, Pollution Control Board has submitted that the factory
has undermined the status of Bihar as an air pollution control area under
Section 19 of Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The
factory has also violated Section 21 of the Act which forbids establishment and
operations of such factory without the consent of the Pollution Control Board.
It has submitted that the factory was closed from November 2013.
From
the submission of the Pollution Control Board, it is clear that the High Court
is likely to dismiss the petition of the Nibhi asbestos company because it is
not maintainable because the company did not avail the alternative remedy
provided by Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and National
Green Tribunal Act, 2010. It is evident that the company in question is guilty
of failure to comply with the provision of Section 21, Section 22 and Section
31 A under Section 37 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act,
1981. The power of the Board to order closure of polluting factories under
Section 31 A has been endorsed by the High Court in Bihar State Pollution
Control Board v Hiranand Stone Works (AIR 2005 Pat 62). It has been held in
Krishna Gopal v State of Uttar Pradesh (1986 Cr LR 11 MP) that the order of
removal of a polluting factory which causes emission detrimental to the
physical comfort and health of public at large is valid.
Section
37 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 provides that
non-compliance with the directions of the Pollution Control Board will attract
penalties. Section 37 (1) reads: “Whoever fails to comply with the provisions
of Section 21 or Section 22 or directions issued under Section 31 A, shall in respect
of each such failure, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than one year and six months but which may extend to six years and
with fine, and in case the failure continues, with an additional fine which may
extend to five thousand rupees for every day during which such failure
continues after the conviction for the first such failure.” Given the fact that
Nibhi company’s violations have continued for more than one year, its omissions
and commissions will attract the penalty envisaged under Section 37 (2). It
reads: “If the failure referred to in sub-section (1) continues beyond a period
of one year after the date of conviction, the offender shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than two years but which may
extend to seven years and with fine.”
In
such a backdrop, Nibhi asbestos company is seeking quashing of the cancellation
of consent by BSPSCB dated 21 July 2016 to operate its hazardous industrial
activity. It has also sought quashing of letter of Chairman, Pollution Control
Board dated 22 September 2016 ordering closure of the factory with immediate
effect.
The
illegal operations of Nibhi company’s factory was detected on 31 January 2016
on inspection by the Pollution Control Board.
In the inspection Pollution
Control Board found the following lapases:
1)
the waste asbestos was not
proeperly stored rather they were found scattered in the factory premises all
around;
2)
There was no facility for diposal
for solid waste;
3)
Facilities for
pulverization of asbestos was found lacking;
4)
Authorization
has not been obtained under Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling &
Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008
The
failure of the Nibhi company to obtain authorization under Section 5 of Hazardous
Waste (Management, Handling & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 is a
grave illegal and immoral offence because it has exposed the health of workers,
communities and the environment by its unpardonable act of omission and
commission. Under Section 25 of the
Hazardous Waste Rules, the company is liable for all the damages caused to the
environment, workers and to the communities due to improper handling of the
hazardous wastes or improper disposal of hazardous wastes. The company is
liable to pay financial penalties as levied by the Pollution Control Board for
its violations.
The company did not submit Form 1 seeking authorization under
the Rules. As a consequence it did not bother to maintain the record of
hazardous wastes handled by it in Form 3 and did not submit annual return in
Form 4 on or before the 30th of June of each financial year as per
the Rules. This resulted in a situation wherein Pollution Control Board could
not maintain the register containing particulars of the conditions imposed
under the rules for management of hazardous waste under Section 5 (9) of the
Rules. This provision also stipulates that any person interested or affected or
a person authorized by him can inspect this register during office hours. A
situation has arisen wherein workers and communities of Giddha panchayat and
adjoining areas of Koilwar block has been denied the opportunity to ascertain
the amount and quality of hazardous waste generated by Nibhi company and
correlate it with the human, occupational and environmental health
impacts.
The
Pollution Control Board’s affidavit states that besides this when Nibhi
asbestos company was issued show cause notice under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act,
1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, it chose not to
respond to it.
Not
only this when pursuant to a complaint of ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) to Union
Ministry of Environment & Forests
Government of India through its Regional Office at Ranchi, Bihar
Pollution Control Board re-inspected the factory, it was found that the factory
was in operation in disregard of the closure order from Pollution Control
Board. The non-compliance with Pollution Control Board’s order has inflicted
injury and caused damage to the environment, the counter affidavit of the Board
has submitted.
Pollution
Control Board warned Nibhi company by a letter dated 22 September 2016 stating
that if there will be non-compliance, a compliant will be filed against it
under Section 37 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
In
its affidavit, the Pollution Control Board has submitted that although the
company had the option of filing an appeal before the appellate authority
within 30 days of its order, instead of availing the alternative remedy, it has
chosen to file the case in the High Court. The company had the option of filing
an appeal in the National Green Tribunal if they had felt aggrieved by the
decision of the appellate authority of the Pollution Control Board.
Following
anti-asbestos movement campaign and taking note of the violation of
environmental laws by asbestos factories in Bhojpur, Bihar, BSPCB
cancelled the No Objection Certificate given to the asbestos factory units of
Tamil Nadu based Nibhi Industries Pvt Ltd. Despite such action this factory has
been operating with impunity. The matter was last heard on July 21, 2017. BSPCB
has filed its counter affidavit pursuant to Court’s order dated March 23, 2017.
It is puzzling as to why BIADA has been made a party in the case.
Notably,
BSPCB has revoked its emission-consent order and discharge consent order given
to Tamil Nadu based Nibhi Industries Pvt Ltd which was valid till 31st
March, 2018. Chairman, BSPCB has ordered, the company in question, Nibhi
Industries Pvt Ltd. to “close your industrial unit with immediate effect,
failing which complaints shall be filed u/ss. 44 of the Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and 37 of the Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1981.” This land allotment was considered to be
part of the scam that led to an inquiry into allotments by Bihar Industrial
Area Development Authority (BIADA). In Bhojpur's Giddha village in Koilwar
block, the 100,000 MT Capacity Asbestos Fibre Cement Corrugated Sheet, Flat
Sheet, Accessories and Light Weight Fly Ash Block Plant acquired 15 acres. The
plant site is located adjacent to Ara-Koilwar road.
The
villagers have been complaining against the hazardous factories in their
proximity that manufacture chrysotile white asbestos-cement products. The
hazardous asbestos waste has been dumped indiscriminately in the adjoining
villages and the agricultural fields.
This
company misled the villagers by telling them that agro-based factories will be
set up. Initially, when they bought the land they did not disclose that it was
for asbestos based factories. When students of 10th and 12th
standard found that it was going to be hazardous factory, they pointed out that
as per their biology and chemistry text books asbestos causes incurable lung
diseases.
Given
the fact that No Objection Certificate of all the asbestos based factories in
Bihar has been cancelled by BSPCB, there is no legal basis for the continued
operations of this hazardous factory.
Notably,
questions were raised against these plants in Bihar Vidhan Sabha and Vidhan
Parishad. Abdul Bari Siddiqui, former Bihar Finance Minister had
raised the issue of hazardous asbestos factories in Vidhan Sabha. In another
significant observation Awadhesh Narain Singh as Chairperson, Bihar Legislative
Council (BLC) and former labour minister said, “buying asbestos is akin to
buying cancer” and “pain of asbestos related diseases is worse than the pain of
unemployment.” The speech is available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9TbemRUkYM. He noted that his own B-Ed College affiliated to Aryabhat
University faces threat from this hazardous factory as it is located exactly
behind it. In fact boundary walls alone create two sites wherein at one site a
hazardous and cancer causing factory operations are happening illegally and
illegitimately and on other site education activities are happening threatening
health of teachers and the staff of the college.
It
is noteworthy that this poisonous factory was initially proposed to be set up
at Dharmachak and Salempur, Dhariyapur, Chapra but villagers from there got a
relief when their village site was not selected for such hazardous industrial
activity.
In India, asbestos mining is technically banned and trade
in asbestos waste (dust and fibers) is also banned. Union Environment Ministry’s Vision Statement on
Environment and Human Health reads, "Alternatives to asbestos may be used
to the extent possible and use of asbestos may be phased out" but the
Experts Appraisal Committee of this very ministry continues to give
environmental clearance to such hazardous industries. This is notwithstanding
the fact that "The Government of India is considering the ban on use of
chrysotile asbestos in India to protect workers and the general population
against primary and secondary exposure," as announced in a concept paper
by the Ministry of Labour. Both these documents are available on central
government’s website but struggle to make Indians safe from deadly exposure of
asbestos fibers continues in the face of misinformation campaign of the killer
industry.
As
per Supreme Court's judgment of January 27, 1995 in Writ Petition (Civil)
No.206 of 1986 which was reiterated on January 21, 2011, the State govt has to
comply with fresh ILO, resolution of June, 2006 on Asbestos and the health
records of workers have to be maintained for 40 years and for 15 years after
the retirement. The Judgment also stipulates compensation for such workers who
suffer from asbestos related diseases. In violation of Court's orders, the Nibhi
company has not been maintaining the health record of the workers in its
factory at Giddha, Koilwar. It is not conducting Membrane Filter test to detect
asbestos fibre. It is not insuring health coverage to workers and that the
company does not have qualified occupational health doctors to undertake these
tasks.
There
is a compelling reason to ensure that both these companies in question are
tasked to decontaminate asbestos laden factory sites, building, prepare a
register of victims of asbestos related diseases and announce a compensation
fund for victims of fatal diseases remains to be undertaken. This is required
to save present and future generation from incurable asbestos related diseases.
It was listed for hearing on 8 February 2017, 23 March, 7 April, 12 April, 27April,
5 July, 11 July and 21 July 2017. So far High Court the Nibhi asbestos factory
case has been listed on nine occasions since the filing of the case on
September 1, 2016.
It
may be recalled that after more than five years of villagers' struggle against
lung cancer causing asbestos based plant of West Bengal based Balmukund company
in Chainpur-Bishunpur, Marwan block in Muzaffarpur district of Bihar was
closed. It had approval for 3 lakh ton per annum capacity. Bitter resistance
against the proposal of West Bengal based Utkal Asbestos Limited (UAL) at Chaksultan
Ramppur Rajdhari near Panapur in Kanhauli Dhanraj Panchayat of in Goraul block in Vaishali made the Bihar Chief Minister
Nitish Kumar intervene after a delegation of leaders from Left parties and
anti-asbestos activists met him in this regard. I worked with Khet Bachao
Jeevan Bachao Jan Sangarsh Committee of Muzaffarpur
and Vaishali to resist the setting up such hazardous plants and represented it
in negotiations. Bihar State Pollution Control Board (BSPCB) cancelled the No
Objection Certificate given to the UAL company. It had approval for 2.5 lakh
ton per annum capacity. This company also operated Giddha, Bhojpur based
asbestos factory for some time as well. After he was presented a memorandum
signed by 10, 000 villagers, BSPCB’s Chairman stood his ground against the
factory because it had violated the Battery Limit fixed for such hazardous
industries. Company representatives compared harmful effects of asbestos
exposure to harm from drinking too much alcohol and road accident. This was
emphatically rejected by the villagers as quite insensitive. The peoples
struggle led to stoppage of proposed asbestos based plant of 1.25 lak tons per
annum (TPA) capacity in Pandaul, Sagarpur, Hati tehsil in Madhubani. The
proposal of 2.5 lakh TPA capacity plant by Hyderabad Industries Ltd in Kumar
Bagh, Bettiah, West Champaran has also been stopped. The company has
constructed a boundary wall amidst rich agricultural field but faces court
cases from villagers.
Clearly, Bihar is paving the path
for an asbestos free country like some 60 countries which have banned white
chrysotile asbestos, the key carcinogenic mineral fiber imported from Russia,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Zimbabwe. It is high time other States also took
cognizance of the harmful effect of use, manufacture and trade of asbestos
based products. In a significant development, Kerala Human Rights Commission
has recommended ban on use of asbestos in public buildings. National Human
Rights Commission has observed, “Replace the asbestos sheets roofing with
roofing made up of some other material that would not be harmful to inmates” in
Case No.693/30/97-98.
It is unbecoming of the India’s
scientific stature to take untruthful and unscientific position displaying unpardonable callousness
towards concerns of consumers, public health, workers, environment and human
rights. India should learn from countries that have banned asbestos of all
kinds including white chrysotile asbestos. These countries are: 1) Algeria, 2) Argentina, 3) Australia, 4)
Austria, 5) Bahrain, 6) Belgium, 7) Brunei, 8) Bulgaria, 9) Chile, 10) Croatia, 11) Cyprus, 12) Czech Republic,
13) Denmark, 14) Egypt, 15) Estonia, 16) Finland, 17) France, 18) Gabon, 19) Greece, 20) Germany, 21)
Gibraltar, 22) Hungary, 23) Honduras, 24) Iceland, 25) Iraq, 26) Ireland, 27)
Israel, 28) Italy, 29) Japan, 30) Jordan, 31) Kuwait, 32) Latvia, 33) Luxembourg,
34) Lithuania, 35) Mauritius, 36) Mozambique, 37) Malta, 38) Netherlands, 39)
New Caledonia, 40) New Zealand, 41) Norway, 42) Oman, 43) Portugal, 44) Poland,
45) Qatar, 46) Romania, 47) Saudi Arabia, 48) Sweden, 49) Switzerland, 50) Serbia, 51) Seychelles,
52) Slovakia, 53) Slovenia, 54) South
Africa, 55) South Korea, 56) Spain, 57)
Turkey, 58) Uruguay, 59) United Kingdom and 60) Ukraine.
Although domestic laws in India recognize
white chrysotile asbestos as hazardous, the Union Government has been taking
inconsistent position in this regard in UN meetings. Government should take
steps to rectify the blunder it has committed by immorally and illegitimately
denying right to know about hazardous substances to present and future Indians.
It should factor in views of health and environment ministers to pave the way
for creating a future which is free of incurable hazardous asbestos related
diseases. Indian laws include asbestos
in the list of hazardous substances but tremendous influence of commercial
interests has forced the Indian delegation to take a position which is
diametrically opposite of domestic laws.
It is hoped that India will learn
from anti-asbestos struggles in Bihar and revise its position at the next meeting
of UN’s Rotterdam Convention on the prior informed consent procedure for
certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade in 2019 to
defend democratic right of people to be protected from hazardous substances.
The listing of white chrysotile asbestos in the UN list of hazardous substances
helps in better protection of public health and environment. India should
refrain from taking positions which is contrary to its own domestic law.
Nibhi's hazardous cancer causing factory is situated in front of the Trident B.Ed College, Giddha, Koilwar, Bhojpur affiliated to Arybhatt Knowledge University, Patna. The college has 6 acres of land situated at Giddha Industrial Growth Center. It is at a distance of 50 kms from the state capital on NH 30. There is just a brick boundary separating the factory and the Be. Ed college. In order is safeguard the teachers and staff of this college, the company should be made to decontaminate the site of the factory before moving away after the High Court's verdict.
TWA's complaint against Gidhha based asbestos factory
Written By mediavigil on Saturday, June 04, 2016 | 2:07 AM
To
Chairperson,
Bihar Human Rights Commission
Chairperson,
Bihar Human Rights Commission
9, Bailey Road, Patna
Date: 3rd June, 2016
Subject- illegal
operation of asbestos factory in Giddha, Koilwar, Bhojpur
Sir,
With due respect being an applicant before the Commission in the ongoing Case No. BHRC/Comp. 313/14 related to asbestos company in Bihiya, Bhojpur I wish to inform you about the illegal operation of an asbestos factory in Giddha, Koilwar, Bhojpur that has been reported in Aaj newspaper dated June 3, 2016 at page 2. The news clipping is attached. It may be recalled that in my complaint dated February 13, 2014 I had made submission about this Giddha based hazardous factory.
With due respect being an applicant before the Commission in the ongoing Case No. BHRC/Comp. 313/14 related to asbestos company in Bihiya, Bhojpur I wish to inform you about the illegal operation of an asbestos factory in Giddha, Koilwar, Bhojpur that has been reported in Aaj newspaper dated June 3, 2016 at page 2. The news clipping is attached. It may be recalled that in my complaint dated February 13, 2014 I had made submission about this Giddha based hazardous factory.
This
news report reveals that although the factory was sealed by the district
administration amidst violations of environmental laws and disregard towards
public health, the company disregarded the order of the district administration
and chose to operate the factory in violation of every rule in the rulebook.
I submit that I
have made several complaints against this factory of Tamil Nadu based Nibhi
Industries Pvt. Ltd with One Lakh MT Capacity Asbestos Fiber Cement Corrugated
Sheet, Flat Sheet and Accessories and Light Weight Fly Ash Block Plant at
Giddha, Koilwar, Bhojpur. These complaints are pending with the District
Administration. The asbestos based factory at Giddha, Koilwar is also in
proximity of human habitation is exactly in front of Trident BEd College. One
worker was crushed to death in this factory in June 2013. It also violates the
environmental and industrial siting guidelines of Bihar State Pollution Control
Board. It may be noted that written submissions have been submitted to District
Collector seeking removal of the plant. It may be noted that Paryawaran Bachao
Jeewan Bachao Sangharsh Morcha, Paryawaran Swasthya Suraksha Samiti and Ban
Asbestos Network of India (BANI) have been raising the issue of hazards from
such hazardous factories in the interest of public health.
I submit that
although environmental clearance given by Experts Appraisal
Committee-Industrial Projects, Union Ministry of Environment & Forests and
No Objection Certificate given by Bihar State Pollution Control Board is not
transferrable, Nibhi company had transferred it to Utkal Asbestos Limited (UAL)
for operating the plant. This is clearly in violation of established rules.
I submit that
in contempt of Hon’ble Supreme Court's order dated January 27, 1995, the Nibhi
Industries has not been maintaining and maintaining the health record of every
worker, nor has it been conducting Membrane Filter test to detect asbestos
fibre. It has not been insuring health coverage to every worker. It is reliably
learnt that the company does not have qualified occupational health doctors to
undertake these tasks. This order was reiterated on January 21, 2011 by the
Court. It has been referred to by Hon’ble Patna High Court as well in Civil
Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9064 of 2013 and related cases.
I submit that the villagers’ living in the vicinity of this hazardous factory face threat of lung related diseases contracted exposure from asbestos fibers that cause incurable diseases. This happens because safe and controlled use of white chrysotile asbestos like its other varieties is impossible which has led to more than 50 countries banning its use.
I
submit that there is a need to ask the owner of the Gidhha based factory to
submit the record of each worker who
has worked in the factory in question. I submit that the district
administration may be asked to submit the health records of all the workers who
are working in this factory. The company should be asked for a list of workers
employed in the factory, their health records and the qualification of the
doctor assigned to undertake their health checkup. It is important to order a
health survey of the villagers who live in the vicinity of this hazardous
factory. The educational institutions like teachers’ training institutes like
Trident B-Ed College and Bihar B-Ed College also needs to be surveyed in this
regard. This is necessary because both World Health Organisation (WHO) and
International Labour Organisation (ILO) have recommended total elimination of
its mining, manufacturing and use. WHO document is attached. It may be noted
that mining of asbestos is technically banned in India but the asbestos based
factories procure raw asbestos mineral fiber from countries like Russia. It is
one of the pernicious and residual legacies of the old era.
I submit that the January 27, 1995 and January 21, 2011 orders of Supreme Court make it clear that State Governments and Government of India have to comply with fresh ILO resolution of June 2006 on asbestos. ILO resolution is available at
I submit that
health is a State subject. The issue in question is concerned the human rights
of the present and future generations. In fact in the Hon’ble Supreme Court's
judgment of January 27, 1995 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 206 of 1986 [CERC Vs
Union of India] that dealt with asbestos exposure, right to health was declared
as part of fundamental right to life. As per Court's judgment of January 27,
1995 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 206 of 1986 which was reiterated on January
21, 2011, the health records of workers have to be maintained for 40 years and
for 15 years after the retirement. The judgment also stipulates compensation
for such workers who suffer from asbestos related diseases.
I also wish to draw your attention towards Hon'ble Patna High Court’s observation dated August 19, 2013 in its order in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9064 of 2013 saying, “...In the circumstances, this Court is really surprised with the stand of the State Board that the norms have been relaxed for the two other asbestos manufacturing units in operation from before, only on the ground that they are running in the respective industrial areas." These two units are the ones based in Giddha, Koilwar, Bhojpur and Bihiya, Bhojpur. It is a commentary on the inconsistency of the Bihar State Pollution Control Board (BSPCB).
In the light of
the observation of the Hon’ble High Court it is abundantly that Bihar State
Pollution Control Board (BSPCB) is adopting double standards in the matter of
cancellation of Consent to Establish-cum- No Objection Certificate (NOC) given
to asbestos companies in Bhojpur and Vaishali. The two companies -namely, Tamil
Nadu based Ramco Industries and Nibhi Industries -mentioned by the Court are
located in Bihiya and Giddha, Koilwar of Bhojpur district. BSPCB has cancelled
the NOC of West Bengal based Utkal Asbestos Limited (UAL)'s proposed asbestos
based plant in Vaishali for violating environmental and industrial siting
guidelines of BSPCB.
I submit that through a letter dated December 26, 2013, BSPCB has refused to extend the Consent to Establish (NOC) given to West Bengal based Utkal Asbestos Limited (UAL)'s proposed asbestos based plant in Vaishali but it has remained silent about the asbestos plants in Bhojpur. That the cancellation of the proposed asbestos factory in Vaishali was done in pursuance of the assurance of Hon’ble Chief Minister, Government of Bihar to a delegation of anti-asbestos activists and political leaders that met him at his residence on February 13, 2013. Hon’ble Chief Minister promised that he will puncture such hazardous plants in the fertile land of Bihar. This has been done in Muzaffarpur and Vaishali but it remains to be followed in Bhojpur. While BSPCB has done the right thing by citing its battery limit of "a distance of minimum 500 meters from the National/State Highway, Railway line, river and human habitation" to outlaw the proposal of a asbestos company, the same should be applied to asbestos based toxic factories in Bhojpur. No amount of sophistry by the companies operating in Bhojpur and some officials in BSPCB can undermine the gnawing anxiety about risk and hazardous consequences underlined by WHO and ILO which has sought elimination of manufacturing and use of asbestos based products.
I submit that communities in villages around the hazardous industrial unit in Giddha cannot be expected to become superior risk bearers unlike villagers of Muzaffarpur and Vaishali where similar plants have been stopped.
I submit that when defending the indefensible asbestos factories becomes a compulsion of officialdom, disasters like the one witnessed in the Bhopal based factory of Union Carbide Corporation (UCC)'s hazardous pesticide plant become the order of the day. UCC was also in the asbestos business whose liability has been owned by its buyer US based Dow Chemicals Company and assigned $ 2.2 billion dollars for compensation fund to the victims in US where 10, 000 people are dying every year from asbestos related diseases.
I wish to draw your attention towards the attached order of Kerala State Human Rights Commission (KHRC) dated January 31, 2009 against use of asbestos. Its recommendations are: “a) The State Government will replace asbestos roofs of all school buildings under its control with country tiles in a phased manner. b) The Government will take steps to see that the schools run under the private management also replace the asbestos roofs with country tiles by fixing a time frame. c) The Government should see that in future no new school is allowed to commence its functions with asbestos roofs.”
It is relevant to note that in Case No.693/30/97-98, National Human Rights Commission
(NHRC) ordered, “Replace the asbestos sheets roofing with roofing made up of
some other material that would not be harmful to inmates.” It is evident that
the NHRC considers asbestos sheets as harmful.
It is
noteworthy that asbestos fibers used for making asbestos cement roofs etc is a
ticking time bomb for lungs which causes preventable but incurable diseases and
deaths.
In view of the above facts, I seek Commission's
intervention in the matter for providing relief to the workers of the asbestos
based factory in question and save the villagers of Bhojpur from such hazardous
plants. The company may be asked to undertake decontamination of the site and
compensation for exposing the villagers of Giddha to asbestos fibers in the
interest of present and future generations.
I will be happy to share more information.
Thanking You
Yours faithfully
Dr Gopal Krishna
Director
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
Mb:
09818089660, 08227816731
E-mail:1715krishna@gmail.com
Web: www.toxicswatch.org
Web: www.toxicswatch.org