Asbestos as a danger

On the 2^nd of August 1996 an article on Savon Sanomat notes that the sensation launched a large-scale investigation over how dangerous the asbestos is in reality. In June 1997, the discussion concentrated on the restoration of the Paakkilanniemi and the 13^th of June 1997 article in Karjalainen mentioned the risk assessment for the first time from the environmental health risk perspective. There was a wide consensus among the people and authorities that restoration is necessary for the future. This reflects that asbestos as a risk for health was recognized at the same time the people of Paakkila were tired to endless researches¹³¹, hence the risks were known already before, but sensation pushed people to accept the risk.

This led to a situation where the payer of the restoration was needed to find. Authorities demanded that Partek should finance the restoration, but the risk management officer stated in Karjalainen on the 17^th of September 1997:

131 Karjalainen 13^th of June 1997

“Partek does not want to pay the bill. The company sees that because it is not responsible for the area in juridical meaning it is not responsible for moral perspective. There are a great number of old industrial areas in Finland that require restoration based on the contemporary regulation. Partek dealt all its matters based on the regulation during the time of the closure.”

As stated before, Beck claims that jurisdiction and legal praxis are lagging in situations where polluters are known but still cases end up on their side. In the case of Paakkila, this demonstrated how the risks are handled because the polluter was known but it is not possible to demand the company to follow the new regulation that is set after Partek sold its area in Paakkila. In a wider context, the sensation in Paakkila launched a nationwide survey in the areas where asbestos occurs.

Even though the health risk was recognized the discussion highlights the expenses that the restoration costs, e.g. Helsingin Sanomat on the 16^th of September 1997:

“The restoration of the asbestos area of Tuusniemi will cost millions”

The documentary film ‘Uimakoulua asbestijärvellä’ discusses about asbestos as a health hazard and interviews employee of Partek Seppo Kupiainen, the manager of property, the environmental health docent Jyrki Liesivuori, the chief administration officer of Tuusniemi Martti Kähkönen, Maunu Järvelä, chief of environmental health supervision Maunu Järvelä, and locals in Paakkila.

In the interviews with Kupiainen the unawareness and denial highlights in all sentences. For example, Kupiainen states that they did not know that the ground and water have asbestos in it. The denial appears in one case where company restored the ground and shore of one plot but Kupiainen denies it although the reporter found out from the dredger of the plot that Partek paid the restoration. He also heavily emphasizes that Partek does not own anything no longer. The interview with Kähkönen is similar: asbestos was not spoken during zoning and he claims that he did not know that there was asbestos. In his opinion, the case is outdated, and the question is about coincidence. During the zoning, the municipality requested Järvelä to explore the area and he found nothing. However, he did it over the winter when everything is covered with snow. In his opinion, people have lived in the area for centuries, hence it is a natural and safe place. He emphasizes that asbestos was not in the

common knowledge. Also, he did not want to start actions because the question was about great economic values. The docent Liesvuori was skeptical in the interviews because in his opinion the authorities knew asbestos during zoning but wanted to keep it quiet. The locals who were interviewed in the documentary film bought a plot but did know that it had asbestos in it that leads to a situation where he cannot allow the grandkids to come to the cottage.

Every actor has its own motives that can be recognized from the documentary film, for example the economic values overcome the environmental health values from the perspective of Partek and Tuusniemi. The reasons behind these motives are found in the societal theory by Schnaiberg; the environmental problems are recognized but the municipality does not want that the economy will suffer, and this is how it and Partek retained the societal peace. However, when the sensation started, they had to set in a defensive position that can be seen from the statement by Kähkönen:

“No one here is deliberately exposed to danger, no way. Life is a coincidence.”

Their replies illustrate how asbestos as a risk was known but it was the best interest for a rural municipality to zone the cabin plots and Partek’s interest to sell the former mining area in quiet that they would not have to concern the problem they were responsible. The interviewees in the documentary have the same justification for asbestos as in the newspaper articles.¹³² At present days, people are still afraid of asbestos and relentless to buy plots or cabins.

IW2: “Nowadays asbestos is a bad, bad word. It has affected because people have sold quickly their land because they are afraid. People scare that dreadful asbestos, even though it is harmless when it is under the ground.”

IW4: “The people of Tuusniemi are still afraid of mining because they are so against mining and trying to fight.”

The fear of mining is still present at because there is a projected mine nearby Tuusniemi in Heinävesi.

IW3: ” Nowadays the people in Heinävesi and Tuusniemi are still afraid of mining and trying to fight back with a goal to prevent mine to establish.”

132 e.g. Koillis-Savo and Savon Sanomat 3^rd of August 1996, see page 48