Full disclaimer: I know the person who's in charge of the cleanup--he's one of the best in EPA, a stand-up guy, and a good hoops player. _________________________________________ White House hushed up asbestos peril affecting millions By Andrew Schneider, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 12/29/2002 WASHINGTON - Last spring, the Environmental Protection Agency was on the verge of warning millions of Americans that their attics and walls might contain insulation that was contaminated with asbestos. But at the last minute, the White House intervened. The warning has never been issued. The agency's refusal to share its knowledge of what is believed to be a widespread health risk has been criticized by a former EPA administrator who served under two Republican presidents, and physicians and scientists who have treated victims of the contamination. The announcement to warn the public had been expected in April. It was to have accompanied a declaration by the EPA of a public health emergency in Libby, Mont. In that town near the Canadian border, ore from a vermiculite mine was contaminated with a lethal asbestos fiber called tremolite that has killed or sickened thousands of miners and their families. Ore from the Libby mine was shipped around the world, and was in insulation called Zonolite that was used in millions of homes, businesses, and schools. A public health emergency declaration had never been issued by any agency. It would have authorized the removal of the insulation from homes in Libby and provided long-term care for those made sick. Additionally, it would have triggered notification of property owners elsewhere who might be exposed to the insulation. Zonolite insulation was sold throughout North America from the 1940s through the 1990s. Almost all of the vermiculite used came from the Libby mine, last owned by W. R. Grace & Co. In a meeting in mid-March, EPA Administrator Christie Whitman and Marianne Horinko, head of the Superfund program, met with Paul Peronard, the EPA coordinator of the Libby cleanup. Whitman and Horinko agreed they had to move ahead on a declaration, a participant in the meeting reported. By early April, the declaration was ready to go. News releases had been written and rewritten. Lists of governors to call and politicians to notify had been compiled. Internal e-mail messages show that discussions had been held on whether Whitman would go to Libby for the announcement. It was never made. Interviews and documents show that days before EPA was set to make the declaration, the plan was thwarted by the White House Office of Management and Budget, which had been told of the proposal months earlier. Both the OMB and the EPA acknowledge that the White House agency was involved, but neither agency would discuss how or why. Former EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus, who worked for Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Ronald Reagan, called the decision not to notify homeowners of the dangers posed by Zonolite insulation ''the wrong thing to do.'' ''When the government comes across this kind of information and doesn't tell people about it, I just think it's wrong, unconscionable, not to do that,'' he said. ''Your first obligation is to tell the people ... of the possible danger.'' This story ran on page A14 of the Boston Globe on 12/29/2002.
I would imagine part of the motivation to allegedly suppress the asbestos information is the undeniable fact that frivolous asbestos litigation is absolutely crippling well-intentioned corporations and putting their honest, hard working employees out of work. It is truly a shame to see how the situation unfolded at Halliburton (Dresser). I believe Republicans need to do a better job at illustrating the costs to society of the trial lawyers running amok. People need to challenge the assertion that "victims" have a "right" to sue large corporations for billions and recognize that these actions have very tangible repurcussions against the rest of us.
I would imagine part of the motivation to allegedly suppress the asbestos information is the undeniable fact that frivolous asbestos litigation is absolutely crippling well-intentioned corporations and putting their honest, hard working employees out of work. Yeah, good point. It's much more important to protect well-intentioned corporations than people's health. Perhaps we should hide all potential health risks to Americans so as not to cost anyone their jobs. A Ford vehicle has a problem of randomly blowing up? Don't tell anyone - after all, Ford didn't do it on purpose. A toy is too easy to swallow and kills lots of babies? Keep it quiet - the maker obviously didn't intend to hurt the kids. Don't want these companies getting in trouble - what's a few lives in exchange for that?
Sigh. I raise a legitimate issue regarding the *size and frequency* of asbestos liability and litigation and you resort to baby-killing demagoguery. Your inability to address the issue, and your need to divert attention to killing babies, underscores your ignorance on the topic. Halliburton is a company that lost *billions* of shareholder value (middle-class wage earners are shareholders too, you know) and was forced to fire a large number of employees. Instead of their capital being allocated to growth projects, which could lower our fuel costs or uncover alternative energy sources, Halliburton was forced to devote that money towards lawyers fees and asbestos reserve funds. A select few were able to milk the asbestos cow to the detriment of the entire economy and to the detriment of ex-Dresser employees whose children didn't have any presents under the tree on Christmas Day. Many of these claims were from people who weren't even required to prove that asbestos contributed to their illness. The trial lawyers smelled blood in the water and swarmed -- and you can bet that a significant amount of these ill-gotten gains were pumped into the DNC's coffers to perpetuate the extortion.
Sigh. I raise a legitimate issue regarding the *size and frequency* of asbestos liability and litigation and you resort to baby-killing demagoguery. The size and frequency of lawsuits has NOTHING to do with making the decision whether to protect lives. You have issues with that - do it in tort reform laws. Don't sacrifice lives to protect a corporation. Halliburton is a company that lost *billions* of shareholder value (middle-class wage earners are shareholders too, you know) and was forced to fire a large number of employees. I could care less what happened to Halliburton. That fact that you have no problem sacrificing people's long-term health so that companies save money is disgusting and quite sad. There may be some legitimate reasons for not releasing those warnings. Protecting companies from lawsuits is not one of them.
Major, what is sad, other than your blind devotion to trial lawyers and your obvious need to repeatedly resort to demagoguery, is the fact that Halliburton's shareholders and employees are forced to pay a hefty price stemming from asbestos that was 1) thought to be safe at the time of installation and 2) not the decision of Halliburton to even be included in the buildings. If a company makes a conscious decision and that decision leads to problems, fine, hold them responsible in court. However, if a company operates in good faith and is well-intentioned and something out of their control pops up, then safeguards should be in place to ensure that selfish trial lawyers don't pounce on them and run the company (and its employees) into the ground. Companies are comprised of people, you know. They are not some huge hulking faceless entity. We have yet another example of "victims" trying to blame their problems on someone else, and selfishly begging for *billions* of dollars under the sympathetic veil of health concerns. The health concerns are a play on people's emotions and the temptation is to give them money, but the hard reality of the situation is that we all must suffer from this unbridled greed of the trial lawyers and other quick-buck opportunists.
is the fact that Halliburton's shareholders and employees are forced to pay a hefty price stemming from asbestos that was 1) thought to be safe at the time of installation and 2) not the decision of Halliburton to even be included in the buildings. Blah blah blah ... again, the solution for this is called TORT REFORM. It is <B>not sacrificing people's health</B>. I assume you don't mind if the government was to withhold information about your workplace being unsafe for you, in an effort to protect your employer from a frivolous lawsuit? Never mind that it might affect your health for the remainder of your life -- or worse, possibly cost you your life. That's sick, plain and simple.
Ahhh, Trial lawyers must be Republicans then. Remember greed is what makes capitalism work and our country great!!!!
The non-announcement (and there's nothing "alleged" about it... it didn't happen) does nothing to protect Grace or any previous owners. It only delays the inevitable clean-up and notification costs for which we will have to pay at some point. From the article: "It would have authorized the removal of the insulation from homes in Libby and provided long-term care for those made sick. Additionally, it would have triggered notification of property owners elsewhere who might be exposed to the insulation. "
This is about protecting the insurance companies as usual. Let's face it, if the insurance companies are going to be left holding the bag for clean-up, then they will be protected as long as possible. Look what happened in Texas. We are basically paying premiums double and triple the rate we were paying last year for LESS insurance. A homeowner pays for fire insurance and nearly nothing else. Flood - no. asbestos - no. Lead Paint - no. Water damage from a leak - no (unless it is sudden and immediate). Mold - no. Just pay your premiums and be quiet. And if you refuse ... well you can't ... unless you own your home outright. If anyone thinks the insurance firms are ever in financial trouble, all they have to do is take a trip to NY and look at the Manhattan skyline - NY Life building, MetLife bldg, AIG bldg, etc etc etc. These are the guys who have a license to print money and influence policy.
Your notion here is simply ludicrous. When a company large or small hurts people in a way that can be quantified in dollars, the company MUST PAY. The only way to force them to do so is via lawsuit. Back in "the day," if a company put out a dangerous product and my family member was killed, I'd go to the CEO and BAM...right in the head. This proved to be an unsatisfactory solution. As a result we developed a system for redress of civil wrongs...the legal system. What you call "trial lawyers run amok," I call the system working to provide a financial disincentive to committing harmful behavior. You probably would say that punitive damages are excessive. I say that without punitive damages of a substantial amount, companies would merely count lawsuits as a cost of doing business. God forbid that we hold companies to the same standard that we hold the average human being.
T_J these people that "comprise" this company sued the company. You know I rarely ever argue with you or anyone in the hangout. But this statement I quoted, which is the premise of your whole argument, is based on 100% ignorance to the case. Halliburton *employees* sued Halliburton. You make it sound like Halliburton was a manufacturer of asbestos....that is not the case. There are cases where contractors of Exxon who sold Exxon asbestos are now turning around and suing Exxon for asbestos exposure like they didn't know. This is not the case of Halliburton. Halliburton settled because they were wrong...No if and or buts about it. that's a huge settlement...think about it, dude. They put their own employees in harms way, knowingly. Do you know any asbestos lawyers...defending companies or not??? What you are confusing is that contract workers or, otherwise, so-called innocent users, suing the biggest pockets around. This is not the case with Halliburton. Employers knew back to 1930 that astestos was dangerous, and they knew within recent decades the nearly 100% cancer connection. The Halliburton case is the case of an employer not keeping their employees safe. Plain and simple. Hence the huge settlement. read up before you speak...otherwise...(for emphasis...otherwise Rice to Rice grad on a lame factual BBS) your words mean less and less in any and all arguments. get it!!!
