They knew when they bought the property that it was built on the former Stapleton International Airport site, and that the land was formerly contaminated with asbestos and chemicals, but say they believe it’s now clean.

They can’t help wondering, though. Mark Mehringer says, “With a cleanup like that, it’s to pretty high standards, but we do occasionally wonder about certain spots in the lawn where things don’t grow well.”

Researchers and planners say that the Mehringer’s experience isn’t unusual: people who buy property on reclaimed industrial land tend to believe that their homes are safe, despite their history.

There are plenty of examples of these types of developments. Former industrial sites are cleaned up and redeveloped as residential and commercial spaces.

In Atlanta, for example, a 130 acre development is planned to replace a former steel mill. The new development will include homes for ten thousand people, as well as entertainment venues and retail stores.

In O’Fallon, Missouri, a planned housing and retail complex will be built on a former trailer park that needs substantial cleaning to remove an estimated 34,000 tons of asbestos waste.

And this week, a couple in Minneapolis won a claim for compensation after the asbestos-containing remains of a bridge were discovered on their property: unbeknownst to them, the land they had bought was once the site of a construction materials landfill.

Some residents simply don’t know that their home has a toxic past. John and Judy McEachran had no idea their land was the former site of a landfill until contractors began digging the basement for the home they planned to build. At the time they purchased the lot, state law hadn’t required that the seller disclose that information to buyers.

Others, like the Mehringers, know the history but trust in the ability of planners and developers to clean up the site before developing it for human habitation.

However, given that the McEachrans have endured a four-year-long battle to claim compensation for the costs of cleaning up their property—to the tune of $150,000—it makes sense to find out the history of a property before you buy it.

In the report entitled “A Texas Turnaround: The Impact of Lawsuit Reform on Business Activity in the Lone Star Sate,” Perryman says that the boost to the economy, is to the tune of $7.88 billion in annual spending, and almost 40,000 permanent jobs, in the city of San Antonio alone.

The study carried out by Perryman examined the impact of legislative measures that limit the damages that can be awarded in liability cases against Texas businesses. The liability limits include damages awarded in asbestos-related lawsuits as well as other civil damages suits.

The report notes some interesting facts about the relationship between civil litigation and the local economy.

For example, Perryman’s report says that between 1999 and 2003, medical insurance premiums doubled for many doctors in Texas—because of excessive litigation and excessively large jury awards. The result, said Perryman, was that many medical insurance carriers had begun to exit the market.

In addition, the report noted, medical specialists—including neurosurgeons, orthopedic surgeons, and obstetricians—had begun leaving the state, perhaps because of the increased costs of insurance. As a result, the shortage of qualified health professionals throughout the state had become severe.

However, after 2003 the picture changed. In that year, Texas lawmakers adopted a constitutional amendment that capped ‘non-economic’ damages in medical cases to $750,000. The legislature also moved to reduce what Perryman called “abusive” asbestos and silica-related lawsuits.

As a result, Perryman says, the entire state, and San Antonio in particular, has benefited from a substantial economic boost.

The report says that medical insurance rates became more competitive as a direct result of the reforms, and that doctors and hospitals used their liability insurance savings to expand and improve healthcare services.

Perryman’s report says that the lawsuit reform had the net result of creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs in Texas, and that around 8.5% of the state’s economic growth over the past decade is a direct result of the lawsuit reforms.

Texas’ gain may mean losses for other states, however.

This might just mean that increasing numbers of people will take their cases to other states. Currently the law allows a lawsuit to be filed in any state as long as it can be proven that either the defendant or the plaintiff has a connection to that state.

This law already means that asbestos-related lawsuits are more likely to be filed in places such as Madison County, Illinois, which has a reputation for being sympathetic towards plaintiffs filing lawsuits against large corporations.

The twelve suits include up to nineteen counts each, and were filed by the following people.

Willard and Anna best, who live in Marietta, Ohio, have filed on behalf of Willard Best, who worked as a machine operator for Kaiser Aluminum. He claims that asbestos exposure at work caused him to develop asbestosis and lung cancer.

Oscar and Genevieve Farley of Prince, W.Va. filed after Oscar Farley, who worked as a pipefitter for Union Local 5960, subsequently developed lung cancer and asbestosis.

Harrison and Sherry Fisher of Pennsylvania allege that Harrison Fisher was exposed to asbestos during the course of his work at Weirton Steel as a bander, and developed asbestosis and lung cancer as a result.

George and Viola Gvoyich of Weirton claim that George Gvoyich developed lung cancer and asbestosis after being employed as a steelworker at Weirton Steel.

Cecil and Elma Lang allege that Cecil Lang developed lung cancer and asbestosis as a result of working for Union Local 639 as a laborer.

Roy and Patricia Meadows of LeSage claim that Roy Meadows developed lung cancer and asbestosis after working as a crane operator for Union Local USWA 40.

Julius and Helen Sabatino of Shadyside, Ohio filed after Julius Sabatino developed asbestosis and lung cancer.

Karl and Ruth Stanley of Reader filed on behalf of Karl Stanley, who was employed as a welder for Union Local USWA 5724 and developed asbestosis and lung cancer.

Phyllis Canterbury, the executor of the estate of Larry Canterbury, filed suit on behalf of the deceased, who worked as a steelworker for USWA as well as for Union Carbide and FMC. Canterbury had lung cancer and asbestosis.

Linda Hickel filed a lawsuit on behalf of Gary N. Dennewitz, who allegedly developed asbestosis and lung cancer after working as a machinist for Union Local IAM 1027.

Coraletta Henry filed on behalf of Earl. Henry, Jr., formerly of New Haven, who had asbestosis and lung cancer, allegedly as a result of working at the Philip Sporn Power Plant and other locations.

Martha Taylor filed suit on behalf of Leon Taylor, who died after developing lung cancer and asbestosis. Leon Taylor worked as a welder for Union Local USWA 1652.

The man is Dr. Stephen E. Guilder, who alleged that he developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos from Honeywell asbestos-containing brakes in the 1970s and early 1980s.

Guilder, 50, was diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma in September 2007. Peritoneal mesothelioma is a relatively rare type of asbestos-related cancer. Around 20-25% of all cases of mesothelioma originate in the lining of the abdominal cavity, called the peritoneum.

Guilder, whose practice involved treating disorders of the head and neck, had to close his medical office in November.

Rob Ferris, a spokesperson for Honeywell, said that the company is disappointed by the jury’s verdict, and said an appeal would be imminent. Ferris said that there was no supportable evidence that Stephen Guilder’s mesothelioma cancer was caused by exposure to Honeywell brake products.

Stephen Guilder’s attorney, David A. Jagolinzer, said he was very pleased that Honeywell had been held accountable for the harm that it had caused to Stephen Guilder and his family. Guilder’s family includes his wife Sheila of more than twenty years, and three children aged 18, 16, and 14.

During the trial, which lasted for two weeks, the plaintiffs argued that Stephen Guilder had been exposed to asbestos from Honeywell’s brake products, and that this exposure caused Guilder to subsequently develop peritoneal mesothelioma.

Mesothelioma cancers tend to have long latency periods. Even though Guilder was allegedly exposed in the late 1970s and early 1980s, it is normal that the cancer did not develop and show noticeable symptoms until more than twenty years later.

These cancers are particularly devastating because they are difficult to diagnose early, and because mesothelioma tumors are often resistant to treatment.

The award of $24.2 million is the largest amount ever awarded in a Florida case involving a single defendant.

Monday April 28 is International Commemoration Day for Dead and Injured Workers, or more simply Workers’ Memorial Day. This year more than fourteen million people across the globe are taking part in over 13,000 activities in support of people working in dangerous conditions. The message for this year’s Workers’ Memorial Day is “Good Occupational Health for All Workers.”

Guy Ryder, General Secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), says that all records set by previous years’ activities for the commemoration day have been exceeded, but “Unfortunately, this unprecedented mobilization reflects a wide-scale deterioration of the occupational health and safety realities for millions of the world’s workers.”

More than 2.2 million workers die, and 160 million are injured every year.

John Howard says, “Although much progress has been made since the passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970, more remains to be accomplished. Research is a vital part of this national mission, and NIOSH is proud of its role in helping to prevent work-related injuries, illnesses, and deaths.”

Howard also pointed out that traditionally hazardous industries—particularly those involving heavy physical labor—are still high-risk. Workers in manufacturing, mining, construction, agriculture, and commercial fishing are at high risk.

Howard noted too that work-related illnesses such as asbestosis, silicosis, and mesothelioma are still prevalent due to work place exposure to asbestos, coal dust, lead, and other toxins.

Part of NIOSH’s work involves researching, testing, and implementing new and more effective intervention measures to prevent work-place illness and injury. In addition, NIOSH focuses on identifying new potential sources of work-related hazards.

Workers all over the world face unsafe conditions: from exposure to asbestos and other harmful chemicals, to the risk of injury or death in dangerous occupations.

Recently the plight of sanitation workers was highlighted, for example, in a report entitled “In Harm’s Way,” which was the collected results of a study carried out by the National Commission of Inquiry into the Worker Health and Safety Crisis in the Solid Waste Industry and the Teamsters Union.

The study included analysis that showed sanitation workers were frequently exposed to asbestos, medical waste, and other potentially harmful substances, and also faced the possibility of severe injury when using waste management machinery.

John Howard says that educating the work force is still a major challenge in improving work-place safety, and emphasizes the work NIOSH is doing to explore new ways to educate workers.

“For example, what approaches will be effective for young workers accustomed to interactive, computer-based or video-based instruction? What approaches will be effective for foreign-born workers, for whom the toll of fatal work injuries reached a record high number in 2006, according to the revised BLS estimates?”

John and Judy McEachran, who are both Methodist pastors, have spent the last four years battling to get the mess cleaned up, and to then find a way of paying the bills of almost $150,000.

Their four-year battle began in 2004, when the family hired a contractor to start digging the basement on the empty lot they had purchased in 1998. When the contractors began digging, they found enormous pieces of concrete buried in the soil. The concrete chunks turned out to be pieces of a buried bridge.

When the McEachrans purchased the land, they had no idea that it had once been part of a construction materials landfill. And an unregulated one, at that. At the time they purchased the lot, state law hadn’t required that the seller of the land disclose that information to buyers.

What initially looked like a small issue quickly turned into a huge one with a $150,000 price tag—when a Dakota County environmental inspector tested some of the debris found on the lot, the McEachrans were dismayed to learn that asbestos was present.

The county subsequently charged the McEachrans with ownership of an unlicensed hazardous waste dump and ordered them to clean up the site immediately.

While some City Council members showed some understanding and agreed that the McEachrans shouldn’t be liable for cleaning up the mess, the family still had plenty of problems.

Eventually, the city of Inver Grove Heights agreed to contribute $15,000 towards the cost of cleaning up the site. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency also contributed funds by providing the McEachrans with contractors for the job. However, the family still had to come up with $67,000. Dakota County assessed the bill against the property, to be paid over 30 years. The interest was enough to bring the total cost for the McEachrans back up to $150,000.

The family wanted to find out who was responsible for dumping the bridge there, and to find some way of getting reimbursement for the money they owed for the clean-up.

The McEachrans took their case to the Capitol and were happy to discover that lawmakers had their own doubts about whether the family should be responsible for paying for clean-up.

Eventually, it was discovered that the buried pieces had come from a bridge erected and owned by the Minnesota Department of Transport. The claims commission recommended that MNDOT pay the claim, and the McEachrans can now breathe much more easily: the asbestos is gone from their property, and they no longer have to worry about paying a $150,000 bill that should never have been theirs to begin with.

Around 13,000 different activities are planned across the globe for this year’s International Commemoration Day for Dead and Injured Workers, which falls on Monday April 28.

Guy Ryder, General Secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), says that all records set by previous years’ activities for the commemoration day have been exceeded, but “Unfortunately, this unprecedented mobilization reflects a wide-scale deterioration of the occupational health and safety realities for millions of the world’s workers.”

The message for this year’s commemoration day is “Good Occupational Health for All Workers.” Many different organizations, including governments, trade union organizations, employers, and World Health Organization groups are taking part in activities in more than 120 different countries.

Workers all over the world face unsafe conditions: from exposure to asbestos and other harmful chemicals, to the risk of injury or death in dangerous occupations.

Recently the plight of sanitation workers was highlighted, for example, in a report entitled “In Harm’s Way,” which was the collected results of a study carried out by the National Commission of Inquiry into the Worker Health and Safety Crisis in the Solid Waste Industry and the Teamsters Union.

The study included analysis that showed sanitation workers were frequently exposed to asbestos, medical waste, and other potentially harmful substances, and also faced the possibility of severe injury when using waste management machinery.

When it comes to asbestos exposure, many types of workers are at risk. Workers in certain types of industrial plants may be at risk of exposure if the plant was built prior to the 1980s, due to the addition of asbestos to many different types of construction materials. Construction workers, custodial and maintenance workers, electricians, and road workers are just some of the groups of people who may still be at risk of asbestos exposure, depending on where they work.

Many thousands of people have already died from asbestos-related diseases that developed as a result of workplace exposure: even though the peak incidence of asbestos use was last century, the effects will continue to be felt for several decades, due to the long latency period of asbestos-related diseases.

Even if you don’t work in an at-risk occupation, and even if you don’t know anyone who does, Monday April 28 is a great time to show your support for people who were or still are at risk of exposure to asbestos or other harmful substances in the work place.

The three alarm fire was caused by a plumber’s torch inside a bathroom closet on the second floor of the building, according to the state fire marshal. The building was heavily damaged, with an estimated $3 million repair bill according to Fire Chief Ollie Gadson.

Residents of the former building now find that they have lost their possessions as well as their homes. Not only are tenants unable to retrieve their own items, they’re also unable to claim on insurance: many tenants have found that their insurance adjusters haven’t been allowed to enter the building, meaning their claims can’t be approved.

Unfortunately, it’s a simple matter of public safety: inside the building are several thousand square feet of asbestos-containing materials. There is asbestos in the ceilings, in pipe fittings, and in other areas of the building, according to DEP spokesperson Joe Ferson. “As a matter of public safety, you can’t have people going in that area,” said Ferson.”

Often during the process of fighting a fire, asbestos becomes dispersed throughout a building. In severe cases an entire building may become unsafe even if it contained asbestos in discrete areas. These conditions have in the past prevented residents of other burned buildings from retrieving possessions at all, because removing asbestos from porous items such as furniture and clothing is extremely expensive. In Texas recently, former tenants of the Bellerive Apartments were left homeless and without their possessions for that reason.

The owner of the building, a Texas-based company called JPI Management Co., has been granted an asbestos abatement permit by the Department of Environmental Protection and it’s likely that residents may not be able to return until the asbestos is cleared from the building.

Laura Fritz, a former resident, says that a JPI representative has told her she’ll be arrested if she tries to enter the building.

Thomas N. O’Brien, JPI executive vice president and managing partner says the company is working on getting former residents back inside to claim their possessions, and hopes that people can return as soon as possible. The company has not mentioned whether or not former residents’ possessions have been contaminated with asbestos.

Myra Reece, Chief of the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Controls Bureau of Air Quality said that the dust may have been released up to a month before the exposure risks were discovered. A contractor who began to remove floor tiles in February is believed to have done so using procedures that may have released asbestos fibers from mastic that was used to lay the tiles.

Myra Reece says that anyone who had visited the 3890 S. Kings Highway, Myrtle Beach store between February 18 and March 25 should be aware that asbestos dust may have been present and a small amount of asbestos exposure may have occurred.

Asbestos—which was a very common component of a large range of construction materials between the 1940s and the 1980s—is the only known cause of asbestosis and mesothelioma, two incurable lung diseases. While asbestosis typically only occurs following repeated exposure, mesothelioma may only require a small amount of exposure. Mesothelioma is a cancer that develops in the lining of the lungs. The cancer usually develops between three and five decades after exposure to asbestos.

At the time, the DHEC concerned about the possibility that people who were in the store during those few weeks may have inhaled asbestos dust or fibers, or purchased items that had been contaminated with asbestos.

Air samples taken in the store while the renovation project was being carried out indicated there was no airborne asbestos. However other samples taken by the DHEC showed that chrysotile asbestos was present on some of the store’s surfaces.

DHEC state epidemiologist Erik R. Svendsen, PhD, said that people in the store between the noted dates may have been exposed to asbestos, but “the potential for long term health effects [was] low.”

The store hired a company to carry out supervised asbestos abatement. The project was supervised by the DHEC, according to Food Lion spokesperson Karen Peterson. The asbestos removal was completed quickly, and the company decided to take advantage of the closure to improve the store with additional renovations.

DHEC Public Information Director Adam Myrick said that it was extremely unlikely that anyone in the store—even between the dates of 18 to 25 March—will have any health problems result from asbestos exposure in the store.

School district spokeswoman Patricia LaDuca has said that no work was or will be carried out while school is in session, and there will be no safety hazards for children or staff when they return after the spring break.

La Duca said, “The contractors are certified and experienced in this type of work, and licensed professionals will oversee the removal and monitor and test air quality to ensure that the regulatory standards are met.” Parents were told of the planned asbestos removal project in a letter sent earlier in April.

Some district parents have expressed concern about the asbestos removal, but Patricia LaDuca says that “this process is highly regulated by federal, state and OSHA, or Occupational Safety and Health Administration, standards,” and there is no cause for alarm.

The wing in which asbestos is being removed is ultimately planned for demolition over the school’s summer vacation period. However, the asbestos must be removed before demolition can take place, as demolition projects can create and disperse large clouds of asbestos dust if the substance is not removed beforehand.

Asbestos is a naturally-occurring fibrous mineral that was widely used in industry, residential areas, and public buildings such as schools for much of the twentieth century. It is a light-weight yet durable substance with a very high resistance to fire and heat, making it an ideal insulator and fire-proofing material.

However, asbestos is also known to cause cancers such as mesothelioma and lung cancer, as well as a chronic lung condition called asbestosis. Exposure to asbestos can cause serious health problems.

In schools where asbestos is present there is usually no risk of exposure for students and staff. Risks are present only when the asbestos is disturbed, either accidentally or deliberately, as in the case of abatement projects.

In most cases the Environmental Protection Agency recommends leaving asbestos in place rather than disturbing it. Generally removal is recommended only if the asbestos has deteriorated to the point where fibers are likely to be released into the air. In addition, in the case of demolition projects, asbestos must be removed before demolition.