Picture Says All – BP Oil Spill Birdseye View: It’s Bad

May 13th, 2010. By AbiK

If you haven’t seen this amateur footage that’s been making the rounds on youtube.com—and I first saw it over at Neal Stewart’s Posterous page—take a look. It’s a reality check on just how bad the BP Oil Spill situation is.

A New Litigation Target: It’s in the Air…

May 13th, 2010. By Hunter West

It was revealed this month that yet another study—this one originating with researchers in Ottawa on the Chilean population—suggests that air pollution carries with it risk for stroke and thrombosis. 

We already know—and have for a long time—that bad air can make you sick. Employees have sued their employers for the bad air coursing through a building’s ventilation systems. Air travelers have sued airlines for the bad air found in some commercial jets. 

The latter is a real concern. If the air inside a commercial jet is making you sick, it’s not like you can just get off at the next stop. Short of getting them to drop the oxygen mask so you can get relief that way, there isn’t a lot you can do but suffer in silence—and sue the bastards when you land. 

Which is what some people have done. 

So you work in a sick building. Short of launching a formal complaint against your employer, you can always get outside and get some fresh air when you find the air in the workplace, overwhelming. 

(Workers sue anyway). 

But what happens when the air outside, is worse than the air inside? 

Research is suggesting that the air pollution out there can be hazardous to your health. Sure, we’ve all joked about it—and even sensed it—but now research is suggesting we’re not far off the mark. 

So you don’t like the air in, say, Detroit or in the valleys of California where the mountains trap the smog. Okay, so you move. 

But what if you can’t? What if your job ties you to that city, that area? What if you work outside, exposing your lungs to countless hours of polluted air? 

What happens if you suffer a stroke? 

Just watch…somebody, somewhere is going to sue the municipality for bad air. For a decades- Read the rest of this entry »

Hey Hollister: What about Cross-Dressers?

May 12th, 2010. By AbiK

So American Eagle Outfitters has “agreed” to get rid of a rule they had that banned male employees from showing up to work in women’s clothes, and to be fair, women employees from showing up in men’s clothes.

For American Eagle Outfitters (AEO), the issue arose out of a complaint filed by Make the Road New York with NY State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo’s office that stated there was a “pattern of discrimination against transgender job hunters.”

According to the NY Daily News, a probe into the situation revealed that, indeed, there was such a pattern.

Of course, a spokeswoman from AEO has issued a statement indicating that “AEO is not admitting to the findings”.

Meanwhile, AEO has also agreed to train its staff on transgender issues such as how to refer to a transgender employee—is he a she or she a he? I’m not sure how one crafts the lingo on that in the company handbook other than to simply follow the wishes of the transgender employee. Bathroom assignments I guess are another issue, and one I’m not tackling here. None the less, it’ll now be addressed in AEO’s training.

But it begs the question, what about retailers like Hollister—who recently came under fire for allegedly dismissing an employee for another form of dress: a hijab. This isn’t a judgement statement here, but you’d have to agree that a head scarf is perhaps a little less visually in the raise-an-eyebrow range for most customers than a gentleman in hose and heels. I’m exaggerating here, but I’ve certainly come across a wide variability among cross-dressing styles.

So would a qualified gent in hose and heels get a job at Hollister?

Rough Sailing for Asbestos–Exposed Workers and even Residents at Portland Shipyard

May 12th, 2010. By janem

If you ever worked at the Portland Shipyard in Oregon or even lived closeby, you-and potentially family members– may have been exposed to high levels of asbestos and could be at risk for asbestos disease, including asbestosis and mesothelioma.

Close to 200 US shipyards are known for asbestos exposure, including Portland Shipyard, which was originally created in 1903 and known as the largest commercial and publicly run shipyard within the US.

Those who worked at the shipyards and face the greatest risk of asbestos exposure include plumbers and insulators who worked with boilers, steam pipes, hot water pipes, and incinerators; longshoremen and military personnel. And even residents near Portland Ship Repair, which is owned and operated by Cascade General.

Portland Harbor is designated a ‘Superfund’ site because the surrounding environment contains high levels of dangerous contaminants, mainly due to the Portland Shipyard Repair. A Superfund Site puts area residents at risk for disease and the loss of property value due to environmental damage. The harbor is also designated for significant cleanup and to offer protection to those individuals that may suffer from related disease such as asbestosis, and/or a large loss of value in their homes. Asbestos was found at significant levels in the area.

Although Cascade has taken steps to clean up its act and make sure no further pollution and hazardous materials are released into the area’s environment, they can’t repair the damage caused since the 1940s or even earlier. Shipyard workers before 1980 were heavily exposed to asbestos, particularly during World War II when thousands of ships were being built at lightening speed to support the war effort. Portland Shipyard opened in 1942, when they began to build Liberty ships. Portland ran its own facility until 1995, when Cascade General took it over.

According to a recent study by the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, 86 percent of the shipyard workers tested with 20+ years of work experience had developed some kind of asbestos-related lung cancer or disease. Before the 1980s, workers rarely used protective gear and clothing when surrounded by asbestos and other dangerous toxins. Most people were unaware that asbestos was harmful because it was kept on the QT by manufacturers, corporations and insurance companies until the late 1970s.

If the war didn’t kill them, asbestos might.

 

 

Yaz by the Numbers: the Warning, the Recall, the Profit, the Lawsuits

May 12th, 2010. By Kristine B

As Bayer adds new warnings to its birth control pills in the wake of lawsuits regarding Yaz and Yasmin, we thought it would be a good idea to break Yasmin and Yaz down by the numbers. 

2001: The year Yasmin came on the market

2006: The year Yaz came on the market

2008: The year Bayer (maker of Yasmin and Yaz) received a warning from the FDA about overstating the pills’ effectiveness while minimizing their risks

2008: The year Ocella receives FDA approval; Ocella is the generic version of Yaz that is manufactured by Barr, which is owned by Teva

2009: The year Bayer launches new $20 million ad campaign to address the FDA’s warning

2009: The year the FDA issued a recall on certain lots of Yaz and Ocella for “Out of Specification analytical value for chemical assays of drospirenone and ethinyl estradiol was averaged with another analytical value to provide a reported result that was within specification.”

2010: The year Bayer added new warnings about the risks of blood clots linked to Yasmin and Yaz

1,100: Approximate number of lawsuits filed against Bayer regarding Yasmin and Yaz

$1.64 billion: Approximate profit Bayer reportedly made from Yasmin and Yaz during 2009

993: Number of reports the FDA received by November, 2009, of cases of pulmonary embolism linked to Yaz or Yasmin

487: Number of reports the FDA received of deep vein thrombosis

229: Number of reports the FDA received of other blood clots

800: Number of Canadians who have joined class-action lawsuits against Bayer

50: Number of women who reportedly died after taking Yaz, as of July, 2009

6.3: The number of times the risk of developing a blood clot is increased in women who take Yasmin or Yaz, according to a study in the British Medical Journal.

Note: Bayer has defended the birth control pills, saying they are safe and effective.

All stats taken from the FDA.gov, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Calgary Herald, BusinessWeek, The Bulletin (Philadelphia) and WISH tv, in addition to the British Medical Journal.