Tampa Bay Personal Injury Lawyer - Toxic Substances

Deadline for Chinese Drywall Class Action Lawsuit

Joe Saunders — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:08:37 GMT

Now that one of the major manufacturers of the contaminated Chinese drywall has agreed to accept service of a class action lawsuit, the time to act is now. If your home has been contaminated by Chinese drywall and you're contemplating a lawsuit, you must contact a lawyer so that your home can be inspected. The inspection will determine if the Chinese drywall in your home comes from Knauf. If the inspection proves positive for Knauf Chinese drywall, your claim has to be submitted to the class by December 2, 2009. There will be no extensions for this deadline so the time to act is now!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Joe Saunders

Chinese Drywall Defendant Agrees to Accept Service of Class Action Lawsuit

Joe Saunders — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:51:46 GMT

Chinese drywall defendant Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co. Ltd. has agreed to accept service of process concerning a Chinese drywall class action lawsuit in which Knauf is being sued for manufacturing and importing the contaminated Chinese drywall into the United States.

This is a major victory for the thousands of homeowners who've had their homes contaminated with the drywall. The agreement means that all the drywall lawsuits can be consolidated into a class action and the homeowners won't have to pay the $15,000 fee for each lawsuit filed in the court.

However, Chinese drywall homeowners must submit proof that their home has been contaminated with the drywall and secure a lawyer to represent them by December 2, 2009.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Joe Saunders

Tobacco Makers Sue U.S. over Free Speech

C. Todd Alley — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:37:43 GMT

A group of tobacco manufacturers, including RJ Reynolds, Commonwealth Brands, Inc., National Tobacco Co., and Lorillard, sued the U.S. Government in August claiming the new federal law passed in June called the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act unconstitutionally restricts their ability to communicate with consumers and unfairly limits their ability to promote new tobacco products. The new law gives the FDA broad powers for the first time for approving all new tobacco products (but not products already on the market), requires larger warnings on cigarette packages, and places harsh restrictions on tobacco advertisements. The Plaintiff tobacco companies say the new law goes too far in restricting their commercial free speech rights.

“While the act is purportedly intended to reduce youth tobacco use, a number of its provisions broadly restrict all speech by plaintiffs about tobacco products,” according to the complaint. Plaintiff Tobacco companies called some of the restrictions “egregious,” saying that Americans have “been well-informed of the harms of tobacco use” for decades.

Noticeably absent from the lawsuit was tobacco giant Philip Morris. Interestingly, Philip Morris was a very enthusiastic backer of the new law and has been in favor of FDA regulation. So if not all of Big Tobacco is rallying behind this lawsuit, what’s the true motivation for this suit? The answer’s clear. Philip Morris is the largest tobacco producer in the U.S., holding over 50% of the cigarette market share in the U.S. Meanwhile, RJ Reynolds and Lorillard control 28% and 11% of the market, respectively. And because the law adds new limits on the ways cigarette manufacturers can promote new products, RJ Reynolds and Lorillard adamantly declared that Philip Morris’ dominance will continue.

So is this lawsuit really a question about free speech and the government’s rights to limit advertising harmful products? Is it a question about the government’s role in protecting public health? Or is it just a handful of tobacco companies who see the new advertisement restrictions undercutting their bottom line?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by C. Todd Alley

Bisphenol A (BPA) California Ban Prompts FDA to Reinvestigate

Don Greiwe — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:10:47 GMT

Bisphenol A, or BPA, is an organic compound used in the production of plastics around the world. BPA is found in plastics used in numerous industries. Some uses include children’s food and drink containers, water bottles, reusable food containers, CDs, DVDs, household electronic equipment, and much more. BPA has come under fire politically in the recent years, and an outright ban of its use in certain products across the nation may potentially be imminent. The FDA has recently agreed to revisit the safety issues concerning BPA at the urging of Democratic lawmakers.

The safety of BPA use has been in controversy for decades, but only recently have major reports began to study its effects on animals and humans. With an LD₅₀ of 3.25 gm/kg, BPA has a relatively low acute toxicity rating. What is a concern, though, is that even low doses of BPA can mimic the body’s own hormones, causing a disruption in hormone production. Because of this, chronic toxicity (danger posed by continual exposure of low doses of BPA) is potentially a serious health risk. Earlier this month the California Senate approved a bill that would limit the use of BPA, and outright ban its use in infant products, such as baby bottles. Retailers, including industry giant Wal-Mart, indicated it will no longer carry infant bottles made from BPA. Many companies now advertise their non-use of BPA and have even removed BPA-containing products from store shelves.

In 2008, FDA determined that the possibility of chronic toxicity did not pose a significant health risk to Americans. The problem with this report, though, is that it was based off two industry-funded studies by the American Plastics Council. According an Environment California study, the chemical industry has funded 12 studies relating to BPA, and all 12 studies concluded that BPA had no adverse effects. In a collection of 139 independent government funded reports relating to BPA, 128 (92%) found adverse effects of low-dose BPA.

Clearly, the FDA should base its regulation of BPA on an independent study. And thanks to recently appointed FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, they will. The American Chemistry Council is opposed to any further research, obviously in an interest to protect the manufacturers currently utilizing BPA. ACC has stated previously that BPA in contact with food products “has been and continues to be recognized as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.” So, the ACC uses FDA in making its case to the public that it is a safe product, yet it is opposed to the FDA revisiting the issue again.

Ironically, ACC has called the FDA’s recent call for independent research a product of “pressure from vocal special interest groups.” You have to wonder if ACC is really worried about a ban of BPA-infused infant products, which most major retailers won’t carry anyway, or if it’s worried a greater health risk will be discovered in the new studies, results of which will be released later this year by the FDA’s acting chief scientist.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Don Greiwe

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a dangerous, ubiquitous chemical

Joe Saunders — Tue, 26 May 2009 09:43:36 GMT

If you own a plastic drinking cup or have an infant and he/she uses a sippy cup, chances are the hard plastic drinking container was made with bisphenol A, a dangerous chemical that tests now show leaks into the drinking contents held within the plastic container. The Harvard School of Public Health has determined that bisphenol exposure can lead to cardiovascular disease and diabetes in humans and reproductive development disorders in certain animals.

The chemical is used to harden plastics and other polycarbonate products. The chemical needs to be banned and consumer's exposure risk needs to be assessed.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Joe Saunders

Chaos Continues In the Chinese Drywall Debate

C. Todd Alley — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:15:02 GMT

As another columnist wrote earlier this month, the Chinese drywall disaster is still developing in the southeast. Shipments totaling 550 million pounds of the defective drywall have entered the country since 2006, the last shipment of which being as recently as last month. That’s enough drywall for 60,000 complete homes – but realistically the number of homes is much greater since drywall in homes often come from different sources. The scope of the damage is still only preliminary, and health risks associated with living in these homes has also not been completely understood.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has launched an investigation into the toxic, electrical, and safety implications of the defect. The Environmental Protection Agency has acknowledged the health complaints, but is waiting on CPSC’s report on the situation before taking any action.

While federal response is present, many criticize the speed of the Fed’s response. Bill Nelson (D – Florida) has called for the resignation of Nancy Ford, the CPSC’s acting chairman. Nelson says “the agency is doing too little, too late to help residents of Florida and other states who are reporting serious health and safety problems associated with living in homes built with tainted drywall.” State senator Dave Arpmnerg (D – Greenacres) has written Gov. Charlie Crist asking that a statewide task force be assembled in order to ensure that the response is state-wide, rather than a “heat of passion” response by smaller municipalities.

It’s important to really emphasize how little is still known about the drywall disaster. Tangible and readily obvious problems like corroded fixtures, door hinges, etc. are fairly easy to quantify. Even corroded wiring and pipes can likely be determined at the time the drywall is replaced. What remains to be seen are the long-term health effects the drywall has on those who have been living with the defective drywall for years, or even months. Since breaking the story, families are starting to come forward with a causal link between the drywall and their health woes, such as young Brannon Willis, who suffered a life threatening sinus infection requiring surgery and medication.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by C. Todd Alley

Defective Drywall: More Than a Rotten Smell

Matthew Leeth — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 01:45:19 GMT

Many South Florida homeowners thought the damage done to their home was over when Hurricane Charlie left the area. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

Hurricane Charlie made landfall in August 2004 in Punta Gorda, FL as a stage 4 hurricane. This was the most powerful hurricane to hit the sunshine state since Hurricane Andrew in 1992. In the worse hit areas, homes were leveled and businesses destroyed. In other areas of the state, homes were severely damaged by wind and flooding. In most cases, homeowners rebuilt their homes or made the substantial repairs necessary to live in their home once again.

The large spike in home building and repair created a shortage of drywall. Drywall had to be purchased from distributers from around the globe in order to meet demand. Many manufacturers, some now bankrupt, utilized Knauf Plasterboard to meet their drywall needs. Knauf Plasterboard shipped the home builders drywall produced in China. With little or no regulation in the drywall industry, the drywall was installed into thousands of homes without any oversight.

It turns out the drywall used an unusually high level of organic material, which produced sulfur that became trapped inside the drywall. Florida's humidity caused the gases to escape the drywall, and has caused respiratory problems as well as corrosion of the electrical wiring and fixtures.

Fast forward nearly five years. According to the Florida Department of Health over 150 complaints have been received by homeowners complaining of a rotten egg smell (the common association with sulfur gas), corroded copper fixtures and the repeated failure of their home's air conditioning system. For those affected, the only cure is to completely remove the drywall from their home, replace all the wiring and fixtures affected, and install new, safe drywall.

For many of those affected by Hurricane Charlie, the nightmare is far from over. What's worse, Hurricane Katrina victims are expected to face similar problems in the coming years as the gases escape. Some homeowners who were not even directly affected by either hurricane - those who simply had their home built during the time of spiked demand - are likely affected as well. Nationwide it is estimated that upwards of 100,000 homes are affected. This leads to the question - Why was there no independent testing done prior to the installation?

Governor Crist is stepping in, asking the federal government to assist in the matter. Senator Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) has introduced legislation to institute testing of all drywall imported between 2004 and 2007. The bill also bans the types of drywall responsible for this disaster. This may be effective in the identifying drywall with high toxicity imported between 2004 and 2007, but will it be enough to prevent another massive defect of another kind from occurring? Perhaps this bill should go one step farther and institute a cost-effective testing procedure for all imported drywall, in order to ensure an economic and hazardous disaster like this does not occur again.

Concrete, steel, and other structural components are tested in order to ensure buildings don't collapse. Pipes are tested to ensure they don't leak. Why isn't drywall tested, if only sporradically, to ensure minimal toxicity?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Matthew Leeth

Toxic Chemical Found in Fish Feed

Joe Saunders — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:15:47 GMT

The toxic chemical melamine has been found in a fish feed product in China. This isn't the first association of China and melamine. At least three babies have died as a result of the toxic chemical added to baby formula. The tainted fish feed comes from Fuzhou Haima Feed Co in China's southeastern province.

This contamination issue is the latest of many problems China has experienced in the manufacture of food products and drugs. Earlier this year, China proved to be the source of contaminated heparin which affected drug supplies around the world. While the FDA is monitoring the situation, it should be concerned about this growing problem with Chinese manufacturing procedures and safety.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Joe Saunders

Raytheon's Groundwater Contamination Problem in St. Petersburg

Joe Saunders — Thu, 01 May 2008 09:50:33 GMT

In the last month, reports of groundwater contamination in the Azalea neighborhood have been directly linked to the Raytheon Corp.'s plant located at 1501 72nd St. North in St. Petersburg. The groundwater contaminants include vinyl chloride, 1,4-dioxane, and trichloroethylene, all of which are considered carcinogenic. The news about the groundwater contamination spread throughout the neighborhood after media reports about the toxic plume surfaced. While the Azalea residents didn't know about this toxic plume, the contamination issue has been around for the last 17 years and was first discovered during construction of the Pinellas Trail. At that time, the plant was owned by E Systems which merged with Raytheon in 1995. At the time of the merger, Raytheon knew about the toxic plume and failed to advise residents that the plume was contaminating their groundwater. A test of wells in the area in March 2007 revealed levels of trichloroethylene (TCE), vinyl chloride, 1,4-dioxane and other toxic chemicals well above levels considered potentially hazardous to human health. I have filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Azalea neighborhood residents and continue to speak with concerned homeowners about the contamination problem. I have also heard from 3 realtors whose sales contracts have fallen through because of the groundwater contamination issue. The class action lawsuit seeks medical monitoring for the Azalea residents and damages for the loss of property values.

The cleanup, which will be supervised by the DEP (Department of Environmental Protection) will take years. In the meantime, the residents of the Azalea neighborhood are stuck with homes they can't sell and lingering questions concerning how the contamination may affect their health. Unfortunately, these are the consequences when a corporate neighbor doesn't act responsibly.

This isn't the first time Raytheon Corporation has polluted a residential area. The residents of Mountainview California suffered a similar fate more than twenty years ago. It seems to me that Raytheon should have learned a lesson from that experience. However, they didn't and now St. Petersburg residents have to live with the consequences of Raytheon's bad behavior.

On a personal note, just across from the Raytheon plant in St. Petersburg is Azalea Park where children play and young families spend time together. The park is visible from the plant. I can't help but wonder how Raytheon officials can look out their windows day after day for 17 years, see children play and not be bothered by the knowlege that they may be causing irreparable harm to children and families. I don't understand that.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Joe Saunders