Merged Gulf oil spill more serious than reported

[Without Rights]

Two words.

Dow Corning




As you can see, it ended up that there were no health issues related to the implants, at least none that the lawsuits alleged.

Do you believe that none of the lawyers involved profited from the fourteen years of litigation or the multi-billion dollar settlement?

Of course you are gonna misconstrue what I said. See, in the case of Dow Corning, scientific studies showed silicon caused cancer. The lawyers didn't invent the illness, incompetent scientists did and the lawyers exploited it. Exactly the way I described the first time. Show me any case history where lawyers invented the problem.

The only exposure threatening those plaintiffs' lawyers is from the sun they get on the yachts they bought with those dimes you believe are so unreachable.

Rightly so. Although the lawyers profited from bogus science, they are not at fault. It is the scientists who are to blame for the increase in lawsuits related to silicon. Unless you are proposing some sort of conspiracy between the scientists and lawyers.

 

[quadraginta]

Of course you are gonna misconstrue what I said. See, in the case of Dow Corning, scientific studies showed silicon caused cancer. The lawyers didn't invent the illness, incompetent scientists did and the lawyers exploited it. Exactly the way I described the first time. Show me any case history where lawyers invented the problem.

No they didn't. There is not, and never has been any evidence that silicone breast implants caused cancer. Even the ambulance chasers who started the witch hunt backed off on that claim. Then they switched to auto-immune diseases, which also proved to be utter crap.

The quote I cited provided some links which discuss that. I even highlighted that part in anticipation that you might overlook them. Would you like to share some citations linking to these studies you say showed that silicone breast implants actually did cause cancer?

Rightly so. Although the lawyers profited from bogus science, they are not at fault. It is the scientists who are to blame for the increase in lawsuits related to silicon. Unless you are proposing some sort of conspiracy between the scientists and lawyers.

You are right that lawyers profited from bogus science. You are wrong that "scientists" are to blame. "Scientists" never offered any proof of a causal link between silicone breast implants and any of the diseases alleged by the lawsuits. At best they might have detected some possibility of a correlation, which was later shown to be in error. Correlation is not causation.

The bogus science was fabricated by the lawyers for the juries. Juries made up of the same sort of people who buy ionized bracelets, healing crystals, and quantum water. Even after the evidence became quite compelling that no causal link existed such juries continued to find in favor of the plaintiffs.

Dow Corning settled so that it could get out of bankruptcy proceedings and get back into business again.

Lawyers - 1 (or $3.2 Billion), Science - 0.

From this link in the quote I provided earlier, regarding the 1999 Institute of Medicine study commissioned by Congress, a comprehensive meta-study which exonerated silicone breast implants from any causal relationship with any of the ailments alleged by the lawsuits.

Examining more than 1,200 references, the group addressed the major questions about implants: Do they cause established connective tissue diseases, like arthritis or lupus? Do they cause breast cancer, nerve diseases, like multiple sclerosis, or new diseases with symptoms like aches and pains and overwhelming fatigue? Are children of women with breast implants at risk for disease because of silicone transmitted across the placenta or in breast milk? Do breast implants produce immunological reactions that could cause disease?

In every case, the committee concluded, there was no convincing evidence that implants were at fault. When lawsuits were filed in the late 1980's and early 1990's there was a lack of research on the topic. Since then, according to the report, ''a number of strong, well-designed epidemiological studies involving large numbers of women and clear results have been published.''

...

''It is a very strong statement,'' Mr. Bernstein said. But he added that it was a shame that the legal system had gone ahead with the litigation in the absence of science, with companies paying billions to compensate women with implants.

''It would have been nice to have had this $7 billion ago,'' Mr. Bernstein said.

 

[EHocking]

I never said they're pure as snow.

However lawyers don't create false problems, they exploit problems that exist. If there ends up to be no health issues related to the spill then these lawyers will not profit a dime. If there are issues their ad will pay off. In other words, they are betting on health problems.

So you concede that these lawyers ARE only exploiting a potential income situation.

Yet you presented this as evidence that there are real concerns for Gulf state residents regarding toxins from the spill.

It is NOT evidence that there is or will be a problem - it is merely advertising using scaremongering tactics.

I'll stick with EPA, NOAA and other official monitoring bodies for my information, not ambulance chasers inventing non-existent situations.

ETA: The oilspill website of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reviews the EPA air/water monitoring data, which advises on public health, can be found here.

 

[Without Rights]

So you concede that these lawyers ARE only exploiting a potential income situation.

So what? That's what all lawyers do. If you fall in Walmart and break your hip, lawyers exploit your injury and profit from it.

Yet you presented this as evidence that there are real concerns for Gulf state residents regarding toxins from the spill.

It's hard to exploit something that doesn't exist.

It is NOT evidence that there is or will be a problem - it is merely advertising using scaremongering tactics.

Never said it is evidence that there will be a problem. It is not scaremongering as you say. Fear is not the motivator for lawsuits, money is.

I'll stick with EPA, NOAA and other official monitoring bodies for my information, not ambulance chasers inventing non-existent situations.

So you will repeat that lawyers are inventing situations to profit on. Explain how that works. Do they just say oil can get you sick and wait for the placebo effect? Then what? Breathing illnesses are not like whiplash. It's hard top fake a respiratory disease.

I still would like an example of lawyers creating problems by themselves in order to sue. I am sure if it happens you would be able to find at least one. Not to be confused with health professionals (or others) saying there is a situation and lawyers exploiting it.

You do understand the difference don't you? Exploiting and creating, there's a big difference.

ETA: The oilspill website of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reviews the EPA air/water monitoring data, which advises on public health, can be found here.

\

Great, this is a good example of what I mean. The CDC says;
"The Gulf Coast Oil Spill has the potential to affect human health"
See, the lawyers are not "creating" the problem. Even the CDC sees the potential for illnesses related to the spill.

They recognize that the oil spill can cause toxicity issues inland and particulate matter could contaminate rain. Basically just what I been saying the entire time.

The lawyers could base there advertising campaign just on what the CDC says.

 

[Without Rights]

No they didn't. There is not, and never has been any evidence that silicone breast implants caused cancer. Even the ambulance chasers who started the witch hunt backed off on that claim. Then they switched to auto-immune diseases, which also proved to be utter crap.

But it wasn't invented by lawyers. It was the Public Citizen Health Research Group which said implants caused cancer. The first lawsuit was not based on illness but pain from operations to remove silicone.

The quote I cited provided some links which discuss that. I even highlighted that part in anticipation that you might overlook them. Would you like to share some citations linking to these studies you say showed that silicone breast implants actually did cause cancer?

I'm not getting into a conversation about silicone. My point is that lawyers used others faults to profit. It began with studies that show silicon injections to be dangerous and studies that show leaks in the implants are similar to injections. There were no studies specifically for implants, but the lawsuits were won on studies that show silicon injections as dangerous.

You are right that lawyers profited from bogus science. You are wrong that "scientists" are to blame. "Scientists" never offered any proof of a causal link between silicone breast implants and any of the diseases alleged by the lawsuits. At best they might have detected some possibility of a correlation, which was later shown to be in error. Correlation is not causation.

They never used correlation, they used studies for silicon that existed already. Silicon has been shown to be dangerous when injected. Studies existed, just not studies specifically for implants.

The bogus science was fabricated by the lawyers for the juries.

What science is that you are talking about?

Juries made up of the same sort of people who buy ionized bracelets, healing crystals, and quantum water.

That's illogical. You mean to tell me that 3558 individual lawsuits lost by Dow had all juries that were incompetent and used quack medicine? How unlucky for Dow.

Even after the evidence became quite compelling that no causal link existed such juries continued to find in favor of the plaintiffs.

There was a causal link. It was in studies of silicon injections. The studies that showed otherwise were yet to exist.

Dow Corning settled so that it could get out of bankruptcy proceedings and get back into business again.

Speaking of the class-action suit. But what of the 3558 individual lawsuits? Were all 43,000 jurors idiots? Or is it more likely that the evidence they had at the time showed silicon injections causing the same connective tissue problems the lawsuits addressed.

From this link in the quote I provided earlier, regarding the 1999 Institute of Medicine study commissioned by Congress, a comprehensive meta-study which exonerated silicone breast implants from any causal relationship with any of the ailments alleged by the lawsuits.

Yeah, 1999. Hindsight is 20/20. When the lawsuits were active, most Americans believed that implants were dangerous. Connie Chung even reported that they are harmful. Public Citizen Health Research Group also said they are a problem before the lawsuits. In other words, the lawyers didn't create "silicon toxicity" and start suing people. They exploited what media, research groups and experts (at the time) were saying. That silicon implants were dangerous.

 

[ripsaw_22]

Great, this is a good example of what I mean. The CDC says;
"The Gulf Coast Oil Spill has the potential to affect human health"
See, the lawyers are not "creating" the problem. Even the CDC sees the potential for illnesses related to the spill.

They recognize that the oil spill can cause toxicity issues inland and particulate matter could contaminate rain. Basically just what I been saying the entire time.

I think you are jumping the gun a little bit there...

From that same site:

Florida is using the ESSENCE (Electronic Surveillance System for Early Notification of Community-Based Epidemics) system, which tracks the symptoms reported by emergency department patients around the state, as well as data from calls to Poison Centers. The system looks for specific symptoms that could potentially be related to breathing, swallowing, or touching the oil. These symptoms include headache, nausea, vomiting, and skin problems, as well as issues with the respiratory and cardiovascular systems.

Florida officials are using these systems in six coastal counties to look for trends in the symptoms that could be potentially related to the oil spill. If they observe an increasing trend in these symptoms, Florida’s state and local departments of health will look to see if there is a relationship between the oil exposure and the symptoms.
Findings (May 24 – June 7)

On one day during the period, ESSENCE found an increased number of reports of chest congestion, sore throat, and cough. This increase was not judged to be related to the oil spill; it was related to an increase in diagnoses of hay fever, strep throat, and pharyngitis (inflammation of the back of the throat).

Findings (May 6 – May 23)

In two of the reporting counties, ESSENCE found an increased number of reports of wheezing and difficulty breathing on several days. ESSENCE also found an increase in reports of asthma in three of its reporting counties for several days. These illnesses were not judged to be related to the oil spill; they appear to be related to a general increase in upper respiratory infections in northwest Florida.

 

[Without Rights]

I think you are jumping the gun a little bit there...

From that same site:

I have said that toxicity is possible, and so has the CDC. I got called crazy, loon, woo and conspiracy theorist (for some reason) for stating that it is possible. That's why the CDC is monitoring air quality and illness, because it is absolutely possible for toxins to come inland. I am not crazy for saying it is possible. I am not jumping the gun for saying it is possible.

 

[EHocking]

...The lawyers could base there advertising campaign just on what the CDC says.

They're advertising could be,

Live in the Gulf and don't own a fishing vessel?

Here's how we can get you some of BP's money.

In short, I'll continue to get my scientific information from scientists and not lawyers.

Remember, lawyers also successfully defend murderers.
This does not prove that murder did not occur.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Then we have no argument. You just think I am crazy and irrational because I am moving my family just in case. You have no argument against the fact that it is possible. Forget the fact that there is an 80% chance of a hurricane to hit the gulf. Do you suppose that worrying about that threat is also "crazy" and "irrational"?

It doesn't matter where you move your family, there is a possibility of something terrible happening wherever they are.

 

[quadraginta]

But it wasn't invented by lawyers. It was the Public Citizen Health Research Group which said implants caused cancer. The first lawsuit was not based on illness but pain from operations to remove silicone.

I'm not getting into a conversation about silicone. My point is that lawyers used others faults to profit. It began with studies that show silicon injections to be dangerous and studies that show leaks in the implants are similar to injections. There were no studies specifically for implants, but the lawsuits were won on studies that show silicon injections as dangerous.
They never used correlation, they used studies for silicon that existed already. Silicon has been shown to be dangerous when injected. Studies existed, just not studies specifically for implants.

Great. Cite 'em. The follow-up research was unable to uncover them. You have apparently done better.

What science is that you are talking about?

The "bogus" science you brought up.

That's illogical. You mean to tell me that 3558 individual lawsuits lost by Dow had all juries that were incompetent and used quack medicine? How unlucky for Dow.

There was a causal link. It was in studies of silicon injections. The studies that showed otherwise were yet to exist.

Cites?

Speaking of the class-action suit. But what of the 3558 individual lawsuits? Were all 43,000 jurors idiots? Or is it more likely that the evidence they had at the time showed silicon injections causing the same connective tissue problems the lawsuits addressed.

Apparently there are 120,000,000 people in the country who believe that Jesus is coming back in fifty years. How hard would it be to pick out 0.04% of them and convince them that Dow is a bad guy?

For that matter, how many juries didn't fall for the hysteria and hype. You do realize that not all of the suits brought forward were successful?

There was even a certain bandwagon effect, and you're mistaken, Nader's crowd didn't build that bandwagon, they just put their shoulder to it when it cruised by their neighborhood. Sadly, they had a very big shoulder.

Yeah, 1999. Hindsight is 20/20. When the lawsuits were active, most Americans believed that implants were dangerous. Connie Chung even reported that they are harmful. Public Citizen Health Research Group also said they are a problem before the lawsuits. In other words, the lawyers didn't create "silicon toxicity" and start suing people. They exploited what media, research groups and experts (at the time) were saying. That silicon implants were dangerous.

So you're backing off on your blanket indictment of "scientists", and instead aiming your shotgun at "the media", un-named "experts", and Nader's Raiders, instead. That's an improvement of sorts, I suppose, and FWIW I am inclined to agree with you in large part.

I'm still puzzled by your touching faith in the invulnerability of our civil litigation process to massive blunders based on (as you phrased it) "bogus science" and the impressionability of juries unfamiliar with scientific method.

There is going to be a blizzard of cases filed against BP for every unattributable ailment that would have gone un-remarked before the spill. People who have never even lived downwind of so much as a gas station are going to be welcomed with open arms by the opportunistic vultures who call themselves "lawyers" and plan on getting their 25% to 40% (and expenses) out of every nickel which can be squeezed from this unfortunate debacle. Many of them will succeed, and science will have little or nothing to do with that success.

The fears you've expressed in this thread are an example of the storm clouds gathering.

 

[EHocking]

..The lawyers could base there advertising campaign just on what the CDC says.

OK then.

They use the air monitoring data from the EPA.
Data is available from 01 May to 01 June.

In that time a total of 8727 measured data points are listed.
In 51% of them no toxins monitored for were detected.

There are 3463 data points for Benzene or benzene like detection (40%).
In 60% of those data no benzene was detected (or 24% of total measurements).

Of the detected Benzene data only 2 were above the EPA's screening level for concern level of 20ug/m³ and only 12 were above 2ug/m³.

Note that these levels are based on 24hr exposure for 1 year.
i.e. this is the level of exposure at which Benzenes might be damaging to health.

To declare that Benzene is carcinogenic, considering the levels of exposure measured to date, is scaremongering by these lawyers - so yes, they are inventing an illness that does not exist.

If you are genuinely concerned about this, avail yourself of the EPA Gulf monitoring pages or the AirNow site where you can get current air quality and history for your state.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I have said that toxicity is possible, and so has the CDC. I got called crazy, loon, woo and conspiracy theorist (for some reason) for stating that it is possible. That's why the CDC is monitoring air quality and illness, because it is absolutely possible for toxins to come inland. I am not crazy for saying it is possible. I am not jumping the gun for saying it is possible.

It's also quite possible that you are extrapolating from limited and/or poor information and making wildly unsubstantiated conclusions based upon those extrapolations.

I'm certainly not saying you're jumping the gun for saying something is possible, but when you get to the level of moving your family based upon such faulty reasoning... yeah, then I'd say you've gone down the rabbit hole a bit.

But it's your life & family - have at it. Just don't expect us to buy into it with you.

 

[aggle-rithm]

It's also quite possible that you are extrapolating from limited and/or poor information and making wildly unsubstantiated conclusions based upon those extrapolations.

I'm certainly not saying you're jumping the gun for saying something is possible, but when you get to the level of moving your family based upon such faulty reasoning... yeah, then I'd say you've gone down the rabbit hole a bit.

But it's your life & family - have at it. Just don't expect us to buy into it with you.

I just hope he doesn't move to Texas, which is the riskiest place to live in the country in terms of natural disasters.

California has earthquakes, so that's out.

And, he can't move into a house with natural gas or propane heating...there would be a possibility of explosion.

So an all-electric house, then...except there would be a possibility of electrocution.

So, a log cabin, out in the woods...where there would be a possibility of bear attack.

Park bench? Muggers.

I can't advocate drinking toxic Kool-Aid; that is against forum rules.

I'm out of ideas. Anyone else?