Asbestos News Roundup: 8.23.12 – DIY Renovation Asbestos Risk

August 23rd, 2012. By LucyC

A roundup of recent asbestos-related news and information that you should be aware of. An ongoing list of reported asbestos hot spots in the US from the Asbestos News Roundup archive appears on our asbestos map.

Do-It-Yourself Home Renovation Asbestos Risk

Many people decide to renovate their homes, not knowing fully, the dangers that may lurk within the walls, ceilings or floors of their homes. Those dangers can include asbestos in older homes. For example, asbestos siding was commonly used in construction years ago, making older homes a danger zone for asbestos mesothelioma. Like flooring, siding material was covered by asbestos to make it more durable and fire retardant. When these materials are disturbed—ripped off or torn out for example, they release asbestos fibers into the air, which people in immediate proximity then breathe in.

Equally important, when considering renovations, is hiring a reputable contractor who has the appropriate qualifications and licensing to remove asbestos. It is possible to be duped, as the case below brought by the state of New Jersey, shows.

Asbestos Lawsuits

Woodbridge, NJ: William T. Muzzio Jr., a 50-year old contractor living in Woodbridge, has been charged by a state grand jury with dozens of counts of unlicensed asbestos abatement in connection with asbestos work that his unlicensed business performed at numerous homes and schools, including nine schools in Woodbridge Township.

Woodbridge is facing 36 counts of removing or encapsulating asbestos without a license and two counts of forging documents saying he was licensed to remove the hazardous material, among other charges, according to the NJ Attorney General’s office.

New Jersey state agencies began investigating Muzzio and his business, Citadel Environmental Consultants, in March after a daycare facility in Union Township, NJ hired Muzzio to remove pipe insulation containing asbestos from its basement boiler room and it was discovered that Muzzio wasn’t licensed to perform the work.

The Department of Labor and Division of Criminal Justice conducted inspections in March at the daycare facility and allegedly discovered dust and debris containing asbestos in the boiler room and an adjacent crawl space.

Muzzio had allegedly performed unlicensed asbestos encapsulation at nine public schools in Woodbridge between April, 2011 and June, 2011. Rather than remove the asbestos, Muzzio was hired to seal the insulation that contained asbestos to prevent it from being broken up and released into the air. In four of the schools, he allegedly removed asbestos floor tiles.

The schools in Woodbridge in which Muzzio allegedly removed or treated asbestos are:

• Woodbridge High School, Woodbridge

• Colonia High School, Colonia

• John F. Kennedy High School, Iselin

• Kennedy Park School, Iselin

• Matthew Jago Elementary School, Sewaren

• Oak Ridge Heights School, Colonia

• Woodbridge Middle School, Woodbridge

• Ross Street School, Woodbridge

• Fords Middle School, Fords

(woodbridgepatch.com)

Asbestos Law

Saratoga Springs, NY: Springs Housing Authority is facing fines brought by New York state for failing to perform an asbestos survey on a property that it had demolished and contained the potentially hazardous material.

The state Labor Department slapped the SSHA with a $1,000 civil penalty for tearing down a home at 36 Allen Drive that it managed for the Saratoga Springs Affordable Housing Group, according to records obtained this week through a Freedom of Information request. The state also cited the SSHA for using an unlicensed and non-certified contractor to handle the material that contained the asbestos, records state.

The building was demolished in 2009 for new housing units, according to the documents. The state received a complaint about the project on Feb. 26, 2010, and inspected the site days later. Results from lab tests on materials from the site indicated the home’s linoleum flooring “was at least 35 percent asbestos,” according to the state Labor Department. (timesunion.com)

Concerned about DES Exposure? Take this DES Self-Assessment

August 20th, 2012. By AbiK

Pregnancy drug DES has been back in the media spotlight lately as more and more women become aware of possible DES exposure they may have experienced in utero. DES—or diethylstilbestrol—was prescribed to pregnant women during between the 1940s and the early 1970s to help prevent miscarriage.

DES was ultimately removed from the market when studies revealed the drug’s link to certain cancers, among other potential side effects. DES risks include vaginal and cervical cancers for women whose mothers had taken diethylstilbestrol during pregnancy. Additionally, harmful DES side effects may include breast cancer, early menopause and infertility in women who had actually taken the drug.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has a DES Consumer Guide that provides information about DES. The web page includes a DES Self-Assessment Guide that helps indicate whether an individual has had the potential to have been exposed to DES and the possible DES health risks if, indeed, DES exposure did occur. Please note: the DES Self-Assessment Guide cannot specifically determine whether a person was actually exposed to DES, but it does provide a guide for further discussion with a healthcare professional.

If you’re a DES daughter or think you may have been exposed to DES in utero and have experienced harmful side effects, you may also want to consider your legal options. DES victims can fill out a complaint form for a DES attorney to review here.

Asbestos News Roundup: 8.16.12 – Electrician Asbestos Risk

August 16th, 2012. By LucyC

A roundup of recent asbestos-related news and information that you should be aware of. An ongoing list of reported asbestos hot spots in the US from the Asbestos News Roundup archive appears on our asbestos map.

Electricians and Asbestos Risk

Electricians and electrical cable installers may not know it, but they are at risk for being exposed to asbestos through repair, demolition or installation work. This lethal, fibrous material was used in felted asbestos insulation or asbestos tape to insulate wiring. So working on old power lines, old wiring or breaker boxes would put electricians at risk for asbestos exposure. Older arc chutes also contain asbestos. It was used in circuit breakers, for example, before the mid-1980′s, when they were made of asbestos-containing plastic molding compound.

Recently, an asbestos lawsuit filed by six workers in Tennessee has made media headlines, because the workers were exposed to asbestos when dismantling outdated synchronous condensers, among other things.

Asbestos Lawsuits

Galveston, TX: The family of the late John B. Fielder has filed suit against several companies alleging the defendants are responsible for Fielder’s death from lung cancer two years ago.

The lawsuit asserts that El DuPont Nemours and Co., 4520 Corp., Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. and Zurn Industries LLC contributed to Fielder’s illness and eventual death on July 28, 2010. Fielder was employed by DuPont as a pipe fitter at the company’s facilities in La Porte from 1955 to 1961. The asbestos lawsuit asserts that during that time he was exposed to asbestos dust and fibers which resulted in his cancer.

The lawsuit states DuPont “was aware, or should have been aware, of the dangers associated with exposures to asbestos at the premises where the plaintiffs’ decedent worked.”

“Nevertheless, defendant DuPont failed to warn employees, invitees and contractors of the dangers associated with occupational exposure to asbestos and required employees, contractors and/or invitees such as the decedent to work with or in proximity to asbestos without the necessary precautions to avoid dangerous exposures,” the lawsuit states.

Foster Wheeler, Zurn and 4520 Corp. are faulted for manufacturing, selling, designing, supplying distributing, mining, milling, relabeling, reselling, processing, applying or installing insulation and machinery that was “poisonous and highly harmful.”

Asbestos Law

Seattle, WA: A landmark decision by the Washington State Supreme Court will allow many asbestos victims to pursue legal claims against respirator manufacturers and other equipment manufacturers who may have failed to provide adequate warnings about asbestos exposure.

The plaintiff in the case, Leo Macias, worked as a tool keeper in a shipyard in which asbestos was present. As part of his normal duties he cleaned and maintained respirators used by workers who were exposed to asbestos. Macias alleged that he was exposed as a result and developed mesothelioma. He filed suit against the Shipyard and the manufacturer of the respirators.

The respirator manufacturers moved for summary judgment claiming that the company had no duty to warn its customers about possible asbestos exposure because of standing precedent in two previous asbestos cases. The trial court denied the motion, but an appellate court reversed, sending the case to the Washington State Supreme Court.

In a hotly contested and widely-watched 5-4 decision, the court ruled in favor of Macias, distinguishing existing precedent from the case and rejecting the manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment.

The ruling is a landmark decision in asbestos litigation, according to Macias’ attorneys. The respirator manufacturers had argued that because their products did not contain asbestos, they were not responsible for Macias’ exposure.

However, the court’s majority opinion rejected their arguments, noting that, “The very purpose of the respirators would, of necessity, lead to high concentrations of asbestos (and/or other contaminants) in them, and in order to reuse them as they were intended to be reused, this asbestos had to be removed.”

The court has remanded the case back to the trial court, where it will proceed, with a trial scheduled for early 2013.

LAS Alert: Lousy Job Market Means Job Scams Abound

August 13th, 2012. By AbiK

The Better Business Bureau (BBB) recently shared some tips for job hunters who need to be on the lookout for job scams. Seems one person’s economic woes are another person’s opportunity—as typically is the case with scams or internet fraud of any sort. Here are some of the more frequently seen job scam tactics to watch out for:

1. Spelling and Grammar Mistakes. A number of scams originate from outside the U.S. in locations where English isn’t necessarily the first language. Needless to say, if there’s one situation where spelling is key, it’s on the job hunt, and any correspondence with misspells or lousy grammar should raise a red flag.

2. “Problems with Your Job Site Account”. Most job hunters nowadays have profiles on the major job search sites—like Monster.com for example. Scammers know this and send phishing emails—that claim to be from the job search site—stating that there’s a problem with your account. In order to fix the problem, the email sends the job hunter to a link that ultimately installs a virus or malware on his computer.

3. Got the Job Minus the Interview. Or minus any real experience. Wouldn’t that be nice, eh? Unfortunately, after being told “you’ve got the job”, the job seeker is contacted by the would-be employer—by phone or email—who asks for the would-be new hire’s social security number and/or bank account numbers. The BBB warns that you should never provide such info to an employer over the phone or by email.

4. Work from Home! And get rich while you’re at it, right? It’s a dream gig—especially for work-at-home moms, the disabled, seniors or students—and it sounds enticing. But as the adage goes…if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Best thing to do? Check out the company with the local BBB.

5. Asking for Money Upfront. Unless you’re investing in some start-up somehow, the idea of employment is that the employer pays the employee; not the other way around. This includes things like being asked to pay for a background check. A corollary to this is the MoneyGram or Western Union request—if anyone asks you to send money via MoneyGram or Western Union in any way, shape or form, it should raise a red flag.

Should you encounter a job scam or internet fraud, be sure to report it to the BBB.

Poll Results: College Admissions Affirmative Action

August 7th, 2012. By AbiK

The poll is closed and the results are in. Our poll question this time was:

“The U.S. Supreme Court adds state-mandated racial diversity and affirmative action in college admissions to its docket. Should race be a factor in college admissions?”

The results were close—very close—which is probably no surprise as affirmative action in college admissions tends to be a hot-button topic wherever its brought up (note to self: skip topic at next cocktail party or while in stands at next Little League game). So here’s how the poll turned out:

No, race should not be a factor in college admissions (51%, 133 Votes)

Yes, race should be a factor in college admissions (49%, 130 Votes)

Some background on this one. The U.S. Supreme Court added college admissions affirmative action to its docket—specifically the Court will decide whether admissions policies at the University of Texas—which are allegedly “race-conscious”—violate the rights of, or discriminate against, white college applicants.

The University of Texas case centers on former applicant Abigail Noel Fisher, who had applied to UT, and been rejected, in 2008.

According to CNN, oral arguments would be held in the fall, with a ruling most likely to come in early 2013.

Thanks everyone for participating—be on the lookout for our next poll, coming up soon…