New Mandala

22 responses so far ↓

• 1 Thai boy // Mar 29, 2008 at 10:16 am

  Hmm, this kind of scares me. I have never thought about this, living in Bangkok near a new development project… Time that Thailand does something about it. Why not ban it completely like in the western world?

• 2 jonfernquest // Mar 29, 2008 at 3:32 pm

  I thought about this while staring at the asbestos roof of my house one time. At least the ceiling protects the inside, I guess. I remember in about 1985 as a graduate student at an American university, we were all evacuated and then men with spacesuit like clothing came in to remove the asbestos in the ceiling material. The asbestos lawsuits shook the insurance industry, so maybe it’s overkill.

  Take three situations, for instance: 1. A worker cutting the stuff, creating and inhaling dust regularly, 2. A poor person who builds a house out of the stuff (typical 200,000 baht little cement brick houses in rural areas do not use upscale ceramic roofing) and the asbestos is not cut off from the living area by a ceiling, 3. asbestos cut off from the living area by a ceiling, my situation, seems like you have much different levels of risk here.

  Ungrounded electricity is probably a much more dangerous risk factor, for example electrical fans on the floor with people walking around in the water after a sudden flood. Unmarked road construction? The younger brother of the husband of the cousin of my wife, at age 17 ran off the road driving home from the internet cafe, into an unmarked road construction and got a rebar through his eyesocket and skull. No one found negligent, apparently. Arc welding in the rain, not a song. Asbestos is probably just the tip of the undocumented iceberg.

• 3 jonfernquest // Mar 29, 2008 at 3:36 pm

  If you put little photos of lungs with asbestos related disease after asbestos exposure on the asbestos like the frightening photos on cigarettes you see at 7-11, wouldn’t that do the trick, democratically speaking that is. A house needs a roof and asbestos seems to be about the only option for poor people. Siam Cement is only giving the poor people what they want when it sells them this asbestos.

• 4 Mariner // Mar 30, 2008 at 3:11 am

  Interestingly, when I recently contacted Siam cement about the danger of their products I received this from their representative:

  ‘……However, the content of Flat Sheet(the previous one of SFCC productwhich is cancelled right now) is safe for consumer because the type ofasbestos in Flat Sheet is chrysotile. ‘

  The astonishing point here is the claim that chrysotile is ’safe.’ The claim is ridiculous and brings to mind Dr. Castleman’s caution not to be taken in by the Thai asbestos industry’s (I take this to mean Siam Cement’s) propaganda claim that white asbestos is harmless. His comments, by the way, were made at the ‘ASIAN ASBESTOS CONFERENCE (AAC 2006) Protecting People from Asbestos. ‘ This is available on the internet.

  If one is living in a house with as asbestos roof the health risks are minimal provided the material is undisturbed. More dangerous by far is public exposire arising from new construction projects and demolition. I would go so far as to say that most housing estates currently being built in Thailand have asbestos containing products. When this is cut large clouds of visible asbestos dust are released into the air. It’s a shocking sight: the workers wear no protective masks. Even if they did, this wouldn’t avoid the other obvious health danger: that released dust is free to travel to nearby residential areas (it doesn’t sink into the ground to become trapped but remains on the surface to be blown away later).

  I am left wondering how Siam Cement (and others) will respond once an ever more educated populace starts to ask questions. There’s no wriggle room here: the dangers of asbestos have been thoroughly documented for half a century, at least!

• 5 nganadeeleg // Mar 30, 2008 at 11:14 am

  I am left wondering how Siam Cement (and others) will respond once an ever more educated populace starts to ask questions. There’s no wriggle room here: the dangers of asbestos have been thoroughly documented for half a century, at least!

  Sounds like an opportunity for a good lawyer to take on a class action to take on both SC and the overseas suppliers.

  How to avoid meeting a similar fate to Somchai N?

  Would lese majeste come in to play?

  Would involvement of an international legal firm help avoid some of the pitfalls?

• 6 Johpa // Mar 31, 2008 at 11:57 am

  If the roofing bothers you then I warn you not to visit your typical Thai mechanical shop where you normally see 14 year old boys working on brake pads. That being said, one just doesn’t hear about asbestos related diseases in Thailand so perhaps there is more concern regarding the roofing products than is perhaps warranted. Then again, perhaps statistics on mesothelioma, a fairly slow developing disease specific to asbestos exposure, are hidden behind the statistics for cirrhosis of the liver, other diseases, and traffic fatalities in Thailand which are statistically significant.

• 7 Mariner // Mar 31, 2008 at 10:43 pm

  An interesting statistic worth noting is the current occupational exposure limit for asbestos, which in Thailand is set at 5 fibres per ml. The corresponding figure in the US is 0.1 fibers per ml. That’s a colossal 50 fold difference!

  Of course, the higher the permitted exposure limit the less a company has to invest in the costly business of keeping a class 1 carcinogen out of the air. The tragedy is that the unfolding health crisis was (not is) completely avoidable:

  “People in Asia are entitled to live and work in a healthy environment. We do not need to see another pile of bodies to prove that asbestos is a killer. The experiences of asbestos victims and afflicted communities in Europe, North America and Australia tell us all we need to know. Working together we can end this needless slaughter; Asia’s asbestos-free future starts here!” (Laurie Kazan-Allen, the Coordinator of the International Ban Asbestos Secretariat (IBAS) ).

  A pity the government of Thailand, the world’s fourth largest asbestos importer, is unwilling to act on this message. I can only suppose that it is a case of profits before (other peoples) lives and a testament to the influence of wealthy and/or influential public figures. Why else, do I see TV ads on the dangers of aids, notices to observe smoking bans and yet not even a health warning on an asbestos containing product?

• 8 jonfernquest // Apr 1, 2008 at 6:10 pm

  News on issues like asbestos is often buried in the business news, like the following. Developing new export markets seems to provide an incentive to develop new non-asbestos roofing products (SCG = Siam Cement Group) :

  BUSINESS SECTION
  BUILDING MATERIALS COMPETITIVENESS
  Building Materials
  SCG sees innovation as key to better sales
  BUSRIN TREERAPONGPICHIT
  30-04-2007

  SCG Building Materials Co is counting on innovative products to increase sales revenue after its total sales dropped by 7% in the first quarter, according to president Pichit Maipoom…

  Currently, exports account for around 30% of total sales, down from 35% last year due to the baht’s appreciation, he said.

  To cope with the difficulty, the company aims to expand its export markets as much as possible, particularly for high-value products, which it hopes to lift to 40-50% of total sales from 15% now.

  SCG sees potential in its ***non-asbestos products, including fibre roof tiles, fibreboard and walls, manufactured by its affiliate, Siam Fibre-Cement.***

  The products developed by its research and development unit use cellulose and synthetic fibres as main raw materials to replace asbestos, which is harmful to health and the environment. The R&D alone cost three billion baht.

  The innovation won the company the SCG Innovation Award, held by the parent Siam Cement Group to encourage new ideas throughout the industrial conglomerate.

  Around of 80% of asbestos-based products have been replaced by non-asbestos materials.

  The rest could be replaced as demand warrants, the company says.

  The new products are priced 10% higher than the asbestos equivalents but the production cost is much higher than that, Mr Pichit admitted.

  He said the company had set a sales target for non-asbestos products at six billion baht this year.

• 9 Mariner // Apr 1, 2008 at 11:56 pm

  Siam Cement are running scared. They have long known of the dangers their products pose to public health but, more importantly, they recognise that the public are now beginning to demand answers. The big question for Siam Cement -the question which must have them quaiking in their boots- is what happens when the courts are asked to intervene? The company can stall for a while with quietly arranged out of court settlements but sooner or later the asbestos issue will explode onto the public scene. And what then? Will the directors of SC claim they were unaware of the dangers of asbestos? will they claim ignorance of the hazardous conditions in which it is used? Will they tell us all (as they told me) that they truly believed chrysotile is safe?
  Under English law -even if there were no breaches of the criminal code- there would be an action for negligence under principles dating back to the early 1930s. In Thailand I suspect you will see parliament intervening to protect the SC group from just such harmful litigation.
  I wrote to SC asking directly if they felt any responsibility for asbestos related deaths arising from the construction and use of their products. I got no reply. For a budding investigative journalist there’s a great story just waiting to be told!

• 10 Mariner // Apr 5, 2008 at 1:20 pm

  Does raising issues concerning asbestos and the involvement of the Siam Cement/Crowm property Bureau in the unfolding health crisis puts me/us in danger of breaching Lese majeste laws?
  The thing is, one is always hearing about someone or other being charged but there is not the slightest hint as to what the objectionable text/comment actually said. Could even the most innocent ‘ slight’ end you up in prison? What is the ambit of these laws? Oh, and who of us (if any), based on our postings on asbestos might be in breach, do you think?

• 11 nganadeeleg // Apr 5, 2008 at 6:27 pm

  Mariner: Not sure if your question in #10 was directed at me (referring to my comments in #5)

  I don’t know the ambit of the lese majeste laws, and was just wondering if if they needed to be considered given the shareholding of SC.

  Personally I would be very surprised if they could be applied unless someone was very loose lipped and directly brought the monarchy into the equation – even then it would be a very bad look if anyone tried to use lese majeste and IMO could only result in a publicity disaster.

  That said, I am not sure what is more surprising:
  That asbestos is still being imported into and used in Thailand, Malaysia, China & the Phillipines
  or
  That a first world country like Canada still exports it.

• 12 Mariner // Apr 12, 2008 at 7:51 pm

  Doesn’t if just disgust you when commercial companies, and others with vested interests in the asbestos industry, try and justify the use and sale of their products on the grounds of ‘public interest.’ The argument here in Thailand goes like this: You must understand the kingdom is a poor country and asbestos products are desperately needed for the public good given the expense of alternatives. Trust us! We have your best interests at heart!

  Here, for example, is Srichant Uthayopas, director of the Industrial Works Department’s Hazardous Substance Control Bureau:

  “A substitute for chrysotile would be costly, and I see no reason to pay more for one. Safety and environmental protection are important, but economics is more so.”

  The truth is rather different. Asbestos products are only cheap if companies which make them are not obliged to spend vast sums of money ensuring the production process is not hazardous. Once companies become liable for compensating workers for health hazards, for supplying adequate ventilation, face masks and ensuring respirable fibers are not released into the atmosphere, then the production process becomes prohibitively expensive. It is in the commercial interests of Siam Cement and others that the Thai public are not aware of the dangers their products pose.

  The cheapness of asbestos products in Thailand arises simply from the fact that safeguards are not in place to protect workers and the public: There is no labelling of asbestos content, there is a system which ensures asbestos related injuries/deaths are not reported (see earlier post) and there are downright lies (see previous posting relating to Siam Cement) to the the effect that chrysotile asbestos is safe.

  The truth is simple: asbestos makes some people in Thailand extremely rich; profits come from concealing the health dangers and commercial enterprises like Siam Cement are not charities motivated by concerns of public interest.

  A final point: if asbestos is so necessary as Srichant Uthayopas states then why does so much of it find its way onto residential buildings as a purely decorative facades?

• 13 Mariner // Apr 16, 2008 at 12:12 am

  One for the legal buffs: Under Thai law, is there a possibility of an action against companies such as Siam Cement (and other death merchants of their ilk) in negligence? I’m thinking along the lines of Donoghue V Stevenson (1932) and Lord Atkins duty of care.
  OMG!! Such an action wouldn’t be construed as Lese Majeste, would it?

• 14 Mariner // May 17, 2008 at 12:50 pm

  If you were wondering whatever happened to Leo Mittelholzer, one of the former executives of Eternit found guilty of ‘intentional homicide’ (May 2005) then look no further!

  The lives of up to 730 former Eternit employees were put at risk by exposure to hazardous levels of asbestos over an extended period of time; as a result many contracted asbestos-related diseases. Prison sentences of more than twenty-three years were passed on the accused which included a sentence of 2 years and 4 months for , head of the factory between 1984-86; Mittelholzer is now the Managing Director of Siam City Cement PLC,1 Thailand’s second largest cement company.

• 15 Antoni P. Uni // Jun 16, 2008 at 1:43 am

  To-day they started to demolish a part of my house I want to renovate.
  I asked the boss to be careful with the roof-plates and demount them in one piece because I am suspicious that they contain asbestos.
  I was shocked when I saw afterwards that they destroyed almost all with hammers!
  As I know that in several countries the authorities has to be warned, that handling the asbestos has to be done by special qualified companies, that in case of a fire the fire-brigade officers wear special and completely sealed suits with oxygen and that they start hosing the surroundings immediately to prevent particles blown away I can only feel very sorry for all those, mainly very poor people, has to work with asbestos.
  When I read than that a Thai Minister once said: “Asbestos can cause cancer but ‘it’s cheap” I am getting speechless.

• 16 Mariner // Jun 16, 2008 at 10:54 pm

  Just to add that not all the asbestos fibres will have dispersed. The area where the work was being carried out will no doubt contain many fibres and it may take some time before they have are washed or blown away. As a rough guess, I would say that demolishing as asbestos cement roof with hammers would generate fibre levels of about 5 per ml in the immediate area. In other words, 50 times the minimal exposure as defined by the OHSA.
  Those making fortunes from asbestos are really no better than the tobacco magnates.

• 17 Antoni P. Uni // Jun 23, 2008 at 3:52 pm

  You mean the Thai Tobacco Monopoly??:

  http://lists.essential.org/intl-tobacco/msg00290.html

• 18 Mariner // Nov 24, 2008 at 11:26 pm

  Once again, I can’t help noting the irony in the apparent concern of Thai officials regarding contamination of Chinese imported dairy products and their deathly silence of those same officials when it comes to the dangers of asbestos. The following is a brief extract from a recent interview available on the net:

  Somkiat believes all forms of asbestos should be banned but that is a decision the Thai Government is not likely to take as long as there is pressure from the business community.

  SOMKIAT SIRIRUTTANAPRUK: Yes, yes. We first happen two months ago, I joined the meeting between ministries and we raised this topic in the meeting but, for the employer side of view, they said right now if they change to use another material, the price will increase and it will affect the industry in our country.

  In other words health is an issue of apparent concern but only if it doesn’t hurt the commercial interests of the most wealthy Thai citizenry. Make no mistake, Siam Cement and others are not ignorant of the dangers of their product.

  Seems like a great issue for you to expose, Jonathan H.

  -Mariner

• 19 David // Sep 25, 2009 at 8:23 pm

  I was shocked that my Thai other half in describing her house in Thailand said; the roof is made of sheet, the stuff that breaks put like this… I think if the populace were aware of the dangers then something might be done. I’m amazed asbestos is still used and more so that Canada is still producing it, shame on them. It’s cheap because so few countries will still allow it’s use. I’ve worked in construction and that side isn’t half the problem, asbestos is great stuff because it is so long lasting, it’ll be around long after it is finally banned and long after the buildings containing it are wanted. Then you have one huge problem.

• 20 Antoni P. Uni // Sep 26, 2009 at 11:47 am

  My personal experience with asbestose was a client who worked in his youth a couple of months only part-time in the central-heating industry in England. His whole live being healthy until 50/60 years later when asbestose was diagnosed which caused his death.

• 21 Mariner // Sep 27, 2009 at 11:36 pm

  The Thai authorities are well aware of the the dangers but you will still not see asbestos sheet labeled with a health warning. Asbestos is a highly profitably product for some very important and powerful Thais, but only because the dangers involved in its use are not conveyed to the Thai populace.

  If those dangers were widely known, safety precautions would be required on building sites; that costs money and profitability falls. Also, less home owners would purchase the material.

  Interesting to see that Siam Cement, the jewel of the Crown Property Bureau, has excised any reference to asbestos from its website. It seems they are running scared of future lawsuits.

• 22 Mariner // Sep 27, 2009 at 11:46 pm

  Regarding Jonfernquest’s post:

  So…uhmm, before asbestos became available in Thailand houses didn’t have roofs?

  Perhaps dear little Siam Cement -who I’m sure have always had our best interests at heart- might have taken the trouble to warn us about the risks asbestos poses. We could then have made am informed decision as to whether we want an asbestos roof or not (by the way, how many of you have houses decorated with Shera?).

  I wonder why it never occurred to Siam Cement to do so? (not a hard question to answer really, is it).

  Come on Siam Cement, over to you! What do you have to say on all this? Your silence is deafening.

Leave a Comment