Archive for February, 2008

NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana – In New Orleans, cleansing fire may not just be a metaphor. The EPA will deal with the large amount of asbestos-contaminated debris in one New Orleans parish by using fire.

Amid reports that the hazards of asbestos contamination in the debris and litter left behind in the wake of Katrina have slowed rebuilding efforts in New Orleans, the EPA has announced that they will clean up some of the problem with a controlled cleanup burn.

It’s been nearly three years since the devastation that was Katrina hit the Gulf Coast city, and officials have been unable to demolish many of the buildings because of the presence of asbestos in the structures. Asbestos dust in the air is a serious health hazard. As long as the buildings are standing and the materials containing the asbestos are intact, say officials, there is no danger from the asbestos.

During demolition, however, those asbestos containing materials are likely to be disturbed and destroyed, releasing high levels of asbestos into the air. Asbestos, widely used as a construction material during the last century, is present in nearly every structure built between the 1930s and early 1980s. In addition, many older buildings contain considerable asbestos because they saw substantial renovations during those years.

In New Orleans, hundreds of buildings that contain asbestos were destroyed when Katrina unleashed her fury on the city. In an attempt to prevent further devastation that could extend decades into the future, EPA officials have stayed true to federal guidelines for demolition, particularly for public buildings and office buildings. Those guidelines require that all asbestos be removed by licensed personnel before buildings are demolished.

Unfortunately, the enormous amount of work to be done and the sheer amount of asbestos-containing material that must be disposed of has slowed the recovery efforts of the best-intentioned workers. The EPA’s proposed solution to at least a part of the problem is to burn the debris from one parish in a specially designed incinerator. Air quality monitors will be used to ensure that no asbestos is released into the air during the burning.

It’s ironic that fire will be used to cleanse asbestos from the materials, since asbestos was so highly prized specifically for its resistance to fire and its insulating properties. However, when asbestos-containing materials are burned at very high temperatures, the asbestos fibers are converted to a harmless substance.

Asbestos fibers have been linked to mesothelioma, a rare cancer that has no other known cause, as well as higher risks of lung cancer, asbestosis and several other cancers.

The EPA has these recommendations for those attempting to repair or demolish their own homes and structures:

* If you know or suspect that your home contains asbestos, and it has been damaged or may be damaged, seek the assistance of public health authorities or try to find specially trained contractors if possible.
* Whenever possible, handle removed materials while wet or damp, double bag the debris and label it properly.
* At a minimum when handling material that you believe is contaminated with asbestos, wear gloves, goggles and – most important – OSHA-approved respirators and masks.
* Wash your hands and clothing after handling asbestos containing materials while still wearing the mask.
* Try not to sweep or vacuum debris that may contain asbestos.
* Temporarily move your family (especially children and pregnant women) out of the apartment or house until the work is done and the area is properly cleaned. If you can’t move your family, at least completely seal off the work area.

SYRACUSE, New York - John M. Chick, the only Cayuga County employee to be charged in the illegal removal of asbestos in a 2006 case, will wait longer to find out his sentence because the presiding judge is ill.

Chick was scheduled to be sentenced today, but Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. is ill. The sentencing hearing has been postponed till March 6 at 11 a.m.

Chick was charged with conspiring to violate the federal Clean Air Act when work crews following his orders removed an asbestos-laden boiler from the county’s Board of Elections building and dumped the parts in an Auburn city landfill. No safety precautions were taken, and the parts were not properly labeled or taken to an approved landfill.

Because asbestos is a hazardous substance, the federal government closely regulates its use, removal and disposal. Asbestos, once widely used in all sorts of construction, is a known carcinogen and an air pollutant. Airborne asbestos fibers can be inhaled by people in the area. Once inhaled or swallowed, asbestos fibers can remain in the body for decades and eventually may develop mesothelioma, lung cancer and other asbestos related diseases.

The EPA and other federal and state environmental agencies have strict rules about the handling of asbestos and asbestos containing materials. All asbestos must be removed before buildings can be demolished, for instance, to reduce the chances of exposing entire communities to airborne asbestos raised by the demolition. In most states, any handling of asbestos on public properties must be done by licensed professionals, with proper notice give to the local department of environmental affairs or health department.

The charges against John Chick arose from the mishandling of asbestos in 2006, when he ordered a work crew to remove a malfunctioning boiler from the Cayuga County Board of Elections building despite the fact that it was covered with asbestos containing material. The crew then dumped the parts in the Auburn city landfill. By federal regulations, those parts should have been properly bagged and transported to a landfill or facility that has the capacity to handle demolition and construction debris that includes asbestos containing materials.

While there were a number of people involved in the incident, Chick was the only one to be charged with a crime, conspiring to violate the federal Clean Air Act. He faces up to five years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine.

Chick, 61, of 1 Dexter Ave., Auburn, pleaded guilty in January 2007 to conspiring to violate the federal Clean Air Act.

CANADA – The Canadian Labour Congress has refused for decades to criticize the asbestos industry, internationally criticized as a deadly threat to its works and the public at large. Now, a movement that started last fall to call for a national ban on asbestos has been stalled.

Ken Georgetti, CLC president, said last fall that he was embarrassed by Canada’s leading role in international  asbestos trade. He promised that at the next XLC meeting, the labour body leaders would call for a ban on the production of asbestos in Canada.

Georgetti said that asbestos should have been banned years ago. “I’m ashamed that we export asbestos to Third World countries,” he told a gathering of the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour in October.

Last week, the executive committee meeting came and went, and the discussion never happened. Instead, there was only the promise to debate the asbestos issue again soon.

Michael Arsenault, president of the Quebec Federation of Labour, convinced the body to wait on a call for an asbestos ban until after the Health Canada study on the risks of asbestos is completed and made public.

Arsenault maintains that working in an asbestos mine is no more dangerous than working on a street corner in Toronto. He says that people have developed a “psychosis” over the mineral fibers that have been proven to cause mesothelioma and increase the risk of many other cancers and respiratory illnesses.

Arsenault said Monday. “It’s a very dangerous animal, but now we know how to work with it in a safe way.”

There are roughly 700 people working in Quebec’s asbestos industry. The International Labour Organization, the World Health Organization and the International Association for Cancer Research have all called asbestos a deadly threat. Canada is the only developed nation still producing the mineral.

Quebec, which is the location of Canada’s only two asbestos mines, has one of the highest rates of mesothelioma in the world.

Canada’s government has spent nearly $20 million in the past twenty years to promote asbestos exports, mostly to developing nations to use in construction material. According to official sources, the government believes that asbestos is safe if handled properly.

Georgetti called for the government to take a lead role n closing the mines, including providing financial support for displaced miners. He stated that any call for a ban from the CLC wouldn’t have an immediate affect on asbestos production. The government should also provide support for the communities that depend on asbestos mining for stability. If the government were to do that, he said, the council’s decision would be very easy.

Nearly 97% of the asbestos mined in Canada is exported to developing countries like India and Pakistan. Asbestos has been banned by most developed countries and a growing number of developing nations. The World Health Organization estimates that as many as 100,000 people annually will die of asbestos-related diseases in the coming decades.

VANCOUVER - Earlier this month, the Vancouver Sun reported that a survey by the BC and Yukon Building and Construction Trades Council had found that 51% of work-related deaths in 2007 were caused by occupational diseases like mesothelioma and asbestosis.

The council predicts about 300 deaths a year from asbestos-related diseases for the next five years. Rates of mesothelioma are rising as those people who were exposed to asbestos in the 1960s and 1970s become ill.

Mesothelioma, a rare cancer that is caused only by asbestos, often takes decades to show symptoms. Because of the length of time between exposure and illness, it can be difficult for those who become ill to show a direct cause or to seek compensation from those responsible for the illness.

The ancient Greeks realized centuries ago that the slaves who worked in asbestos mines or in making asbestos cloth often developed breathing problems. Still, when asbestos came to be used commercially in the United States, the asbestos and insulation companies advertised their products as safe and hygienic. In order to keep their squeaky clean, safe reputation, the asbestos companies hid the dangers from their workers and the general public.

Because of this, thousands of people a year die of mesothelioma and other asbestos related illnesses. In addition to mesothelioma, there are other asbestos related diseases, many of which are considered “milder”. Among these is asbestosis, a debilitating condition caused by scarring of the lungs. Asbestos causes the scarring, and fibrous growths and tissues in the lungs, almost like turning the lungs to stone.

Other cancers may also be related to asbestos exposure, including cancer of the mouth, esophagus, stomach, liver and colorectal systems.

Watching for Symptoms
One of the reasons that the survival rate for mesothelioma is so low is that the symptoms often don’t alert doctors to the presence of cancer. Instead, it is often misdiagnosed for months - and sometimes years before it becomes obvious. Thus, the cancer may not be discovered until it has already reached advanced stages where treatment is not effective.

When the cancer is discovered in the early stages, more aggressive treatments may offer a longer survival rate and better quality of life.

The symptoms of mesothelioma include coughing, chest pain, fluid buildup around the lungs, shortness of breath and difficulty breathing.

If you were exposed to asbestos or believe you may have been exposed to asbestos, it is vital that your doctor or health provider know about your history. An early diagnosis of mesothelioma can mean the difference between a few short months and many years of life.

In addition, you may consider consulting an attorney who specializes in mesothelioma and asbestos litigation to discuss your legal options for compensation.

WINNIPEG, Manitoba - Raven Thundersky has lost five family members to asbestos. Five more are ill with asbestos related diseases, and she herself is suffering from asbestosis. But the Canadian government tells her she cannot bring a mesothelioma lawsuit against the company responsible.

Thundersky, an aboriginal woman, is calling for a public inquiry after dropping a lawsuit against the U.S.-based W.R. Grace Company who manufactured the insulation used in her childhood home.

Thundersky spoke at a press conference Friday to announce that if the Canadian government does not call a public inquiry into the human rights abuses that led to her family’s exposure, she will bring her case to The Hague. There, she says, a human rights case could embarrass Canada in front of the whole world.

She said that she had received a call from Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl last month, but that was the extent of the response.

“By the end of March,” Thundersky announced, “if they don’t call a public inquiry, I will go to The Hague.”

Thundersky has been fighting for years to get justice. At issue is Zonolite, asbestos-tainted insulation that was used decades ago. Manufactured of vermiculite from an asbestos-tainted mine in Montana, Zonolite was one of the most popular brands of vermiculite insulation. According to Grace’s records, Zonolite was used in hundreds of thousands of homes in the U.S. and Canada. The material was used in at least 600 First Nation homes beginning in the 1950s. Zonolite is still in over 300,000 Canadian homes.

In the United States, Grace is in the process of working out a bankruptcy settlement that will be acceptable to the courts and to those who are pursuing asbestos lawsuits against the company. Because the company is in bankruptcy, it is protected from further lawsuits in the U.S. The Canadian courts told Thundersky that she can’t sue the company in Canadian courts in 2005.

Thundersky’s sister died of mesothelioma 12 years ago this month. Mesothelioma is a cancer that is linked exclusively to asbestos. Since then, three more close family members have died of mesothelioma and a fourth of asbestosis. Five more of her family members are ill with asbestos-related diseases, and she has been diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Thundersky says that forty-six bags of Zonolite were used in the attic of her family home back in 1964 when she was a little girl. The choice of insulation used in the family home, she says, was made by the Indian agent for the government. She believes that the environmental and health issues are complicated by human rights abuses related to federal policies of the Canadian diet from that era.

CHICAGO, Illinois - A not-for-profit organization has established a grant program ot help newly diagnosed mesothelioma patients travel to consult with experts on the asbestos-related cancer.

The Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation (Meso Foundation) recently announced the establishment of the Mary and Bob Consentino Travel Grant Program. Its purpose is to provide travel assistance to patients who have recently been diagnosed with mesothelioma so that they can travel to consult experts and explore avenues for treatment that is not available locally.

Mesothelioma is a small cell cancer that aggressively invades the lining of the lungs, stomach or heart. Because it is a rare cancer, research into its causes and into effective treatments has lagged behind the efforts to treat other cancers. Most of the treatments for mesothelioma are experimental and only available at a handful of medical centers in the country.

For families of limited financial means, those treatments may be impossible. Chris Hahn, director of the Meso Foundation explained that mesothelioma patients and their families face enormous financial losses. They lose employment income because of their illness, and because a caregiver needs to stay home with a patient to care for them. Often, available treatments are not covered by medical insurance because they are still considered experimental. Add the cost of traveling across the country to access those treatments, and many of the patients who could benefit from treatment are financially blocked from doing so.

Mary Consentino is a former member of the Board of Directors of the Meso Foundation. She passed away of peritoneal mesothelioma January 26 of this year. She had survived more than five years after her original diagnosis - a very rare feat for those suffering from mesothelioma. Typically, those diagnosed with mesothelioma have a survival rate of a year or less. Mary was able to travel to seek clinical trials and experimental protocols offered by specialists across the country.

In her memory, Bob Consentino and The Meso Foundation have established the Travel Grant Program for those who are unable to consult with experts at major mesothelioma centers across the country because they can’t afford the travel expenses.

The Meso Foundation is a not-for-profit foundation formed of patients, families, physicians, advocates and researchers dedicated to eradicating the vicious effects of mesothelioma. It funds $1 million a year in research grants to develop more effective treatments for the disease. In addition, the Foundation hosts an annual International Symposium on Malignant Mesothelioma to bring together doctors, researchers, patients and families to exchange information and advance mesothelioma research.

SILVER BAY, Minnesota – The Northshore Mining Company will have their day in court this morning in a hearing before the state court of appeals. They will be facing off against the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy.

The mining company is trying to get the state to remove its permit limit on asbestos emissions for their Silver Bay plant. Currently, the standard requires that the amount of asbestos fibers in the air around the plant must be equal or less than the amount that is found in the air around St. Paul.

Environmental groups see this as an attempt to remove the only standard that regulates the amount of asbestos fibers that the mine’s processing plant can send into the air around the small town of Silver Bay. Mining company officials say that they object to the form of the limit itself, which requires that it meet a fluctuating standard that cannot be predicted, and which, they state, the plant has been in compliance with for years.

At issue is a controversial air quality standard that was established many years ago by a judge who was unable to determine ‘safe levels’ of asbestos fibers in the air. The standard is one of a kind – a so-called ‘control city standard’ which ties the limits of asbestos fibers that the mine can output to the air quality levels in the city of Saint Paul, which was arbitrarily selected by a federal court judge thirty years ago.

Back in the early 1980s when the issue came up before the court, there were no experts that could enlighten the court on what levels of asbestos might be “acceptable”. The judge chose to rule that the asbestos in the air around Silver Bay could not exceed the levels of asbestos in a control city – one without a mining facility nearby. The judge chose St. Paul.

The problem with this, says Northshore Mining, is that it’s a moving target. They achieved that standard years ago when they installed air pollution controls and air scrubbers in the plant facility. However, in the last few years, the asbestos levels around St. Paul have dropped lower – and the law says that Northshore Mining must bring the levels around Silver Bay lower as well.

An attorney for the environmental agency says that removing the standard from the company’s permit would effectively remove any controls on the amount of pollution that Northshore Mining may output – and put the residents of Silver Bay at risk of developing mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases.

Airborne asbestos fibers in the air have been linked to mesothelioma, a deadly cancer that destroys the lining around the lungs, heart or abdominal cavity. In addition, it increases the risk of developing lung cancer, throat cancer and a number of other cirborne asbestos fibers in the air have been linked to mesothelioma, a deadly cancer that destroys the lining around the lungs, heart or abdominal cavity. In addition, it increases the risk of developing lung cancer, throat cancer and a number of other cancers. The history of asbestos in the United States is one where big business ignored the safety and health of its workers and the general public, exposing them to a deadly airborne pollutant that kills thousands of people a year.

The company says that they just want the elimination of a moving standard, and would accept a defined standard, particularly one that is health-based. Unfortunately, there is currently no health-based standard and the national environmental agencies state that there is no safe level of asbestos exposure. Several studies that are being undertaken currently may help define that more clearly.

SAN FRANCISCO, California – The First District Court of Appeals has agreed that a Navy veteran who had brought suit against Foster Wheeler, LLC is entitled to a new trial because a juror relied on his own experiences in explaining to fellow jurors why he did not believe that the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos on board the USS Kitty Hawk in the 1960s.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Mary Wiss awarded the new trial to Paul Whitlock after a 2006 trial in which one of the jurors, a fellow Navy veteran, used his own experience aboard naval ships in a persuasive arguments during jury deliberations. Wiss stated that the juror’s arguments spoke to a critical issue in the trial – whether the plaintiff had been exposed to asbestos-containing materials manufactured by the defendant, Foster Wheeler.

Whitlock served on board the Kitty Hawk during three separate periods between 1965 and 1967. His suit contends that as a result of exposure to asbestos in the Kitty Hawk’s boilers, he developed terminal mesothelioma. Whitlock was diagnosed in 2005 with the rare cancer that is only caused by asbestos exposure.

Foster Wheeler did not dispute the diagnosis, but the company denied that Whitlock was exposed to Foster Wheeler asbestos in the boilers. They said that it had all been removed by the time Whitlock came on board.

Judgment for Defendants
At the original trial in 2006, the jury found after three days of deliberation that Whitlock was not exposed to asbestos containing materials distributed by Foster Wheeler by a 9-3 vote and judgment was entered for the defendant.

Whitlock’s lawyers moved for a new trial fifteen days later, presenting statements from three of the trial jurors. Each of the three stated that one of the jurors, who was referred to as Mr. W., told them that based on his own experience in the Navy, he believed that all of the original block insulation in the boilers would have been removed by the time Whitlock came on board the ship.

According to Wiss’ decision, the juror’s comments went to a critical issue at the trial. The statements made by the juror “constituted external information in the form of a juror’s own claim to expertise or specialized knowledge for which there was no evidence”. Wiss said that it qualified as juror misconduct. She also noted that the jurors had been given standard instruction which include an instruction not to treat external information as evidence unless instructed to do so, and to determine the case based solely on the evidence, and not to use or consider any special training or unique personal experience because those things are not part of the evidence of the case.

Alameda Superior Court Judge Jeffrey W. Horner reviewed Wiss’ decision as a matter of course. When a new trial is granted, the ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Horner said that there was no abuse of discretion. The comments made by the juror were in blatant violation of the instruction, and were prejudicial because they reflected directly on a central issue in the case.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Asbestos, once the firefighters’ best friend, is rearing its head as a dangerous risk on the job for firefighters all over the country. It was bad enough when firefighters only had to think about the asbestos in the structures where they were battling blazes, but the past few years have really brought the problem home to roost.

This month brought reports that the North Bend WA firehouse had to be evacuated and shut down immediately when air-quality testing showed dangerously high levels of airborne asbestos. The staff of fifteen firefighters and ten paramedics were relocated to other firehouses, and will operate from those locations until the city decides what to do about the asbestos contamination.

The incident isn’t the first time that asbestos has been a problem in firehouses. In October 2007, just a few months ago, three firehouses in Washington D.C. were found to have dangerously high asbestos levels.

The problem isn’t unique to firehouses, but it is especially ironic in light of the dangers that they face every day on the job. The issue is one of aging facilities, and is faced equally by shopping malls, police stations and city offices of all types. Up until the 1970s, asbestos was used liberally in construction, especially in public buildings. Asbestos was widely known to be an excellent insulator, soundproofing material and fireproofing material. Those who were building for the public good often actually required that materials used in firehouses, police stations, shopping malls and even apartment buildings be made with asbestos. Better insulation would mean lower heating and cooling costs, and the fire retardant properties meant better public safety.

Unfortunately, the added safety and lowered energy costs were offset by something that only the manufacturers and distributors of asbestos-containing products knew at the time – that inhalation of asbestos fibers is a major health hazard resulting in deadly lung conditions and cancers. By the late 1970s, the public was becoming aware of the dangers of asbestos, and many of its uses were banned. However, by that time, over 700,000 public buildings in the United States had been built with asbestos containing materials.

Even the youngest of those buildings are now approaching the half-century mark. As they age, the materials with which they were made are starting to decay. Unfortunately, that means that as those materials break down, they are releasing asbestos fibers into the air. Unless they have been sealed or covered, many of the asbestos containing materials in firehouses and other public buildings are becoming public health hazards.

This is especially hazardous to firefighters who, unlike other civil employees, often live at their barracks at least part time. They don’t spend eight hour shifts there, or only report in for morning roll call. Instead, they are at the firehouse 24/7 for several days at a time, unless called out to a fire or other duties. If there are high levels of asbestos present in the atmosphere, they are breathing it in around the clock.

Our firefighters, paramedics and emergency responders deserve better. Asbestos has been conclusively linked to serious respiratory diseases including asbestosis and mesothelioma. Firefighters routinely don protective respirators when battling a blaze. They are exposed to hazards and dangers in their work every day. Wouldn’t it be ironic if the most hazardous condition to which they’re exposed is the one that they live with every day?

JEFFERSON COUNTY, Missouri – In another case of second hand asbestos exposure, Frances Barras is suing DuPont and Union Carbide for more than $30 million.

Barras’ husband worked at the Beaumont DuPont facility, where products made by Union Carbide were regularly used. In addition to the two industrial giants, Barras’ suit also names 8 other companies for a total of ten defendants. It is not unusual for many defendants to be named in asbestos and mesothelioma lawsuits to account for the many different products and sources of exposure which may have caused the injury.

The suit alleges that Frances Barras was exposed to asbestos while washing the work clothes that her husband wore at the refinery from 1957 to 1985. She now suffers from asbestos-related illness, which she claims was the result of inhaling asbestos fibers carried home on her husband’s work clothes.
The suit, which was filed February 11 in Jefferson County District Court, was filed by Barras and six members of her family.

In addition to DuPont and Union Carbide, the suit names Anchor Packing Co., Ingersoll-Rand, Guard-Line and Owens-Illinois.

The suit said that Frances E. Barras was exposed to asbestos fibers and dust emanating from the work clothing, body and hair of her husband, Louis, and that that asbestos originated from the asbestos containing products and machinery sold by the defendants.

The suit alleges that Barras was exposed through doing household duties that included shaking out and laundering her husband’s work clothing, cleaning up the laundry area of their home and changing the washing machine lint filters and traveling in her husband’s work car.

Barras was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, a rare cancer that has no other known cause than asbestos exposure. According to the suit, that illness is a direct and proximate result of the negligence of each defendant, who produced and put into the stream of commerce products containing asbestos.
The defendants knew, or should have known that their products were highly harmful to the health and well-being of people, and that the companies named should have foreseen that employees such as Barras would be exposed to asbestos in the course of their work duties. In addition, the suit says, the defendants should have known that asbestos fibers could be carried home on the work clothing of employees, thus endangering family and household members.

In addition to other allegations, the plaintiffs claim DuPont is negligent for the following regarding Frances Barras’ exposure:
- DuPont did not take reasonable precautions to prevent asbestos fibers being transferred from the jobsite to the household
- Failed to provide laundry facilities on site for employee work clothes
- Failed to warn of the dangers of asbestos exposure
- Failed to provide information and instruction about the wearing and care of safe apparel and protective equipment

The Barras family is suing for $15 million in compensation, and an additional $5 millin in punitive damaged, in addition to past and future mental anguish, medical expenses and loss of services.

The suit alleges that the actions of the defendants warrant punitive damages because they engaged in a pattern of intentional wrongful conduct.