The Fight for Workers Dealing with Asbestos Exposure

Posted on May 17, 2013 by Steven Kazan

In countries such as the U.S., certain conveniences are often taken for granted, including cars, plumbing and electricity. In the hustle and bustle of everyday life, we rarely think about the amount of work and labor that went into producing these goods. Such a thought becomes poignant when we remember that some workers deal with asbestos exposure and other hazardous materials during the manufacturing process.

It’s important for us at Kazan Law to take time out and remember to honor these workers, and remind ourselves of why we’re trying to reduce the threat of asbestos exposure at home and around the world. That’s why, on April 28, we joined an international collection of labor unions in solidarity as we commemorated Workers’ Memorial Day as well as World Day for Safety and Health at Work.

Organizations push for better working conditions
When it comes to industries such as construction or manufacturing, the health hazards that workers face go above and beyond the everyday stress that people in other sectors face. Not only are some of these jobs physically demanding, but they also expose workers to certain hazardous materials, including asbestos.

Every year, on April 28, unions such as the AFL-CIO celebrate Workers’ Memorial Day to remember individuals who died because of disease or injuries they suffered while on the job. These incidents are sometimes the product of negligence on the part of irresponsible employers. Workers’ Memorial Day reminds us of the importance of speaking up for these individuals and correcting the mistakes that cost them their lives.

In that spirit, the International Labour Organization also designated April 28 as World Day for Safety and Health at Work. The ILO notes that every year, 2.34 million individuals around the world die from job-related causes. Of these casualties, 2.02 million are caused by diseases, including malignant mesothelioma and asbestosis.

This means that, on average, one person dies every 15 seconds because of a work-related accident or sickness. Developing countries are disproportionately hit because of the prominence that hazardous industries such as construction and mining have within their economies.

These trends are not only upsetting because they hurt the global economy – there’s also an immeasurable human cost for those who die, as well as the loved ones they leave behind.

However, April 28 reminds us of the importance of letting workers have a voice in unions, and collecting good data that holds industries accountable for their practices.

Kazan Law fights for workers
When it comes to asbestos-related diseases alone, the World Health Organization estimates that these illnesses claim more than 107,000 lives every year because of occupational asbestos exposure. The agency is working with intergovernmental groups around the planet to solve this problem by curbing asbestos use, encouraging the use of safer alternative materials and supporting research toward better treatments.

Our law firm is happy to stand by such causes. On a more local level, we also fight irresponsible companies who unscrupulously expose their workers to asbestos. Some of our recent victories include the cases of an auto mechanic for the Ford Motor Company in Hayward, Calif., a PG&E laborer, a machinist and a welder. All of these individuals were exposed to asbestos without receiving adequate warning or protection from the dangers involved, and we succeeded in persuading juries to award them a more-than-combined $20 million in damages.

Still, it would have been best if none of them were exposed to asbestos in the first place. This is why it’s important to continue fighting for the safety of all workers around the world.

Honoring the 2013 Broussard Scholarship Recipients

Posted on May 14, 2013 by Steven Kazan

From left, Steven Kazan, Scholar Evelyn Rangel-Medina, Scholar Chris Ballard, Scholar Tenette Smith, Broussard Board member Jill Dessalines, Scholar Marlene Benedict

Last week the Alameda County Superior Court and the Allen E. Broussard Scholarship Foundation co-sponsored Alameda County Superior Court Law Day, where the recipients of the 2013 Broussard Scholarship were honored at the Law Day Student Luncheon. The Kazan, McClain, Abrams, Fernandez, Lyons, Greenwood, Oberman, Satterley & Bosl Foundation was pleased to support the Allen E. Broussard Scholarship Foundation and the funding of one of this year’s scholarships.

The Allen E. Broussard Scholarship Fund was established in 1996 after the death of California Supreme Court Associate Justice Allen E. Broussard, and was incorporated as the Allen E. Broussard Scholarship Foundation in 1999. The goal of the foundation is to continue Justice Broussard’s work in the minority community in assisting young lawyers in their pursuit of a career in the legal profession.

Having served as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Allen E. Broussard Law School Scholarship Foundation for over a decade, it pleases me each year to present three or more academically well qualified students from economically deprived backgrounds with a $5,000 scholarship. This award is the largest private scholarship award for law students attending California Bay Area law schools. Four students received the award this year.

2013 Broussard Scholarship Awards

Chris Ballard was raised in the San Joaquin Valley city of Wasco, California. Overcoming the struggles of poverty, he went on to study Politics and Business at California State University, Fresno. Upon graduating, Mr. Ballard turned down a position on Wall Street to work as a Community Organizer for a non-profit organization helping people who were losing their homes. He was appointed as Planning Commissioner for the City of Wasco, the youngest in California history and the first African-American to do so in Wasco. Mr. Ballard will be studying at UC Hastings College of the Law this fall.

Marlene E. Benedict is the first American-born member of her family, who immigrated to the United States from Managua, Nicaragua in the 1980s. Growing up in a working class neighborhood in the East Bay, she is committed to practicing public service law close to her hometown. Ms. Benedict received her Bachelors of Arts degree in Political Science and History from UC Santa Barbara and is attending the University of San Francisco School of Law. She believes that advocating for the rights of marginalized communities and facilitating how legal services are administered to the general public is her calling.

Evelyn Rangel-Medina is the first person in her family to graduate from college. She graduated magna cum laude from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, where she attained three B.A.’s in Women’s Studies, English and Political Science. A 2013-2014 Phoenix Fellow of the Berkeley Law Foundation, she will enter the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. Ms. Rangel-Medina is the co-founder and former president of the United Coalition for Immigrant Rights (UCIR). She also worked as Policy Director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, where she successfully advocated the creation of the Climate Change Community Benefits Fund. After law school, she plans to become a public interest lawyer and work for transformative social and political change.

Tenette Smith was born and raised in Modesto, California where she lived with her mother and sister. She received her Bachelor’s Degree in Business Administration from San Diego State University and her degree in Paralegal Studies from Cuyamaca College while working at the San Diego Superior Court. Ms. Smith is in her first year at the University of San Francisco School of Law. She is interested in pursuing a career in public interest law. This summer she will intern at the Federal Defender’s Office in Little Rock, Arkansas as a part of the Keta Taylor Colby Death Penalty Project.

Rotterdam Convention a Scandal

Posted on May 10, 2013 by Steven Kazan

A press release came across my desk this morning that is alarming to the protection of humanity. Today marks the final day of the Rotterdam Convention, a global treaty which promotes open exchange of information between countries and calls on exporters of hazardous chemicals to use proper labeling, include directions on safe handling, and inform purchasers of any known restrictions or bans.

This sixth meeting of the Rotterdam Conference began on April 28^th in Geneva, Switzerland. Now for the fourth time, a handful of countries allied to the asbestos industry have refused to allow chrysotile asbestos to be added to the Convention’s list of hazardous substances, even though the Convention’s expert scientific committee has repeatedly recommended that it be listed. In the previous meeting of the conference in 2001, Canada was the only Western country that refused to allow the addition of chrysotile asbestos to the Rotterdam Convention.

Kathleen Ruff, co-coordinator of the Rotterdam Convention reports “It is outrageous that seven countries – Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, Zimbabwe, India and Vietnam –are turning the Rotterdam Convention into a Convention that protects profits of the asbestos industry, instead of protecting human health and the environment.”

In her report, my sister, Laurie Kazan-Allen, coordinator of the International Ban Asbestos Secretariat describes this ruthless conduct as the end of innocence. “The Convention requires that countries practice responsible trade by obtaining prior informed consent before they export hazardous substances to another country. But these seven countries are determined to practice irresponsible trade and to hide the hazards of chrysotile asbestos,” said Laurie.

Last year, an Italian court sentenced two asbestos executives to 16 years in jail for criminally suppressing information about the hazards of asbestos. Their crime resulted in up to 3000 deaths, including citizens living near their asbestos-cement factories.

“By not listing chrysotile asbestos, the Convention is enabling the industry to carry on the same criminal cover-up of the hazards of chrysotile asbestos, which will result in hundreds of thousands more tragic deaths, which could and should be prevented,” said Dr. Barry Castleman, former consultant on asbestos to the World Bank. “This is a crime against humanity and the whole world should be scandalized.”

Asbestos Exposure Warnings for Mining Operations

Posted on May 8, 2013 by Steven Kazan

In some parts of the country, the economic climate has forced several communities to consider drastic actions to revive their job sectors. For some regions, this means turning to mining. This isn’t a decision to take lightly, because mining can wreck the local environment. Also, depending on what the local rock ores and soil are made of, the mining operations can potentially put the surrounding communities at risk of asbestos exposure.

Whenever these proposals pop up, it’s no wonder that local residents and experts often become worried. In Wisconsin, where a state Senate bill would approve the establishment of iron mines, one retired geologist wrote in to a local newspaper, explaining that these operations would be a mistake for a number of reasons – asbestos exposure being one of them.

Where is asbestos found?
One of the troubles of mining for isolated minerals like iron is that the miners have to tear through other ores and minerals to get to what they want. If this rock includes asbestos, that can mean trouble for the workers and residents.

Naturally occurring asbestos can be found in certain layers of rock that lie near fault zones. In these areas, asbestos can make up between 1 and 25 percent of the volume of rock and soil.

Mineral fibers usually don’t pose a threat to local people unless they’re disturbed, and a mining operation is certain to put people at risk.

Geologist questions the pros and cons
Neil Koch, a retired geologist, wrote an editorial for the Dunn County News in Wisconsin. He took issue with state Senate Bill 1, which would open the way for a pit iron mine in northern Wisconsin. Although such an industry would create more jobs and lead to the establishment of more retail businesses to accommodate economic growth, Koch said the benefits cannot last forever. In fact, he anticipates it becoming non-profitable at a certain point, and once the miners leave, the local residents will be left devastated.

For one thing, the mining operations are likely to rip asbestos fibers out of the soil, therefore increasing people’s risks of diseases such as malignant pleural mesothelioma and lung cancer. Also, the machinery and waste rock involved in mining would contaminate the local air and bodies of water with chemical hazards such as mercury and arsenic.

Koch said that he’d seen other mining towns go in this direction in the past, and he’s afraid that communities in Wisconsin won’t be able to recover once they’ve exhausted the land’s resources. He also pointed out that rates of mesothelioma tend to be higher in areas such as the former mining communities in northern Minnesota, compared to the rest of the country.

Keep soil and dirt out of your house
Researchers have known about the health risks associated with asbestos exposure since the early 20th century. Since then, the asbestos industry has fought scientists every step of the way in their efforts to protect the general public from asbestos-containing materials.

If you’re worried about how to keep asbestos-tainted soil and dust out of the house, there are several ways you can protect yourself from asbestos exposure:

Walk, run, bike or hike only on paved ground.
Make sure your children only play on ground that’s covered in mulch, grass, sand, wood chips, grass, asphalt or rubber.
Pave over any unpaved areas that surround your house.
Place doormats outside each entrance so that people and pets can wipe their feet before entering.
Keep your windows and doors closed on windy days.
Vacuum your carpet using only products that have HEPA filters.
Use only wet rags or mops to dust or clean non-carpeted areas.

It’s unfortunate that you, as the consumers, need to know how to protect yourself from unscrupulous and irresponsible businesses. If you think this is unfair too, let your lawmakers know how you feel about the dangers of asbestos exposure.

Asbestos Cement a Life-Threatening Issue for Workers

Posted on May 6, 2013 by Steven Kazan

One part of history that never fails to anger me is that despite the federal government’s efforts to curb asbestos exposure during the 1970s and 1980s, policies that banned a wide range of asbestos-containing products were short-lived. Thanks to the relentless efforts of industries, a large number of items are still allowed to be manufactured with asbestos in the U.S. Many of these products are made with asbestos cement.

The people who live or work in the structures that were built with asbestos cement aren’t the only ones who need to worry about their health. Over the years, a number of studies have shown that the employees of the actual asbestos cement plants also have to be concerned.

Why does some cement contain asbestos?
For centuries, civilization has used asbestos because it’s strong and resistant to heat, friction and certain chemicals. By the mid-1970s, it was used in the manufacturing of more than 3,000 commercial and industrial products.

In 1989, the federal Environmental Protection Agency tried to enact policies that would have reduced asbestos use in the U.S. by about 94 percent, but two years later, the asbestos industry successfully reversed many of these regulations. As a result, manufacturers are still allowed to use the mineral to create cement products such as pipes, sheets and shingles.

That’s bad news for workers who have to actually make these products. Asbestos is sometimes added to cement mixes because the mineral fibers help keep the material from cracking.

Plant workers are at risk for respiratory diseases
For decades, scientists have been worried about the health of asbestos cement plant workers around the world, including the U.S. In the 1980s, researchers from Louisiana conducted studies on the health of individuals who worked in one of two asbestos cement plants in the state. The scientists discovered that the rates of malignant mesothelioma and lung cancer were higher among people who worked in the one facility that actually manufactured asbestos cement pipes, particularly if they were employed there for more than one year.

The workers who enter the plant on a daily basis aren’t the only ones at risk. In Japan, researchers found that the residents who live near these facilities are also in danger, even after they close down. I found one study in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine that estimated that, from 1970 to 2049, between 296 and 382 people who lived around the asbestos cement plant near Amagasaki City will die from mesothelioma caused by exposure to the mineral fibers.

Other studies I’ve read have shown that asbestos exposure has one thing in common with tobacco use: The sooner that exposure stops, the lower the risk for future health problems. One research paper from Italy demonstrated that once asbestos cement plant employees stopped working, their risk of death from lung cancer dropped. Also, the study showed that the odds of these workers developing malignant pleural mesothelioma decreased once the possible latency period for their disease passed 40 years. However, the risk of malignant peritoneal mesothelioma continued to climb.

Personally, I find it rather appalling that companies around the world continue to use asbestos in the face of all the science that shows how dangerous it is. This goes to show you how powerful and influential the asbestos lobby can be.

But no one at Kazan Law is giving up the fight, and neither should you. If you’re as angry as we are, you should contact your lawmakers and tell them to take a stronger stance against the asbestos industry while increasing funding for medical research on asbestos-induced diseases.

In the meantime, workers need to keep themselves educated about their rights to protect themselves from asbestos exposure on the job.

United States’ Failed Asbestos Ban

Posted on May 2, 2013 by Steven Kazan

Whenever scientists discover that a chemical utilized in the manufacturing of products is actually harmful to people who use them, they may push public health or government officials to curb use of that chemical. When it comes to an asbestos ban, I’m often left with the following question: Why hasn’t the American government banned the use of asbestos? The mineral has been tied to an increased risk of deadly diseases, including malignant mesothelioma and lung cancer, so why hasn’t the government done anything about it?

The answer is that the government did institute an asbestos ban – but the asbestos industry succeeded in pulling most of the teeth out of this ban. Not only was this disappointing for all of us at Kazan Law, but it also continues the incidence of asbestos-related diseases to this day.

Tackling the asbestos ban problem

Asbestos fibers are carcinogenic, meaning that once they enter the body and settle into the tissues, they cause changes in the cells that can lead to the development of cancer. This is especially true for the organs of the respiratory system, a fact that scientists have known for more than 70 years.

One of the earliest government actions against the asbestos industry took place in 1973, when the Environmental Protection Agency banned the use of spray-applied asbestos material for the purposes of fireproofing or insulation. Over the next four years, this asbestos ban expanded to include wrap and block insulation for boilers and hot water tanks, artificial fireplace embers and wall patch compounds.

In 1979, the EPA announced that it was considering regulation of asbestos under the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA. Members of the asbestos industry objected because they argued it would put people out of work. When the EPA caved in 1984 and said it would defer regulation to other government agencies, employees of the EPA protested publicly because they knew how dangerous asbestos was. This led the EPA to reverse its position.

A potential victory dies in court

By 1989, the EPA made a sweeping ban of all asbestos use after the completion of a 10-year study on the dangers of the mineral. This policy under the TSCA law would’ve curbed asbestos use by 94 percent, removing the mineral from the manufacturing of roofing materials, insulation and car brakes, and using safer alternative materials.

However, the sweeping victory was short-lived. Members of the American and Canadian asbestos industry took the TSCA asbestos ban to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in the manufacturers’ favor. Nowhere in the court’s ruling did it dispute the fact that asbestos can potentially cause cancer.

As it stands now, asbestos isn’t allowed in products such as commercial paper and flooring felt. It can still be used to make a large variety of items, including cement shingles, disk brake pads, automatic transmission components, roof coating and vinyl floor tiles.

Asbestos is no longer mined in the U.S., but our country does import more than 1,000 tons of the mineral every year.

Thus far, government efforts to control asbestos consumption in the U.S. have been gravely disappointing, but the lack of meaningful progress doesn’t mean that we should give up the fight against irresponsible industries. The Environmental Working Group encourages you to act by contacting your federal legislators and voicing your concerns about the dangers of asbestos.

On a global scale, the World Health Organization is working with various intergovernmental agencies to reduce occupational exposure to asbestos, which claims the lives of more than 107,000 people internationally every year. These efforts include educational campaigns on materials that can substitute for asbestos and support for research into the prevention and treatment of asbestos-related diseases.

The Asbestos Lobby: Kazan Law and Consumers Fight Back

Posted on May 1, 2013 by Steven Kazan

The global asbestos industry through the asbestos lobby is desperate to make consumers forget that their business is tied to increasing rates of deadly diseases such as malignant mesothelioma. Proponents’ attempts to flat-out deny this link have shown that they are not above using faulty science to deceive lawmakers or the general public, no matter the cost.

However, that’s not to say that people are helpless to do anything – far from it. As we all know, education is the best way to fight deception and protect ourselves.

The asbestos lobby wants to get a foothold in the developing world

As if it weren’t bad enough that the asbestos lobby essentially rendered federal laws reducing asbestos use toothless, proponents are also pushing for the use of the mineral in nations such as Brazil, China and India. There are several things that are disturbing about these efforts.

Studies are showing that the incidence of mesothelioma and other asbestos-induced diseases eventually shift downstream, from the miners and manufacturers to the carpenters, plumbers and other tradespeople who have to handle the material. This same pattern can eventually emerge in nations that still mine asbestos.

Organizations that lobby for the asbestos industry have sometimes suggested that knowledge of the risks associated with asbestos leads to the possibility of handling the mineral safely. However, in developing nations, the regulations needed to enforce safety measures are rarely in place.

Perhaps most disturbing, though, is the fact that science hasn’t proved that there’s a safe level of exposure to chrysotile asbestos. If even minute amounts of this mineral can cause cancer, there’s no denying that it has to be banned.

Still, the chrysotile asbestos lobby has fought large-scale government efforts to crack down on asbestos use. That doesn’t mean that consumers should give up the fight.

Kazan Law stands up for consumers

Time and again, the courts have listened to us at Kazan Law when we told them how maliciously irresponsible companies have disregarded the health of consumers and tradespeople.

We first beat the “chrysotile is safe” defense argument almost 40 years ago. There are a couple of recent examples. In 2010, we represented a mesothelioma patient who worked with Rockbestos brand wire insulation as a machinist from 1969 to 1971, as did his mother before him. A jury ruled that Rockbestos ignored more than 60 years’ worth of scientific evidence linking asbestos to mesothelioma, and that the company demonstrated malice in failing to warn customers about the risks until 1979.

In 2011, we proved to a jury that brake manufacturer Pneumo Abex was aware of the ties between asbestos and cancer since at least the 1940s, but failed to warn consumers or brake specialists. When a part-man from Oakland developed the deadly disease, we represented him.

These juries awarded more than $20 million for our clients.

We don’t just act locally, though. We have a proud history of supporting scientific studies that develop better treatments for mesothelioma. During the most recent meeting of the International Mesothelioma Interest Group, several researchers presented work that they completed with our financial help. These included efforts to enhance the immune system’s response against cancer cells and manipulate genes associated with the development of mesothelioma.

We also support global efforts to ban the use of asbestos. We work closely with the International Ban Asbestos Secretariat, which helps organize educational conferences all around the world.

If you find yourself wondering whether you, too, can help fight the chrysotile asbestos industry and the asbestos lobby, remember that you have a voice as well. Don’t keep your concerns, frustrations and anger to yourself. Put them to good use and contact your lawmakers to let them know how you feel about these issues. If you want to spread the word, write a letter to the editorial section of your local newspaper and tell your story about how asbestos exposure has impacted your life.

It’s guaranteed that you’re not alone, and the influence of the asbestos lobby is nothing compared to the collective voice of everyday people like you. Send a copy to us and we will publish it online!

Asbestos Containing Products Still Manufactured Today

Posted on April 26, 2013 by Steven Kazan

Public awareness about the dangers of asbestos containing products is increasing. Storms on the East Coast drew attention to the presence of the material in the wreckage, while movies and TV shows, ranging from 1994’s “With Honors” to Fox TV’s “Bones,” have portrayed the devastating effects that asbestos can have on people who inhale the deadly mineral fibers.

Even the federal government has been taking notice lately – it declared the first week of April National Asbestos Awareness Week.

So with all the attention surrounding this hazard, many of Kazan Law’s clients are left with certain questions: Why is asbestos still allowed in manufacturing in the U.S., and what products contain it?

Two decades of incremental work

For more than 70 years, scientists have found evidence that asbestos has potentially deadly effects on the human body. However, it wasn’t until 1973 that the federal government started to crack down on asbestos use. That year, the Environmental Protection Agency banned the use of spray-on asbestos as fireproofing and insulation material. Throughout the rest of the decade, the EPA forbade the use of asbestos from more products, including boilers, hot water tanks, artificial fireplace embers and wall patching compounds.

The big push came, though, in 1989, when the EPA banned most asbestos containing products. However, the asbestos industry challenged the law, and the federal appeals court removed most of the teeth in these policies two years later.

Currently, the EPA bans asbestos from being used in corrugated paper, commercial paper, specialty paper, flooring felt and rollboard. Also, companies cannot introduce asbestos into the production processes of items that were never made with the material in the past.

More than 1,000 tons a year for asbestos containing products

Asbestos hasn’t been mined in the U.S. since 2002. However, the country still imports the mineral from nations like Brazil, which still mines it. During the last three years, the U.S. took in more than 1,000 tons of asbestos annually.

So where does it all go? The U.S. Geological Survey lists the chloroalkali industry as the leading user of asbestos, consuming 57 percent of mineral sources. This business uses asbestos for devices that convert brine into chlorine because the material is strong and resistant to acids and bases.

As for the rest of the asbestos that comes into the U.S., unfortunately, some industries are still allowed to manufacture certain asbestos containing products. These include, but are not limited to:

Cement corrugated sheets
Cement flat sheets
Cement pipe
Pipeline wrap
Vinyl floor tiles
Automatic transmission components
Clutch facings
Disk brake pads
Drum brake linings
Gaskets
Roof coatings
Roofing felt
Clothing

There is no excuse for this because there are many suitable substitutes for asbestos. These may include carbon fiber, cellulose fiber, steel fiber, glass fiber, talc and silica.

Needless to say, we here at Kazan law find all of this greatly disturbing. There is no safe level of asbestos exposure, so the fact that it’s still used in manufacturing is appalling. But if you’re as perturbed as we are, you may be able to help: Channel your anger and frustration into positive action. One way to do this is to contact your federal legislators and ask them to support policies such as the outright banning of asbestos containing products and widespread federally supported health screening.

The Chrysotile Asbestos Lobby: Denying Scientific Truth

Posted on April 25, 2013 by Steven Kazan

For more than 70 years, scientists have released study after study demonstrating how all forms of asbestos, particularly including the chrysotile form, are dangerous because they cause fatal diseases such as malignant mesothelioma and lung cancer. Between this research and the growing amount of outrage coming from consumers, it would be reasonable to expect every government in the world to ban the production, mining, and sale of the material.

Yet the fact remains that asbestos continues to be used in the manufacturing of many products around the world. It’s a fact that’s quite appalling to us at Kazan Law.

Why is this allowed to happen? This continuing use of asbestos can largely be chalked up to the continuing efforts of the asbestos lobby to undermine credible science.

Industry buys good face for five decades

For all practical reasons, the asbestos industry should have folded under the overwhelming evidence implicating the mineral in the deaths of people who developed diseases resulting from asbestos exposure. One of the reasons why the industry has survived is the presence of a few studies that suggest chrysotile asbestos is relatively safe to use. McGill University in Canada, which bought and paid for, is one institution that released such research.

Of course, there’s a problem with these studies: They were conducted with the use of funding from the asbestos industry, often concealed, dating all the way back to the 1960s. Even though the university asserted that its experiments demonstrating the relative safety of chrysotile asbestos were replicated, experts from the University of Alberta pointed out that the only studies that were able to achieve this were also funded by the asbestos industry.

What does the most recent data tell us about chrysotile asbestos?

These studies are only a small fraction of the number that was conducted on chrysotile asbestos. One team of scientists from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, decided to take a view of the larger picture by conducting a worldwide review of research papers that discussed chrysotile asbestos and mesothelioma.

The review, which was published in the Annals of Epidemiology in 2012, concluded that chrysotile asbestos is linked to cases of mesothelioma from all around the world, and that a global ban of all types of asbestos in an effort to stop an epidemic is warranted.

Still, the industry has proven itself stubborn and outright unethical.

Asbestos stakeholders are dragging scientists down

One of the latest examples of the asbestos industry’s questionable ethics was the execution of the Chrysotile Asbestos: Risk Assessment and Management conference in Ukraine in 2012. Russia is the world’s lead producer of asbestos fiber and its asbestos industry has great government support. What made the event especially baffling was the fact that not only did organizers send an invitation to a scientist from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a division of the World Health Organization, but also that she accepted.

Members of the IARC defended the decision of the scientist, Valerie McCormack, by saying the conference was an opportunity for her to present the latest research on the dangers of chrysotile asbestos. However, critics pointed out that the study she was scheduled to present was out of date and undersold the true level of risk.

The involvement of the IARC in this conference tarnishes the agency’s name, but perhaps more importantly, it provides the Russian asbestos industry with some much-needed cover. This month, the Rotterdam Convention will convene, and participating nations all around the world will decide whether to require warnings on asbestos shipped from one country to another.

However, it’s important not to be discouraged by these developments. The asbestos industry may be able to buy good face, but in the end, it cannot buy good science, or truth, both of which stand with the victims, who have the power to fight back.

Countries Band Together to Say No to Toxic Ship Dumping

Posted on April 18, 2013 by Steven Kazan

Whether we’re talking about old naval ships that served the U.S. in the Vietnam War or once-magnificent cruise ships that outlived their shine, the fact is that large maritime vessels need to be properly disposed of when they’re no longer useful – the keyword being “properly.” Too many times, countries around the world cut corners when they get rid of their ships. Not only are these practices not environmentally friendly, but they also needlessly put people at risk of exposure to asbestos and other toxins.

That’s why I’ve found it so encouraging to learn that more than 30 non-government organizations in Europe are pushing for the European Parliament to create a continental fund that supports green policies for ship recycling.

90 percent of old ships are dumped on the developing world
One of the reasons why current ship breaking practices make us at Kazan Law so angry is that these responsibilities are often dumped on developing countries. In fact, the Center for Land Use Interpretation, or CLUI, estimates that 90 percent of the world’s ships are sent to Pakistan, Bangladesh and India to be broken apart.

What’s the danger there? For one thing, many old ships used asbestos as a form of insulation in their engine rooms and other areas. People who work to break the ships apart are at serious risk for diseases such as malignant pleural mesothelioma, lung cancer and asbestosis.

The World Health Organization estimates that more than 107,000 people from all over the planet die annually because of illnesses caused by asbestos exposure on the job. That includes those who work as ship breakers. However, asbestos isn’t the only thing that puts people’s health at risk. Mineral oil, bilge water, heavy metals such as lead and mercury, and other chemicals are also hazardous.

Countries try to go green
It’s easy to cut corners on ship breaking, but there are several NGOs in Europe that refuse to stand idly by as both the environment and people are imperiled. More than 30 groups, including Greenpeace and the International Federation of Human Rights, signed a petition to the European Parliament to support green ship recycling practices.

An environmental committee within the European Parliament voted to create a continental fund that would encourage European countries to bear the management costs of handling the hazardous waste from ships. The petition calls on the whole parliament to implement the proposal. Money for the fund would come from fees levied on ships calling on any port in the European Union.

The governing body is scheduled to vote on the fund April 18. Additionally, they’ll vote on whether to ban beaching, an irresponsible practice in which ships are broken apart on tidal beaches instead of impermeable floors.

In addition to protecting both the environment and workers’ health, ship recycling advocates also support greater bargaining rights for individuals who work as ship breakers.

How does the U.S. deal with its own ships?
Federal law in the U.S. requires that most ships be disposed of within this country. Most of these jobs take place at sites in Virginia, Maryland and Texas. Once the ships are sufficiently dismantled and cleaned by firms specializing in these jobs, they can be used for sinking in live-fire military training exercises. Also, one environmentally conscious practice used for clean and empty ships is to sink them offshore for the purposes of establishing new coral reefs. These sites also provide curiosities for scuba divers.

Posts by: Steven Kazan