Los Angeles Personal Injury Lawyer - Toxic Substances - Most Popular

Santa Susana Rocketdyne Facility Continues to Plague Surrounding Community

Helen Zukin — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 03:00:00 GMT

Toxic exposures from Rocketdyne facility continue to cause concern. Radioactive release causes excess cancer deaths.

A scientific panel released its long awaited report on Thursday, concluding that the 1959 nuclear reactor meltdown at the Rocketdyne facility was responsible for hundreds of excess cancer deaths. For almost fifty years, the Rocketdyne Santa Susana Field Lab conducted its nuclear research and government contracts for both NASA and The Department of Energy in total secrecy. Only in the last decade have residents of the surrounding communities, such as Simi Valley, North Hills, Bell Canyon, Chatsworth and Moorpark, come to learn of the toxic substances which the Field Lab released into the ground, water and air.

As recent as two months ago, the Boeing Company, the current owner of the Rocketdyne facility, disclosed for the first time that napalm, dioxin, mercury and other highly toxic materials had been dumped in open-air burn pits. In August, the Department of Toxic Substances Control received 184 pages of documents from the Boeing Company which revealed that over the years the burn pits had been the dump site of hundreds of thousands of pounds of toxic liquids and gases.

The residents of the surrounding communities have long speculated that the high cancer rates and other diseases which appear to plague the area could be the result of decades of toxic exposures emanating from the Rocketdyne facility. The report released on Thursday adds further concern as to what health effects may have resulted from Rocketdyne activities.

"What's critical here is that people have been exposed here unwillingly and without their knowledge," said Steven Wing, University of North Carolina associate professor of epidemiology and co-chairman of the Santa Susana Field Lab Advisory Panel, which commissioned the studies. "To reduce people's anxiety we need more information. We need more forthcomingness."

Kiesel Boucher Larson has detailed information regarding the Rocketdyne facility and has handled numerous Rocketdyne toxic exposure cases.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Helen Zukin

Debate Over Alleged Dangers of BPA Ramps Up

Miriam Schimmel — Fri, 02 May 2008 20:07:56 GMT

The latest environmental hot button is the bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical contained in polycarbonate plastics. While BPA has existed since its creation in 1890 and the first evidence of toxicity became known in the 1930s, it jumped to the forefront of health and environmental news when popular outdoor sporting good store, REI, pulled the very popular Nalgene plastic drinking bottles from its stores several months ago. Since then, debate has swirled around the presence of BPA in plastics and its alleged links to endocrine problems such as infertility, lower sperm counts, enlarged prostrate glands, pre-cancerous lesions in breast and prostate tissue, and other symptoms of hormone disruption. Other companies have followed suit. In April, WalMart stopped selling baby bottles that contained BPA and Target is now doing market testing for selling glass baby bottles.

What’s more, BPA is found not only in plastics, but it is also in the linings of metal food and drink cans, and the more acidic the food or drink, the greater the danger since the acid promotes leaching of the chemical into the food product. For example, foods like tomatoes, citrus fruits, soda, and even infant formula, are believed to cause greater leaching of BPA into the product.

How do you know if the bottle you’re drinking from polycarbonate plastic? Simple: look at the bottom of the bottle and check the number in the little recycling triangle. The bottles deemed safer and without the presence of BPA are noted with either a “5” (polypropylene) or “2” (polyethylene).

In animal studies, BPA has been shown to be an endocrine disruptor which mimics the female hormone, estrogen, and is allegedly associated with the above abnormalities, as well as with obesity, insulin resistance, and even behavioral changes in animals. But these are animal studies, and many question their applicability to humans. As stated by Rich Kassel in his December 2007 article on the Gotham Gazette: “Although we can't say with certainty that BPA causes the same problems in humans as it does in the laboratory animals, the weight of scientific evidence should prompt us to err on the side of caution and avoid BPA exposures where possible.” Mr. Kassel is a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). But the danger – or extent of the danger – is still not known. As recently as last month, the National Toxicology Program of the NIH indicated potential risks BPA may have on human development, therefore raising greater concern over its use and potential harm to infants, children, and pregnant women. USA Today reported on April 27, 2008, that the FDA, while not yet raising its safety standards have initiated a review of the safety of baby bottles, formula cans and other products made with BPA.

Despite many who seem to discount the alleged health dangers, Frederick vom Saal, Ph.D., a developmental biologist at the University of Missouri, believes that studies showing BPA is safe are "profoundly flawed and in some cases exhibit outright fraud." In fact, vom Saal published a paper showing that all 11 of the industry-funded studies found no harmful effects from BPA, but 90 percent of the 104 government-funded low-dose studies did find harmful effects.

Human studies might prove the only way to settle the controversy over BPA. However, to date they have been too limited to draw conclusions one way or the other. The National Toxicology Program published a report in February 2007, and is now planning a future evaluation of BPA.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Miriam Schimmel

British Petroleum to be Fined for Explosion

Lance Rubin — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:23:16 GMT

The 2005 explosion at British Petroleum's Texas City plant killed 15 people and injured more than 170 others. Civil suits filed by the injured people and the families of those killed have been mostly resolved, but BP is being fined for its wrongdoing.

The explosion at the Texas City plant about 40 miles southeast of Houston occurred after a piece of equipment called a blowdown drum overfilled with highly flammable liquid hydrocarbons.
The excess liquid and vapor hydrocarbons then were vented from the drum and ignited as the isomerization unit -- a device that boosts the octane in gasoline -- started up. Alarms and gauges that were supposed to warn of the overfilled equipment did not work properly.

Though the fines that BP must pay could be up to $3.2 billion dollars, BP and prosecutors are trying to cut a deal whereby BP would only pay $50 million in fines. That sounds like a lot, but not when you compare it to the billions of dollars in profit BP makes every year. This sweetheart deal benefits nobody but BP.

Over 4,000 suits were filed against BP for injuries that occurred after the explosion. About half have been resolved to date.

After a refinery explosion or burst pipe, it's not only those who were directly injured that may have claims. Toxic chemicals are often released in a "plume" of hazardous gasses that can affect those who were near the refinery at the time. People who inhale these toxic fumes often develop lung or other respiratory problems, asthma, headaches, watery eyes and other symptoms.

Kiesel Boucher Larson has experience suing refineries for personal injuries that occur after explosions or pipe ruptures. The firm was successful in bringing claims for hundreds of injured people against ARCO, Tosco and Unocal.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Lance Rubin

Petrochemical Industry Continues to Attempt to Suppress Link Between Benzine Exposure and Disease

Paul Kiesel — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 12:14:09 GMT

Industry should not attempt to influence studies linking benzene exposure to cancer. The public should be protected from the petrochemical industries "junk science".

A recent article published in the respected International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health sheds light on the petrochemical industry's efforts to withhold data showing that employees working with benzene have an increased risk of leukemia, non-Hodkins lymphoma and other life threatening diseases. The author of the article has first hand knowledge, as a long time U.S. government scientist, of chemical companies' efforts to withhold information from the government, misinterpret evidence of toxicity to benzene and delay findings of adverse health effects of low levels of benzene exposure. The companies are now being criticized for attempting to influence future studies by conditioning funding on their desired result.

"My 27 years of experience through employment with a federal research agency (NIOSH) and regulatory agency (OSHA) leads me to conclude that petrochemical industry representatives and their contractors often withhold information from the Federal Government and misinterpret positive study findings by others."

What should be the role of chemical companies and their researchers in the evaluation of the toxic effect of benzene to their workers? The larger question is what should be industry's role in the assessment of the health risks of its factories and products? A number of scientific studies have shown that research funded by the petrochemical industry tend to underestimate or fail to detect increased risks of disease among workers. The concern among many independent scientists is that by producing inaccurate studies the petrochemical industry is negatively impacting public health. The government is not able to properly regulate dangerous chemicals, such as benzene, when it relies on inaccurate industry studies. In addition, the public is lulled into a false sense of security that the chemicals they are exposed to are safe.

One obvious conclusion is that the "fox should not guard the henhouse". The companies which create the risk should not be allowed to influence studies relating to the dangers of their industry and products. If the chemical companies were to take the high road they would turn health research of their industry over to the National Cancer Institute or other independent health organizations.

Kiesel Boucher Larson has expertise in toxic exposure cases and works with health professionals to promote a safer environment.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Kiesel

CA Consumers May Sue Grocery Stores to Enforce State Labeling Laws

Shehnaz Bhujwala — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:19:25 GMT

Last week, California's Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a federal food labeling law does not preclude California citizens from using state consumer laws to enforce an identical state labeling law. The High Court's ruling means consumers may sue grocery store chains to enforce a state law requiring labeling of dyes added to farm-raised salmon.

Do you recall a time in the not-too distant past when salmon was touted by experts as a superfood? With its high Omega-3 fatty acid content and myriad benefits for the heart, brain function and cellular renewal, salmon was the veritable darling of restaurants in the early 2000s, with US restaurants reporting record sales of salmon entrees by customers.

Then came a few cautionary reports about farm-raised salmon, raising public concern over the toxins and dyes found within the fish. Environmental groups also warned about overfishing of wild species and its effects on the environment. More recently, consumers have learned about the excessive mercury levels in many different types of seafood, including salmon; the NRDC and other respected organizations have issued advisories to consumers, asking us to limit our consumption of certain types of seafood, including salmon.

Navigating seafood options has truly become an extraordinary feat, but as always, our choices are better and a little easier with the right information. The U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and California's Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law both require labeling of artificial dyes used in food. This is fantastic consumer protection in theory, but what about practice? Many grocery store chains allegedly fail to label farm-raised salmon to inform consumers of the dyes added to the fish. Clearly, these laws must be adhered to and enforced in order to be effective!

Thankfully, a recent Supreme Court ruling will enable California consumers to sue grocery store chains to enforce compliance under California law. The High Court issued its ruling in San Francisco last week in a case consolidating lawsuits filed by individual consumers in Los Angeles, Alameda and Monterey counties to require grocery chains to label farm-raised salmon as containing dyes. The lawsuits allege that two petrochemical-based dyes, astaxanthin and canthaxanthin, are added to farm-raised salmon to make it appear the same pink color as wild salmon. Without the dyes, plaintiffs' have alleged, the farm-raised salmon would be grayish in color. The lack of pink coloring in farm-raised salmon may also indicate lowered Omega 3 fatty acid content.

The decision overturns prior rulings in which a Los Angeles Superior Court trial judge and the state Court of Appeal in Los Angeles declared the lawsuits violated federal preemption laws. In the opinion, Justice Carlos Moreno wrote that the federal labeling measure explicitly allows states to pass identical state laws. He said there is no indication in the U.S. law that Congress "intended to limit the scope of remedies states might choose to provide for violations of those laws."

Kevin Golden, a lawyer with the Center for Food Safety in San Francisco, told CBS News: "[T]he decision means citizens have a right to know what's in their food and sends a strong message that California citizens can enforce state food safety laws as a matter of state law." The food safety group filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting plaintiffs in the case. Craig Spiegel, a lawyer for the consumer plaintiffs, said his clients don't want to ingest the chemical dyes and said, "People have the right to determine whether to put artificial dyes in their bodies."

Another friend-of-the-court brief supporting the consumer plaintiffs was filed by the Los Angeles city attorney and the district attorneys of 12 counties, including Alameda, Marin, Monterey, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano and Sonoma counties.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Shehnaz Bhujwala

Study Finds IBM Workers at Increased Risk for Cancer Death

Helen Zukin — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 03:00:18 GMT

Study finds IBM workers at increased risk of cancer. Cancer rate higher than national average for IBM workers

A study of nearly 32,000 International Business Machines Corp. workers found a statistically significant increase in worker cancer death rates. The study looked at data collected by IBM on the causes of death of a large number of workers who died between 1969 and 2001. For years IBM attempted to suppress the study's findings and fought to keep the author of the study from publishing it in a scientific journal.

The information was kept in what IBM labeled its "Corporate Mortality File". The study was conducted by Dr. Richard Clapp, a Boston University professor of environmental health. Dr. Clapp looked at death records of male and female IBM employees who had worked for the company for a minimum of five years. He then compared the IBM employee cancer death rates to the national death rates for particular cancers. A number of different types of cancer were markedly higher in the IBM male employees; including cancers of the kidneys, brain, central nervous system and skin. As for women, the cancer rates were elevated for breast, lung, brain, female organs and the nervous system.

The use of cancer causing chemicals in the technology industry, semiconductor and disk drive factories may explain some of the IBM workers increase in cancer rates. IBM has challenged the study's findings calling it, "junk science", however, the study was recently published in the highly reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal, Environmental Health.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Helen Zukin

Asbestos: A Deadly Danger

Elaine Mandel — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 15:20:20 GMT

Many who were exposed to deadly asbestos fibers still don't know they were exposed.

Throughout the twentieth century, hundreds of thousands of workers worked with and around deadly asbestos fibers. Most of them worked with insulation or in the shipping, construction, mining or railroad industries. Many of these workers inhaled the deadly asbestos fibers for years. Those fibers caused lung damage, leading to asbestosis or the always fatal disease mesothelioma. Even worse, many of the workers came home at night, with deadly asbestos fibers clinging to their clothes. Family members were often exposed to 'second-hand' asbestos fibers and developed these conditions as well.

Unfortunately, many people still don't know they were exposed. At a Salt Lake City plant that processed an ore called vermiculite, workers weren't told until recently that the ore they worked with every day contained asbestos.

The microscopic fibers filled the thick vermiculite dust in the mine, at the plant and even in the air surrounding the community. With every breath, the sharp fibers speared into lung tissue. And often 10 to 40 years later, the body responded with lung cancer, asbestosis or mesothelioma, a cancer triggered only by asbestos.
The EPA has sued W.R. Grace, the company that owned the mine and dozens of processing plants, to recover cleanup expenses, although the company declared bankruptcy. In February, the U.S. Justice Department indicted seven Grace executives and the company itself for conspiracy, obstruction and Clean Air Act violations.

Kiesel Boucher & Larson represents those who suffer from mesothelioma and their family members. Last year one of Kiesel Boucher & Larson's partners represented a man who was dying from mesothelioma. A Los Angeles jury awarded him over $10 million. He died a few months later. If you worked in an asbestos-related industry, you should be checked for asbestosis and get the treatment you need.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Elaine Mandel

Radiation Poisoning: Not Just a Risk for Russian Politicians

Paul Kiesel — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 03:00:47 GMT

The invisible increasing threat of radiation exposure. Radiation exposure on the rise.

The recent radiation poisoning of a Russian politician brings to light a serious threat to public health. Unsuspecting Americans are receiving elevated levels of radiation, not as a result of political intrigue- James Bond style but, due to the existence of radiation in workplaces, homes and communities.

For over 50 years development of nuclear facilities, both by the government and private industry, has created a continuing threat to public safety. As nuclear facilities age we have seen the release of dangerous levels of radioactive materials into the air, soil and groundwater surrounding these plants. This is particularly the case because radiation is invisible, tasteless and lacks odor; a silent menace causing illness and disease in its wake.

The use of radioactive materials in medicine is yet another avenue of radiation exposure. Whether through use of x-ray equipment, radiation therapies or disposal of radioactive medical waste, the potential of elevated doses of radiation exists. Recognizing community concerns, the government will soon perform tests on a Brentwood, California dog park and surrounding grounds to determine whether radioactive medical waste, buried during the 1950's, has released high levels of radiation.

Communities near Hanford, Washington, Los Alamos, New Mexico, Rocky Flats, Colorado, San Onofre, The Santa Susanna Field Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in California, to name a few, have lived with increasing concern of elevated radiation levels in their backyards and groundwater. The risk of radiation exposure may be invisible, but is very real; linked to leukemia, various cancers and other life threatening diseases.

Kiesel Boucher Larson is committed to using the legal system to protect our environment and the safety of our workplaces and communities.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Kiesel

$7 Million Awarded to Mesothelioma Victim

Miriam Schimmel — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:22:09 GMT

Asbestos manufacturer, Georgia Pacific Corp., was ordered by a San Francisco jury to pay in excess of $7 million to plaintiffs, Joan and Daniel Mahoney. Plaintiffs sued Georgia Pacific claiming that Mrs. Mahoney developed terminal cancer from exposure to asbestos fibers released during her work in a home remodeling business with her husband.

Her husband testified that she was exposed to the asbestos fibers from using Georgia Pacific joint compound to fill cracks in sheetrock while working their part-time remodeling business in the late 1960s. Mrs. Mahoney was diagnosed with mesothelioma, which is a type of lung cancer believed to be caused primarily by exposure to asbestos fibers.

Plaintiffs asserted that Georgia Pacific continued to manufacture the joint compound well after they knew that asbestos could cause cancer and after other companies had found substitutes.

Defendant's lawyers argued that Mrs. Mahoney's frequency of use and amount of exposure, as well as the type of asbestos fibers in the subject joint compound, were not sufficient to have caused her illness or injuries.

Mrs. Mahoney is living in pain from the disease while also caring for her husband who suffered a stroke last year.

The $7million award represents only Georgia Pacific's assigned responsibility - i.e., 30% of the total $20 million award, which is one of the largest verdicts in an asbestos case. The rest of the award will likely go unpaid.

Georgia Pacific intends to appeal.

Kiesel, Boucher & Larson, LLP has a demonstrated history of success representing individuals who developed mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Miriam Schimmel

European Parliament Approves Tough Chemical Law

Paul Kiesel — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 03:00:03 GMT

EU law will limit use of toxic chemicals. U.S. chemical companies will have to comply with new EU law.

The European Union passed an important law, this week, designed to protect workers and consumers from the dangers of exposure to toxic chemicals. The new law will control 30,000 toxic chemicals and will result in the ban of approximately 1,500 of the most hazardous substances. The legislation is tougher and more far reaching than any U.S. laws and was strongly opposed by the U.S. chemical industry and the Bush administration.

The law called "REACH" is intended to force industries to regulate chemicals, supply health information, and replace the most hazardous ones with healthier alternatives. The law creates a central regulatory agency based in Helsinki, Finland. The provisions of the law become effective in June and are phased in over 11 years.

European Parliament President Joseph Borrell of Spain said the legislation "offers EU citizens true protection against the multitude of toxic substances in everyday life in Europe."

Many toxic chemicals are used by U.S. industry and are present in household products where unsuspecting consumers receive exposures to harmful levels of chemicals. Many toxic chemicals have been found in humans and animals all over the world. U.S. manufacturers with products containing these chemicals will now have to make changes in order to remain competitive in the international marketplace. This in turn will serve to benefit Americans even if U.S. environmental laws are not as stringent as those in Europe.

"When one in three people contract cancer in their lifetime, we need to stop using known and suspected cancer-causing chemicals in commerce. The same goes for chemicals that are now accumulating in our children's bodies", said Bev Thorpe, director of Clean Production Action, an international group advocating green chemistry.

The new European law should have an important impact on helping reduce human exposure to toxic chemicals.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Kiesel