3 ms·
A few comments here mentioned that old ships being broken up have a lot of asbestos. I would have assumed this would have been an issue on very old ships, but s
by jabl 2y ago
A few comments here mentioned that old ships being broken up have a lot of asbestos. I would have assumed this would have been an issue on very old ships, but some cursory web searching suggests that it's still prevalent even in relatively new ships.
IMO rules (https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Safety/Pages/Asbestos.aspx https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Safety/Pages/Asbestos.aspx ) say roughly that:
- Ships built before 2002 may contain asbestos, but it should be "managed properly".
- Ships built after 2002 can contain asbestos in a few specific applications.
- Ships built after 2011 can't contain any asbestos, period.
Unfortunately, it seems reality fails to follow even these modest regulations. One can assume that "managed properly" doesn't include having workers with no PPE ripping out asbestos insulation and then just leaving it lying around on the beach, as seems to be the norm in 3rd world ship breaking. And not only in breaking up ships, even newly built ships can contain asbestos. E.g. from https://www.marineinsight.com/shipping-news/more-than-65-of-all-ships-are-operating-with-systems-containing-asbestos/ https://www.marineinsight.com/shipping-news/more-than-65-of-...
> John Rendi, General Manager, Environmental Services, Maritec, said: “Although newbuild ships are delivered with an asbestos free declaration, in many cases asbestos has been found onboard during subsequent surveys, or port state inspections."
- causal 2y agoMaritime regulation is hard when it operates in the space between states. Asbestos in particular is such a temptation in manufacturing because it's just so useful and cheap. An argument can probably be made that handled properly it saves more lives than it harms just because it's such a good fire resistant insulator.
- samatman 2y agoThis might be true in fact, if asbestos use is limited to applications where it's the obvious best choice. But it's uncomfortable to run a simple utilitarian calculus when, as in this case, the groups it benefits (sailors) and those it harms (shipbreakers) are disjoint. Leads one to want to find a solution which is more straightforwardly positive-sum.
- macintux 2y agoI don't think those building/owning the ships care much about the benefit to sailors, just that the ships are less likely to be severely damaged by fire.
- samatman 2y agoIt wasn't a comment about motivations, but rather, benefit. Sailors fairly clearly benefit from not being on a ship which catches fire. If you'd like to add the financial balance of owners and builders to the benefit side, feel free.
- causal 2y agoAgreed. I'm not advocating for use of asbestos given its tendency to end up in places humans breathe.
- jabl 2y agoWhile I don't have any insider info on the behind the scenes wrangling wrt IMO regulations, I would assume that asbestos wouldn't have been prohibited unless satisfactory alternatives weren't available. E.g. mineral wool, glass wool, and Zetex fabric are AFAIU widely used as fireproof insulation materials all over the world, presumably also in 'asbestos-free' ships.