Sentenced to Death – Asbestos, Profits and Apathy, the Silent Assassin.

After being threatened with legal action by Section 27 and the Khiba School in Kuruman to force various departments of governments to act on its own findings, the Department of Labour has finally acted in the interest of teachers under its scope and issued a notice to the school to deal with the Asbestos contamination or face permanent closure. 

The Departments of Mineral Resources, Education and Environment and Tourism have still not deemed it important enough to act.

The question of Asbestos exposure is however a much larger and exceedingly deadly humanitarian crises facing South Africa and one which requires government to account and to act immediately.

The first recorded commercial mining of amphibole asbestos began in the early 1880s. By the mid-nineteenth century, the South African industry produced 97% of the world's crocidolite and asbestos constituted one of South Africa's most valuable base minerals. When the last amphibole mine closed a century later, the South African asbestos industry had created an occupational and public health tragedy that continues to devastate many parts of South Africa.

Commercial mining of asbestos in South Africa centred around four Provinces, the Northern Cape, North West, Limpopo and Mpumalanga. The Northern Cape Province, home to both the first and last South African amphibole asbestos mines, was renowned for producing the finest quality crocidolite fibre in the world. When mining and milling in the Prieska area ended in the late 1960s, mines in the Kuruman region became South Africa's prime producers of crocidolite asbestos. Most of these mines were owned by Cape Blue, a subsidiary of the British multinational Cape Plc. In 1981, the Griqualand Exploration and Finance Company (Gefco) bought out most other companies in the area. Gefco closed Merencor, its last operating asbestos mine in the Kuruman area, in the late 1990s.

It was not until the 1950s, when a rise in world-wide demand for amphibole asbestos prompted mining companies to industrialise, that the government made any efforts to control asbestos dust levels or to require compensation for Asbestos Related Diseases (ARDs). By 1961, Dr J.C. Wagner had established the carcinogenic potential of asbestos in the lung. However the Apartheid government failed to adequately regulate dust limits or to ensure proper medical surveillance of workers. Indeed, with some patients, companies were allowed to encourage deliberate misdiagnosis of ARDs, especially among their black workers.

As a result, thousands of workers, if not tens of thousands, fell sick and never received any compensation.

In 1987, four years after black union’s won the right to organise, the first significant improvements in mine conditions were made. Even then, statutory limits on asbestos dust concentrations lagged far behind those imposed in other countries and were not well enforced.

When world asbestos prices dropped in the late 1970s and early 1980s, most South African amphibole mines were forced to close. In the absence of stronger legislation, fleeing multinationals were not forced to rehabilitate their asbestos mines and dumps. Today these contaminated areas continue to pollute and cause disease in many parts of South Africa, including the Kuruman region.

In 1996 the Portfolio Committee on Environment and Tourism in the National Parliament became officially aware of the extent and severity of asbestos related problems affecting communities in the four Provinces.  A National Asbestos Summit was held in November of 1998 to discuss the various issues surrounding asbestos contamination and compensation of former mine workers. 

The Summit resolved to undertake a “coordinated programme of action that engages the whole Government” which would be led by the Department of Environment and Tourism (DEAT) and the DEAT was tasked  “to initiate a feasibility study to determine the level of pollution in the affected Provinces”

The DEAT eventually got round to commissioning such a study in 2004 and the study was completed in 2006 and presented to the department as a confidential report. The report noted that “The results of the initial surveys portray a significant public health concern for the four Provinces” and “recommends immediate implementation of remediation planning”. The Report further recommends “(i)n particular, schools, pre-schools, day cares, play grounds and homes should be the highest priority for remediation” and that “this document be released to the public and all stakeholders following its review by the DEAT. This document should form part of an integrated public awareness campaign and outreach programme designed to inform the affected populations of their rights, the appropriate courses of action to be taken and the anticipated government interventions to address the issues”

Instead, 8 years later the report has been sitting in file 13, and nothing has been done to action the recommendations of the report.

The report is clear that “there is no “safe” level of exposure to asbestos. No lower threshold of safe exposure has been determined for either serpentine or amphibole fibres. However, risk is related to the age of first exposure, duration of exposure, and concentration of fibres in the air of a respirable size range. The age of first exposure is important as it relates to the latency period of asbestos related diseases. The earlier someone is exposed to fibres, the more opportunity exists for the onset of disease. With latency periods of at least 20 years, occupational exposures result in disease burdens that typically appear after the age of 40. In contrast, environmental exposures may manifest themselves in disease much earlier pointing to childhood exposures.”

The report states that “for the past seventy years, exposure to high levels of asbestos dust has been known to cause diseases such as asbestosis. Since the late 1950s it has been documented that asbestos exposure also causes lung cancer and mesothelioma (cancer of the lining of the lung and internal organs). Even low levels of exposure can lead to cancer….Symptoms do not manifest themselves until the disease is at an advanced stage. It can only be confirmed through a biopsy and is fatal.”  

A Silent Assassin.

How then does the state that is required by our constitution to act in the interest of its people under a constitution which guarantees its citizens the right under Section 24 “to an environment that is not harmful to their health or wellbeing”, under section 28 which provides that “a child’s best interest are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child”, not act with due urgency to rehabilitate the schools, homes and environment of thousands of its citizens to prevent further contamination of what is essentially a preventable disease?  

The people exposed to these conditions year after year have been sentenced to death and those who could have and who should have acted to prevent this humanitarian crisis should be held to account.