English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Should India ban asbestos?

Published

on

Should India ban asbestos?

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Cancer caused by merely inhaling an asbestos fibre is looming like an epidemic in developing countries, including India.

By Rashme Sehgal

White Asbestos, also known as chrysotile asbestos, is a proven carcinogen that kills 30 people each day in India. The WHO has found it to be so carcinogenic that it has calculated that over 100,000 people die from exposure to it every year. Late Environment Minister Anil Madhav Dave had spoken out against its use and had demanded it be phased out.

The first step towards phasing it out is to have chrysotile asbestos defined as a hazardous substance, as has already been done by the World Health Organisation, the International Labour Organization and 31 scientist-members of the United Nations Chemical Review Committee.

So while the Central and some state pollution control boards have declared it to be a hazardous substance, the Central government has shied away from banning this toxic material.

This conflicting stand was reflected at the all-important Conference of Parties to the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions held earlier this month in Geneva. These three meets — the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure of Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade — focus on protecting people from hazardous chemicals.

India’s has been a changing stand. In 2011, the Ministry of Environment had listed asbestos as a hazardous substance but today their stand remains ambivalent. This ambiguity is manifest amongst Indian representatives present in Geneva. While officials from the Ministry of Chemicals insist asbestos is not a toxic material, officials from the Ministry of Environment believe that asbestos should be put on the Prior Informed Consent List whereby exporting nations will have to seek consent from the importing country before they can send this material.

India is the largest importer of asbestos in the world and imports huge amounts of asbestos from Russia, Brazil, Kazakhstan and Zimbabwe. Officials of these countries are lobbying hard to insure this material does not get on the informed consent list. India’s neighbouring countries realise the danger of this material and Nepal is amongst 55 countries to have banned this toxic material in 2014 while Sri Lanka is in the process of phasing it out.

Sanjay Parikh, counsel for the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, notes that India is “importing 1 lakh metric tonnes of toxic waste in India. This is a dangerous trend since asbestos waste is being left in open landfills, where it can pollute both the atmosphere and ground water”.

Realising the gravity of the situation, the previous United Progressive Alliance government had introduced The White Asbestos (Ban on Use and Import) Bill, 2009 in the Rajya Sabha, but in the end, little was done to convert the bill into a law. The BJP had also promised to phase out the use of this toxic material but so far they have not moved in this direction.

The little research done within the country serves to confirm the fears of activists and of the medical fraternity. A study by two researcher-doctors at Delhi’s Maulana Azad Medical College says that deaths from asbestos-related cancers could touch one million in developing nations by 2020. Dr Sanjay Chaturvedi, one of the co-authors of this report pointed out that even if a single fibre is inhaled, it is capable of causing mesothelioma (cancer of the protective layers of the lungs) and that has been proved by epidemiological, clinical and experimental studies.

Dr TK Joshi, director of the Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health in Delhi’s Lok Nayak Hospital, warned that given the latency period for asbestos cancers, in another decade, we will witness a major cancer epidemic caused by asbestos, at a point when this disease is on the decline in industrialised countries. He explained that widespread use of asbestos started in India in the 1980s, but 22 million people in the construction industry have already been exposed to it.

The Indian medical fraternity cites as a warning the example of United Kingdom, where consumption of 1.6 million tonnes of asbestos had produced the country’s worst epidemic of occupation disease and death, leading it and other industrialised nations to put an end to its use.

But India, like other rapidly industrialising countries, is not collecting enough data on the morbidity and mortality coming from workplace diseases.  Dr Joshi regretted that the number of workers exposed could easily run into millions and the inhalation of just one fibre is enough to trigger damage.

The Central Labour Institute in India finds that there is a 7.25 per cent of prevalence of asbestosis among workers in the country.  The Central Pollution Control Board further confirms that many of the 80% of mesotheliomas cases occur in men exposed to mineral fibres in their workplaces.

Before the Geneva conference commenced a few days ago, Gopal Krishna, who heads the environmental group Toxics Watch Alliance, had personally met the late Minister of Environment Dave to emphasise before him the need for India to remain consistent in its stand, especially since his ministry had declared white asbestos a hazardous substance

Representatives of the different ministries participating in the meet will have detailed discussions on whether to include asbestos on the Prior Informed Consent list. Countries exporting substances on this list need to notify and get informed consent from the importing country before sending the materials across. Asbestos-exporting countries like Russia, Kazakhstan, Brazil and Zimbabwe are likely to do everything they can to stall the inclusion of asbestos in this list.

India’s stand at previous convention discussions reflects this dichotomy. In 2011, a representative of the environment ministry argued that it must be declared a hazardous material. In 2013, India opposed listing chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous substance. India has also resisted the inclusion of asbestos in the Prior Informed Consent list, citing lack of data

This ambiguity towards this material is manifest on the ground as well. The District Magistrate (DM), Muzaffarpur and the Bihar Pollution Control Board had ordered the closure of the Bishnupur asbestos plant on grounds of gross violations of environmental norms and concealment of health hazards. But despite these orders, and the locking of the front gate of the factory, the plant continues to operate from its back gate.

Despite the scale of damage it can cause, reporting on this subject remains scarce primarily because the incubation  mechanism of this form of  lung cancer is very long drawn out.

Asbestos has other side effects also. A study, cited on the Ban Asbestos Network of India website, entitled ‘Asbestos exposure and ovarian fibre burden’ quoted epidemiological studies suggesting an increased risk of epithelial ovarian cancer in female asbestos workers and increased risk of malignancy in general in household contacts of asbestos workers.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

India hits back at Shehbaz Sharif at UN, says terror will have consequences

India hit back at Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s UN speech, with New Delhi warning that terrorism will have consequences.

Published

on

India has responded to Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s remarks at the United Nations, delivering a strong message on terrorism and warning that such actions will have consequences.

The response came after Mr Sharif addressed the UN and raised issues concerning India and Pakistan. New Delhi rejected the narrative presented by the Pakistani prime minister and highlighted the issue of terrorism.

India’s message was delivered by Petal Gehlot, who represented New Delhi in the response to Pakistan.

India warns Pakistan over terrorism

India’s response focused on Pakistan’s record and its approach towards terrorism. New Delhi made clear that terrorism cannot be separated from its consequences and that those responsible cannot expect such actions to go unanswered.

The Indian side also pushed back against the claims and allegations made by Mr Sharif during his UN speech.

The exchange comes amid continuing tensions between India and Pakistan, with terrorism remaining a major point of disagreement between the two countries.

Shehbaz Sharif’s UN remarks

In his address, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif spoke about India-Pakistan relations and raised several issues concerning New Delhi.

India subsequently exercised its right of reply to respond to Pakistan’s statements at the United Nations.

New Delhi’s response underlined its position that terrorism remains a serious issue in the relationship and that there would be consequences for terrorist actions.

The latest exchange at the UN adds to the continuing diplomatic confrontation between the two neighbouring countries.

Continue Reading

India News

Veeramani POCSO case: Vijay questions Stalin over earlier probe

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay has questioned MK Stalin over the handling of the Veeramani POCSO case, while Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected anyone.

Published

on

Actor Vijay

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) president C Joseph Vijay has questioned DMK president MK Stalin over the handling of the POCSO case involving Gem Granites founder R Veeramani. The political exchange follows renewed investigation into allegations involving minor girls.

Vijay’s remarks came as the ruling TVK stepped up its questions about how the case was handled during the previous DMK government. The party’s IT wing has alleged that the earlier investigation was weakened and questioned why a final report was filed.

The allegations have been rejected by the DMK. Stalin has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to protect anyone in the case and has called the allegations false and defamatory.

What did Vijay say about the Veeramani case?

Vijay questioned Stalin over the handling of the case and demanded an explanation from the former chief minister.

The TVK has specifically questioned why action was not taken against Veeramani during the previous administration and why the earlier investigation resulted in a closure report.

The party has also raised questions about the role of officials involved in the earlier investigation. These are political allegations made by the TVK and have not been established as facts.

What is the Veeramani POCSO case?

The case concerns allegations of sexual abuse of minors involving R Veeramani, the founder of Gem Granites.

The case came under renewed scrutiny after a special POCSO court rejected an earlier closure report and ordered further investigation. The expanded probe has subsequently identified additional alleged survivors who were minors at the time of the alleged offences, according to current reporting.

The investigation is also examining the circumstances surrounding the earlier probe and whether there were any lapses in how the case was handled.

What has MK Stalin said?

Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected Veeramani.

He has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to shield anyone in the case. Stalin has also said that everyone responsible for the alleged offences, including anyone who aided or attempted to protect the accused, should face the law.

The DMK president has further said that the focus should remain on securing justice for the affected girls rather than making political allegations.

Why has the case become a political issue?

The Veeramani case has become the subject of a political dispute between the ruling TVK and the DMK over the handling of the earlier investigation.

The TVK is questioning the previous government’s handling of the case, while the DMK has denied that it intervened to protect the accused.

At this stage, claims about political interference or deliberate weakening of the earlier investigation should be treated as allegations unless established by the ongoing investigation or judicial proceedings.

Continue Reading

India News

Women wrestlers challenge Brij Bhushan’s acquittal in sexual harassment case

Four women wrestlers have challenged the acquittal of former WFI chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and co-accused Vinod Tomar in a sexual harassment case.

Published

on

Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh

Four women wrestlers have approached a Delhi court challenging the acquittal of former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief and BJP leader Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh in a sexual harassment case.

The wrestlers have also challenged the acquittal of co-accused Vinod Tomar. The matter is scheduled to be heard by a Special Judge at the Rouse Avenue Courts.

The appeal challenges the order passed by an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on August 3, 2026, when Brij Bhushan and Tomar were acquitted in the case.

Wrestlers challenge court’s reasoning

In their appeal, the wrestlers have argued that the acquittal order is legally unsustainable and that the evidence was not assessed appropriately.

They have also alleged that the order relied on assumptions about how victims of sexual assault and harassment were expected to behave instead of assessing the evidence and circumstances of the complainants.

The challenge seeks judicial scrutiny of the findings that resulted in the acquittal of Brij Bhushan and Tomar.

Brij Bhushan was acquitted in August

The Rouse Avenue court acquitted Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh on August 3 in the sexual harassment case involving women wrestlers. The court’s decision followed consideration of the evidence and statements presented during the proceedings.

The case had emerged after several women wrestlers accused the former WFI chief of sexual harassment. The allegations had led to a major protest by wrestlers in 2023.

The latest appeal means the acquittal is now being challenged before a higher court.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com