do the extraordinarily high levels of asbestos at WTC

[leftofthedial]

have any link to Cheney and his Halliburton acquisition of asbestos time bomb Dresser?

What would have been the bill for WTC asbestos cleanup and what would have been the potential liability for the deaths of thousands of workers over time?



edit: question mark

[sabbat hunter]

1. define

extraordinarly high

during the majority of the building of the WTC, asbestos was used as insulation and as fire retardant/proofing material. same go for the surrounding buildings. of course when the buildings collapsed asbestos was released.

the rule of thumb with asbestos removal is that if it is intact and/or not in a working area of a building to leave it alone. as the removal costs are very high and the very removal could do what was trying to be avoided. release asbestos dust into the air.


unless asbestos was crumbling it was left alone, especially since it was mainly used in the walls and on the beams and sealed up by the walls themselves.

[leftofthedial]

2. premature deaths of rescue workers and survivors

and evidence of massive asbestos release when the buildings came down

All the asbestos that was there *was* released on 9-11.

[leftofthedial]

9. then there's the "toxic shirt"

toxic shirt

[mirandapriestly]

16. Thanks for that I didn't know about it, the contents of that shirt

were horrific.

[sabbat hunter]

28. i dont think

there is any debate on this thread on whether asbestos was released on 911 by the collapse of the WTC, there most assurdadly was asbestos. the WTC had a lot of asbestos in it, mainly as fire retardant material, for insulation.

when buildings are as tall at the WTC were and asbestos is used in the construction, obviously there will be a lot when they collapse.

however it was never removed before because of costs involved, accessibility and whether it would have caused more damage environmentally to remove it than leave it be.

[leftofthedial]

29. let's just suppose

that some powers far above our pay grades had decided that the buildings had become commercial albatrosses and that the location needed to be redeveloped

would NY developers be likely to pursue financial remedies from the asbestos industry for the necessary cleanup?

I don't know if the asbestos issue was related at all to the causes of 9-11. I just find an intriguing potential interleaving of Cheney's multiple financial interests in this event.

[sabbat hunter]

31. asbestos

had nothing to do with 911. there absolutely no reason to remove the asbestos in the twin towers. as long as asbestos is sealed or not in an open are or flaking, the standard operating procedure is to leave it alone. in the WTC asbestos was used behind walls and was sealed, therefore no reason to even consider removing it.

[mirandapriestly]

21. But if they needed to do work anywhere that contained asbestos

they would have to have the asbestos removed in that area. If they wanted to remodel or update or take safety precautions which required disturbing the areas with asbestos, they would have to remove it. Dealing with asbestos and other hazards in the wtc were inevitable. When we bought our house some jerk had put those popcorn ceilings on several of the rooms ceilings which covered the beautiful, original plaster work. We sent it away for testing and sure enough it contained asbestos. We had to pay over $5,000 just for two rooms , so you can imagine the wtc.

Also if they wanted to take them down and replace with new buildings they would have to face this. This way, that end was met without having to deal with the asbestos removal or removal of other toxins.

[leftofthedial]

23. and once the amount of asbestos was disclosed,

imagine the lawsuits from every New Yorker who ever died of respiratory illnesses.

[mirandapriestly]

26. uh-huh. We hardly hear anything about the health problems of the people

involved with this, but it's terrible. The exposure was just huge and it takes awhile for the effects to take over. Not to mention all the other toxins floating around. I read one guy died from mercury poisoning. Now I don't understand HOW that happened. Big cover up, I think.

[Jazz2006]

27. It was most definitely a massive toxic stew...

there was a thread in LBN a couple of weeks ago about a recent survey of respiratory and related medical problems suffered by clean up workers at the site and a huge percentage of them suffer from medical maladies that are probably linked to the toxic crap they were breathing in for a long time without being properly protected.

It is utterly disgraceful that they did not have proper protection provided to them.

I can't remember the name of the thread exactly but I know I posted on it so I'll try to search for it if you're interested in reading the actual story. Like I said, I don't remember the numbers but it was pretty horrible.


Edit to add link ~ Found it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2215184

[seemslikeadream]

3. YES

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/080400-02.htm
Asbestos
Halliburton subsidiaries DII Industries, LLC (formerly known as Dresser Industries) and Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. filed for bankruptcy protection in December 2003 for the purpose of minimizing asbestos liability. Halliburton purchased DII Industries in 1998 under the direction of former CEO Dick Cheney. The acquisition meant that Halliburton inherited 300,000 asbestos claims filed against DII, who had for years manufactured construction products which contained the harmful substance. Halliburton's Kellogg Brown & Root also had manufactured products containing asbestos and has been fighting asbestos lawsuits since 1976. Asbestos causes scarring of the lung tissue (asbestosis), cancer of the pleural lining (mesothelioma) and lung cancer. Victims allege the companies knew of the health risks of asbestos long before they took it off the market.

The bankruptcy proceedings halted all personal injury lawsuits arising from the asbestos claims. If the bankruptcies are approved in court, Halliburton plans to contribute settlement amounts to a trust fund for the benefit of afflicted plaintiffs. A settlement agreement was reached with plaintiffs in December 2002 and, if approved by a judge in Pittsburgh, PA, will settle all present and future asbestos claims against Halliburton. The settlement, expected in May 2004, would require Halliburton to finance a victims trust fund with up to $2.5 billion in cash, 59.5 million shares of Halliburton common stock, notes worth $52 million (valued on December 31, 2003), and insurance proceeds, if any, between $2.3 billion and $3.0 billion as received by DII Industries and Kellogg Brown & Root.

Recent efforts in Congress to ban lawsuits against asbestos manufacturers and to limit their liability could mean Halliburton will receive a sweeter deal from Congress than from its proposed court settlement. The December 19, 2002 Washington Post reported, "The Republican victory in the November <2002> elections has increased the chances that some sort of national tort reform might be enacted, perhaps limiting damage recoveries ." But in April 2004, the Senate blocked proposed legislation that would have banned lawsuits against asbestos companies. The legislation would have established a $124 billion asbestos trust fund to compensate victims nationally while canceling the pending lawsuits. Many victims are vehemently opposed to such legislation, saying the proposed $124 billion trust fund is too small to finance all of the claims currently pending in court. Asbestos victims told the Chicago Tribune that the legislation is a sweet deal for Halliburton and "a bailout for reckless companies who knew of the risks from asbestos."

Halliburton's asbestos-related bankruptcies resulted in a pre-tax charge of $1.016 billion in the fourth quarter of 2003. So, while Halliburton's revenues have skyrocketed because of war in the middle east, its bottom line continues to suffer. It lost $820 million for all of 2003 and $65 million during the first quarter of 2004, all because of bankruptcies related to asbestos lawsuits.


Halliborton: An oil-industry giant
Headquarters: Dallas
1999 sales: $14.89 billion
1999 employees: 103,000
1999 market value: $17.79 billion


A timeline:

1924: Founded by Erle Halliburton
1950-1980: Expanded rapidly, acquiring many other oil-services companies, including Houston construction giant Brown & Root, an expert in offshore platforms.
1982: Halved its work force as the oil industry slumped.
1985: Brown & Root paid $750 million to settle mismanagement charges at South Texas Nuclear Project.
1990s: Halliburton expanded dramatically overseas, particularly in the Mideast and Southeast Asia.
1995: Former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney became chief executive officer. Company won contract to provide services to U.S. Army peacekeeping troops in the Balkans.
1996: Won contract to develop Canadian offshore oil field.
1998: Nearly doubled in size with $7.7 billion purchase of Dresser Industries.
1998-99: Cut more than 9,000 employees in another industry downturn.
2000: Chief Executive Cheney nominated as GOP vice presidential candidate.

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200404/042004a.html
Another fundamental unfairness in this bill is that it provides a corporate bailout for certain companies with serious asbestos liabilities. For example, Halliburton, which has about $4.8 billion in total asbestos liability, would only pay $75 million a year under this bill to a national trust fund. This bill relieves Halliburton of all of its $4.8 billion in asbestos liability but requires it to pay a total over 24 years of only $1.2 billion in present value. This financial windfall to Halliburton is not fair.

W.R. Grace, the company responsible for poisoning an entire community from its asbestos mining facility in Libby, Montana, would get another financial windfall under this bill. W.R. Grace has total asbestos liabilities of about $3.1 billion but it makes yearly payments under this bill of only $27 million. This bill relieves W.R. Grace of all of its $3.1 billion in asbestos liability but requires it to pay a total over 24 years of only $424 million in present value. This financial windfall to W.R. Grace is not fair.

http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2005/112005/mokhiber.html
BP - Delphi - Dupont - ExxonMobil - Ford - Halliburton - KPMG - Roche - Suez - W.R. Grace

http://shop.store.yahoo.com/annieappleseedproject/nucchemaswas.html
Why do we allow our federal government to spend $200 trillion to wage war in Iraq yet grant Halliburton/ Kellogg Brown and Root $72 million in bonuses and not clean up the nuclear, chemical and asbestos wastes at Hunters Point and other communities polluted by past activities. How did we allow cancer to become the No. 1 killer without noticing it?

http://www.eces.org/articles/000256.php
OMB and EPA squash the EPA Report - extremely lethal form of asbestos

December 29, 2002
Bush administration squashes EPA public health warning that insulation in 15 to 35 million U.S. homes is probably contaminated with an extremely lethal form of asbestos.
According to the Barre-Montpelier Times Argus and Wichita Eagle, the Bush administration has squashed the release of an EPA public health warning that insulation in 15 to 35 million U.S. homes is probably contaminated with an extremely lethal form of asbestos. The warning was originally planned to be released in April 2002, along with a declaration of a public health emergency in Libby, Montana, where ore from a W.R. Grace vermiculite mine was contaminated with an extremely lethal asbestos fiber called tremolite that has killed or sickened thousands of miners and their families. Shipping records from W.R. Grace show that at least 15.6 billion pounds of vermiculite ore was shipped from Libby to 750 plants and factories throughout North America, with between a third and half ending up in insulation called Zonolite that was used in millions of homes, businesses and schools from the 1940s through the 1990s.

In early April 2002, the U.S. EPA had a public health warning ready to go: News releases had been written and rewritten, and lists of governors to call and politicians to notify had been compiled. But the declaration was never made - just days before EPA was set to make the declaration, the warning was squashed by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), even though the EPA had already greatly watered down the warning at the direction of the OMB.

Both OMB and EPA acknowledge that the OMB was actively involved in quashing the warning, but neither agency would discuss how or why. EPA’s chief spokesman Joe Martyak said, "Contact OMB for the details," while OMB spokeswoman Amy Call said, "These questions will have to be addressed to the EPA." Both agencies have also refused requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to provide documents to and from OMB about the asbestos warning.


http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:_QRtYz5UJgsJ:www.asbestosnetwork.com/news/nw_061402_wrgrace.htm+w.r.+grace+bankruptcy&hl=en

U.S. Seeks to Intervene in W.R. Grace Asbestos Bankruptcy
Friends of yours Mr. Cheney?

LIBBY, MONTANA—June 14, 2002—On behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Justice has filed a motion to intervene in a bankruptcy action involving offshoot companies of W.R. Grace, a major asbestos defendant. The government charges that just prior to bankruptcy filing, W.R. Grace transferred funds to spin–off companies to hide assets and avoid liability for asbestos claims (Daily Inter Lake Newspaper, Kalispell, Montana, May 27, 2002). The company and 61 domestic subsidiaries had filed for bankruptcy reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in April, 2001.

W.R. Grace is the manufacturer of construction materials and chemicals and the former owner of an asbestos–contaminated vermiculite mine in Libby Montana. Vermiculite is an ore resembling mica that is used in housing insulation, soil conditioners, and fertilizers.

The United States is a Grace creditor and hopes to recover expenses for the environmental cleanup of Libby, which has been declared a Superfund disaster area. The company has received over 325,000 asbestos personal injury claims from Libby and elsewhere, according to a press release (see W.R. Grace web site, click on GRACE in the News, click on 2001 News Releases, then on April 2, 2001).

topAsbestos Insulation and Fireproofing
One W.R. Grace product, Zonolite insulation, often contains vermiculite that is contaminated with tremolite asbestos and derived from the Libby mines. The Environmental Protection Agency is removing Zonolite from homes in Libby, although it has no immediate plans to eliminate the insulation from millions of other residences nationwide (see article on Asbestos Zonolite Insulation in Libby).

duplicity of some companies, by the negligence of our own government
ASBESTOS IS EVERYWHERE, AND IT'S KILLING US, MR.CHENEY


I started this really lonely battle with good friend Senator Wellstone
Sen. Murray Opposes SB 2290, Praises Dr. Bret Williams, Dr. Harvey Pass, Chris Hahn and MARF


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remarks by Senator Patty Murray on Asbestos Legislation

http://murray.senate.gov/news.cfm?id=220630

For Immediate Release: Wednesday, April 21, 2004

Mr. President, I rise today to share my serious concerns with the asbestos liability bill now before the Senate. As my colleagues know, this is not just another bill for me. This is something I’ve spent years learning about, educating my colleagues about, and writing legislation to address.

In fact, my work on asbestos started 3 years ago this very month, when I asked the Senate HELP Committee to hold a hearing on asbestos exposure in the workplace. I started this as a really lonely battle with good friend Senator Wellstone. We held press conferences, and it seemed like no one came. Senator Baucus and Senator Cantwell were with us, but it was a very lonely fight.

That’s why today it is so great to watch my colleagues like Senator Daschle, Senator Reid, Senator Dayton and Senator Leahy moving this discussion to such a productive level. They have taken the time to listen to victims, and I think that if everyone did we’d have a much more balanced bill before us today.

I’m pleased that after all these years of working with victims, family members, and doctors -- the full Senate is now engaged in a debate about asbestos.

I am also pleased that many of the things I have been fighting for have been included in this legislation. This bill includes the ban on asbestos that I first introduced two years ago. That is an important acknowledgement of what I told the Judiciary Committee last June, "If Congress is going to prevent any future lawsuits, then Congress must try to prevent any more asbestos casualties, by banning the use of asbestos."

So I am pleased by some of the progress in this bill, but I am also deeply disturbed by what this bill will do to people whose lives have been torn apart by asbestos, to future victims, to family members, and to average Americans who are being exposed to deadly asbestos everyday without even knowing it.

After listening to victims, hearing their stories, and looking them in the eye, there is no way I could vote for this inadequate and unbalanced bill.

I’m Standing Up for Many

As I’ve learned about asbestos over the past three years, I have been troubled by the duplicity of some companies, by the negligence of our own government, and by the absolute horror that asbestos inflicts on people. But throughout this process, I have also been touched by the commitment and optimism of victims. Some of them realize it’s too late for them, but they want to make sure that no other American goes through the horror they have experienced.

After working with them, I know I am not just standing here on the Senate floor as a single Senator. I’m standing here on behalf of all of the people I have been honored to meet and stand with over the past three years.

I’m standing here on behalf of people like Brian Harvey, Gayla Benefield, Bret Williams, Ralph Busch, Marv Sather, and George Biekkola. They were all exposed to asbestos through no fault of their own.

I’m standing here on behalf of family members of asbestos victims. People like Sue Vento, the wife the late Congressman Bruce Vento of Minnesota, Sue Harvey, and Lt. Col. James Zumwalt, the son of Navy hero Elmo Zumwalt.

I’m standing here on behalf of doctors who have labored to save their patients against a merciless killer. Doctors like Michael Harbut, Alan Whitehouse, and Harvey Pass, who not only provided medical care, but worked to raise awareness and call for needed research.

I’m standing here on behalf of public health leaders like Dr. Richard Lemen, the former Assistant Surgeon General of the United States, Dr. Phil Landrigan, and people like Andrew Schneider and Barry Castleman – who have worked to warn the public about these dangers.

And, I’m standing here on behalf of researchers and advocates. People like Chris Hahn of the Mesothelima Applied Research Foundation and advocates at the Environmental Working Group.

All of these people have stood with me at press conferences and have testified before Senate hearings calling for us to help the victims and to ban asbestos. We have a real obligation to them, and I’m standing here on the Senate floor today to make sure the Senate does right by people who have been wronged.

George Biekkola

Let me share one of their voices with you. In July 2001, the HELP committee held that hearing I requested on Workplace Safety and Asbestos Exposure. One of the witnesses was Mr. George Biekkola of Michigan, a World War II veteran and a community leader who helped bring a hockey rink to the children of his community.

Those of us who were at that hearing three years ago will never forget what he said. He broke down several times as he read his statement, but his message was clear. He told us that he had spent 30 years working at the Cleveland Cliff Iron Company in Michigan. He operated a hard rock drill and was exposed to asbestos dust. He was forced to retire at the age of 60 because asbestos had scarred his lungs and reduced his lung capacity by one-third.

At that hearing he told us, quote, "I thought I’d be spending my retirement traveling out West with my wife, hunting deer up in the mountains. But today, I can’t." He said that he couldn’t exert himself because his heart was weak and that he had to be careful because a simple case of pneumonia could kill him.

He told us, "This isn’t how I thought I’d be spending my retirement, but when I think about the other guys I worked with -- I guess I came out lucky."

He said, "I’m here today to tell you my story so that maybe someone else working in a mine or a brake shop or a factory won’t lose the things I have lost."

He concluded his statement with these words. "Senators, please make sure that what happened to me won’t happen to anyone else . . . Workers like me are counting on you to protect us. Please don’t let us down."

Mr. President, I’m sad to report that George Biekkola died two weeks ago today from asbestosis and mesothelioma. Until the end, he was looking out for other victims. In fact, at his funeral last Saturday, his family displayed a photograph of him testifying at that Senate hearing.

George isn’t with us today, but his words ring as loudly now as they did three years ago – Senators, don’t let us down. That is why I’ve been working on asbestos for the past three years, and that is why I cannot support this inadequate bill.

Mr. President, after all the things that Americans like George Biekkola have been through, after all they have lost, after all their families have lost, and after all they have done to protect others, I will not let them down, and that’s why I cannot support this bill.

Context

Before I turn to the specifics, I want to put this discussion in context. For decades, we’ve been pumping this poison into Americans on purpose and by accident. It’s wrecked lives, families, fortunes, and it’s been a problem for many businesses.

Asbestos is everywhere, and it’s killing us. We’ve got to stop putting this killer in products. We’ve got to stop importing products that contain asbestos. We’ve got to figure out a way to "make whole" everyone who’s been affected by this epidemic, and we need to do it in a balanced way that gives certainty and equity to both victims and companies.

This process has been an education for me because, like many Americans I thought asbestos had been banned a long time ago. In 1989, the EPA did try to ban asbestos, but that effort was overturned in a lawsuit from the asbestos industry. Ten years later in 1999, reporter Andrew Schneider and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer published articles about a disturbing trend in the small mining town of Libby, Montana. Residents there are suffering from extraordinarily high rates of asbestos related disease.

At many plants where vermiculite from Libby was processed and then shipped, waste rock left over from the expansion process was given away for free. I learned that people used this free waste rock in their yards, driveways and gardens. This picture shows Justin and Tim Jorgensen climbing on waste rock given out by Western Minerals, Inc. in St. Paul, Minnesota sometime in the 1970’s. According to W.R. Grace records, this rock contained between 2 and 10 percent tremolite asbestos. This rock produced airborne asbestos concentrations 135 times higher that OSHA’s current standard for workers. We have to do right by Justin and Tim, and those are the people I’m thinking about as I look at this bill.

I also learned that our country is far behind others. The United States remains the only industrialized country beside Canada that has not yet banned asbestos. More than 30 million pounds of asbestos are still consumed in the United States each year.

A Continuing Danger

I learned that asbestos is still found today in over 3,000 common products in the US, including baby powder, cosmetics, brake pads, pipes, hair dryers, ceiling tiles and vinyl flooring. It is still legal in 2004 to construct buildings with asbestos cement shingles and to treat them with asbestos roof coatings. It is still legal to construct new water systems using asbestos cement pipes imported from other countries. It is still legal today for cars and trucks to be made and serviced with asbestos brake pads and linings.

Workers in this country are still being exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos. According to OSHA, "an estimated 1.3 million employees in construction and general industry face significant asbestos exposures on the job."

Washington State Impact

Asbestos has taken a particularly large toll on the people of my state. According to a recent report by the Environmental Working Group, King County has the fourth-highest number of deaths related to asbestos in the country. Three other counties – Kitsap (24th), Pierce (28th) and Snohomish (52nd) all rank in the top 100 for asbestos-related deaths. Overall, Washington state ranks eighth in asbestos-related deaths nationwide.

Just last week in Spokane, Washington our state Department of Health announced that 100 former workers at a vermiculite factory likely inhaled deadly asbestos fibers and should seek advice from their doctors.

They also warned that the children and spouses who lived with these workers could become ill from particles that were carried home with loved ones on clothing, skin and in hair. Given the known dangers of this mineral, we should all be asking - why are we still using it? Why are we still adding it to products on purpose where there are perfectly acceptable substitutes?

My Work on Asbestos

Americans in every walk of life and in every corner of this country have been exposed, and we’ve got to protect them. That’s why I’ve worked to do a series of things over the past few years. On June 18, 2002, I introduced the Ban Asbestos in America Act. I reintroduced this bill again last May as Senate Bill number 1115. I want to thank all the Senators who have cosponsored my bill: Senators Baucus, Boxer, Cantwell, Daschle, Dayton, Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, Hollings, Jeffords, Lautenberg, Leahy and Reid.

I’ve pushed the EPA to warn homeowners about the dangers of Zonolite insulation, which today is in the attics of 35 million homes, schools and businesses. I’ve urged the EPA to warn brake mechanics about the deadly asbestos dust they are exposed to on the job. I’ve asked OSHA to increase its efforts to enforce existing regulations that attempt to protect automobile brake mechanics.

I’ve shared my concerns with legislators in Canada, the country that is the largest source of America’s asbestos imports. I testified at a hearing on Libby, Montana, and I testified before the Judiciary Committee last July.

Asbestos liability is a real problem. It’s a problem for victims, and it’s a problem for companies. We need a balanced solution. Unfortunately, this bill falls short in 6 ways.

6 Problems with this Bill

First, it is unfair to victims because the awards are too small – even smaller than many would get if they were allowed a day in court.

Second, it could lock future victims out of getting help because the trust fund is inadequate.

Third, it keeps Americans in the dark about the dangers of asbestos. It does not include the education campaign that we know is needed and that I have been pushing for over the past three years.

Fourth, it falls short on research, tracking and treatment for asbestos diseases.

Fifth, it makes family members jump through too many restrictive hurdles.

Sixth it allows insurance companies to place liens on the awards that family members receive - unfairly reducing the award they deserve and treating them much differently that other federal compensation programs.

Let me discuss each of those in detail.

1. Awards Are Too Small

First, the awards are too small. Many people who have had their lives torn apart by asbestos will actually do worse under this bill than they would in court. For example, awards for lung cancer victims who have more than 15 years of exposure to asbestos are limited to $25,000 - $75,000, even though most victims will die within a year. Victims with asbestosis who have lost 20% to 40% of their breathing capacity – many who will be disabled for life – will receive only $85,000. That is far less than their lost wages and medical costs. This bill gives them less than they deserve. At the same time, it blocks the courthouse door to victims who have staggering medical bills, lost wages and other damages. I don’t see how Congress can leave asbestos victims worse off than they are today, but that’s what this bill would do.

2. The Trust Fund is Too Small

Second, the trust fund is too small to compensate all victims, but that is just one of the problems with this trust fund. I believe a successful trust fund would provide fair and adequate compensation to all victims and would bring reasonable financial certainty to defendant companies and insurers. To do that, the trust fund must include four things: fair award values, appropriate medical criteria, adequate funding, and fast processing.

The system for processing claims must allow victims to get prompt payments without the complications, time and expense of a traditional lawsuit. Unfortunately, the trust fund in this bill falls far short of what is needed. I have already discussed how the award values are unfair.

In addition, the trust fund is not adequately funded. In fact, the trust fund in this bill has been slashed dramatically from the original Hatch legislation. In the Judiciary Committee’s bill, the trust fund was $153 billion. But in this bill, the trust fund has been slashed by over $40 billion.

Now, the trust fund didn’t just shrink on its own. It was reduced after closed-door negotiations that included only one side – the defendant companies and the insurance industry. It was not based on the actual needs of victims. Instead, it was based on what insurers and businesses were willing to pay. This one-sided agreement reduced the funding provided in S. 1125 by more than $40 billion. Making matters worse, an additional $10 billion in contingent funds does not become available for 24 years. The United States Senate should not adopt a policy of adjusting award values just to meet an arbitrary and artificial limit reached in a backroom with only one side present.

Not only was this figure arrived at in an unfair way, but it’s clear that it is not enough to meet the needs of current and future asbestos victims. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the cost of this bill at $134 billion. This bill only provides $109 billion – so there is a significant shortfall already.

But there is very good reason to believe that the shortfall will be even larger. Recent claims in the Manville trust shows much higher than expected claims for many asbestos diseases. Those claims also show that recent mortality and morbidity data increase the likelihood that the number of asbestos related diseases and related claims will exceed current estimates.

If this fund becomes insolvent, it will leave victims without the help they need. Because of that possibility, last year, Senators inserted a number of protections during the Judiciary Committee mark-up.

Important Protections Were Removed

Tragically, the bill before us today throws away those carefully-crafted, bipartisan protections.

For example, we had protections for victims in case the trust fund became insolvent. Those protections in the Biden amendment were stripped from this bill.

We had protections that guaranteed that asbestos victims would preserve their legal rights until the trust fund is operational. That’s important because if this bill becomes law, it will end up in court, and there will be no mechanism for victims and their families to get help while this law is tied up in court. We solved that problem with the Feinstein amendment, but again -- those protections were stripped from this bill.

So overall this trust fund is inadequate. If we are going to lock the courthouse doors to victims, we’ve got to be 100 percent certain that the trust fund will have enough money to cover all of the 600,000 current claims -- and the thousands more that may be filed later. This is especially important because asbestos diseases have a very long latency period – often decades long – making it hard for us to predict today who will need help in the future.

If we pass this inadequate trust fund, my constituents – and hundreds of thousands of other Americans -- will be left out in the cold with only the faded memories of their loved ones to carry them through this tragic ordeal.

3. No Public Education Campaign

My third concern with this bill is that it keeps Americans in the dark about the dangers of asbestos exposure. This bill completely drops the education campaign that was in both of my asbestos bills. One of the reasons why asbestos takes such a deadly toll is because people are unaware that they are being exposed it.

Ralph Busch of Spokane

Ralph Busch exposed himself and his wife to asbestos when he renovated his home. He never knew about the dangers until he happened to read a story in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Today, his dream house is abandoned, his credit is ruined, and his health is a constant worry. Ralph Busch did not do anything wrong. He couldn’t have known about the danger of Zonolite insulation. There is no way that Ralph Busch could have known that by buying and renovating an old house he would eventually expose his family to dangerous levels of asbestos.

We must make sure others do know about this public health risk by providing additional resources to educate the American public about the dangers of worksite and home exposures to products that contain asbestos.

We must also provide safety information to homeowners on what they can do to prevent asbestos exposures at home, particularly in the attic and basement.

Workers Unaware of Dangers

In addition to homeowners, many workers are exposed to asbestos on the job. Often they are not aware of the danger, and they don’t have the protective equipment they need.

I am heartened to hear that EPA, ATSDR and NIOSH are now proactively reaching out to consumers and workers to warn them to stay away from vermiculite attic insulation. But, I am very concerned that the EPA, prodded by a request from the law firm of the former acting agency administrator, is considering revising its "Guidance for Preventing Asbestos Disease Among Auto Mechanics" to convey the false impression that brake repair work is no longer a risk.

Clearly, any effort by the EPA to downplay these risks flies in the face of current Congressional intent regarding the inherent health problems with exposure to asbestos in the workplace. I sincerely hope that EPA will not bow to the pressure of the industry and in fact strengthen its guidance for brake mechanics.

4. It Does Not Do Enough for Research, Tracking and Treatment

My fourth concern is that this bill does not do enough for research, tracking and treatment.

I want to thank the Senator Hatch for including some modest resources in his latest version of the bill – which should be used to establish mesothelioma research and treatment centers around the country. Yesterday I was pleased to hear Senator Hatch say that he would be willing to explore additional funding for asbestos research and treatment centers. These centers will be critical as the medical community works to develop new treatments and protocols for the variety of deadly cancers and diseases that exposure to asbestos brings to workers and their families.

Unfortunately, not included in S. 2290 are the resources needed to track the victims of mesothelioma and other asbestos causing cancers, and to conduct additional research about the harmful effects of this deadly material.

These are areas that doctors and other experts have told me time and again we must invest in. I heard from some of those doctors last month at a press conference I held, which Senator Reid and Senator Dayton attended. At the press conference, Dr. Bret Williams of North Carolina said, "As a doctor, a cancer patient, a husband and father, I am asking my government to take a stand. Fix the problem. Give us hope. Fund a mesothelioma research program. Please invest in a cure."

A surgeon from Detroit, Dr. Harvey Pass, told us that progress on asbestos diseases requires funding, and he said that funding, "remains absolutely insufficient to set up the type of collaborative approaches that already exist with lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, and colon cancer."

So the fourth problem with this bill is its inadequate support for research, tracking and treatment of asbestos diseases.

5. Treats Family Members Unfairly

My fifth concern with this bill is the way it treats family members. Under this bill, family members of victims will be forced to jump through an additional series of hoops, reducing the likelihood they will ever receive an award.

Susan Lawes & Spokane Families

Let’s remember, these family members have lost their loved ones. In many cases they are vulnerable themselves because they came into contact with asbestos fibers through a family member. Take the case of Susan Lawes. Her father was a pipe fitter and was exposed to asbestos on the job. When he came home from work, asbestos fibers were still on his clothes. He’d walk through the door after the end of a long day and give his daughter a hug. Last month, Susan was diagnosed with an asbestos disease. As she told me, I am literally dying because I hugged my dad.

Susan and so many people like her are not treated fairly under this bill. The children and the spouses of workers should not have to prove five years of exposure to asbestos from their husbands and fathers as they would under this bill. They also should not be forced to appear before a special Physicians Review Board in order to determine their medical condition and whether they are eligible for a compensatory award.

It’s the same for people in Spokane, Washington. Spokane is one of the 22 sites that EPA has determined is still contaminated. Why are we forcing these innocent victims of take-home asbestos exposure to jump through extraordinary hoops to determine their eligibility for an award?

So my fifth concern is the unfair way this bill treats family members – making them jump through hurdles that reduce the chance they will ever get the help they need.

6. Allows Insurance Companies to Reduce Victims’ Awards

Finally, this bill allows insurance companies to reduce any awards that victims actually receive – something that is not found in similar federal plans.

This bill allows insurance companies to place liens on the awards that victims and family members receive.

I find it unconscionable that health insurance companies and other entities can recoup their costs by placing liens on the awards family members receive in compensation for their loss of a father, a husband, a son or a daughter.

These workers were often the only breadwinners in their households, but this bill tells their surviving family members that they can be sued by their health insurance provider for a substantial part of an award – an award that as I’ve shown may already be inadequate.

What’s especially disturbing is other federal compensation program do not allow this type of action, but for some reason, asbestos victims are being given fewer protections. The awards provided to victims in federal compensation programs like the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program and the Ricky Ray Hemophiliac Relief Fund Act are not subject to liens by workers compensation insurers. I don’t know why the authors want to treat asbestos victims differently, but I do know that it is not fair, and it’s one of the reasons why I can not support this bill.

So Mr. President, in the end, this bill falls far short of what victims deserve.

The awards are too small.
The trust fund is inadequate.
It fails to educate Americans about the dangers of asbestos.
It falls short on research, tracking and treatment for asbestos diseases.
It puts unfair burdens on family members.
It allows insurance companies to reduce a victim’s award.
I’ve been fighting on this for years, and it makes no sense that we could squander this moment with a bill that is so inadequate. George and Gayla and Ralph and Marv and Bret and Brian all deserve so much better, and I will continue to fight for them.

Mr. President, regardless of what happens with this bill, the one thing we must do is ban asbestos, and I assure my colleagues I will keep fighting for that. I do want to pass a law. We need a real solution. I don’t want companies going bankrupt. I don’t want victims going without the help they need. I still think we can do it, and I will continue to fight for a balanced and fair bill that will do right by victims across the country. We really have an obligation to them and their families. I’ve been fighting for them for three years, and no matter what happens this week, I’m not going to stop now.

*** POSTED APRIL 22, 2004 ***

http://www.mesothel.com/pages/murray_s2290_pag.htm

Why did the White House prevent EPA from telling Americans about asbestos?
Murray Questions Why Our Government Isn't Warning Homeowners and Protecting Workers from Dangerous Insulation

For Immediate Release: Thursday, February 6, 2003

(Washington, D.C.) -- Today Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) spoke on the Senate floor about the public health dangers of asbestos-tainted insulation and continued to seek answers to why the White House prevented EPA from telling the American people about this danger.

There are between 15 - 35 million homes, schools and businesses in America that still contain asbestos-tainted insulation. Last year, the EPA developed a plan to warn homeowners of this silent danger. But an investigative report found that EPA never followed through because the White House OMB intervened to kill the plan.

For more information about asbestos, including the investigative report, and Sen. Murray's legislation to ban asbestos in America, go to http://murray.senate.gov/asbestos

Senator Murray's remarks follow:

Ms. MURRAY. Mr. President I rise today to share a story with my colleagues. It's a true story about a family who happened to live in a neighborhood in Spokane, Washington. They could have easily been in Memphis or Minneapolis or Midland as well. But they lived in my state, in Spokane, a typical American city in Eastern Washington.

Mr. President, as part of realizing their American dream, Ralph Busch and his wife Donna bought a house. They were newlyweds, and this was the home they bought after getting married. They soon discovered that it needed roof repairs, and so Ralph spent quite a bit of time in the attic - working on his roof. The following year they found they had to renovate an addition that was put on the house in the 1950s.

They both had full-time jobs, so they spent many nights and weekends working on their home. They knocked down walls and tore through the old insulation, drywall and wood. They sanded and hammered and spent two entire years fixing up the place.

One morning, Ralph was reading the newspaper. Just by chance, he came across a story about a company that manufactured a household insulation called Zonolite. This insulation, he read, was tainted with deadly asbestos. Ralph suddenly realized that Zonolite was in his home. Ralph Busch was stunned as it dawned on him. He had just spent two years in his own home handling Zonolite insulation and he and his wife may have unknowingly been exposed to deadly asbestos.

What would happen from his and his wife's exposure? How come no one had told him he had asbestos in his attic? The Zonolite insulation was a product from the little town of Libby, Montana. It was produced by the W.R. Grace Company.

W.R. Grace mined vermiculite from the hillside near Libby. The company turned the ore into insulation known as Zonolite by heating vermiculite to expand it into light granules. The process was similar to popping popcorn. After sorting the popped vermiculite, W.R. Grace poured it into bags and sold it to use as insulation. The company marketed Zonolite as "perfectly safe"…

But laced throughout the vermiculite in the ground near Libby, another mineral was present: asbestos. W.R. Grace's process to make Zonolite and other products could not, and did not, remove all the asbestos from the end product. Zonolite insulation contains between .5 percent and 8 percent asbestos.

The community of Libby has suffered immensely from decades of mining the deadly vermiculite ore used to make Zonolite insulation and other consumer products. At least 200 men and women from Libby have died from diseases caused by exposure to asbestos-tainted vermiculite, and hundreds more people from the town are sick.

When inhaled, asbestos can cause deadly diseases – from asbestosis to mesothelioma, a deadly cancer of the lining of the lung that is almost always fatal. In fact, mesothelioma kills at least 2,000 people each year and is caused only by asbestos.

The diseases induced by exposure to asbestos result in horrible deaths and they are nearly always fatal. Treatment is harsh and debilitating. These diseases can take years to strike. The late Congressman Bruce Vento and the father of the modern Navy, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, both died from asbestos they had been exposed to years earlier.

The asbestos-tainted insulation manufactured by the W.R. Grace Company was used in homes throughout the country for decades. Vermiculite from Libby first started being sold commercially in 1921, and W.R. Grace bought the mine in 1963. Reviews of invoices indicate that more than 6 million tons of Libby ore was shipped to hundreds of sites nationwide for processing over the decades. This chart behind me shows more than 300 sites across the nation, where ore was processed, in many cases to make Zonolite insulation.

In internal memos and e-mails, the Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that as many as 35 million homes, schools and businesses may still contain this insulation. Moreover, W.R. Grace knew the Libby mine contained asbestos when the company purchased it in 1963. But Grace made millions of tons of Zonolite anyway and unabashedly marketed it as "safe."

If the manufacturer of this insulation knew it was contaminated with asbestos, why didn't it or the federal government make sure that Ralph Busch and millions of others across the country knew to leave it alone? The answer to the first question is that W.R. Grace still claims its product isn't harmful. The answer to the second question is more complicated.

According to published reports and internal EPA documents, the EPA was preparing to tell the American people about the dangers of Zonolite insulation. But it didn't happen. An investigation by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Andrew Schneider found that last spring while it was addressing the public health crisis in Libby, Montana, the EPA was preparing to tell the American people about the dangers of Zonolite insulation in millions of homes across this country.

But first, EPA had to deal with Libby. EPA decided it needed to minimize the exposure of Libby residents to asbestos-contaminated vermiculite, and the agency drafted a press release announcing its decision. This document said that EPA – "... will spend $34 million to remove dangerous asbestos-contaminated vermiculite insulation from 70 percent of residential and commercial buildings in Libby."

I am glad that EPA has taken aggressive steps to protect people in that small Montana town. Senator Baucus deserves tremendous credit for the work he has done to bring federal resources to Montana to help people in Libby. And EPA deserves credit for doing the right thing, and going in to remove the insulation from Libby.

But what about the rest of the country? What about the millions of other homes with Zonolite insulation? Since EPA decided to help Libby, the agency anticipated the logical follow-up question of what about the millions of homes nationwide that contain the same Zonolite insulation as homes in Libby.

According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the EPA had drafted news releases, and drawn up lists of public officials to notify. The agency was preparing to embark on an outreach and education campaign to let people know about this hazard in their homes. But what stopped EPA from following through with its warning?

It may have been the same person or people who blocked another government health agency from warning workers about asbestos exposure. Last April, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) was preparing to release new guidance for workers who come into contact with insulation in the course of their daily work.

NIOSH was preparing to alert workers - such as electricians, plumbers and maintenance workers - about how they can better protect themselves from exposure to asbestos in Zonolite insulation. These materials were prepared last April, but they still have not been released.

Let me read from a "Pre-Decisional Draft" of a NIOSH Fact Sheet dated April 11, 2002. I ask that it be printed in the record in its entirity. NIOSH recommended that workers:

"…should isolate the work area from other areas in order to avoid spreading fibers, use local exhaust ventilation to reduce dust exposures, and use appropriate respiratory protection. If the employer or worker is concerned about potential exposure, and if at all possible, the vermiculite should not be disturbed."

But, astonishingly, this guidance was never released. How many of the construction workers, maintenance people, electricians, plumbers and homeowners across the country know they should "avoid spreading fibers, use local exhaust ventilation or appropriate respiratory protection?"

I suspect that like Mr. Ralph Busch, thousands of people across the U.S. are not taking these important precautions because they are simply unaware of the danger. I would like to read to my colleagues another section from the never-released NIOSH Fact Sheet. This was in response to the question about how workers can know if the vermiculite they have is contaminated with asbestos. It says,

"As a rule, we believe that any vermiculite that originated in Libby, Montana, before 1990 should be regarded as potentially contaminated. It is known that vermiculite from Libby was sold as attic insulation under the product name Zonolite Attic Insulation and that this product is still in homes throughout the United States."

But especially interesting is the next section, which is in parentheses as a comment by the author:

"W.R. Grace estimates several million homes contain 'vermiculite attic insulation,' which is most likely very conservative. If we don't wish to provide any indication of the magnitude of the potential VAI (or vermiculite attic insulation) exposure in number of homes, we should be clear about the potential situation to provide a more accurate picture and warning."

I must ask my colleagues, why wouldn't NIOSH or others in the Administration -- when they are taking great pains to do the job in right in Libby -- want to share with workers and the public an indication of the magnitude of the number of homes with asbestos-tainted vermiculite? Isn't it our government's job to protect people from risks associated with hazardous substances such as asbestos? Don't we need to know the scope of the problem in order to help gauge the extent of the potential risks? Why aren't we warning workers and giving them the new guidance that has already been drafted by NIOSH?

Interestingly enough, on April 10, 2002, the day before the date on this NIOSH Fact Sheet, EPA received a letter from W.R. Grace defending their harmful product. The letter read, "Zonolite Attic Insulation (ZAI) has been insulating homes for over 60 years and there is no credible reason to believe that ZAI has ever caused an asbestos-related disease in anyone who has used it in his/her home."

How then does Grace explain the fact that the company has settled at least 25 bodily injury claims caused by exposure to Zonolite? Make no mistake. W.R. Grace is a company with one of the worst public health and environmental records in America.

I draw my colleagues' attention to a 1998 article by Dr. David Egilman, Wes Wallace and Candace Hom published in the journal Accountability in Research entitled "Corporate Corruption of Medical Literature: Asbestos Studies Concealed by W.R. Grace & Co." I will read briefly from the abstract of this article:

"In 1963, W.R. Grace acquired the mine (in Libby) and employee health problems at the mine became known to W.R. Grace executives and to Grace's insurance company, Maryland Casualty. In 1976, in response to tighter federal regulation of asbestos and asbestos-containing products, W.R. Grace funded an animal study of tremolite toxicity. They hoped to prove that tremolite did not cause mesothelioma, the cancer uniquely associated with asbestos exposure. However, the study showed that tremolite did cause mesothelioma. W.R. Grace never disclosed the results of this animal study, nor did they disclose their knowledge of lung disease in the Libby workers, either to the workers themselves or to regulatory agencies. These actions were intentional, and were motivated by Grace's conscious decision to prioritize corporate profit over human health."

Given the facts that W.R. Grace has knowingly manufactured and sold an asbestos-tainted product, has suppressed research findings showing that tremolite asbestos causes cancer, and has denied that their product is potentially dangerous, the company is woefully lacking for credibility.

Which brings us to our question: If EPA was planning to warn the American public about the dangers of Zonolite insulation, what stopped EPA from following through with its plan? Why aren't we warning homeowners nationwide about Zonolite insulation? Why aren't we warning workers and giving them new safety guidelines?

Well, M. President, the answers might lie, not with the EPA, but with the White House Office of Management and Budget, OMB. An internal e-mail from John F. Wood, the Deputy General Counsel at OMB, to staff at EPA contained details about finalizing the Action Memo for Libby. Also copied on the e-mail were OMB Deputy Director Nancy Dorn and Associate Director of Natural Resources Programs Marcus Peacock. Here's what OMB's lawyer wrote to EPA, and I ask unanimous consent that this e-mail be printed in the record:

"Thank you for your efforts to alleviate my concerns. Here are just a few edits, which are necessary to avoid the problems we discussed earlier. Please be sure to observe the deletion of the citation of Sect. 104 (a) (4)."

What is Section 104(a)(4)...? It is a clause in the Superfund law, which enables the EPA to declare a public health emergency. And why did OMB tell the EPA to "delete the citation" to Section 104 (a) (4)…? We don't know for sure, but if EPA had issued the public health emergency for Libby under Superfund, then the agency would have had to answer questions about asbestos-tainted insulation from every other homeowner in the country. And here is what the St. Louis Post-Dispatch investigation concluded:

"The Environmental Protection Agency was on the verge of warning millions of Americans that their attics and walls might contain asbestos-contaminated insulation. But, at the last minute, the White House intervened, and the warning has never been issued."

The Post-Dispatch got reaction from an EPA staffer about OMB's intervention:

"It was like a gut shot," said one of those senior staffers involved in the decision. "It wasn't like they ordered us not to make the declaration, they just really, really strongly suggested against it. Really strongly. There was no choice left."

I ask unanimous consent that the St. Louis Post-Dispatch article be printed in the record.

Mr. President, because of OMB's involvement, EPA never conducted the planned outreach to warn people about Zonolite. NIOSH's guidance to workers about how to protect themselves was never finalized. In response to these shocking reports, on January 3, 2003, I wrote to EPA Administrator Whitman and OMB Director Daniels to get some answers. Mr. Daniels has not yet responded to the allegations that his office blocked the announcement. Ms. Whitman wrote that she is responding on behalf of OMB. I can only ascribe this to OMB's desire to remain unaccountable and to hide the role it played in these decisions.

Ms. Whitman's response was woefully inadequate. She failed to explain the nature or the substance of OMB's involvement. She also wrote that it is not possible to know how many homes contain vermiculite insulation even though her own agency has estimated it may be between 15 and 35 million homes, schools and businesses. I ask unanimous consent that Administrator Whitman's letter be printed in the record.

Mr. President, my colleagues may be curious about why I am so interested in EPA's decisions regarding vermiculite from Libby. This issue is important to me because residents in my state are being exposed to asbestos from Zonolite. And, Mr. President, constituents in your state and every other state in America may also have this insulation. I am deeply concerned that most people with Zonolite in their homes are completely unaware of this problem.

I am afraid most will not learn of it until they have already been exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos. And I am most concerned that this administration may be stifling EPA's efforts to warn homeowners, consumers, and workers because of pressure from W.R. Grace. And I must remind my colleagues: there is no safe known level of exposure to asbestos. Deadly diseases such as asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma can develop decades after just brief exposures to high concentrations of asbestos.

Ultimately, I believe Administrator Whitman wanted to do the right thing by warning homeowners nationwide to be careful if they have Zonolite in their homes when the agency began removing Zonolite from homes in Libby, Montana. But she was stopped. The reasons may never be known – the excuse may be buried in "executive privilege."

So, where do we go from here? First, I hope my colleagues will support efforts to get to the bottom of what stopped the EPA from warning the public. We have to increase pressure on EPA, NIOSH, and other public health agencies to raise public awareness about Zonolite.

Second, I hope my colleagues will support legislation to ban asbestos in America and to warn people about the potential dangers posed by Zonolite insulation. I appreciate the support for this legislation I have received from Senators Baucus, Cantwell, Dayton and our late colleague, Senator Wellstone, who were original cosponsors.

I have been working to raise awareness about the current dangers of asbestos for over two years. In July of 2001, I chaired a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing on asbestos and workplace safety. In June of 2002, two days after introducing the Ban Asbestos in America Act, I testified at a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on Libby held by Senator Baucus.

My colleagues may wonder whatever happened to Ralph Busch and his wife Donna. After reading about Zonolite in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Mr. Busch went to get the asbestos removed from his home. He learned it would cost $32,000 to do so. When he tried to secure compensation from his homeowners insurance to pay to clean up the contamination, his insurance company rejected the claim. He got nowhere with the company that had inspected the home before he purchased it. They hadn't known about Zonolite, either.

When he talked to his realtor about trying to sell his house, Mr. Busch's realtor emphasized that Mr. Busch and his wife would be responsible under the law for disclosing the presence of Zonolite to any potential buyer. According to Mr. Busch, even his realtor and I quote, "...expressed apprehension over entering the house saying he has young children and was fearful of asbestos exposure without a proper respirator... ...this about a house we were living in every day."

In the end, having exhausted all of his options, Ralph Busch and his wife Donna sacrificed their home to foreclosure, having lost thousands of dollars and their good credit rating. They didn't feel that it was safe to live there anymore, or to bring other people into their home. Finally they decided to move out of their "dream house" in Spokane. To this day, that home remains vacant.

Apart from the tremendous economic loss, Mr. Busch and his wife are concerned for their health. They are left wondering what long-term negative health effects they may suffer as a result of their exposure to asbestos fibers from the insulation. Mr. Busch has told me, "I feel like the poster-child for the unsuspecting homeowner who unknowingly set off a time bomb in the process of remodeling his home."

To this day, Mr. Busch is haunted by words he read in the Spokesman-Review almost three years ago. The March 12, 2000, article, entitled, "Zonolite's Effects Outlive Plant," said this about mesothelioma:

"The disease inflicts one of the most torturous deaths known to humankind. Some people require intravenous morphine to numb mesothelioma's pain. Some need part of their spinal cord severed. Some are driven to suicide."

If there is a role for government in people's lives, then it should include protecting the public health. We have an opportunity to protect the public's health so that Ralph Busch and thousands - perhaps millions - of other Americans won't have to be needlessly exposed to the time bomb sitting in their homes, schools and businesses.

And meanwhile, if you are planning to do work in your attic, look at your insulation carefully first to see if it is vermiculite. You can see pictures of what this insulation looks like by going to EPA's web site, which is www.epa.gov/asbestos/insulation.html. If you think you have Zonolite, immediately contact EPA to get additional advice about how to handle it. According to EPA's web site, if you think you have Zonolite insulation, leave it alone and not disturb it.

And, contact your Representative in Congress and ask him or her to pass legislation to ban asbestos, something we all should have done decades ago. We can make a difference, but we must act today

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:nmk9BHdjOCgJ:murray.senate.gov/news.cfm%3Fid%3D191239+wellstone+epa+report+asbestos+blocked&hl=en

At the edge of ruin - steeped in the Asbestos quagmire
Thanks LeftHander

LeftHander (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-06-04 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
18. Asbestos keeps cropping up....
Ahhhhh asbestos....I am keenly interested in asbestos....

1999 Halliburton CEO - Cheney aquires Dresser (Harbison-Walker)

Dresser is a longtime Bush family company.

These companies were steeped in the Asbestos quagmire. At the edge of ruin. 200,000 asbestos claims that could reach 2-3 million a piece.

In June of 2002 Halliburton had lost a large claim and sent the stock tumbling to a dangerous low.

I believe Cheney took on Dresser as a favor to GHWBush and the Bush family. His task was to prevent Asbestos claims from destroying Dresser and Harbison-Walker. Using his defence contacts he was able to secure BILLIONS of U.S. dollars in a war in Iraq to bolster HAL stock and give time for Buddies like Orin Hatch to push a bad asbestos liability bill through congress. Which required a GOP controlled senate. Wellstone dies in a crash. As a asbestos victim advocate he would NEVER of stood and allowed the Asbestos bill introduced by Hatch to live as long as it did. They spent millions on ads trying to convince limiting asbestos liability was good for victims.

The bill now stalled or dead has disappeared from the public as the war in Iraq and the election dominates the media.

The asbestos libility and estimated 750,000 claims is the single most expensive liability claim tracked to a single cause in U.S. history. Tort reform and Judicial appointments all now appear to guided by the outcome of this bill. Interestingly enough the public is now being hit with another campaign to allow Bush judicial appointments to go ahead.

For Bush to not gain the Presidency in November will certainly mean that any asbestos friendly legislation will be difficult if not impossible to pass. Funds pooling into Halliburton as a result of Cheney's open ended no-bid contracts will surely end and put Halliburton at risk for complete dissolution as law suits send the company spiraling into financial oblivion.

With the above threads it really looks like there has been a huge effort on the part of many big corporate type GOPers to make sure asbestos does not cause major economic strife for a large portion of U.S. industry. Much of which is the backbone of the U.S. military industrial complex.

It sickens me the length people will go to protect money and allow people to suffer generation after generation.

[leftofthedial]

7. asbestos is nasty stuff

capitalism, as evidenced by its role in the asbestos debacle, is even nastier

but was Halliburton liable for asbestos mediation at the WTC had the buildings been brought down conventionally instead of the way they were?

[file83]

10. Good God, please summarize posts like that, I don't think many people

have the time to read a post of that length. It's a friggin' novel! :rofl:

Just post a link with a quick summary and if we want to read further we can. You are going to wair out my mouse's scroll wheel! :cry:

[greyl]

11. Yeah, 29 'scrolls' is bit fargin much. :) nt

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[file83]

15. Calm down Mr. FlyOffTheHandle....

or is it, Mr. JumpToConclusions, I can't tell...

All I asked the poster to do was to NOT put the CONTENTS of so many links into one FRIGGIN' post.

That's why we have these things called HYPERLINKS. Get it? The whole point to having a hyperlink is to "link" people the information at other locations, there by rendering it completely UNNECESSARY to make a single post that is longer than entire threads found elsewhere on the DU.

And for the record, I have no clue as to who that "double-teaming" poster is, because he/she is on my ignore list.

[seemslikeadream]

30. file83

I am in no need of advice from you. If you do not care to read what I've posted then just don't. This has been my way for over 4 years now at DU and I have no intention of changing or taking advice from you. Maybe you haven't noticed because I'm rarely in the 9/11 forum. I don't believe I have ever seen you before in all the time I've been here, obivously we have little in common so I guess you could just put me on ignore and you won't have to worry about reading my posts again.

BANDULU: bandit, criminal, one living by guile
BANDULU BIZNESS is a racket, a swindle



Obediah Obediah, Jah Jah sent us here to catch vampiyah
Obediah Obediah, Jah Jah sent us here to catch vampiyah
I have the chalice to light up Jah fiyah!
When i and i ketch them vampire
i and i a go set them a fiyah


Ya no see it, file83

Jah Bless

SLaD

[SidDithers]

4. Were the asbestos levels higher...

that what would have been expected for buildings built when they were?

Sid

[greyl]

5. I'm sure that info must be somewhere in post #3.

;)

[Chomp]

6. LOL

[leftofthedial]

8. I don't think "higher" matters

I think a typical use of asbestos in buildings that size would effectively constitute a Superfund site.

If someone wanted the site redeveloped, would Halliburton have faced any liability for asbestos?

After 9-11, would Halliburton have faced any liability for the release of asbestos? (Assuming the EPA would not have said there was no danger, which was clearly not true, and that the evidence would not have been removed and destroyed so expeditiously.

[greyl]

12. To be serious,

I posted a link today in another thread that said the insulation was ceramic not asbestos.
Where are you getting the info that specifies what the levels were?

To the point of your question, it seems reasonable that Halliburton would be liable at least for this

[leftofthedial]

17. couple of things . . .

significantly elevated cancer deaths, some of them linked to asbestos exposure, among survivors and rescue workers. Plus, the toxic shirt.

toxic shirt

[Jose Diablo]

14. As a company

I'd say that Halliburton certainly had access to the know how in how best to bring down a building using thermite charges.

So we have motive (financial) and we also have method (the ability to do it).

What's left is were do they get the material, the thermite. I'd say our military would be the ones to provide the about 150 cubic yards of thermite to complete the set-up. It's not like a guy could just go down to the corner market to get 150 yards of thermite.

What's left is who actually ignited the thermite. Maybe the answer to that last question lays in the rubble of the WTC7. Which clears-up the question, why did the WTC7 come down. Who benefits?

[leftofthedial]

18. could the crash itself ignite thermite?

:shrug:

[mirandapriestly]

20. I don't see why not. nt

[mirandapriestly]

19. I think thermite can be easily made, in fact there are

directions on the internet! As for who benefited from the fall of wtc7, a lot of information was destroyed and I would imagine the subjects of that information would benefit considering all the gov't agencies that were housed there.
There are a couple of interesting theories , one is that wtc7 was demolished to destroy information that was housed in wtc7. Another interesting idea is that wtc7 was headquarters for carrying out 911 , then when mission was accomplished they got rid of the evidence by destroying headquarters.
I've also read the possibility that flight 73 was intended for wtc7. It makes some sense when you think about it; the demolition was planned and they had to go through with it anyway since they wouldn't be able to explain the explosives or whatever was used to bring it down if they went "undetonated". They weren't expecting 73 to be shot down, though.

[mirandapriestly]

22. Legal action W.R. Grace, National Gypsum

I see others companies named in liability for asbestos in WTC.

http://www.justiceatstake.org/files/JudgeMartinBio.pdf#search='world%20trade%20center%27%20asbestos%20liability'

"several major insurance coverage litigations relating to such matters as the September 11, 2001 attack on the World trade Center, asbestos liability of National Gypsum, DES liabity of Squibb and environmental and asbestos liability of W. R Grace"
W R Grace is also one of the companies involved in the 911 insider trading.

[leftofthedial]

24. this whole thing stinks of capitalism to me

way more than it stinks of Islamic fundamentalism.

[mirandapriestly]

25. Well, lots of people have benefited financially

and politically, not Islam though.

[dailykoff]

32. The Vioxx guy just won $13.5 million.

Multiply that by 50,000 WTC workers and they were looking at a payout of $675,000,000,000.00.

That's a thrifty $670 billion saved with a little help from their friends.

Actual mileage my vary. :)

Vioxx: http://www.tradingmarkets.com/tm.site/news/TOP%20STORY/228079/