The closure of the asbestos mine of Paakkila

This chapter analyses the asbestos mine of Paakkila and matters it concerns after mine was shut down until the sensation in the late 1990s to the early 2000s. The analysis proceeds in chronological order. The reporting of the asbestos mine of Paakkila has two peaks: another started on the 22^nd of November1974 when Partek published that they will shut down the mine and continued a few years after that. The discussion focused altogether to the economic risks of the municipality of Tuusniemi, Paakkila, and community members. The second peak started on the 10^th of May in 1996 when a bank named Merita organized a forced sale of a cabin that located in the shore of Paakkilanniemi, close to the former asbestos mine.

This launched a debate where the focus was on the cleaning of the land under the cabins that contained asbestos. The debate enlarged affecting the whole Paakkila and its surroundings.

The first media report about the asbestos mine of Paakkila I found was on the 1^st of October 1966. At this time, asbestos is seen as a unique natural resource that benefits the community, especially economically because it was the biggest employer with 150 employees, and it was one of the biggest taxpayers in Tuusniemi. Hence, asbestos meant livelihood and economic wellbeing that led social wellbeing. Asbestos was not seen as a risk for health because scientific and legal praxis did not recognize it as a risk. The reporting about Paakkila is not very active because when there are no issues, there will be no reporting.

In the timeline on reporting about the asbestos mine in Paakkila, the first reference to environmental health risk was on the 23^th of November 1974. The topic of the article was the closure decision of the mine and workers addressed Partek that closuew would have significant impact on the mental health of the people. However, this refers to the livelihood and losing it and it is only mentioned in the subordinate clause, hence it was not given as much as weigh as economic values. The environmental awakening started in the 1960s but has not extended to this case, yet.

The politicization of nature is part of the ‘environmental awakening’ or a trajectory that lead from the 1960s to a political competition and its breeding ground. This meant that the press started to report about environmental disasters and problems in the 1960s. When, the

disasters became known people started to worry about the state of the environment. The politicization of nature also meant that these environmental threats were brought to public space where the actors in the society are competing the power to define the meanings of different questions.¹¹⁵ In Finland, the large-scale industrialization and urbanization started in Finland after the 2^nd Word War. Increased industry demanded more use of the natural resources that led to pollution. The pollution awaked in the youth who lived in cities and town a desire to stop the industry from polluting, and to rather start protecting the nature.

The change in the traditional environmental protection started to change in the 1960s because the development required to start considering a model where environmental and human interaction was seen as unity.¹¹⁶ Individuals formed groups to challenge the industry that was polluting the nature and was the cause of all environmental problems. ¹¹⁷

The environmental problems materialize when new problems such as acid rains and environmental toxins. The environmental protection needed new partners to bring out the environmental problems to public and this was when the newspapers started to report about them, such as Koijärvi in the 1979 and Lappajärvi case concreted the environmental problems and brought them close to the people. The chance took place in the public discussion about the environmental matters because in the 1970s many considered that the matters are troublemaking but in the 1980s the matters were taken more seriously by the press and the society.¹¹⁸ Asbestos is invisible, therefore it is not in the same line with i.e.

acid rains that had straightforward, visible impacts. Hence, it did not launch similar sensation and there were no activist groups challenging asbestos mining. The sensation started later, because of different reasons.

The closure of mine caused significant resistance that reflects the opinion of the regional leader of the mine:

“A good taxpayer leaves the picture. The story of asbestos in Paakkila is not the last we have heard on the asbestos. It will be exploited in five to years. A good taxpayer leaves the picture. The story of asbestos in Paakkila is not the

115 Haila – Lähde 2003, p. 11-13

116 Poutanen 2008 p. 44-49

117 Järvikoski 1991 p. 168-169

118 Telkänrinta 2008 p.50-54

last we have heard on the asbestos. It will be exploited at five to ten years. The mankind simply does not have an opportunity to utilize the asbestos unused.”

Statements like this present how asbestos is described as the lifeline for the community economy and closing the asbestos mine is a risk for the municipal and individual subsistence.

The reporting in the 1974 and a few years after concerned the closure of the mine and its impacts on the community and municipality of Tuusniemi. On the 27^th of November 1974 in Koillis-Savo article, the men in the announcement event of closure stated that:

“The people of Tuusniemi feel that losing the old industry is a significant loss to not only to the people but especially to the municipal economy”

Hence, it was a risk for the economic wellbeing for a relatively small and remote municipality in eastern Finland. Paakkila mine was a significant factor in the municipal development plans. In recent years, the demand for asbestos on the international market had decreased dramatically. It is noteworthy, that article does not give a reason for the dramatic decrease of sales. As mining in general, the international markets define is mining certain ore or a mineral profitable. Though in the case of asbestos there was another significant matter that caused the drop of sales. As it is mentioned that on the 1960s it was known that asbestos is not good for health but the seriousness of asbestos exposure. Because asbestos mining was dependent on the international markets and in this case, it was the outward circumstances that decreased the markets of asbestos because it was known that was a health hazard outside Finland, for example in the USA.

From the global perspective, asbestos was recognized asbestos as a risk in the 1960s by the international organization ILO and the USA started to ban asbestos products beginning of the 1970s. A large amount of asbestos mined from Paakkila were exported abroad.

Therefore, when Partek closed the mine because according to them the markets are low, hence it was no longer profitable. When countries like the USA and Great Britain started first reducing and later banning asbestos products the markets changed. In Finland, asbestos was not recognized as a risk, therefore the reasons behind closure were financial.

Supposedly, the company knew the development of the international discussion about asbestos as a health hazard but did not want to justify their decision on that basis because it would have been harmful for them. When, the legal praxis did not recognize asbestos as

health risk they did not have to bring out the results of the studies that took place outside Finland.

Similar articles reflect the predominant position of economic values, such as on the 23^th of December 1974 in Savon Sanomat the headline states that the closure causes serious disadvantages for the people and to the industrial life of Tuusniemi. As the municipal manager of Tuusniemi states:

“For the municipal is important only that tax revenues are received and in the industrial jobs remain and that the employees can work at their home town.”

The men were not only who rose to oppose the closure of the mine because the women of Tuusniemi wrote on the 9^th of December 1974 that the community requires more jobs, not less as it is happening and demanded that the state should rally around the honest people of Paakkila. The article an emergency call for Paakkila mine also fears that the closure will ruin the economy and development of Tuusniemi for many years to come.

Among the former employees of the mine, the closure awaked polarized opinions because losing job would be a difficult matter for many people. At the same time, they knew that asbestos is a risk for their health, but still the job was all they had. Every interviewee highlights the economic factors when talking about the closure and signify that it was ‘just a job’ as the next one but asbestos was necessary evil. There is a consensus among the interviewees that asbestos as a health hazard was brought out when Partek announced the closure. While before the workers were worried about their livelihood, during the closure took place a significant change:

IW4: “[…] when the employer said that Saturdays are not working days anymore many co-workers were worried about livelihood, but it all dispelled after asbestos was discovered as a risk for health. They started to fear asbestos and the discussion changed.”

Yet, when one of the interviewees look back to the times of the closure,

IW2: It was the factory and mine that gave the livelihood to all here, therefore it wasn’t that bad thing. Sure, many people got sick, but money was the most important factor. We had no choice to do anything else.”

People react differently because of their individual experiences and motives. This means that valuing your job more than health, you make a conscious decision of taking the risk; hence risking your health. In 1975, the discussion about the asbestos mine become quiet because people accepted that the mine will and was shut down for eternity and they needed to move forward. Important matter to relieve the fear of livelihood gave the announcement of Partek to establish a metal company to the old factory space on the 5^th of January 1975. The company promised that the change in the production line can expand from the mining years.

The acceptance of the closure can be seen from the chairman of the municipal council’s review in Koillis-Savo on the 6^th of January 1975 where Lauri Vartiainen states that although the issue is serious, we must accept the change in the production line. However, the new metal company offered jobs only to 20-30 people who need to relocate to the other jobs offered by Partek around Finland. The atmosphere was fundamentally different than just a year ago.

On the 18^th of September 1977 mine was shut down two years ago and the metal company had started. The headline of the article ‘It’s not going well in Paakkila’ concerns over the temporary lay-off of the metal company but at the same time brings up asbestos as a health hazard. ‘It’s not going well in Paakkila’ also refers to working in an asbestos mine caused numerous diseases that caused death, especially among the men who worked for the mine:

the number of widows was increasing because men died premature. It is important to remember that the asbestos diseases have a long development time, from 20 to 30 years. The press reports about the environmental news until people are going numb even though environmental problems are not just news among others. However, a society full of risks brings the news from distant to local that affect the reality near. The environmental risks can become concrete in many ways.¹¹⁹ In a remote village like Paakkila, the risk became reality when asbestos caused many diseases, illness, and death. However, asbestos and Paakkila still meant livelihood and environmental health was in the subordinate clause. This reflects to the stable state where the economic values overcome the environmental and health values.

119 Lahti – Saarela 1991, p. 307

A former employee of the company, Veikko Asikainen who worked as a supervisor in the company was interviewed by the reporter. In his opinion, the voluntariness to work and live there comes out and why do they not want to accuse the company:

“I don’t blame the company even though I have these diseases. Back then, I don’t think that even the employer knew the dangerousness of asbestos and it came as a surprise. The Paakkila mine brought suffering but despite everything the mine was a good thing. We would have worked there although the job was risking health.”

In 1977, YLE i.e. the broadcasting company of Finland made a documentary film about Paakkila where former employees and villagers were interviewed about their life in Paakkila in general and how mine impacted their life. After mine was shut down the lifeline died for the most that the same time. As one interviewee says that this is a disappearing remote village where only people who live there are the pensioners because people in the working age have moved to other places. The same themes are repeated in the interviews: people had diseases caused by asbestos such as asbestosis, mesothelioma and lung cancer or they had family members who have died because of these diseases. At this point, the asbestos as risk for health was recognized.

The stories of the people are similar:

“[…] it is clear that it does not feel nice to retire at age of 43. I feel anxious and it hurts to breath. I don’t know how long I can hold out.”

“Shortness of breathing started in the 1971 and it was examined and discovered that I have asbestosis in my both lungs. I feel anxiety.”

“I was fourteen years old when my mother died, and all these fits were sawn from her face. The anxiety was tough. My father worked for the mine for 36 years. He had the same symptoms as my mom had. That gave a feeling that we don’t have any chance to escape. It was like putting a string around the neck and taunting it a bit by bit.”

However, the acceptance of mining affects how the risk is experienced and accepted. In general, people who work in the industry and construction sector accept mining compared with other sectors. Also, they are the most approving group that accepts mining in their

hometown.¹²⁰ The people interviewed were former employees of the asbestos mine, hence they have the historical connection that affects their opinion and how it asbestos is experienced. Many positive and negative factors affect the local acceptability of the mining industry. For example, the financial benefits of the project are significant for the local acceptance.¹²¹ It is important to remember that Partek was generous what came to the social wellbeing of the community because they donated plots to the employees, helped them to construct the houses, gave trucks and other supplements. Partek was the predecessor and the heart of the community when it built an ice hockey rink, skiing tracks and organized competitions so the children had places to play and compete. Also, they rewarded employees for long careers by giving diplomas, trophies, and gold watches.

As in the case of Kärkölä, the people reacted cautiously to the environmental pollution accident, mostly at the level of feelings and thoughts. Only a small amount of people channelled their reaction to societal actions whereas one quarter did not react in any manner.

The general cautious reacting reflects that only a quarter viewed that the liable for payment was the sawmill that caused the pollution. Central reason behind the cautious reaction was however how the financial dependence for the sawmill impacted to the reactions and opinions.¹²² The case of Paakkila shares the same similarity.

When, the attitudes are intertwined with the material wellbeing of the people they also define how to react to environmental problems. Additionally, the attitude and opinion relate to acting. Hence, the conative dimension is connected with the awareness that explains the behaviour and intended behaviour. ¹²³ As in the Kärkölä case, the people reacted cautiously to the environmental pollution accident mostly at the level of feelings and thoughts. Only a small amount of people channelled their reaction to societal actions whereas one quarter did not react in any manner. The general cautiously reflects that only a quarter viewed that the liable for payment was the sawmill that caused the pollution. Central reason behind the cautious reaction was, however, how the financial dependence for the sawmill impacted to the reactions and opinions.¹²⁴ The case of Paakkila is similar because the people were dependant from mine that put them in position where they did not want to start a sensation

and their reaction was to be caution and not to talk about it. This continued for twenty years after mine was shut down until a former resident of Paakkila launched the discussion over the dangerousness of asbestos. It might be that the residents of Paakkila wanted to keep asbestos as ‘secret’ because it is still a sensible subject and community pressure forbids to share the story with outsiders. Even nowadays it did not change because it was difficult to get interviews from the locals.

I recognized this in my bachelor’s thesis in 2016 when studying the local social acceptance of a former mine in Luikonlahti, Kaavi that locates relatively near to Paakkila. One of my findings was that people who worked for the mine for a long time did not see the negative impacts i.e. livelihood is given more weight than environmental or health impacts. In addition, based on the risk perception by Slovic, voluntariness decreases how the risk is experienced. The meaning of asbestos to the former employees was still livelihood even though mine was shut down two years ago after the documentary film. The historical connection to the mine and voluntariness explains why the people did not accuse the company for the diseases and deaths.

This pattern repeats in the documentary film ’Paakkilan asbestikaivos’ 1977 interviews:

“Perhaps we itself have the fault and responsibility. It was us who voluntary came and stayed here.”

“I just don’t understand who is responsible of diseases whether was it the company or who. I don’t think that society will take responsibility over this kind of things.”

“If the employer knew how dangerous asbestos is for health, it is a massive crime. But I am not saying that they knew about this.”

The same pattern occurs also from the interviews, e.g.:

IW5: “I can confess that I don’t think that negatively whereas some people are so, so negative but what can I do because I was the one who voluntarily came here to work to this dust firm. I my opinion, rebelling does not change a thing.”

Communities and the conditions of their existence are remodeled as an outcome of historical processes that explain the earlier occasions and explain understandable the later occasions.¹²⁵

Communities and the conditions of their existence are remodeled as an outcome of historical processes that explain the earlier occasions and explain understandable the later occasions.¹²⁵