The purpose of the research was to find out how the discussion over asbestos changed from the late 1960s to the early 2000s, what meanings asbestos is given at different times, and what are the motives and reasons behind the meanings. Asbestos was not only a health risk but also social and economic risk. Asbestos meant different matters from the active years to the closure to the asbestos sensation. In the beginning, asbestos was the unique mineral and the closure was a risk for the municipality of Tuusniemi and the community that were dependent economically from mine. Later, mine was shut down in 1975. This changed the whole community, only a few people were offered jobs by the metal company, many moved to work for the other Partek mines and factories around Finland, and the rest retired. The community became quiet for twenty years when people moved out because of lack of the job opportunities. The sensation over the dangerousness of asbestos started in the 1996 after Tuusniemi zoned plots in the shore of Paakkilanniemi. At this time, the discussion differed from the days when mine was shut down because the environmental health was the most significant topic. Thus, the meaning of asbestos changed from the 1960s unique, economic benefit to the 1990s asbestos as a dreadful risk for human health.
Asbestos can be called an invisible risk from the environmental health perspective, even though the asbestos mineral itself can be seen easily. The asbestos mineral is not a risk, or the level of risk is lower until its mined and processed. When mining and processing the asbestos rock the structure of asbestos comes out; it breaks down into small particles. From the environmental health risk perspective asbestos is not sensually perceptible that means the microscopic asbestos particles cannot be seen, therefore there is no significant fear for health. At the beginning of the mining, asbestos was not seen as a risk for health because the impacts on science were unknown, hence the working class in mine were unaware that they were exposed to a health hazard. The risk did not exist in the beginning, but awareness of its dangers increased the risk over time. The international development about recognizing asbestos as a risk and the ban of asbestos products eventually forced Partek to shut down mine because the sales were low, and it became an economic risk for the company.
There is no immediate effect on the people who were exposed to asbestos and in time, many workers, family members or someone from their circle of acquaintances got sick. The risk and its fatal consequences became gradually known for the science and to the public. Mine improved its protection because they wanted to control the impacts of the particles, but the improvements did not remove the risk because the machinery was not sufficient to protect from the small particles. As the risk society theory highlights, the modern society produces new risks that are tried to control by installing new technology, it did not remove the risk in this case.
Asbestos as a risk for health became frightening later after mine was shut down during the sensation in 1996. Even though the knowledge of the risk increased over time, there is other matters that affect how the risk is expressed and what kind of meanings it is given. For example, the people who have worked for mine for centuries were there voluntarily. When the legislation and science recognized asbestos as a risk for health there was a wide consensus that asbestos is, indeed, a health hazard and it should be controlled with appropriate manner. This was followed by the modern legislation in the late 1980s and beginning of the 1990s.
The knowledge of risk does not itself change how people react to risk and how it is recognized but it requires also that the risk, in this case asbestos, is seen as a risk in the community as a whole. One central reason behind the analysis of reactions was the economic interdependence to the asbestos mine of Paakkila that affected how people reacted and what were their opinions. The reaction among the former employees and inhabitants can be separated to the private concern where everyone was concerned about their own or their family members’ health, but they protected oneself by not bringing the death and fear of death discussion caused by asbestos to the public arena with a desire to forget those painful times. Only one person activated to a social action that can be seen from writing opinion pieces about the risks of asbestos, contacting Minister of the Environment several times, and interacting with the environmental authorities. However, he moved from Paakkila relatively long time ago, hence the community pressure in Paakkila did not affect him.
The results of the study are supported by the presented theory perception. The people who were working voluntarily accepted the risk of asbestos and did not accuse the employee for
the diseases. This repeats in almost all interviews. When the interviewees in the research data had to ponder over economic values and health values the costs to their health are overtook by material values such as money. In addition, they did not have other options because getting another job was difficult in a small community in a rural area. In the case of Paakkila the risk reformulated over time and the meaning differed from the 1970s to the 1990s because in the beginning the risk was only economic values such as livelihood and taxes for the municipality and later it was seen as a risk for health.
The press had an important role to bring out the opinions of the people and indeed they reformulated the meaning of asbestos, for example the press in the 1970s stated asbestos a unique mineral but later in the 1990s asbestos was connected to death, fear, and fatality. This indicates how the press can change the meaning of asbestos and it also brings out the contemporary discussion about asbestos. Thus, the meanings of asbestos changed on different periods because the society transformed to formulate asbestos in a different manner.