Pet Turtles, Salmonella and the Ban No One Knows About

October 30th, 2009. By Hunter West

There’s a ban on small pet turtles? 

Really? 

Okay, so the ban is only on pet turtles less than four inches in diameter. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) enacted the ban after reports surfaced that children were putting the cute little things in their mouths. However, it wasn’t a choking hazard that seemed to drive the ban. 

No, it was the fact that children became sick after coming into contact with their pet turtle in such an intimate fashion. 

Sick with salmonella from turtles.  

Turtles carry salmonella, it seems—originating in their feces, according to a recent MSNBC report. So children, by placing the baby turtles in their mouths, were coming into direct contact with salmonella. 

So they were banned 34 years ago. 

Just the small ones, mind you. In 1975.

Oh, you didn’t know either? Join the club. Few consumers know about the ban—and fewer vendors appear to be enforcing the ban, or complying with it. According to MSNBC small turtles Read the rest of this entry »

Asbestos News Roundup: 10.29.09

October 29th, 2009. By LucyC

A roundup of recent asbestos-related news, asbestos lawsuits and the latest asbestos hot spots—places where asbestos has been found—and that you should be aware of.

Asbestos Lawsuits

Jefferson Country, TX: Chevron is facing a lawsuit brought by the family of Malcolm E. Pilcher, following his death from pulmonary asbestosis and rectal cancer. The lawsuit claims that  Mr. Pilcher developed the diseases as a result of inhaling asbestos fibers while working at Gulf Oil Corporation in Port Arthur. (Southeasttexasrecord.com)

Jacksonville, FL: The mother of a 12-year old boy who died recently, has filed a wrongful death suit against the Village of Baymeadows apartment complex alleging that toxic mold and asbestos led to the death of her son. (Asbestos.net) 

Asbestos Hot Spots

Denver CO: Former employees of Denver Water are claiming that the company told them to illegally dump asbestos and other hazardous waste on a lot located at 12^th and Sheridan. The workers are speaking out now because they have become ill, and the site is reportedly scheduled for development. (FOX 31 KDVR Denver) Read the rest of this entry »

Right To Work vs. Employment at Will: what’s the difference?

October 28th, 2009. By Kristine B

Lately, I’ve been researching state employment laws (for the record, I do have a life). And I’ve come across a lot of people who are confused “right to work” and “employment at will.” Can’t say I blame them. So, this week Pleading Ignorance is setting the record straight about…

The difference between “right to work” and “employment at will”

Both “right to work” and “employment at will” are, obviously, employment terms. One has to do with hiring employees (hopefully you) the other has to do with firing employees (hopefully not you).

Right to Work 

“Right to work” laws govern hiring of employees. In a nutshell, “right to work” means that a person has the right to work for a company without being required to either join a union or financially support a union. Basically, if you live in a “right to work” state, joining a union, or paying union dues, can’t be a condition of your employment.

Even in “right to work” states, unions can still legally operate. In fact, they may even still represent all employees in grievances and negotiations. However, they can’t force a person to join the union or pay union dues if the person doesn’t want to.

Now, there are arguments both for and against “right to work” laws. The short version is that Read the rest of this entry »

#1 Asbestos Word You Don’t Want to Hear

October 28th, 2009. By AbiK

It’s not “mesothelioma“. No argument that absolutely no one wants to hear a diagnosis of asbestos mesothelioma. But there’s another asbestos-related word that’s thrown around quite a bit—and it isn’t always explained. Yet it’s the one that presents the most danger when talking about asbestos exposure: FRIABLE. Be on the lookout for it in news articles as…

Friable Asbestos

If you keep up with the news, and there’s plenty out there on asbestos, you’ll frequently see “friable” in print. Though it sounds like something combustible, or something that deserves a rightful spot on your stovetop, it actually refers to asbestos (or anything else for that matter) that is crumbling, easy to crumble or brittle.

The problem with asbestos that’s become friable is not that it’s brittle—if it’s not touched or moved or disturbed by wind, for example, it should stay relatively intact. And intact asbestos is better than asbestos on the move. Once asbestos—particularly friable asbestos—is disturbed in any way by man or by nature, its brittle fibers become airborne and, as a result, ripe for inhaling.

Asbestos-related diseases (such as lung cancer, asbestosis, asbestos mesothelioma) are the result of asbestos that’s been inhaled.

Think it’s not such a big deal anymore? Here, two recent asbestos hot spots in the news: Read the rest of this entry »

Don’t Just Blame The Laptop Pilots

October 28th, 2009. By Hunter West

So everybody is up in arms over the Northwest Airlines flight that overshot Minneapolis airport last week because the pilots were busy with their laptops. Monday night Jay Leno had a field day, suggesting that when two guys are bored, what do they do for fun? Bring out the laptops and surf for…well, you know what comes next. 

The pilots are suspended, as they should be. The public is outraged, as it should be. The outcome could have been far, far worse.  

But let’s look at it another way. There were some things that went right. There was no alcohol abuse. And the pilots weren’t tired. There was a 17-hour break for the two men between flights, which means they were well rested. 

Too many pilots because of fatigue, or illness have made too many deadly errors.

So let’s be thankful for that. 

True, we should not allow the focus to be removed from two experienced pilots who should have known better. The New York Times reported October 27th that there were 31,000 hours of flying time between the two men. That kind of lapse in judgment, by two experienced pilots with the lives of 144 people (not to mention flight crew) in their control cannot be discounted. The New York Times quoted Robert Mann Jr., a veteran industry analyst, as saying the actions of Captain Timothy B. Cheney and First Officer Richard I. Cole, were “inexcusable.”  Read the rest of this entry »