Last June, asbestos keeps busy. A pamphlet against 'asbesthy hysteria' will be published on 2 June and the government measure to clean up the asbestos roofs will be called discarded money. Less than a week later, the TV program Zembla union FNV accuses it of having kept a few asbestos incidents in bakeries 'under the cap'. Apparently authority figures do not have a happy hand with measures or can hardly find the right tone when it comes to asbestos. Or do the critics miss the mark?
Government, individual employers and trade unions have an important task to provide the right information for their target group. Where there are threats, authorities are responsible for ensuring that the public is alert to risks. But these authorities also have to ensure that the public is not unjustly worried or takes all kinds of unnecessary measures.
Policy must not take place before the 'Bühne'. There is nothing wrong with deciding powerpeople to act decisively, but measures to improve safety should primarily be based on a good risk analysis and on cost-effectiveness. Money for security can only be spent once and should have the greatest possible effect on the protection of the population.
So far there is no difference of opinion with the authors of the pamphlet. The question then is whether this rational approach to asbestos is followed.
It is a fact that emotions in citizens flare up quickly when it comes to asbestos. In theory, inhalation of one asbestos fiber can lead to mesothelioma, or pulmonary or peritoneal cancer. The fibers are not visible to the naked eye, you can not avoid them. What also does not help is that if asbestos is released during remediation or after a fire, this is cleared by men in white suits. No wonder that the lugubrious feeling arises among the citizen or the employee that there are dangers that he or she has no control over.
The role of the authority is to alert the public to risks without causing unjustified worries. Then it is important to point out that the chance that someone is actually ill by inhaling a fiber is so small that nobody has to worry about this. At the same time - that must also be communicated - it is better not to breathe fibers and the chance of a disease increases as people are more often in contact with asbestos.
The question then is what action is taken. The authors of the pamphlet argue that the citizens take matters into their own hands. They themselves could very well assess whether the money should be spent on a new kitchen or asbestos removal. That is a questionable recommendation. The question is whether citizens always make a good risk analysis, even if they are still well informed. Moreover, a rational decision from the individual is not always in the interest of the collective.
The past of asbestos problems shows that the government in the last century has been too slow with normative action. If the asbestos ban had come into force earlier, it would have saved thousands of lives.
The intention of the government to remove all asbestos-containing roofs by 2024 is an important, rational step towards reducing the risks for the future. Although there are relatively few asbestos victims in the agricultural sector so far, this can change if the roofs are only replaced when they become porous at the end of their economic life.
The broadcast of Zembla focuses on the role of civil society organizations. Trade unions must, of course, pre-eminently have an eye for risks for employees. If there are incidents, a risk analysis must be made with our own research. However, if it subsequently turns out that there are no dangers, it is wise not to sow unrest by hanging the case on the big clock.
It is also a good thing that Zembla draws attention to the problems of asbestos in industrial furnaces, given the numbers of victims from, for example, the metal industry. The program also painfully shows how difficult the legal agony of a victim can be.
All in all, it is therefore a good thing that the media pay attention to various aspects of the asbestos problem. But in these cases the authorities have not done such a bad thing at all or are not doing so badly. And that is also a reassuring thought for a difficult subject such as asbestos.
Comments
Post a Comment