Let's jump on the band wagon!! Or is it gravy train? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mephisto2 · 09-13-2004, 08:26 PM

Quote:

9/11 clean-up teams file lawsuit

Hundreds of workers who helped clean up after the 9/11 attacks on New York have filed a lawsuit alleging they were not protected against toxic chemicals.

They want compensation - said to be billions of dollars - from the World Trade Center's leaseholder and four companies that helped remove debris.

The lawsuit also calls for the health of all those allegedly exposed to the toxins to be monitored for 20 years.

The defendants have yet to comment on the lawsuit, which was filed on Friday.

Rubble risk

A new report shows many who worked at the site of the attacks later suffered respiratory problems.

Afflictions such as asthma, sinusitis and shortness of breath were recorded amongst many of those involved in the clean-up, according to the report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Many others who worked at the site have said they suffered no adverse symptoms but are filing the lawsuit because they fear they could develop dangerous diseases in the future.

The lawsuit alleges many workers were not given equipment to protect them from toxins in the rubble while others were not taught how to use it properly, the Associated Press news agency reports.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...as/3653794.stm

Published: 2004/09/13 23:32:50 GMT

© BBC MMIV

Hmmm... I'm in two minds about this one.

Mr Mephisto

Ustwo · 09-13-2004, 08:34 PM

I'm in one mind.

Fuck them.

guthmund · 09-13-2004, 09:48 PM

Quote:

...but are filing the lawsuit because they fear they could develop dangerous diseases in the future.

I say when they do develop dangerous diseases they can sue. Until then, piss off. Unless, of course, I could get in on the ground floor of said lawsuit

I mean, I didn't help with clean up efforts, Hell, I've never set foot in New York City, but there was a lot of shit in the air for a while....maybe it floated down here.... I could develop a dangerous disease, FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!!!

Quote:

The lawsuit alleges many workers were not given equipment to protect them from toxins in the rubble while others were not taught how to use it properly, the Associated Press news agency reports.

If I see others with equipment doing what I'm doing, I'm getting some equipment. If I've been warned it could be dangerous, you can bet your ass I'm going to learn how to use it right. If nobody knows, well then, home is right over there.

smooth · 09-13-2004, 10:17 PM

They weren't warned it was dangerous, if I remember correctly.

The agencies declared the rubble safe. It wasn't until late this year that definative studies started to question that initial assertion.

Mephisto2 · 09-13-2004, 10:33 PM

Off-topic question.

Smooth, I like your .sig quotation. Never having heard of Walt Lippman, I just did a google and was very interested to read about him.

Thanks for an interesting (inspiring?) diversion.

Mr Mephisto

09-14-2004, 02:27 AM

"NEW YORK -- In the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center, the White House instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to give the public misleading information, telling New Yorkers it was safe to breathe when reliable information on air quality was not available.

That finding is included in a report released Friday by the Office of the Inspector General of the EPA. It noted that some of the agency's news releases in the weeks after the attack were softened before being released to the public: Reassuring information was added, while cautionary information was deleted.

"When the EPA made a September 18 announcement that the air was 'safe' to breathe, it did not have sufficient data and analyses to make such a blanket statement," the report says. "Furthermore, the White House Council on Environmental Quality influenced . . . the information that EPA communicated to the public through its early press releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones."

On the morning of Sept. 12, according to the report, the office of then-EPA Administrator Christie Whitman issued a memo: "All statements to the media should be cleared through the NSC (National Security Council in the White House) before they are released." The 165-page report compares excerpts from EPA draft statements to the final versions, including these:

The draft statement contained a warning from EPA scientists that homes and businesses near ground zero should be cleaned by professionals. Instead, the public was told to follow instructions from New York City officials.

Another draft statement was deleted; it raised concerns about "sensitive populations" such as asthma patients, the elderly and people with underlying respiratory diseases. "

A statement about discovery of asbestos at higher than safe levels in dust samples from lower Manhattan was changed to state that "samples confirm previous reports that ambient air quality meets OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) standards and consequently is not a cause for public concern."

Language in an EPA draft stating that asbestos levels in some areas were three times higher than national standards was changed to "slightly above the 1 percent trigger for defining asbestos material."

This sentence was added to a Sept. 16 news release: "Our tests show that it is safe for New Yorkers to go back to work in New York's financial district." It replaced a statement that initial monitors failed to turn up dangerous samples.

A warning on the importance of safely handling ground zero cleanup, due to lead and asbestos exposure, was changed to say that some contaminants had been noted downtown but "the general public should be very reassured by initial sampling."

The report also notes examples when EPA officials claimed that conditions were safe when no scientific support was available."

The above article is from newsday.com via common dreams (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0823-03.htm). I don't see how such lies could result in anything other than a law suit.

Superbelt · 09-14-2004, 03:47 AM

Those damned facts rear their ugly head again!

Averett · 09-14-2004, 04:14 AM

I knew a guy who worked for the EPA and went down to help clean up efforts. He was there for at least a month, I lost track of him after mid-October. Anyway, he said the atmosphere was absolutly horrible. Very hard to breathe. Itchy eyes all of the time. You could see the air. You're not supposed to see the air. He also had asthma so I'm sure that hightened everything for him.

Bill O'Rights · 09-14-2004, 05:18 AM

If it's true that the White House instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to give the public misleading information, then that is where the culpability lies. Not with the World Trade Center's leaseholder and the companies that helped remove debris. If it's true, then criminal charges need to brought against anyone in the White House that issued those orders to the EPA. If it's true, then this is by far, in my opinion, the biggest reason yet for giving the current administration the boot.

Mephisto2 · 09-14-2004, 05:55 AM

Bill, for some reason I thought you were a Bush supporter.

And stop all those changing freaky Willow avatars! they spook me out... :-)

Mr Mephisto

The Phenomenon · 09-14-2004, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Bill, for some reason I thought you were a Bush supporter.

And stop all those changing freaky Willow avatars! they spook me out... :-)

Mr Mephisto

Hell no!

She's hotness incarnate

Lebell · 09-14-2004, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

If it's true that the White House instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to give the public misleading information, then that is where the culpability lies. Not with the World Trade Center's leaseholder and the companies that helped remove debris. If it's true, then criminal charges need to brought against anyone in the White House that issued those orders to the EPA. If it's true, then this is by far, in my opinion, the biggest reason yet for giving the current administration the boot.

I tend to agree with this.

Bill O'Rights · 09-14-2004, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Bill, for some reason I thought you were a Bush supporter.

Where on this, or any other world, did you get that idea?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

And stop all those changing freaky Willow avatars! they spook me out... :-)

Ummmm...no.

Mephisto2 · 09-14-2004, 06:24 AM

No idea Bill. No idea.

I think I'm OD'ing a bit on the Politics board at the moment. I'm sure people are sick of all my posts!

Mr Mephisto

Superbelt · 09-14-2004, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights
If it's true that the White House instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to give the public misleading information, then that is where the culpability lies. Not with the World Trade Center's leaseholder and the companies that helped remove debris. If it's true, then criminal charges need to brought against anyone in the White House that issued those orders to the EPA. If it's true, then this is by far, in my opinion, the biggest reason yet for giving the current administration the boot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

I tend to agree with this.

Wha?

Or just to the first part....?

Ustwo · 09-14-2004, 07:14 AM

Ok no one got sick, but they are suing, and the draft of a report was changed.

Oh yea real Watergate stuff here guys.

Superbelt · 09-14-2004, 07:32 AM

People have gotten sick.
What was changed, cause I guess you missed it, was that the EPA had no idea what the air quality was like at Ground Zero, but the Admin cut that out and put in that it was safe anyway. That's called LYING. Because they did not know.

It was later confirmed that asbestos was 3 times higher in the area. Asbestos related health problems don't materialize overnight. They take years. Let me stick you in a room with 3x legal limits of asbestos for a week and see how you like it.

The govt deliberately lied to people and that lie, which kept people from using the proper respiratory precautions, I can say with certainty has doomed many people to an early death.

All the Admin had to do was allow the EPA to do it's god damned job. To tell the people living in the area and the people who were cleaning up the site that the air is potentially hazardous and you should stay away if possible and use every precaution to protect your health if you must be in the area. They wouldn't do that.

Are you that callous and in love with this Administration you can't see what is right in front of you?

Lebell · 09-14-2004, 10:41 AM

Superbelt,

As I've said many times, there are plenty of things going on in government that I don't agree with.

So while I don't like the idea of someone in the administration telling the EPA to pronounce things safe when they didn't know that (or worse, when they knew they weren't, if these charges are true), I am also of the mind that I think Kerry would be worse for the country than Bush.

Have I mentioned lately that I don't like politicians in general?

smooth · 09-14-2004, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

If it's true that the White House instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to give the public misleading information, then that is where the culpability lies. Not with the World Trade Center's leaseholder and the companies that helped remove debris. If it's true, then criminal charges need to brought against anyone in the White House that issued those orders to the EPA. If it's true, then this is by far, in my opinion, the biggest reason yet for giving the current administration the boot.

Hey Bill, this is typical in a civil case and not due to money grubbing.

If the claimant doesn't put the leaseholder on the complaint, then the culpable party can point to them and argue it was the leaseholder's responsibility.

Typically, everyone is placed on the complaint and various entities have to show cause why they are not culpable. After a judge decides who is culpable and who is not, the claimant(s) won't get their case dismissed because of a legal technique arguing that "they can't prove we did it because it's possible this other group is responsible--but we won't know because they aren't in court"

Hope that made sense.

JumpinJesus · 09-14-2004, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Many others who worked at the site have said they suffered no adverse symptoms but are filing the lawsuit because they fear they could develop dangerous diseases in the future.

Ahh, the pre-emptive pandora's box and its tangled web of intrigue.

09-13-2004, 08:34 PM	#2 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I'm in one mind. Fuck them. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-13-2004, 10:17 PM	#4 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	They weren't warned it was dangerous, if I remember correctly. The agencies declared the rubble safe. It wasn't until late this year that definative studies started to question that initial assertion. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

09-14-2004, 04:14 AM	#8 (permalink)
Averett Is In Love Location: I'm workin' on it	I knew a guy who worked for the EPA and went down to help clean up efforts. He was there for at least a month, I lost track of him after mid-October. Anyway, he said the atmosphere was absolutly horrible. Very hard to breathe. Itchy eyes all of the time. You could see the air. You're not supposed to see the air. He also had asthma so I'm sure that hightened everything for him. __________________ Absence is to love what wind is to fire. It extinguishes the small, it enkindles the great.

09-14-2004, 05:18 AM	#9 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	If it's true that the White House instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to give the public misleading information, then that is where the culpability lies. Not with the World Trade Center's leaseholder and the companies that helped remove debris. If it's true, then criminal charges need to brought against anyone in the White House that issued those orders to the EPA. If it's true, then this is by far, in my opinion, the biggest reason yet for giving the current administration the boot. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

09-14-2004, 07:14 AM	#16 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Ok no one got sick, but they are suing, and the draft of a report was changed. Oh yea real Watergate stuff here guys. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-13-2004, 10:33 PM	#5 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Off-topic question. Smooth, I like your .sig quotation. Never having heard of Walt Lippman, I just did a google and was very interested to read about him. Thanks for an interesting (inspiring?) diversion. Mr Mephisto

09-14-2004, 02:27 AM	#6 (permalink)
Senor Sassy Guest	"NEW YORK -- In the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center, the White House instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to give the public misleading information, telling New Yorkers it was safe to breathe when reliable information on air quality was not available. That finding is included in a report released Friday by the Office of the Inspector General of the EPA. It noted that some of the agency's news releases in the weeks after the attack were softened before being released to the public: Reassuring information was added, while cautionary information was deleted. "When the EPA made a September 18 announcement that the air was 'safe' to breathe, it did not have sufficient data and analyses to make such a blanket statement," the report says. "Furthermore, the White House Council on Environmental Quality influenced . . . the information that EPA communicated to the public through its early press releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones." On the morning of Sept. 12, according to the report, the office of then-EPA Administrator Christie Whitman issued a memo: "All statements to the media should be cleared through the NSC (National Security Council in the White House) before they are released." The 165-page report compares excerpts from EPA draft statements to the final versions, including these: The draft statement contained a warning from EPA scientists that homes and businesses near ground zero should be cleaned by professionals. Instead, the public was told to follow instructions from New York City officials. Another draft statement was deleted; it raised concerns about "sensitive populations" such as asthma patients, the elderly and people with underlying respiratory diseases. " A statement about discovery of asbestos at higher than safe levels in dust samples from lower Manhattan was changed to state that "samples confirm previous reports that ambient air quality meets OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) standards and consequently is not a cause for public concern." Language in an EPA draft stating that asbestos levels in some areas were three times higher than national standards was changed to "slightly above the 1 percent trigger for defining asbestos material." This sentence was added to a Sept. 16 news release: "Our tests show that it is safe for New Yorkers to go back to work in New York's financial district." It replaced a statement that initial monitors failed to turn up dangerous samples. A warning on the importance of safely handling ground zero cleanup, due to lead and asbestos exposure, was changed to say that some contaminants had been noted downtown but "the general public should be very reassured by initial sampling." The report also notes examples when EPA officials claimed that conditions were safe when no scientific support was available." The above article is from newsday.com via common dreams (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0823-03.htm). I don't see how such lies could result in anything other than a law suit.

09-14-2004, 03:47 AM	#7 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Those damned facts rear their ugly head again!

09-14-2004, 05:55 AM	#10 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Bill, for some reason I thought you were a Bush supporter. And stop all those changing freaky Willow avatars! they spook me out... :-) Mr Mephisto

09-14-2004, 06:24 AM	#14 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	No idea Bill. No idea. I think I'm OD'ing a bit on the Politics board at the moment. I'm sure people are sick of all my posts! Mr Mephisto

09-14-2004, 07:32 AM	#17 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	People have gotten sick. What was changed, cause I guess you missed it, was that the EPA had no idea what the air quality was like at Ground Zero, but the Admin cut that out and put in that it was safe anyway. That's called LYING. Because they did not know. It was later confirmed that asbestos was 3 times higher in the area. Asbestos related health problems don't materialize overnight. They take years. Let me stick you in a room with 3x legal limits of asbestos for a week and see how you like it. The govt deliberately lied to people and that lie, which kept people from using the proper respiratory precautions, I can say with certainty has doomed many people to an early death. All the Admin had to do was allow the EPA to do it's god damned job. To tell the people living in the area and the people who were cleaning up the site that the air is potentially hazardous and you should stay away if possible and use every precaution to protect your health if you must be in the area. They wouldn't do that. Are you that callous and in love with this Administration you can't see what is right in front of you?

09-14-2004, 10:41 AM	#18 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Superbelt, As I've said many times, there are plenty of things going on in government that I don't agree with. So while I don't like the idea of someone in the administration telling the EPA to pronounce things safe when they didn't know that (or worse, when they knew they weren't, if these charges are true), I am also of the mind that I think Kerry would be worse for the country than Bush. Have I mentioned lately that I don't like politicians in general? __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!