A common denominator of the sad events that have affected the environmental Valsugana in the last two years (Monte Zaccone, steel mills, fly tipping, and not least the widespread problem of asbestos) is the ritual action of the directors at various levels that are spent in assurances about the absence of danger to health against pollution even of a substantial and extended.
The problem probably lies in the meaning that is attributed to the term "health hazard".
If this in fact means a potential emergency situation with visible damage in the short term for a large number of people, probably the administrator has reason; A Grigno there is an emergency asbestos because asbestos does not in itself constitute an emergency if This term means derived from macro-phenomena hazards such as flooding, electrocution, acute poisoning, falls, landslides, mudslides, etc. whose consequences are immediate, visible and "intense", but asbestos is a danger to himself notes, and more compelling reasons Aggravated by 'age and the condition of the roofs, the danger is that derived from an extended exposure continues at low doses, or one directly related to the onset of cancer. For cancer it is good not only refer to the pleural mesothelioma is the only cancer for which he has demonstrated a direct correlation with exposure to asbestos fibers, for other cancers and inflammatory diseases has not been possible to establish the direct correlation because are derived from a variety of reasons including even asbestos.
then count how many there were in mesothelioma Valsugana to see if the hundreds of square feet of asbestos roofs of Grigno are dangerous, is misleading and even wrong.
Another constant in the actions of directors is to consider how sustainable any situation "under regulation" as if this coincided with the absence of health consequences. Travelling on a road crowded with people 60 km times as there is a limit of 130 or does not constitute a danger to the health of people who are in that stretch of road? It has been shown how the limits are only a compromise and not a guarantee for health, think in this regard that they are progressive revision, of course downwards, so that the environmental concentration of a given toxic substance could be acceptable only two years ago, unlike today.
The ISDE is fighting against the attitudes that lead to a bureaucratic administrative approach to health problems, ignoring the basic principle, contained in our legal code, called the precautionary principle for which we should not expect that the harmfulness of a phenomenon is demonstrated "ex post" after which the epidemiology has demonstrated the impact on population, but must reasonably provide for posterity those remedies that avoid the serious consequences of a permissive attitude and ultimately superficial.
Grigno has a problem represented by an area of \u200b\u200bseveral hundred square meters of asbestos cement roofing from the years 50 60 and then in a state of apparent disintegration. The invisible fibrils with a diameter of few microns and then enter the respiratory tree into the bloodstream, they can be ingested and as such constitute a chronic exposure to low doses for the population, the consequences of which certainly added to other phenomena will be the balance after 15 20 years.
would be interesting to investigate what are the reasons for such assurances "formal" in the face of a phenomenon that is self-explanatory, we believe that the situation is completely under control and that even if does not exist (in the opinion of our directors) a state of emergency, is at least felt compelled to raise the issue and the danger resulting from it.
If someone wants to exploit it all identified and classified as a group of fanatical environmentalists whose responsibility is only to generate alarms, does not understand that being on the side of Health agrees to all.
However we are comfortable, the Province is informed and all that (bureaucratic) had to be done has been done ... what we want more?
0 comments:
Post a Comment