A report by the Health and Safety Executive reveals that in 2018, there were 2,446 mesothelioma deaths in the UK, mostly caused by past exposure to asbestos. The report also predicts that the annual number of mesothelioma deaths will stay roughly at the same level for the rest of the decade before dropping. This shows that the progress in protecting workers from exposure to asbestos has been sluggish and inadequate. Or, in other words, the Health and Safety Executive has been doing a stellar job of keeping the asbestos industry alive and kicking.

The report also predicts that the annual number of mesothelioma deaths will stay roughly at the same level for the rest of the decade before dropping. This shows that the progress in protecting workers from exposure to asbestos has been sluggish and inadequate.

Or perhaps just a feature of the long period (often many decades) between exposure and symptoms appearing?

   - Andy.

how do you deduce this ? Some of the folk dying now were exposed when working in the 1980s - when to be fair compared to leaded petrol, smoking and a childhood exposure to  lead painted toys and coal fires meant that the risk was not as clear and signficant as it appears today

to be sure if the regulations of the 1990s have been successful we need to wait until everyone who may have been exposed before that has died. That is not sensible.

This graph of fatalities from mesothelioma  versus age in 5 year blocks makes it very clear  - the ages peaking now are those  exposed, probably  at work, many years before the current regs. The curves for the under 50s peaked years ago, and even the under 65s have now clearly peaked.

If the average life expectancy had not risen due to the eradication of other risks, these deaths would not be visibe at all.

I'd take that as a resounding success personally.

Mike.

BTW, modern write ups tend to forget how many folk have been saved by asbestos from horrible burns and death - it is only a net benefit to eliminate it from construction as we now do not have so  many sources of ignition and better means of early detection.

Why did the UK lag behind many other countries in banning asbestos, despite the clear evidence of its deadly effects? Well, the answer is simple: money and politics. The UK government was swayed by the asbestos industry, which had a powerful lobby and a huge market in the UK. The asbestos industry claimed that asbestos was a cheap, effective, and essential material for many sectors, such as construction, shipbuilding, and insulation. The UK government was also reluctant to adopt the stricter standards and regulations of the European Union (EU), which had banned asbestos in 1998. These factors delayed the UK ban on asbestos until 1999, when the UK government finally gave in to the EU directive and implemented the Control of Asbestos Regulations. However, by then, the damage was done. Millions of people had been exposed to asbestos and thousands of people had died or suffered from asbestos-related diseases. The UK government’s decision to put profits over people cost many lives and caused much suffering. Or, in other words, the UK government was a great friend of the asbestos industry, but a terrible enemy of the public health.

I do not think so really, no. Most EU members take a year or two to copy EU directives into local law, actually some are a lot less keen and speedy than the UK is, or at least was,  before brexit rather broke the link on that.

If anything we have a historical tendency to over embellish and go beyond the minimum directive requirements.

If you look a little wider than the EU, the USA for example still permitted the use white asbestos in car brake pads and gaskets among other things  until 2019 - a full two decades behind their removal UK...

and as noted in my post with the graph above - the only reason the figures look bad now, is because the average life expectancy has risen considerably,  as other previously dominant causes of death have been to some extent mitigated.
On average  working men did not live much beyond 70 in 1980, now ignoring the dip at the end from coronavirus, the equivalent age is a touch under 80. ( image from https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/bulletins/nationallifetablesunitedkingdom/2018to2020 )

If you chop out the over 75s from the curves above, they actually  look quite good...

I'm not arguing that all historical decisions were good, far from it, but at a time when the available evidence was less compelling, you cannot really blame folk for not having acted sooner.  I suspect we may find ourselves in a similar situation regarding health and the use of electronics like phones etc  in a few decades time, but it takes a few lifetimes of data before one can act with certainty.

And as others have said there is no magic wand for the enormous volumes of the stuff already in service  - after all ripping it out and burying it in landfill is not actually that safe an activity either. The best one can do is to be careful and to keep a look out for it.

Mike

I understand your point. Am I right in thinking that several European countries had the foresight and the prudence to ban asbestos in the 70s, when the evidence of its deleterious effects was already incontrovertible ? For instance, Sweden prohibited asbestos sprays in 1973, and subsequently chrysotile and crocidolite in 1982. The use of all asbestos products was outlawed in Sweden in 1986. Iceland enacted a ban on asbestos (with a few exceptions) in 1983, which was revised in 1996. Norway proscribed it in 1984 with a few restrictions. These countries were pioneers and exemplars of public health and safety for their citizens and workers. Why did the UK lag behind until 1999 to ban asbestos? Why did we not follow our European neighbours? We should also heed the lessons of our past blunders and be more vigilant and proactive when it comes to new technologies and substances that may entail health hazards in the future.

I understand your point. Am I right in thinking that several European countries had the foresight and the prudence to ban asbestos in the 70s, when the evidence of its deleterious effects was already incontrovertible ? For instance, Sweden prohibited asbestos sprays in 1973, and subsequently chrysotile and crocidolite in 1982. The use of all asbestos products was outlawed in Sweden in 1986. Iceland enacted a ban on asbestos (with a few exceptions) in 1983, which was revised in 1996. Norway proscribed it in 1984 with a few restrictions. These countries were pioneers and exemplars of public health and safety for their citizens and workers. Why did the UK lag behind until 1999 to ban asbestos? Why did we not follow our European neighbours? We should also heed the lessons of our past blunders and be more vigilant and proactive when it comes to new technologies and substances that may entail health hazards in the future.

Well here in the UK we had also banned the import of blue and brown (amphibole) asbestos and products made from it  from  '85 onward of course  - and in practice the writing was on the wall a  few years before that, and the industry had already been winding the use of those down as much as possible, and  '99 was only the banning of the remaining serpentine (white) asbestos as used in asbestos cements and so on.

And before that the use of asbestos and making of it  was already being regulated in many ways.

The asbestos worker licensing regs in '83, and before my time, asbestos regulations 1969 to set a requirement to monitor and record exposure levels, in all areas using asbestos and derived materials,  and to try and determine safe levels of exposure - in turn replacing the 1931 regs that were well-intentioned but only manufacturing industry specific - so for example covered workers in factories weaving asbestos mats etc, but not  folk like plumbers using products made from them..

In turn that was in response to the UK govt commissioned report by Merewether and Price - one of the first attempts in the world to see if there was any link between exposure to asbestos fibres, and health problems. Nowadays looking back we are not too surprised to see that they concluded there actually was some link, but at the time in 1930 it seems it was pretty surprising  news.

We may not be at the vanguard of everything, and it is not always wise to rush off and ban things until the evidence is in, but neither are we are in the grip of some terrible conspiracy or factory owners cartel nor that disorganised that  we always play catch-up ;-)

Mike