« September 2005 | Main | November 2005 »
October 25, 2005
2,000 Tittabawassee home owners get class action go-ahead against Dow Chemical
KATHIE MARCHLEWSKI
The Dow Chemical Co. could be up against as many as 2,000 property owners joined in a class action lawsuit over dioxin contamination. Saginaw County Circuit Court Judge Leopold Borrello granted class status to the long-running litigation Friday.'
"We feel something finally is going our way," said Gloria Taylor, who along with her husband John, have been involved in the suit since its inception in March 2003.'
Dow, however, is planning to appeal the plaintiffs' win, company officials said.'
About 170 property owners originally signed onto the suit after being notified by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality that their Tittabawassee River-area homes are contaminated with dioxin beyond levels considered safe. They were warned that they should limit contact with soil and dust and told that exposure could cause a variety of ailments, including cancer.'
"They told us it's not safe for children to play in our yards," said Kathy Henry of Freeland. "If that's not a reason to file a lawsuit..."'
She and her husband Gary first initiated the suit seeking the value of their home, which they believe has been devalued because of the contamination that flowed downriver from Dow's Midland plant, clinging to sediment that is brought ashore each time the river rises. The Henrys also sought medical monitoring, a trust funded by Dow to pay for medical diagnostics that would identify potential dioxin-related disease. That claim was tossed by the Michigan Supreme Court, which ruled in July that there can be no claim if there is no present injury.'
The property portion of the suit had been on hold until the Supreme Court made that decision – a task that took nine months of the now 19-monnth-old case.'
Following the whittling down of complaints, the case was passed back to Borrello, who decided that because the residents of the flood plain all have the same complaint – that Dow contaminated their property – the lawsuit should move forward all-inclusively. Conducting trials for identical cases would not be practical – it would be expensive and time consuming for all iinvolved – Dow, litigants and courts.'
"To deny a class action in this case and allow the plaintiffs to pursue individual claims would result in up to 2,000 individual claims being filed in this court. Such a result would impede the convenient administration of justice," Borrello wrote in his order.'
The ruling sets forth a process for seven people, the Henrys included, to represent the broader class of plaintiffs. Others will not have to give depositions or otherwise be involved in trial, but will be included in any resulting settlement or judgment.'
Dow had argued, and will continue to argue via appeal, that each plaintiff's situation is different and that each would need to present and prove their case separately. The company notes that properties are contaminated with varied levels of dioxin, if at all, and therefore the impact on property value and the impact on property owners' use, varies.'
Borrello disagreed. "Almost identical evidence would be required to establish negligence and causal connection between the alleged toxic contamination and plaintiff's damages," he wrote.'
Dow spokesman Scot Wheeler said Dow will challenge Borrello's decision in the Michigan Court of Appeals.'
"We believe the individual differences with regard to property overwhelmingly overtakes the commonality in the case," he said. "This is why we have appellate courts."'
Wheeler said he didn't know if the company would seek to halt proceedings in the case while the higher court reviews the decision.'
If it does not, Dow and plaintiffs' attorneys both have the go-ahead to begin discovery, which is the gathering of information to prove or disprove claims.'
In the meantime, Plaintiffs' attorneys, Teresa Woody, of Kansas City-based Stueve Siegel Hanson and Woody LLP, Bruce Trogan of Trogan and Trogan PC of Saginaw and Carl Helmstetter and Michael Saunders of Spencer, Fane, Britt and Browne LLP of Kansas City, are preparing a letter of notification that will be mailed to all floodplain residents.'
The notification will explain the suit and give residents an option to exclude themselves from the suit if they desire.'
Those who opt out will not be entitled to proceeds or relief from any settlement or judgment. Those who do not reply to the notification will be automatically included and represented in the suit.'
SECOND DIOXIN CASE FALLS UNDER THE HENRY CLASS
The couple who filed a second class action lawsuit against Dow in August was in court with their attorney today, and satisfied with the results.'
"I think it put this case on the map," said Barbara Steinmetz. "It's important this case was validated. It's not just a bunch of people arguing and quibbling ... the courts have recognized this is a problem."'
She and her husband, Howard, Tittabawassee River flood plain residents for 35 years, filed a class action suit in August similar to the one already pending, but more defined. Instead of including all properties within the floodplain, it addressed only single-family, residential homes. Businesses and municipally owned properties such as parks were left out.'
Based on the court decision in the Henry vs. Dow case Friday, the Steinmetzes are now on the road to having their own case heard – under the umbrella established by class certification.'
"If the class survives appeals, there's no reason for the Steinmetz suit to be pursued," said the couple's attorney, Jason Thompson of Detroit-based Charfoos & Christensen. "It's included in the proposed class, a subset consumed."'
Thompson, however, plans to stay on task. He said his firm may seek to join the attorney team already working on the suit.'
There also is a possibility that the Steinmetzes, who feel crunched for time, could opt out of the Henry suit and go solo.'
"We are pleased with the (Henry certification,)" Howard Steinmetz said. "How it will affect us remains to be seen."'
The 73-year-old has battled two cancers – non-Hodgkins lymphoma and prostate canceer. He also has had heart and thyroid problems.'
The time it could take for resolution to the Henry case is a concern to him.'
"This will probably go on to the end of my life," he said.'
Barbara also has had health problems – a portion of her stomach removed because of a pre-ccancer warning, and diagnosis of endometriosis.'
The couple suspects exposure to dioxin contributed to their myriad of illnesses, and earlier this year moved out of their riverside home and out-of-state. They returned recently for medical treatment.
Quick facts'
What happened: The Saginaw County Circuit Court certified the long-running lawsuit against Dow as a class action suit. As a result of the ruling, everyone who lives on the Tittabawassee River flood plain, an estimated 2,000 property owners, are automatically included in the suit. They will be notified in the near future by mail. Those who don't want to sue must opt out.'
But ... there is one more big "if": Dow officials say the company plans to appeal Borrello's ruling. That means the class certification must survive the Michigan Court of Appeals. If the Court of Appeals agrees to consider the case, and decides to overturn Borrello's decision, those wishing to sue would have to initiate separate suits.'
What didn't happen: The Court didn't rule on merits of the case. It didn't decide if Dow is guilty of anything. Allegations will be proven or misproven in a jury trial.'
The decision on class certification means only that the court believes that flood plain property owners have a common complaint that is best addressed in one trial instead of many different trials. Because there are so many people who have been notified that they have dioxin contamination on their properties and may want to sue, separate suits would be expensive, time consuming and would clog courts.
Posted by bhola at 01:28 AM | Comments (0)
October 22, 2005
Junior doctors threaten en masse resignation
FROM THE HINDUSTAN TIMES
Bhopal, October 21, 2005
JUNIOR DOCTORS across the State [of Madhya Pradesh] have threatened to tender en masse resignations on October 22 if the police did not arrest armed miscreants who manhandled and physically assaulted a junior doctor and other staff on duty at the Gwalior Medical College Hospital a couple of days ago.
The Junior Doctors’ Association (JDA) has alleged that the attackers were goons of Gwalior BJP district president Abhay Chaudhary.
In Gwalior, OVER 350 junior doctors today submitted en masse resignation to in-charge dean Dr G L Sharma of the GR Medical College. "Abhay Chaudhary’s men attacked our colleague Dr Amar Mukul Tiwari and injured him and some other hospital staff," JDA president Dr Hemant Verma told the Hindustan Times today in Bhopal.
He added that Chaudhary had even used his political clout in the police department and prevented filing of an FIR against the culprits. "Police did not even register an FIR against the culprits under Chaudhary’s pressure," claimed Dr Verma.
He asserted that the highhandedness of authorities did not stop at that and they went ahead and registere an FIR against four junior doctors who had approached the police station as complainants.
"The BJP leader pulled some strings and got a false case registered against the junior doctors who were actually the victims," stated Dr Verma. Junior doctors have demanded immediate arrest of the miscreants for attacking a doctor and other staff on duty and interfering in their official work, failing which they would be forced to take extreme steps.
"There would be severe repercussions if the goons were not arrested immediately," Dr Verma warned. He informed that the attackers, who arrived in five jeeps, had entered the hospital after breaking open the lock of the Kamla Raje gate at about 10.30 pm on October 17.
"The High Court had banned entry from that gate and got it locked," informed Dr Verma, adding that the culprits should be booked under an offence of violating High Court orders too. Besides, the JDA has demanded that a case should be registered against the attackers for unlawfully entering the hospital premises armed with weapons.
Dr Hemant Verma stated that the false FIR registered against the four junior doctors should be immediately withdrawn. ``We demand the State Government to immediately order police to take back the false FIR,’’ he asserted. The JDA has threatened that all the junior doctors working across the state would tender their resignations if their demands were not met by October 22.
"All junior doctors of the state would resign en masse if immediate action was not initiated against the culprits and false cases against our colleagues were not withdrawn," warned Dr Verma.
Posted by bhola at 11:25 AM | Comments (0)
October 21, 2005
Open Letter to the UN Environmental Programme
FROM THE COALITION AGAINST BAYER-DANGERS, GERMANY
To Eric Falt, Director, UNEP Division of Communications and Public Information
Theodore Oben, Head, UNEP Children and Youth Unit
Dear Mr. Falt and Mr. Oben,
We read about the gathering of Young Environmental Leaders in Bangalore, organized by UNEP and sponsored by Bayer. The objective of the meeting is to discuss the environment and the implementation of the UN Millennium Development Goals.
In our opinion your partnership with Bayer thwarts these aims.
This corporation has fought, through its lobbyists, against most agreements on environmental issues, be it the Kyoto Protocol for the protection of the climate, the new EU laws on chemicals, the phasing out of CFCs or efforts to reduce the use of pesticides. At the same time Bayer produces a great number of highly dangerous substances like insecticides, plasticisers, Bisphenol A and phosgene. In the past Bayer was even engaged in the production of PCBs, poison gas, and HIV-tainted blood clotting medication.
Bayer, like any other multinational company, is primarily interested in profits. Bayer´s former CEO, Manfred Schneider, put it this way: “We´re out for profits. This is our job”. And Bayer has a long tradition in trying to “greenwash” its image. The company started dozens of partnerships and sponsorships with medical, environmental or educational organizations. In particular Bayer chooses cooperations in fields where the company is criticized. Bayer has been using these partnerships to deflect criticism by watchdog groups or the media and to use the good image of their partners to present a corporate humanitarian image.
It`s a set-back for efforts to assure environmental protection if corporations like Bayer are allowed to associate themselves with the UN or the United Nations Environmental Programme. Bayer widely uses its involvement with the UN and UNEP to bolster its integrity, for example on the company`s homepage and in numerous advertising brochures. This is an easy and informal way of achieving a positive company image without real-world consequences. To Bayer, supporting UNEP is nothing more than a sheer publicity campaign.
Our group Coalition against BAYER-dangers, based in Germany, has been monitoring the company for 25 years. During this period we have documented hundreds of cases when Bayer´s products or factories harmed people or the environment. For decades we have experienced that Bayer only stopped the production of hazardous products when pressured from the public. For more examples please visit our website or read our article Bayer and the UN Global Compact.
Big corporations are responsible for many environmental and social problems. Big companies reduce costs and increase profits on the public´s expense. Multinationals push for voluntary agreements that hinder the ratification of binding rules to ensure social and environmental standards. Therefore we believe it is not a good idea to partner with multinational companies when pursuing environmental goals.
Accepting money leads to dependency. We fear that UNEP and the Young Environmental Leaders will be less open to make the role of corporations a subject of discussion when receiving support from Bayer. We urge you to stop this cooperation.
Awaiting your answer,
Philipp Mimkes, Hubert Ostendorf, Axel Koehler-Schnura, Jan Pehrke, Uwe Friedrich
Board of the Coalition against BAYER-dangers, Germany
Coalition against BAYER-dangers (Germany)
www.CBGnetwork.org
Please e-mail us to receive our English newsletter Keycode BAYER free of charge. German/Italian/French/Spanish newsletters are also available.
Fax: (+49) 211-333 940 Tel: (+49) 211-333 911
Advisory Board
Prof. Juergen Junginger, designer, Krefeld,
Prof. Dr. Juergen Rochlitz, chemist, former member of the Bundestag, Burgwald
Wolfram Esche, attorney-at-law, Cologne
Dr. Sigrid Müller, pharmacologist, Bremen
Eva Bulling-Schroeter, former member of the Bundestag, Ingolstadt
Prof. Dr. Anton Schneider, construction biologist, Neubeuern
Dorothee Sölle, theologian, Hamburg (died 2003)
Dr. Janis Schmelzer, historian, Berlin
Dr. Erika Abczynski, pediatrician, Dormagen
Posted by bhola at 11:15 AM | Comments (0)
October 16, 2005
Dusted
Long after 9-11, some people say the dust is still making them sick. Now they want the EPA to do something about it.
by Kristen Lombardi writing in the Village Voice
September 6th, 2005 2:49 PM
A 9-11 victim: Alex Sanchez fell ill after cleaning office buildings downtown. Photo: Steven Sunshine
Alex Sanchez likes to say he's "living proof" the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's response to the September 11 terrorist attacks bordered on the criminal. Sanchez was exposed to dust from the World Trade Center disaster as a cleanup worker in skyscrapers around ground zero. He spent seven months enveloped in the lethal material, wiping it from cubicles, blowing it out of vents. It stung his throat, burned his eyes, and choked his lungs.
"The EPA said the air was safe," he remembers, as the fourth anniversary of 9-11 nears, "and when you read that coming from a government official, you don't second-guess it."
Now he does. Sanchez, 38, of Washington Heights, walks with a cane, hunched in pain, hampered by escalating respiratory problems. Doctors have diagnosed him with musculo-skeletal syndrome and asthma, attributed to exposure to the WTC dust. He takes as many as 23 medications.
Yet what bothers Sanchez isn't so much his own health—"I'm already damaged goods," he says—but the bigger picture. He thinks about people who live and work in the buildings surrounding ground zero, like the ones he used to clean, the ones he worries weren't properly tested for contamination. Residents, office workers, schoolchildren: These are the people who may still be breathing in toxic dust, yet not know it. "I'm afraid there are people who will end up just like me walking around these buildings today," he says.
Sanchez isn't alone. For more than a year, dozens of people who live and work in and around Lower Manhattan have been locked in a debate with the EPA over its latest proposal to test for lingering Trade Center dust. A coalition of activists—from labor, tenant, small business, and environmental groups—have pushed agency officials to do the right thing—that is, determine the 9-11-related contamination remaining in downtown and clean it up.
The coalition is helped by a few local lawmakers, among them Representative Jerrold Nadler and Senator Hillary Clinton, and fueled by distrust born of the EPA's initial response after 9-11. New Yorkers were told back then that conditions were safe when in fact they were not. None of these activists finds it easy to believe the agency's latest promises.
In July, activists pressed their case before an EPA advisory panel, made up of 18 technical experts and government officials, who are charged with helping the agency establish a sampling plan and identify unmet public-health needs. Attendees describe the scene as a "showdown," with residents and office workers offering emotional testimony. One resident even collected dust from the blackened filter of her air purifier and presented it to the panelists. "I said, 'This is the dust from my apartment. Why don't you take it home and eat with it and sleep with it every day?' " relays Esther Regelson, who lives two blocks south of ground zero, and who has noticed her pre-existing asthma condition worsening.
The EPA has defended its strategy, which is to analyze only limited samples from Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn. "I believe the plan is scientifically sound," says Michael Brown, of the EPA Office of Research and Development, which convened the panel after Senator Clinton put the screws to the agency. Though, he adds, "we still have what I'll call a short distance to go to get the plan to a place where the community will support it." He says the agency is committed to doing what's right. "We will spend whatever is necessary to assure the health and well-being of those living and working in Lower Manhattan."
But activists say the EPA has produced a plan so seriously flawed that it appears designed to find as little remaining pollution as possible. And the less the EPA finds, the less it has to clean up.
No one knows for a fact whether Trade Center dust lingers downtown. But as Catherine McVay Hughes, a Lower Manhattan resident who sits on the EPA board, points out, what people do know doesn't allay their concerns. To date, a handful of tall buildings have been deemed so heavily contaminated that they've been slated for demolition. Some neighboring buildings have been deemed in need of years-long cleanup. Others have seen no cleanup at all.
At the very least, McVay Hughes says, the community wants a sampling plan that answers the questions, once and for all. "We expect the EPA to design a plan that will look for the dust, find it, and clean it up."
The community has every reason to worry about remaining contamination. The collapse of the 110-story twin towers released a lethal cloud of debris. Concrete, steel, glass, asbestos, plastics, mercury, lead: It all came crashing down, pulverized into dust. Add to this brew the fires that burned for three months, giving off a putrid plume.
"It was a toxic soup," says Suzanne Mattei, of the New York City Sierra Club, who wrote a 265-page report on the 9-11 fallout. "People were exposed to not one chemical but multiple chemicals"— in short, to dangerous stuff.
It didn't take long for those most heavily exposed—the workers who sifted through the rubble and shipped it away—to experience health problems. Almost instantly, the coughing emerged, as did wheezing, throat irritation, and chest pain. Last September, the Mount Sinai Medical Center released data from its 9-11 medical-screening program, which has tested over 14,000 first responders and volunteers. The center reported that 88 percent suffered from at least one WTC-related ear, nose, or throat symptom. Over half endured respiratory ailments for months.
But you didn't have to work on the pile to get sick. Many, like Sanchez, who cleaned the Trade Center dust in downtown skyscrapers have suffered similar illnesses. In 2001, Queens College professor Steven Markowitz, an occupational-health physician, set up a medical van two blocks from the WTC site and screened 415 cleanup laborers. He recorded the coughs, the wheezing, the sore throats. A year later, he found most workers' symptoms were persisting.
Meanwhile, the few studies on residents uncover a wave of damage. In 2003, researchers examining 205 asthmatic children found that those who live within five miles of the WTC site endured more bouts, requiring more doctor visits and medicines. That year, researchers surveyed 2,812 residents and determined that half of them living within a mile of ground zero had developed respiratory troubles.
Count Kelly Colangelo among this group. The Lower Manhattan resident has lived in three apartments since the terrorist attacks, moving repeatedly in an attempt to escape adverse health effects. Her first apartment, on John Street, a block from the WTC site, was saturated in dust. "It covered everything," she says, from the sofa to carpet to drapes. She even discovered it inside her cabinets.
She hired cleaners, who wiped away the dust in what she calls "a once-over." Yet soon after she returned, she noticed symptoms. She couldn't breathe. She broke out in a rash. She felt dizzy. Worse, she endured searing abdominal pain. Seeking answers, Colangelo says she sent dust samples of her freshly cleaned abode to a lab, only to find asbestos at double the threshold for safety.
Things didn't get better at apartment two, along the Hudson River, overlooking the pier where debris was loaded on barges bound for Staten Island. So when another unit in her building went vacant last fall, she relocated again. This time, she has tossed the carpet, drapes, and upholstered furniture. And this time, finally, she hasn't experienced a single symptom.
"Personally," she says, "I feel my health problems have to be related to residual dust. What other explanation could there be?"
Gail Benzman, a city employee at the Housing Authority, wonders the same thing. She works at a municipal building on Center Street, seven blocks from ground zero. From the moment she returned to her office, two weeks after the attacks, she began experiencing ailments she never had before.
"Some days are better than others," she says, between strained-sounding coughs. Doctors diagnosed her with sinusitis and asthma, attributed to WTC-related pollution. She now uses an inhaler regularly; about four times a year, she takes antibiotics to relieve the infections.
Benzman knows the Trade Center dust blew into her building. And she knows it pervaded the place until November 2001, when a cleaning crew had at it. Still, she suspects traces linger to this day. Why else would colleagues who started on the job a year after the cleanup develop the same respiratory troubles she has?
"This isn't the only building where people keep getting sick," Benzman says, struggling to control her cough. She cannot believe that she and thousands more don't know the extent of WTC-related pollution downtown, even now, four years later. She tends to push the thought out of her mind. But whenever her asthma acts up, she says, "it brings back the anger that something is not being done."
That anger, in many ways, stems more from the EPA's overall response to 9-11 fallout than from its current plan. Invariably, critics bring up the agency's actions—or lack thereof—within days of the attacks. How administrators proclaimed the air "safe" to breathe. How their assurances provoked employees to return to work and residents to return home. How the agency shirked its mission to protect people from what amounted to a massive chemical spill.
The whole attitude about WTC-related contamination seemed, in the words of activist Kimberly Flynn, "sheer negligence." She confides, "It still boils my blood. I don't have words for what an outrage this is."
That outrage has only been reinforced over the years. In August 2003, the EPA inspector general issued a scathing 165-page report on the agency's 9-11 response. It disclosed some disconcerting facts—that the White House had pressured the EPA to sanitize its warnings about ground zero, for instance. In effect, the report revealed a whitewash the agency has yet to live down.
Even advisory panel members recognize the past has made the current debate over a sampling plan more difficult. Says David Prezant, deputy chief medical officer for the New York fire department, who serves on the board, "There's a lot of resentment about the way this issue was originally handled."
Brown, of the EPA, speaks of the distrust this way: "I believe that by judging EPA's actions—not just our promise to do what's right, but our work in sampling and cleaning up whatever should be cleaned up—the community will recognize that we are worthy of their trust."
To hear critics, though, the EPA has never acted without outside pressure. Congressman Nadler, a Manhattan Democrat, has drawn attention to the issue from the start, hosting press conferences, testifying at hearings. In April 2002, his office put out a critical "white paper" documenting how the EPA had violated its own rules by failing to test and clean up downtown.
"We've pushed and pushed and gotten nowhere," Nadler says. "The only time we've gotten anywhere is because Hillary pushed for it."
Indeed, as advocates like to point out, it was Senator Clinton's willingness to fight the good fight that spawned the EPA panel. Back in 2003, in response to the inspector general's report, she wrote a letter to the White House, calling for immediate testing. She could make that kind of demand, since she sits on a Senate committee that oversees the EPA. Clinton blocked President Bush's nominee to head the agency for 45 days, agreeing to lift her "hold" only after the White House agreed to have the EPA set up the advisory panel.
"New Yorkers deserve a firmer assurance that they are safer in their homes," the senator said when the EPA finally formed the body, in March 2004, "and I am hopeful that this panel will lead to that point."
So were advocates. As they see it, the panel has given them a chance not just to voice concerns about residual toxins, but to keep the EPA in check. Without it, there'd be no talk of testing, let alone cleanup. Still, the process has turned into a protracted fight, with advocates poring over proposals, criticizing the same main issues. Since January, the sampling plan has undergone three revisions. Panel members expect a fourth soon.
"We have gone back and forth," says Micki Siegel de Hernandez, a union representative who sits on the panel and considers the plan "quite inadequate." The struggle, she says, has left residents and workers "feeling as if [EPA officials] haven't been listening."
The EPA's Brown insists the agency has made a good-faith effort. "We're doing everything we can to make sure it's safe to live and work in Lower Manhattan." And some panel members agree, saying it'd be unfair to paint the EPA as hostile. The panel, they contend, has made the plan more responsive to the community.
When panelists first convened, the EPA had proposed testing for re-contamination, not for residual toxic dust. That meant excluding every place that hadn't been cleaned up before—arguably, the places most in need of testing. Panelists shot that idea down, they say, after resounding community complaints.
What's more, the original plan ignored workplaces. Now, it won't. Originally, it tested only for asbestos. Now, it includes such toxins as lead and fiberglass. Originally, it focused only on the blocks south of 14th Street, then Canal Street. Now, it extends up to Houston Street, and over to parts of Brooklyn. Brown suggests the boundaries could expand further. "If the data suggests we need to go further, we will," he says.
Even Clinton's aides say the panel has resulted in a better plan. Philippe Reines, the senator's spokesperson, explains that if the panel had stuck with the initial proposal—which reflected the agreement between Clinton and the White House—testing would have been limited. "It was the senator's hope all along that once the panel got started the EPA would look more broadly at World Trade Center air quality issues," he adds, "and that has happened."
Still, the plan has shortcomings. As it stands, critics tick off a litany of technical problems. Like how the plan would test oft used areas, such as countertops, rather than hidden ones, such as ceiling beams. Or how it would rely on what they see as improper methods to collect dust on soft surfaces and in ventilation systems.
By far, the biggest complaint has to do with the so-called "signature"—or as Mattei says, "some magic substance that's a marker of WTC dust." The signature consists of slag wool, mostly, an insulation used in the towers. Under the plan, if the EPA detects slag wool, it'll clean up. If not, it won't. Critics contend it's foolish to reconstruct a signature years after the Trade Center collapse; it's more foolish to require one to clean up.
Another thorny issue deals with access. Currently, the plan would select 150 buildings to test if owners agree to participate. That leads to dilemmas: Employees can't volunteer their offices; tenants can't volunteer their lobbies.
Even panel members find the complaints reasonable. The problem, says Markowitz of Queens College, who sits on the board, is that many issues come down to policy, not science. To wit: the debate over the plan's voluntary nature. "We've tossed it around for months," he explains, yet it has nothing to do with dust particles. So panelists have little influence in the outcome.
"Ultimately," Markowitz says, explaining his frustration over the fight, "if we don't get to some action on the ground, then I don't think we've served any useful purpose."
Evidently, Senator Clinton would agree. Over the past 17 months, she has remained a force behind the panel, working quietly to move deliberations forward. When advocates have bumped up against the EPA, they've turned to her for help. Explains Siegel de Hernandez, "It's easy for the EPA to discount us; it's not as easy to discount Senator Clinton."
Last June, the senator met with critics to discuss the plan. They asked her to intervene. And so, on June 29, she wrote a letter to EPA administrator Stephen Johnson, highlighting ways the plan "does not go far enough." In July, her office stepped in again, arranging a negotiation session between the EPA, panelists, and critics. That meeting is expected to happen later this month. Her staff says they're hoping a deal can be hashed out.
So is the EPA. "I'm very hopeful this work-group meeting will get us into the homestretch so we can resolve outstanding issues," Brown says.
Who knows what will come of the effort? The agency could revise its plan, or not. Things could unravel, or not. Many people expect the EPA to undertake some type of testing, if only to show that it has acted. But whether the sampling plan will provide answers about the full extent of WTC-related pollution is anyone's guess.
Advocates don't sound optimistic. After all, they note, the decision rests with the EPA—and the White House. And toxic Trade Center dust seems like one of many environmental causes the Bush administration has ignored, despite evidence. "It's a hard fight," Mattei says, "when you have a government that doesn't listen to science and doesn't want to admit it did anything wrong."
No one understands the consequences of this more than Sanchez. Every day, as he struggles with his health, he says he's reminded of how the administration first failed New Yorkers. And as he's become more active in the EPA fight, he's reminded of how the agency continues to fail the city. If it had come through for people, he asks, wouldn't the testing and cleanup have been finished long ago?
"I'm really disgusted by it," he says. "It's shameful."
Posted by bhola at 08:27 PM | Comments (0)
October 13, 2005
Why I refuse to go to jail: Diane Wilson interview on Democracy Now
Three years ago Texan environmentalist Diane Wilson was arrested for committing civil disobedience at a Dow Chemical plant to protest the company's connection to the Bhopal chemical disaster. She’s now refusing to go to prison until former Union Carbide CEO Warren Anderson is jailed for his role in Bhopal.
The Corporate Crime Reporter is reporting that Diane Wilson is facing four months of jail in Texas. But she now says that she's not going to jail until Warren Andersen, the former CEO of Union Carbide, is extradited to face manslaughter charges in Bhopal, India. Andersen was CEO of Union Carbide on December 3, 1984 when a deadly gas leak from Union Carbide’s pesticide factory in Bhopal, India poisoned at least 500,000 people. More than 8,000 people died within three days and over 20,000 people have died to date as a result of their exposure. In August 2002, Wilson scaled a Dow Chemical facility in Seadrift, Texas and unfurled a banner that read – "Dow Responsible for Bhopal." When she came down, she was arrested and charged with criminal trespass. In January 2003, Wilson was convicted of that charge and sentenced to four months in prison and fined $2,000.
Diane Wilson is a fourth generation shrimper turned environmental activist from Seadrift, Texas. She is author of the book An Unreasonable Woman: A True Story of Shrimpers, Politicos, Polluters, and the Fight for Seadrift, Texas.
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
AMY GOODMAN: Now Diane Wilson says she'll refuse to go to jail until Warren Andersen goes to jail. She joins us in our studio. Welcome.
DIANE WILSON: Thank you very much, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: Why you are so focused on Warren Anderson?
DIANE WILSON: Well, I'm a fisherwoman, and I come from a very small town, where there’s a lot of corporations. And I have been to India. And I've talked with the survivors from the Bhopal emissions. And as a matter of fact, I've even had them come to Seadrift. And we went to the Union Carbide plant so they could talk to the plant managers there. And I believe the only way that these people will have justice is if Warren Anderson goes back to India and stands trial. That was -- in the beginning, that was a part of the compromise that they had made with the Indian government, that they would give them this pittance of money and that they would show up for trial. That was the one thing that the Union Carbide executives, the corporation, Warren Anderson, they turn and just walked away from it. And Warren Anderson jumped bail, I believe, 13 years ago.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, Warren Anderson was CEO of Union Carbide, which has since been bought by Dow.
DIANE WILSON: That’s right.
AMY GOODMAN: So what’s Dow's responsibility now?
DIANE WILSON: Dow's responsibility, they claim all the profits, and we believe that they claim the liabilities also. I do know that they have taken on Union Carbide's liabilities in the United States. There was a case where a child was contaminated with some of Union Carbide's pesticide. And I believe the American child received up to $6 million. And the children over in India, a lot of them received nothing at all. And some of them just, you know, like $500.
AMY GOODMAN: You found Warren Anderson here in this country. Can you talk about what happened?
DIANE WILSON: Well, it's real interesting, because, you know, they had been trying to extradite him to India for a long time. And the FBI kept saying, well, they couldn't find Warren Andersen. They just had no idea where that man was. Well, actually, it was Greenpeace who found him first. And once we heard that Warren Anderson was in South Hampton on Long Island, I was in New York one day. So I just decided just to go by his house and stand out front. And I had a big sign that said, “Warren, shouldn't you be in India?” And I had actually had no idea that he was inside. You'd see -- every once in a while you would see a curtain pull back. And I was really surprised when he and his wife walked out.
There was a reporter -- a radio reporter was out and interviewing me. And Warren Anderson abruptly, he strode out there with his wife. And, matter of fact, he and the reporter started fighting over the microphone. And I thought we was going have a fight in the street at that point. And all he did was he said that we had no idea what we was doing. He had been to India. He wasn't going back again. And he wanted to know where I was from, because, you know, he assumed I was a professional environmentalist. And I said, well, I was a fisherman from Seadrift, Texas, and there is a Union Carbide plant there, and he said, "There’s no Union Carbide plant in Seadrift." And I said, "Well, I can get a picture of it and show it to you." And he refused to -- you know, he just believed that we were, you know, we didn't know what we were doing, we were misinformed.
AMY GOODMAN: Speaking of reporters, didn't a television producer pull up at that point?
DIANE WILSON: Oh, yeah. Yeah, matter of fact, I believe it was 60 Minutes.
AMY GOODMAN: The Executive Producer, Don Hewitt?
DIANE WILSON: The Executive Producer. And he was extremely pissed off at us for being there. He said we had -- we didn't know any of the facts. They had been over there. They checked the facts. And that Warren Anderson was, as far as he was concerned, Warren Anderson was innocent. And he said, "Personally, I wouldn't go back over there, either."
AMY GOODMAN: So, right now why exactly are you considered on the lam? You could be arrested if you were in Texas right now, but not here in New York?
DIANE WILSON: I could be -- the minute I step foot in Texas I could be arrested. And my -- when I talk with my attorney, he said he just didn't believe they were going to send the Texas Rangers up here. You know, he didn't know if there was extradition -- I hate to say where I'm at, so they won't send someone here. But, yes, I'm arrestable at any point that I step back into Texas.
AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Diane Wilson. A fourth generation shrimper turned environmental activist from Seadrift, Texas. Diane has also written a book. It is just out. It’s the story of her life. It’s called An Unreasonable Woman: A True Story of Shrimpers, Politicos, Polluters and the Fight for Seadrift, Texas. Last week, Diane, an explosion shook the Formosa Plastics Corporation plant in Port Lavaca, Texas, injuring at least 13 workers. The explosion occurred just a year-and-a-half after five workers for the company were killed in a blast at its plant in Illinois. Formosa’s plant employs around 1500 people. Last April, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality fined the facility $150,000 for violations of air pollution laws that included releases of toxic chemicals like vinyl chloride. Over the past decade the Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspected the plant a dozen times, five of them resulting in violations. Can you talk about this plant? You take on a lot of chemical plants from Union Carbide to Formosa.
DIANE WILSON: Well, I probably spent -- I've been doing this activism probably 16 years now. And I’ve probably spent the majority of the time on Formosa Plastics. I probably know more about this chemical plant than Formosa knows about it. Matter of fact, I've had Formosa executives call me and ask me where I was getting my information, because I had information that even they didn't know. And I've got to know --
AMY GOODMAN: Where were you getting it?
DIANE WILSON: Well, I was talking to the workers. And apparently the company isn't talking to the workers. And, matter of fact, a lot of times that there would be a release and the company would report this minute little release, and I was talking to the worker, and when they found out I was talking to the worker, they would call me, and it was like, well, how much -- how much is the worker saying is being released? Because they didn't know what kind of trouble they were going to get into by, you know, what small amount that they were saying was being released.
AMY GOODMAN: So talk about what is happening at Formosa, the third to strike -- the third explosion to strike the industrial facility in Texas this year.
DIANE WILSON: Well, I was there when the plant was being constructed. It was the biggest expansion in Texas history. And Texas is known for big expansions. And when they started, they had like 400 contractors. And they were working on top of each other. And one of the things about Formosa, the way they have been able to be so profitable is they're constantly pushing to get things up and running so they were – at some instances they were building inside of the process units before they even had the cement down. And I know one of the workers, he fell from like 75 foot. And he didn't die because he hit the ground and – because there was no foundation underneath of it.
And I've had workers that said that they were supposed to be laying the pipes in the cement. And the cement was laid before the pipes were laid. And so they were having chain saws and these cement saws trying to saw into cement. And I think on the one instance, he said, ‘Well, they couldn't get that pipe in that cement.’ So they were going to have just have this vacuum truck handy to take up all the process water all the time.
And this plant, they were constantly using cheap material. There was no training. Like a lot of the workers that were doing the wells, you know, they have to be x-rayed. They were filling the wells. I know one of the buildings totally collapsed, and Formosa was saying, “Oh, it was a tornado that hit.” And it was, you know, this little 20 mile an hour wind came through and knocked the thing over, because there wasn't even bolts in the thing.
AMY GOODMAN: What about the casualties? In March, BP's Texas City oil refinery burst into flames killing 15, injuring 170 people. In July the refinery exploded again. And this week in Congress, the Republican leadership pushed through a bill that would make it easier for oil refineries to build new domestic facilities, the legislational streamline government permits for refineries opened federal lands for future refinery construction, weaken environmental protections and offer subsidies to build refineries, even though oil companies are making record profits now.
DIANE WILSON: Well, I'll tell what you I think about it, because I know the workers that worked in that BP refinery plant in Texas City. And I know --
AMY GOODMAN: That’s British Petroleum.
DIANE WILSON: Yes, that’s British Petroleum. And I know, because they would come when I would talk to them, and they would say, “Whoop, just had a near miss today. The plant just nearly went.” And the thing of it is there has been so much wrong about how these facilities are being built. And then also, they're getting rid of the, you know, there is a real big effort to get rid of the unions, which is -- you know, which -- and they're real strict about the training, about the quality and most of these corporations, that's one of their big efforts is to get rid of the unions and, you know, I just think it's just another disaster waiting to happen.
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about your activism and what got you started. You're the mother of five kids?
DIANE WILSON: Five kids. Right. Right. My mother says I should have known better. But I started because I was – like I said, I was running a shrimp boat, and shrimping was so bad, I was running a fish house. And in 1989 one of my shrimpers, and he had three different types of cancers. And he had lumps all over his arms. And he gave me an Associated Press story that said that my county which is -- I mean, it's real tiny little county. It's like 15,000 in the entire thing. And we were number one in the nation for toxic disposal. And that just -- that just blew my mind. I just -- and the thing of it is, I had never heard about it. I had never read it in the paper. I had never saw it on TV. And to find out you're number one in the entire country, I couldn't -- I couldn't get -- wrap that around my head.
AMY GOODMAN: Where in Texas is it?
DIANE WILSON: It’s Calhoun County. It’s right on the Texas Gulf Coast. We're about midway between Corpus Christi and Galveston. And so all I did was call a meeting over that little report. And I got such a backlash. I mean, people, especially officials, bank presidents, Chamber of Commerce, economic development, senators, they got furious that I would even question the chemical plants.
AMY GOODMAN: The DA asked how he could get you to stop doing what you were doing?
DIANE WILSON: That's right. It was during my punishment phase. And he was real serious. And he said, "What is it going to take to make you stop?" And I said, "There isn't a single thing you can do to make me stop." And quite frankly, I'm not afraid of jail. I truly am not. I think it's -- I think my activism is like my path. And I think everything you do, you have to do it with integrity. And my taking the punishment is a part of it. But I -- go ahead, I'm sorry.
AMY GOODMAN: How do you link, Diane Wilson, your protest around these environmental issues and the oil refineries in Texas where you live with the war in Iraq? Talk about the protest, September 2002 in Washington, DC, Arms Services Committee questioning Donald Rumsfeld. What did you do?
DIANE WILSON: Well, I -- it was actually a very spontaneous idea. We had -- I was with Medea Benjamin. And she was in Washington, DC.
AMY GOODMAN: Code Pink.
DIANE WILSON: Yeah, with Code Pink, and she said why don't I come up to Washington, DC. And we were trying to think of something we could do, and we had heard that Donald Rumsfeld was going to be before the Service Arms Committee. So we made a banner that night about 11:00. It was still wet. I remember I went to a little thrift shop and got me a pink suit. I’ve never had a suit on in my life, and I put on a pink suit. And we stood in the section to -- where they were allowing people to get inside. And when it came time to allow the citizens in, the Capitol cop, he pointed to me and Medea, and he just said, "Come here, little ladies." And he put us right behind Donald Rumsfeld. And it was like fate. I’d never felt so much like fate had put us right there. It was perfect. There was a million cameras. And all the military with their shiny brass and all those senators. And when he started talking about Iraq and all the weapons of mass destruction, we just got right up and started shouting, "More inspections! No war!"
AMY GOODMAN: Donald Rumsfeld's comment after you started shouting that, as you were forcibly removed: "As I listened to those comments," he said, "it struck me what a wonderful thing free speech is. And, of course, the country that threw the inspectors out was not the United States. It was not the United Nations. It was Iraq who threw the inspectors out. But, of course, people like this are not able to go into Iraq and make demonstrations like that, because they don't have free speech." Those are the words of Donald Rumsfeld, as you were being taken out.
DIANE WILSON: That's right. That's what he said. And, you know, and I don't think the issue about Iraq is about freedom. I think it's about oil.
AMY GOODMAN: Are you continuing your activism now? Are you continuing your protests?
DIANE WILSON: My protests for the war has started when I realized we were invading Iraq. And it will continue as long as we pursue this type of policy with the government. It will -- it will continue. Right.
AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Diane Wilson, fourth generation shrimper turned environmental activist. Wrote the book An Unreasonable Woman: A True Story of Shrimpers, Politicos, Polluters, and the Fight for Seadrift, Texas. Do you think you've made any progress? Do you think you've changed anyone's minds in Texas or in the rest of the country?
DIANE WILSON: Well, I know when I was -- right before I got arrested for climbing that chemical tower, we -- I was a part of a hunger strike supporting the Bhopal activists at that time. The Indian government was going to drop the charges against Union Carbide, against Warren Andersen, and pretty much kill the whole justice movement with Bhopal survivors. And I started a hunger strike in front of that plant in my truck. We had 1,000 people joined it. Eight different countries got involved. And at the end, the Indian government changed their mind. And they, matter of fact, kept the charges and, in fact, sent out extradition papers to the Justice Department. So I absolutely believe that people make a difference, absolutely.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you for being with us.
DIANE WILSON: Thank you, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: Diane Wilson. And we'll continue to follow your journey wherever it takes you. An Unreasonable Woman, that’s the title of her book.
www.democracynow.org
For those not familiar with the program, DEMOCRACY NOW is arguably the leading source of independent broadcast news in the US. According to their website, "Democracy Now is a national, daily, independent, award-winning news program airing on over 350 stations in North America. Pioneering the largest public media collaboration in the US, Democracy Now! is broadcast on Pacifica, NPR, community, and college radio stations; on public access, PBS, satellite television -- DISH network: Free Speech TV channel 9415 and Link TV channel 9410; DIRECTV: Link TV ch. 375 -- as a podcast, and on the internet."
Posted by bhola at 08:10 AM | Comments (0)
October 11, 2005
Diane says she won't go to jail until Warren Anderson is extradited to India
ORIGINAL STORY: CORPORATE CRIME REPORTER
October 10, 2005
Diane Wilson is facing four months of jail in Texas. But Diane now says that she’s not going to jail until Warren Andersen, the former CEO of Union Carbide, is extradited to face manslaughter charges in Bhopal, India.
"I’m going to go on the lam," Wilson told Corporate Crime Reporter today. "I realize I have to go to jail. I’m quite willing to do that. But Warren Andersen – who jumped bail 13 years ago – needs to go to jail too. I’m going to stay out to expose the inequality – corporate executives don’t go to jail for high crimes and little citizens go to jail for misdemeanors."
In August 2002, Wilson scaled a Dow Chemical facility in Seadrift, Texas and unfurled a banner that read – "Dow Responsible for Bhopal." When she came down, she was arrested and charged with criminal trespass.
In January 2003, Wilson was convicted of that charge and sentenced to four months in prison and fined $2,000. An appellate court affirmed her conviction earlier this month. She is out on a $1,500 bond.
Andersen was CEO of Union Carbide on December 3, 1984 when a deadly gas leak from Union Carbide’s pesticide factory in Bhopal, India poisoned at least 500,000 people. More than 8,000 people died within three days and over 20,000 people have died to date as a result of their exposure.
Click here for full size PDF, print and distribute widely.
Anderson was charged with culpable homicide by prosecutors in Bhopal. He reportedly lives in Bridgehampton, New York.
Midland, Michigan-based Dow Chemical purchased Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) in February 2001 in the full knowledge that Union Carbide was still facing outstanding criminal charges of culpable homicide in Bhopal.
Both Andersen and Union Carbide have refused for the past 15 years to appear before the court in Bhopal to face the charges.
Wilson is scheduled to be a keynote speaker at the Bioneers Conference on October 14, 2005 in San Rafael, California.
Wilson lives in Seadrift, Texas. She said she has no immediate plans to return home. She is currently on a nationwide tour promoting her book – An Unreasonable Woman: The True Story of Shrimpers, Politicos, Polluters and the Fight for Seadrift, Texas (Chelsea Green, 2005).
Shannon Salyer, the assistant district attorney in Calhoun County, Texas would not comment on the case. Salyer said that Dan Heard, the district attorney, won’t be back in the office until the end of the week.
Posted by bhola at 10:56 AM | Comments (0)
October 05, 2005
Regulating the chemical monsters: a message from Ruth Luschnat in Berlin
Today one can read in the newspaper Taz that yesterday the EU Environment Board decided to withstand the pressure of the chemical industry to lighten up the proposed regulation for permission to produce chemicals, REACH, that will be passed next year.
Chemical companies will have to undergo an environmental test of the substances they produce and sell in their products, since many of them might prove a danger to the environment and/or health. Each substance must be proven harmless, or in many cases be replaced by new sustainable alternatives (plastic sacs made out of tomatoes etc), before permission to produce can be granted.
Thus the first step has been succesfully taken, since the industry had demanded that production of up to 100 tons a year should be passed without much control. This would have reduced the number of substances newly to be investigated, and approved for production or continued production under REACH, to a very much smaller list.
The EU Environmental Board has decided to lighten the tests only for substances with a production of under 10 tons per year. But REACH is still not in place. The next step is the EU parliament, which has to decide upon REACH in mid November.
In this respect it links to the issue of the EU-India resolution with demands from all over the globe that EU parlamentarians make a strong statement for a rigid REACH and that such regulations should be implemented also in other continents, so that chemical producers can never again create situations like that which made the Bhopal disaster possible.
See therefore, the article that Tim forwarded (below). Among his links to the EU-India resolution you find one to an aritcle from the US about breast cancer and the chemo-pharma causes for it.
greetings from Berlin
Ruth
EU-INDIA RESOLUTION
"The resolution notes that twenty years after the Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal, the site has still not been cleaned up and calls on the Indian authorities and on Dow Chemicals to clean up the toxic waste immediately."
http://www.noticias.info/asp/aspComunicados.asp?nid=104196&src=0
EU: Parliament calls for closer EU-India relations
The European Parliament is calling for far greater cooperation
between the EU and India. MEPs adopted a report by Emilio MENÉNDEZ DE
VALLE (PES, ES) , which champions the Commission's plans for a new
strategic partnership. They are calling for extra funding for its
implementation.
Parliament notes that the USA has aspirations for a strategic alliance
with India and that China and India are also expanding their relations. It makes a number of specific recommendations to strengthen the ties with India, but also raises a number of issues of concern.
The report calls on the EU and India to jointly tackle aspects of
industrial, environmental and development cooperation, trade, investment and good governance. It voices alarm at UNICEF reports that seventeen and a half million children are working in India, "mostly in subhuman conditions". More generally, MEPs urge India to update its labour laws to prevent the exploitation of workers. The EU should work together with the Indian government to improve the situation of underprivileged people, in particular women, children and disadvantaged groups, e.g. Dalits and Adivasis.
Another cause for concern is the increasing environmental destruction
and MEPs urge India to show greater sensitivity to the question of
global warming, while pursuing its development needs. The "alarming drop in the number of tigers" merits special mention. The resolution notes that twenty years after the Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal, the site has still not been cleaned up and calls on the Indian authorities and on Dow Chemicals to clean up the toxic waste immediately. MEPs also urge India to allow derogations from restrictions on the manufacture of generic drugs for medicines such as those against AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, hepatitis and cancer.
Parliament recommends systematic EU-India consultation in advance of
international meetings or conferences and establishing permanent links
to secure "balanced and mutually beneficial progress on the main points of the Doha Develoment Agenda". MEPs also call on the Indian government to take firm action against the dumping of trade goods on the EU.
Datos de Contacto :
Contact: Marjory VAN DEN BROEKE Press Room Unit - Press Officer E-mail
address : foreign-press@europarl.eu.int Telephone number in Strasbourg : (32) 2 28 44304 (STR) Mobile number : (32) 0498 98 3586
Posted by bhola at 11:21 AM | Comments (0)