Canada selling asbestos to India

[brewmaster]

Anyone see the CBC report on The National about how Canadian companies are selling copious amounts of asbestos to India with the government (both past and present) being an active participant?

At first, the story made me sick.

Then, I said to myself, "why the hell doesn't India ban asbestos?"

Then I said, "wait a minute, that's almost like justifying what Canada is doing."

Any thoughts? Is there any way to possibly justify this?

Note: a quick Google tells me that Canada exporting asbestos is a relatively old story.
​

 

[wulfie68]

I didn't see the story but my first question is what are they using it for? (link wouldn't load up for me from CBC) Have they developed a technique, process, etc that can safely utilize the material, that we haven't adopted?

Second, there are ample published studies out there detailing the effects of asbestos fibres, so why is it incumbent upon Canada to make regulations to keep India safe? Do Indians want to pay tax to support our governmental infrastructure, since our gov't is responsible for their well-being?

 

[brewmaster]

It's the hypocrisy

I didn't see the story but my first question is what are they using it for? (link wouldn't load up for me from CBC)

Here's a direct link to the wmv video.

Have they developed a technique, process, etc that can safely utilize the material, that we haven't adopted?

No. There's disturbing footage of a factory with workers wearing bandanas over their noses with dust all over the place.

why is it incumbent upon Canada to make regulations to keep India safe? Do Indians want to pay tax to support our governmental infrastructure, since our gov't is responsible for their well-being?

That's what I thought as well, but then I realized that such thoughts justify Canada exporting asbestos to other countries when it knows asbestos to be hazardous to people's health. I refuse to justify such a thing.

India should ban asbestos, but it hasn't. Canada knows better and has. Shouldn't Canada know better and not sell it to others? What about hard drugs? Let's play make believe and pretend that a country has legalized all drugs, and that Canada happens to have the ability to produce lots of heroin, methamphetamine, crack, etc. Would exporting these drugs en masse be acceptable? Would your argument about taxes and government responsibility hold up? I doubt it.

 

[EagleSmack]

There is no way to make asbestos safe. Once the fibers are airborne they can be breathed in and that is what causes trouble. The lungs start forming a barrier around the fiber and it can turn cancerous. You can seal asbestos but if anyone disturbs it then it becomes dangerous.

The thing about asbestos is that it is such a great insulator and very cheap to mine and manufacture. The trade off is that it is very dangerous. Most nations have banned it.

 

[karrie]

On top of the issue of 'is it our responsibility to manage their safety', is the issue of whether or not they want us nannying them.

Presumably we aren't selling the stuff and telling them it's safe.

 

[#juan]

On top of the issue of 'is it our responsibility to manage their safety', is the issue of whether or not they want us nannying them.

Presumably we aren't selling the stuff and telling them it's safe.

I would be interested in what India is using the stuff for. India is a large country and a populous country but I don't think they are a backward country. I'm sure India knows the dangers associated with asbestos.

 

[YukonJack]

Canada has it, India wants it.

Other than childish moralizing, what's the problem?

 

[Cliffy]

Canada has it, India wants it.

Other than childish moralizing, what's the problem?

Then why don't we just bomb India and put them out of their misery? Childish moralizing? Profit above life! And you claim to be a pro-lifer.

 

[mt_pockets1000]

Ban the crap! Make my brake shoes out of a composite material. Make my home insulation out of a safe material. Johns Manville....get your sorry asses down on the Baie Verte Peninsula and clean up that freakin' mess you left behind.

 

[TenPenny]

You can't hold Canada responsible for what India does with asbestos. That kind of think would mean that nobody could ever sell anything.

 

[EagleSmack]

I would be interested in what India is using the stuff for. India is a large country and a populous country but I don't think they are a backward country. I'm sure India knows the dangers associated with asbestos.

I bet they are using it for the same stuff, insulation, tiles, etc. There is no question that asbestos IS a great insulator.

I have taken a few courses about asbestos hazards and part of the theme was that asbestos IS the best insulator known to man. It was cheap, easily molded, etc. To this day it still is. However when breathed in the consequences are fatal if your body reacts to it in a bad way.

I guess in India the costs of human life to using asbestos is a wash. It is a viable risk.

 

[karrie]

You can't hold Canada responsible for what India does with asbestos. That kind of think would mean that nobody could ever sell anything.

Here in Canada dangerous materials are often controlled so that they are not to be sold to customers unless appropriate safety knowledge is in place and proven. Gun licensing is a good example. The sale of explosives is another. So to say that there is no responsibility on the part of the vendor is wrong.

 

[YukonJack]

"Then why don't we just bomb India and put them out of their misery? Childish moralizing? Profit above life! And you claim to be a pro-lifer."

I stand by my statement. If India wants asbestos, I am sure they know all the risks, and they are willing to take them. Canada certainly does not need to patronize India by pretending to know better what's good or acceptable India. And what is wrong with Canada making a few bucks in the process?

And in addition to pro-life I am also pro-capitalism.

 

[DurkaDurka]

We should ship them all our discarded tires while we are it...

 

[YukonJack]

"We should ship them all our discarded tires while we are it... "

Excellent idea, DurkaDurka, provided they want them as they want our asbestos.

Worn out tires can be used as children's swings in playgrounds. To build reef in shallow sea shore for fish and other sea life. Bumpers on docks. Blankets for blasts on road constructions. And many many more uses.

In addition, I am sure scientists and enginerers in India know how to recycle used tires.

 

[TenPenny]

The problem is that the workers who are working with the asbestos aren't being trained or equipped with the proper tools.

That's a problem for the plant's owners and the government of India, not Canada (assuming that the exporters have made the purchasers aware of the issues with asbestos).

If you buy a hammer from me and hit your finger, it's not my problem that you hit yourself.

 

[mt_pockets1000]

Canada certainly does not need to patronize India by pretending to know better what's good or acceptable India.

Certainly not. India is a sovereign nation and can make decisions for herself. But Canada is guilty of peddling a harmful substance. Let India get her asbestos from a country without a conscience.

And what is wrong with Canada making a few bucks in the process?

A few bucks at what cost? The miners of the stuff and the people who live in close proximity to the mines are at risk of particle inhalation and ultimately death.

Shame on Canada for contributing to the proliferation of this material around the globe.

 

[EagleSmack]

A few bucks at what cost? The miners of the stuff and the people who live in close proximity to the mines are at risk of particle inhalation and ultimately death.

.

Sadly in the film I saw, a lot of the interviews were of Canadian Miners dying of lung cancer caused by Asbestos. One interview was of a Canadian Miner whose 10 year old son died of lung cancer caused by asbestos fibers brought home on his dad's clothing.

 

[Cannuck]

Asbestos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia








EU-Canada dispute

According to Natural Resources Canada, chrysotile asbestos is not as dangerous as once thought. According to their fact sheet, "...current knowledge and modern technology can successfully control the potential for health and environmental harm posed by chrysotile".[62] In May 1998, Canada requested consultations before the WTOEuropean Commission concerning France's 1996 prohibition of the importation and sale of asbestos.[63] with the
Canada claimed that the French measures contravened provisions of the Agreements on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and on Technical Barriers to Trade, and the GATT 1994.[63]
The EC said that substitute materials had been developed in place of asbestos, which are safer to human health. It stressed that the French measures were not discriminatory, and were fully justified for public health reasons. The EC said that in the July consultations, it had tried to convince Canada that the measures were justified, and that just as Canada broke off consultations, it was in the process of submitting substantial scientific data in favour of the asbestos ban.[63]
Critics of Canada's support of the use of chrysotile asbestos argue that Canada is ignoring the risks associated with the material. The CFMEU pointed out that selling asbestos is illegal in Canada, but it is exported and most exports go to developing countries. Canada has pressured countries, including Chile, and the UN to avoid asbestos bans.[64]

[edit] Other criticism

Asbestos regulation critics include Junkscience.com author and Fox News columnist Steven Milloy and the asbestos industry.[65] Critics sometimes argue that increased regulation does more harm than good and that replacements to asbestos are inferior. An example is the suggestion by Dixy Lee Ray and others that the shuttle ChallengerO-ring putty was pressured by the EPA into ceasing production of asbestos-laden putty.[66][67] However, scientists point out that the putty used in exploded because the maker of Challenger's final flight did contain asbestos, and failures in the putty were not responsible for the failure of the O-ring that led to loss of the shuttle.[67][68]
Asbestos was used in the first forty floors of the World Trade Center towers causing an airborne contamination among lower Manhattan after the towers collapsed in the attacks on September 11th, 2001.[69] Steven Milloy suggests that the World Trade Center towers could still be standing or at least would have stood longer had a 1971 ban not stopped the completion of the asbestos coating above the 64th floor [70]. This was not mentioned in the National Institute of Standards and Technology's report on the towers' collapse. All fireproofing materials, regardless of what they are made of are required to obtain a fire-resistance rating prior to installation. All fibre-based lightweight commercial spray fireproofing materials are vulnerable to kinetic energyfire testing upon which their ratings are based, including asbestos-based materials, and would have been removed in large areas by the impact of the planes.[71][72][73] impacts that are outside of the

 

[EagleSmack]

Cannuck...no question...asbestos IS the best stuff around.


If asbestos is not disturbed it is completely harmless. Once it is disturbed the fibers become airborne and that is where people are in danger.