Asbestos dumping in New South Wales

Residents of Lanitza in New South Wales believe their part of Clarence Valley has been targeted for asbestos dumping. This fear comes after two discoveries of the toxic material were found in the area just 4 kms away from each other. There is talk that the two finds were linked and that those responsible have simply traveled to the area just to dump their rubbish.

While asbestos dumping is illegal, the major concern is the dangerous position these dumpers are putting themselves in as they are not disposing of asbestos correctly. There is also a major concern for those who stumble across it, or are affected if the asbestos dust blows on them.

In order to dispose of asbestos safely, these dumpers are required to wear protective clothing and wrap the asbestos in plastic. When they fail to do this they are putting themselves and others in harms way. Even small amounts of exposure to asbestos can lead to someone contracting an asbestos related illness such as mesothelioma.

Many Australians have suffered mesothelioma from small amounts of exposure to asbestos. It is for this reason that various states in Australia have introduced specific legislation to assist Australians seeking asbestos compensation in Australia and mesothelioma compensation in Australia. Unfortunately, many Australians have suffered this dreadful condition.

Mesothelioma treatment in Australia

Scientists are beginning to challenge the established barriers of medical treatments for mesothelioma in Australia.

Mesothelioma is a rare disease which causes the cells of the mesothelium (a membrane that covers and protects organs in the body) to multiply rapidly and chaotically, thereby damaging tissues and organs within close proximity. Typically, mesothelioma is caused by working with asbestos. In Australia mesothelioma is prominent amongst shipyard workers, those who work in asbestos mines and mills, those who worked in the building industry, or those who aid in the production of asbestos.

The conventional approach of mesothelioma treatment includes surgery, chemotherapy and radiation therapy, however for some doctors and surgeons, these mesothelioma treatments are not impressive or aggressive enough. In fact, malignant mesothelioma has often been able to combat the positive effects of these treatments.

Recently, mesothelioma treatment in Australia has reached new levels. Scientists are focusing their energy equally into how we can avoid the use of asbestos, as well as how we can fight mesothelioma. The latest therapy is the fowlpox vaccination. Historically, farmers used this same vaccination on their chickens and turkeys to prevent outbreaks of contagious lesions. Scientists are attempting to use the fowlpox vaccine for both therapeutic and preventative purposes by inducing it as an immune response against mesothelioma cells. One of the main benefits of this vaccine is that this immune response may persist for years after vaccination, whereas the effect of chemotherapy only lasts a few days. The fowlpox vaccine also helps patients avoid the negative side effects of chemotherapy, which includes hair loss and nausea. This treatment for mesothelioma in Australia is yet to be available, as the development and testing of the vaccination is in its early stages. Although treatment of mesothelioma Australia is still of the ‘conventional’ standard, mesothelioma compensation is definitely available to those who seek it.

It is important to remember that treatment for mesothelioma in Australia is specific to the individual for the Australian with mesothelioma. In other words, the person suffering mesothelioma should obtain advice from the treating specialist, whatever that advice is. Clearly some treatments may assist some individuals suffering mesothelioma, and other treatments in Australia for mesothelioma won’t help other individuals.

IARC’s controversial links with the asbestos industry

Almost all forms of asbestos are banned from use and are listed in Annex III of the United Nations (UN) convention. This means that exporters are required to obtain consent from importing states to ensure that the risk associated with asbestos are minimized. The one exception to this is chrysotile asbestos.

The listing of chrysotile asbestos was first addressed in a 2006 UN conference, following a cohesive report on the detrimental ramifications of chrysotile asbestos use. This report was presented by the Rotterdam Convention’s Chemical Review Committee. Canada, being the largest producer and exporter of chrysotile asbestos in the world at the time, opposed the listing of chrysotile in Annex III. Its decision was supported by five other countries, and subsequently, chrysotile asbestos became the first and only substance to be recommended and rejected by parties to be listed in Annex III.

In 2011, the majority of countries overturned their initial opposition to the listing of chrysotile asbestos. This left Canada as the sole dissenting nation to veto its listing; no justification to their decision was presented, despite the fact that they did not deny the scientific research regarding the dangers of asbestos use.

In late 2012, the incoming Premier of Quebec, Pauline Marois, reversed the government’s decision to spend money on the reopening of an asbestos mine; subsequently, Canada withdrew their initial opposition, and no longer opposed the listing of chrysotile asbestos in Annex III.

In 2013, when the issue of listing chrysotile asbestos came up once again in the UN conference, Russia, for the first time, had enough influence and power to veto its listing. It had been suggested that a recent Kiev conference, and Russia’s controversial collaboration with the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), were the driving impetus for Russia’s sudden influence.

Prior to the UN conference in 2013, an invitation was extended to IARC by the Russian Scientific Research Institute of Occupation Health (SRIOH) to attend a conference in Kiev (‘Chrysotile Asbestos: Risk Assessment and Management’). A multitude of emails and letters were sent in by various sources to the Director-General of IARC, encouraging them to avoid the conference, and alleging that the organizers of the event were closely tied to the Russian asbestos industry. However, IARC publicly defended their decision to send one of their scientists to attend the conference, by stating that the conference was an “opportunity to emphasise the dangers related to the use of asbestos.”

The conference focused on research from the paper ‘Estimating the asbestos-related lung cancer burden from mesothelioma mortality’. However, research from this paper has been deemed extremely inaccurate and outdated. The paper focuses particularly on data obtained from studies which were funded by the Canadian asbestos industry, and fails to take into consideration updated statistics regarding mesothelioma risk posed by chrysotile asbestos.

Asbestos concern for Queensland.

In the final days of Gladstone’s former civic cinema’s demolition, Queensland Workplace Health and Safety officers were called to come down to the site to undertake an inspection. The request came after the public feared that asbestos sheeting from the building was being removed incorrectly.

A Queensland Workplace Health and Safety inspector performed the inspection last Friday and by Tuesday it was announced there were no asbestos concerns at the site. The company responsible for removing the asbestos holds the correct license and is removing all asbestos in line with workplace health and safety guidelines.

The proper removal of asbestos is extremely important because if it is not removed correctly it could lead to people being exposed to asbestos. Exposure to asbestos is a major health concern as it can result in people contracting an asbestos related disease such as asbestosis or mesothelioma.