Considering the Delay in Asbestos Regulation

I recently obtained the qualification of “Building Asbestos-Containing Materials Investigator.”
My primary work is seismic retrofitting of buildings, but such projects inevitably involve demolition work. Before demolition can begin, an asbestos inspection is required.

For that reason, I took the training course for this qualification. However, as I learned about the history of asbestos regulation in Japan, I have to admit that I felt a strong sense of anger.

Japan’s Regulations Were 25 Years Behind

Asbestos was, in principle, fully banned in Japan in 2006.
In contrast, Western countries had already begun introducing step-by-step regulations from the 1960s, due to concerns about health damage.

In other words, Japan took more than 25 years longer than Europe and the United States to implement a comprehensive ban.

During this period, rather than decreasing, Japan’s asbestos imports actually increased, reaching their peak between the 1970s and the 1990s.
While Western countries were tightening regulations, Japan was expanding its use.

The “Long Latency Period” as an Excuse

It was already well established that asbestos could cause mesothelioma and lung cancer.
Nevertheless, Japan delayed taking action, citing the fact that these diseases often have a latency period of 20 to 40 years.

Only after the damage became visibly widespread did regulations begin to move forward.
It was a clear case of reactive and delayed policy-making.

The Burden That Lies Ahead

Many buildings containing asbestos are now reaching the stage where they must be demolished.

Handling asbestos safely requires enormous costs, and in the end, these costs will inevitably be borne by the public.

When asbestos was used, decisions prioritized low cost and convenience. Now, the consequences are placing a heavy burden on society as a whole.
Is this not a typical example of a “negative legacy” left to future generations?

Why Was the Response So Slow?

In my view, several factors contributed to the delay:

• Economic growth was prioritized, and pressure from industry was strong
• The seriousness of health damage was not fully recognized
• Regulations were repeatedly postponed under the idea of implementing them “gradually” and “carefully”
• The voices of victims struggled to gain sufficient influence

In short, the system tended to prioritize economic and industry interests.

In some ways, this reminds me of how nuclear power plant safety measures were not strengthened until after earthquakes and tsunamis caused disasters.
What these situations have in common is a structural tendency to downplay safety and postpone addressing risks.

To Avoid Repeating the Same Mistake

The asbestos issue is not simply a “mistake of the past.”
With a wave of building demolitions approaching, it remains a very real and pressing challenge.

It is also said that serious problems related to asbestos control have already arisen during the demolition and debris processing following the Noto Peninsula earthquake.

For the sake of those who will carry the future, we must remain vigilant and ensure that problems like the asbestos issue are not repeated again.

---