Asbestos News Roundup: 9.9.11

September 9th, 2011. 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.

Asbestos Lawsuits

Jefferson County, TX: An asbestos lawsuit has been filed by the family of the late Augustine Aranda Sr, naming the man’s former employer, Atlantic Richfield, and two other companies, Beazer East Inc, and BP Products North America, as defendants.

The lawsuit, filed by Aranda’s widow Patsy Aranda and her children, allege Aranda was exposed to asbestos dust and fibers through his work at Atlantic Richfield, where he was an employee. The lawsuit does not give dates of employment.

“As a result of such exposure, Aranda developed … asbestosis and lung cancer, for which he died a painful and terrible death on November 13, 2010,” the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit also alleges the defendants knew of the health issues related to asbestos exposure for decades, but still allowed their employees to work with asbestos products. (SETexasrecord.com)

Yuba County, CA: An ex-employee of Yuba County has filed a lawsuit alleging he discovered asbestos problems in the county courthouse and told state regulators about them only to be laid-off in retaliation for whistle-blowing.

According to the lawsuit, filed by former county maintenance worker Billy Wilden Sr, the presence of asbestos in the courthouse’s boiler room was mentioned by a contractor working with the county in June 2009. The contractor told the county’s Administrative Services Office about asbestos insulation around pipes in the boiler room. However, it wasn’t until after another employee was asked to remove the asbestos without proper training, and subsequently mentioned that request to Wilden, that Wilden raised the issue with other administrative services staff. The lawsuit alleges that when the official who had ordered the asbestos removal discovered questions were being asked, he began a pattern of harassment against Wilden.

In September 2009, Wilden informed the California division of Occupational Safety and Health about the asbestos problems, leading to a series of Cal-OSHA fines in January 2010 against the county totaling $11,500.

The lawsuit states Wilden was laid off as of July 1, 2010, as a result of budget cuts. Just a month before, Yuba County issued 22 layoff notices. The county, the Administrative Services Office and several officials in the office are listed as defendants in the lawsuit.

“As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses in his earnings and other employment benefits and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to his damage in a sum according to proof,” the lawsuit states. (appeal-democrat.com)

Home Renovations Linked to Asbestos-Related Diseases

Cinnaminson, NJ: A new international study is shedding light on the health risks associated with asbestos and home renovation projects. The study, published in the Medical Journal of Australia, has shown an alarming rate of asbestos-related diseases that can be correlated to exposure to asbestos from home renovation projects.

The research found that 35.7% of females and 8.4% of males with mesothelioma in Western Australia between 2005 and 2008 were attributable to asbestos exposure from home renovation projects. Although this study took place in Australia, which banned asbestos in 2003, the significance of the study to people in the United States is clear. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) have been able to ban some asbestos containing products in recent years, but countless older homes still have many materials that contain asbestos.

According to the EPA, “Today, asbestos is most commonly found in older homes, in pipe and furnace insulation materials, asbestos shingles, millboard, textured paints and other coating materials, and floor tiles. Elevated concentrations of airborne asbestos can occur after asbestos-containing materials are disturbed by cutting, sanding or other remodeling activities. Improper attempts to remove these materials can release asbestos fibers into the air in homes, increasing asbestos levels and endangering people living in those homes.”

“This new research into asbestos related illness and its direct link to home renovations should open people’s eyes to the dangers associated with asbestos containing materials in our homes,” reported Joe Frasca, Senior Vice President, Marketing at EMSL Analytical, a leading asbestos testing laboratory. “Fortunately, testing suspect materials before beginning home renovation projects has never been quicker and easier,” he said. (webwire.com)

Big Pharma’s Big Credo: Money is King

September 8th, 2011. By Hunter West

A long time ago, in a different life, the instructor in a business course I was taking asked the class the Number One Reason why people go into businesses. The answers varied from creating jobs, to bringing new products to market, to the prestige that can come with being a business owner, to ultimately helping mankind and make the world a better place.

As I sat there, listening to all of this, it suddenly struck me what the basic foundation for any business enterprise was, is and always will be.

“Making money,” I blurted out.

And apparently, I was right.

The successful former businessman in his own right, the founder of his share of multi-million dollar corporations, maintained that different businesses would have different credos, goals and objectives.

But all of that takes a back seat to profits. You don’t have any of the other stuff—prestige, job creation, R&D, charitable good works—without the money.

It’s all about the money, stupid. Show Me The Money.

Think about that the next time you take that pill for the umpteenth time, or undergo that hip replacement, or accept that pacemaker.

The drugs, the devices available to prolong our lives in the modern age are, in many ways, nothing short of remarkable. They really are. And I like to think that the doctor, who prescribes all this stuff to me, truly has my best health and welfare uppermost in his mind.

But you have to wonder at a regulator like the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that is partially funded by the industry over which it is charged to police on our behalf.

You have to wonder about the various loopholes and shortcuts that allow manufacturers to bring ‘promising’ new product to market faster—with minimal testing—only to have a lot of these drugs and medical devices turn out to be hugely problematic, if not outright dangerous.

You have to wonder at an FDA that acknowledges side effects as a necessary evil to the ingestion of chemicals whose benefits outweigh the risks for the largest segment of the population (there is no such thing, therefore, as a completely safe drug…).

You also have to wonder, the next time your grandmother breaks out her pill organizer and proceeds to ingest an insane number of different-colored pills…

How many of those pills are actually prescribed to treat an actual condition, v. the number that are needed to counteract the side effects from other pills?

And I wonder just how important that is to the drug companies, and their respective bottom lines? (And, I’m not the only one who’s wondered–I’m recalling the documentary “Big Bucks Big Pharma” from a few years ago.)

Their profits…

Pharmaceutical companies, and medical device manufacturers appear to be licenses to print money—especially with the large Baby Boomer sector approaching retirement. There’s so much money, in fact, that the cost of defending lawsuits is simply a cost of doing business.

There’s that word again. Business. Profits, and revenue, and dividends for shareholders. How important is it for drug companies to know their products are helping us to live longer, v. the money they are making off of us to their ultimate benefit and that of their investors?

I know what my business instructor, all those years ago, would say…

There’s nothing wrong with running a business—with making profits. That’s what business does.

What bothers me about the pharmaceutical and medical device industries, is that the consumer doesn’t have a choice…

Need a car? You can buy GM, or Toyota, or Honda, or Chrysler Fiat, or Mitsubishi…

If you need a TV, there’s Samsung, or LG, or Sony, or…

Or maybe you don’t want to buy one at all…

The difference with prescription drugs and medical devices is that more often than not, we don’t have a choice. We are mandated to take it, conscripted to do it. We rarely have the capacity to choose. And, if we’re lucky, the one choice we might get is to go for the generic version.

I’m at the age now where I’m on a low-dose aspirin a day, to keep my blood from getting as thick as my own head. I’ll probably be doing that for the rest of my life. But I’m also on a statin for high cholesterol, and I hate it. The sooner I can get my bad cholesterol in check by my own hand—diet and exercise—the happier I will be, and I can kiss the statin goodbye.

Ultimately, I don’t want to take something that I don’t need. But beyond that, I loathe being made to take something against my free will—something with which Big Pharma is laughing all the way to the bank.

I’ve always maintained that health—products, devices, drugs, health care of any kind—should be not-for-profit, free from greed and the blind pursuit of revenue.

But then, it wouldn’t be America, would it?

Asbestos News Roundup: 9.3.11

September 3rd, 2011. 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.

Asbestos Lawsuits

Beaumont, TX: Florence Woodard, the widow of Andrew Woodard, has filed an asbestos lawsuit naming her husband’s former employer, ExxonMobil, as the defendant. Mrs. Woodward alleges that Exxon Mobile and Mobile Oil exposed her husband to asbestos, which resulted in his death.

The lawsuit states that Mr. Woodard was exposed to asbestos dust and fibers while in the employment of ExxonMobil. No dates of employment or occupation are given in the lawsuit. Nevertheless, the lawsuit claims that as a result of his exposure to lethal asbestos fibers and dust, Mr. Woodward developed asbestos mesothelioma and subsequently died on August 10, 2009.

Mrs. Woodward alleges in her lawsuit that ExxonMobil knew asbestos exposure can cause cancer but still allowed employees, such as her late husband, to work with asbestos products. She further claims ExxonMobil acted with malice and is seeking to recover exemplary damages from the company. (SETexasrecord.com)

Charleston, WV: A man from Grayson, Kentucky is suing 57 companies in his asbestos lawsuit, alleging they are responsible for a family member’s lung cancer and subsequent death. On May 26, 2010, James Thomas Martin was diagnosed with lung cancer. He died of the disease on August 2, 2010, according to the lawsuit.

James Franklin Martin claims James Thomas Martin was exposed to asbestos and asbestos-containing material during his employment as an electrician from 1951 until 2006.

The defendants are being sued based on theories of negligence, contaminated buildings, breach of expressed/implied warranty, strict liability, intentional tort, conspiracy, misrepresentation and post-sale duty to warn, according to the lawsuit.

The 57 companies named as defendants are: 4520 Corporation; A.K. Steel Corporation; American Electric Power Company, Inc.; American Electric Power Service Corporation; Appalachian Power Company; Brand Insulations, Inc.; Catalytic Construction Company; Certainteed Corporation; Cleaver-Brooks Company, Inc.; Crane Co.; Dravo Corporation; Eaton Electrical, Inc.; Flowserve FSD Corporation; FMC Corporation; Foseco, Inc.; Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation; General Electric Company; Goodrich Corporation; Goulds Pumps, Inc.; Graybar Electric Company, Inc.; Grinnell, LLC; Hercules, Inc.; IMO Industries, Inc.; Industrial Holdings Corporation; Ingersoll-Rand Company; Insul Company, Inc.; ITT Corporation; Lockheed Martin Corporation; McJunkin Red Man Corporation; Nagle Pumps; Nitro Electric Company, Inc.; Nitro Industrial Coverings, Inc.; Oglebay Norton Company; Ohio Power Company; Ohio Valley Insulating Company, Inc.; Premier Refractories, Inc.; Rapid American Corporation; Riley Power, Inc.; Rockwell Automations, Inc.; Rust Constructors, Inc.; Rust Engineering & Construction, Inc.; Rust International, Inc.; Schneider Electric; State Electric Company; Sterling Fluid Systems (US), LLC; Tasco Insulations, Inc.; the F.D. Lawrence Electric Company; the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.; UB West Virginia, Inc.; United Conveyer Corporation; United Engineers & Constructors and Washington Group International; Viacom, Inc.; Vimasco Corporation; West Virginia State Electric Supply Company; WT/HRC Corporation; Yarway Corporation; and Zurn Industries, Inc. (WVRecord.com)

Charleston, WV: A couple from Liverpool, Ohio, has filed an asbestos lawsuit naming 10 companies as responsible for Charles H. Long’s lung cancer diagnosis.

Mr. Long worked as a boilermaker and ironworker at various power plants, steel mills and other industrial sites throughout western Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia, for over 20 years—1958 until 1979. During that time, Mr. Long claims, he was exposed to asbestos and asbestos-containing products that were manufactured and/or supplied by the defendants.

The lawsuit claims that the defendants are responsible for Mr. Long’s lung cancer, asbestosis and pleural plaques, and that the defendants failed to exercise reasonable care to warn him of the danger to which he was exposed by use of asbestos-containing products.

Further, the lawsuit states that the defendants also failed to inform Mr. Long of what would be safe and sufficient apparel for a person who was exposed to or used asbestos-containing products.

Mr. Long and his wife, Ruth Long, are seeking compensatory and punitive damages with pre- and post-judgment interest.

The 10 defendants named in the suit are: AK Steel Corporation; AmChem Products, Inc.; Bechtel Corporation; Brand Insulations, Inc.; Dravo Corporation; FMC Corporation; Goulds Pumps, Inc.; ITT Corporation; J. H. France Refractories Company; and Yarway Corporation.(WVRecord.com)

Steven Miner, Kathryn Miner…Meet Lisa Steinberg

August 31st, 2011. By AbiK

Of course, Lisa cannot meet Steven and Kathryn—but I’m ahead of myself…

So, you got issues with your mother? Sue her. That was the route Steven A. Miner II and Kathryn Miner, now 23 and 20 respectively, went in order to show their mother a thing or two about parenting and accountability. With their dad—Attorney Steven A. Miner—yes, the Barrington, IL attorney with both a suspension stayed in whole with conditions and a probation on his record from 1998 (source: Avvo.com) —as counsel!! (Note to Miner children—do your homework next time).

Effing spoiled brats is what they clearly are. And I’m glad the Cook County judge dismissed the case. I’m even gladder (is that a word?) that the two Miner brats are just on the cusp of that glorious time in their lives where they’ll start to find love—the marrying kind—and, drum roll please, OFFSPRING! And while hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, there ain’t no greater revenge than watching your children have children—if you’re so inclined to think that way. So sit back, Kimberly Garrity, ex-wife of Steven A. Miner Sr., and watch the future of your children unfold…karma’s a wonderful thing.

Regardless of my personal views on the Miner kids who sued their mother—for $50,000 in damages (like, why bother?) for emotional distress—I’m sensing that somewhere along the line they misinterpreted or were not made aware of exactly what the heck “extreme or outrageous” parenting behavior would be—that is, in order to have the courts step in, or to have a prayer in hell of winning this ridiculous “child abuse” lawsuit.

Then it dawned on me. These poor spoiled Miner kids weren’t around when poor little Lisa Steinberg (above, right) learned first-hand what child abuse really means—and an introduction is in order. See, for those you who remember the horrific Steinberg case, little Lisa died because daddy Joel Steinberg didn’t want to take little Lisa to a restaurant with him, so he inflicted a head injury upon her, apparently with some type of rubber-headed hammer. And that was the tip of the iceberg and the start of a media outcry to draw and quarter the low-life and his common law wife, Hedda Nussbaum.

Given their youth, and what appears to be their father’s lack of knowledge-sharing, I thought I’d try to help the Miner kids out ex post facto by putting together a simple little chart of “Extreme or Outrageous” and “Not Extreme or Outrageous” parental behavior—as depicted by examples from both the Lisa Steinberg child abuse case and the Miner let’s sue mom case. And here it is.

Like I said, it’s a bit late to show the Miner kids this, but at least the judge, Kathy Flanagan, had a clue. So, as reported in the Chicago Tribune, the case has been dismissed with judge Flanagan stating that the suit was ‘nothing more than children “suing their mother for bad mothering.”’

Sadly, reports state that Kimberly Garrity will have to cough up all the legal fees associated with defending herself in this case—while Steven and Kathryn Miner have to pay, well, Daddy. But sometimes—and this is one of them—the adage “it’s only money” rings true. For after clogging the courts unnecessarily and with such prima donna claims, the damage to all three Miner’s reputations will undoubtedly outlast any financial woes Ms. Garrity might face.

Sources: Chicago Tribune, Florida International University,

 

When Cancer Research is Faulty, is it Fraud?

August 30th, 2011. By Hunter West

Cancer is so widespread that it touches us all in some way. Either you have lost a loved one or friend to cancer, you know someone who is afflicted—or you, yourself might be in the throes of battling some kind of cancer. It’s everywhere. Without getting into the debate as to why cancer rates appear to be rising, at least we can take solace in the research that we hope will one day result in a cure.

But perhaps that day may never happen. And recent events involving cancer research and fundraising have raised some doubts as to the effectiveness—and worth—of the cancer machine.

The New York Times recently chronicled the rise and fall of Dr. Anil Potti, a cancer researcher at Duke University Medical Center. Dr. Potti and colleagues had undertaken promising studies on genomic testing for molecular traits of cancerous tumors, and determining which chemotherapy treatment would be most appropriate.

Lung cancer patient Juliet Jacobs had a lot to gain and everything to lose, to that promise. Jacobs was part of the Duke University study, hoping for a breakthrough that would prolong her life.

Instead, the promising research was discredited due to the discovery of errors. Four gene signature papers were retracted, three trials at Duke were shuttered and the lead researcher resigned.

Juliet Jacobs died a few months following treatment that promised much but proved ineffective. Her family has launched a lawsuit, as have the relatives of other similarly doomed patients who had high hopes from the Duke research, since dashed.

Then, there’s the controversy in Canada over the allocation of fundraised dollars to research, compared with other needs of an apparently ravenous cancer machine.

A consumer advocacy arm of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation last month looked at the financial records of the Canadian Cancer Society, following a complaint from a cancer researcher that research dollars appear to be harder to get—even though more people are Read the rest of this entry »