Editorial/The reality of asbestos

Providing financial relief for asbestos-related victims is urgent.
When a factory worker develops an illness caused by exposure to deadly asbestos, such as mesothelioma and lung cancer, that worker clearly qualifies for workers' accident compensation insurance. But for some victims, the picture is not so clear. They are not covered because they cannot produce necessary work records.
Other victims merely had the bad luck to live near a factory that spewed the substance, falling ill years after exposure to airborne asbestos.
The government is moving to aid all these victims without exception, and the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare has begun drafting a bill to ensure compensation. But work on the draft has stalled.
A consensus exists that work-related illnesses fall under the workers' accident compensation insurance plan. But no consensus has yet been reached on how to treat cases arising from air and other pollution.
The biggest stumbling block is how much to pay outside victims. The government's original plan laid out monthly sums of 100,000 yen each to cover their medical and other care expenses. Families of victims who have died would receive 2.6 million yen. That plan was rejected by the ruling party after many members asserted the amounts were not enough.
Under the accident compensation insurance system, workers who developed work-related illnesses are eligible for free medical treatment and compensation for lost income. In cases where the victim has died, bereaved families receive up to 70 percent of the victims' annual income as pension benefits. They also are paid lump-sum death allowances under the program and condolence money from the employers.
Any victims who became ill simply by living near factories will find it hard to accept such a big gap in compensation.
Another sticky question is who should be covered by the aid program. The health ministry's expert panel on the asbestos issue begins its discussions this week. It is tasked with working out the medical criteria to determine whether he or she is an asbesto-related victim.
It is not easy to identify the cause of diseases like mesothelioma and lung cancer from symptoms alone. Lung cancer, for instance, can also be caused by smoking. But with new victims emerging almost daily, the panel has no time to spare. We hope it will stay focused on making the scope of the aid program as wide as is realistically possible.
Even if a good relief plan is crafted, however, it should not be the end of the government's response to this public health disaster. The causes and overall picture of asbestos poisoning nationwide, whether in factories or their neighborhoods, is yet unclear.
What is needed now is large-scale epidemiologic research that will have a bearing on important related questions, such as how far away from an asbestos-using factory is safe for residents, and how many people who once lived near an asbestos-spewing factory actually developed mesothelioma. The work environment, health conditions and causes of death of workers who fell ill from asbestos exposure should also be tracked.
Such research will inevitably take time, and thus the medical criteria for asbestos claimants being set by the health ministry panel should only be regarded as tentative. When the causes and scope of the disaster become clearer, both the criteria and the relief program should be revised.
Although this nation has seen public health disasters caused by pollution, there has been little systematic gathering of epidemiologic data related to such tragedies. In fact, no epidemiologic research was ever conducted into the notorious Minamata mercury poisoning. As a result, victims and the state are still locked in court battles over the symptoms of Minamata disease.
For asbestos victims, the government should provide relief quickly and reveal the whole picture of this calamity. This time, the government must not botch its handling of this serious public health challenge.