SEMI OFF TOPIC: LIBBY, MONTANA and ASBESTOS IN THE VERMICULITE

[Anonymous]

Did anyone see the two-part "Nightline" shows this past Thu and Fri nights (Nov 3-4) about vermiculite and Libby?

I started this topic not for corporate bashing or singin' the blues but mostly for the railroad tie-in. Is that an important line? Because one facet that came up is that the asbestos is the most carcinogenic type, even in tiny quantities, and the trains scattered it as they passed.

Any takers?

Trains don't spread asbestos
People don't spread asbestos
RR companies hire people who run trains that spread asbestos but who knew?

Al
[:(]

[csxengineer98]

what is your point? im not getting it...
csx engineer

[MichaelSol]

The railroad is the mainline of the Great Northern nee BNSF between St. Paul/Seattle-Portland. Vermiculite is an extremely light, even aerodynamic, mineral and yes, it flies all over the place in the slightest breeze. Mine waste in Libby was used for regular landfill, leveling the school playground, road work, and the railroad roadbed and ballast was full of it.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[gabe]

I am involved in a lot of asbestos litigation, and feel as though I am qualified to offer this opinion:

Legally, I wouldn't be too concerned if I were the railroads. Although, I don't doubt that litigation will be coming.

There is talk that all of asbestos litigation will be wiped away by a stroke of Congress' pen.

Gabe

[JoeKoh]

asbestos was used to insulate alot of older buildings.thats why its going to take csx longer to demoli***he depot that burned down over the summer.
stay safe
joe

[Anonymous]

I do hope the RR's are granted relief thru legislation. I don't think they are any more liable for spreading asbestos with the vermiculite than the unwitting baseball players and landscapers. Unless, God forbid, BN or whoever knew there was a problem and kept it under wraps as did W.R. Grace. But I don't think that happened.

[arbfbe]

Railroad workers i have talked to who used to pick up and set out cars for the vermiculite loading remember there being some very light dust in the area. You can suppose those employees as well as track personnel have been exposed.

I think the last confirmed death toll in Libby is over 300 citizens, not all miners. It would be insideous if a company like Grace, who allegedly knew of the dangers years before they took any action to mitigate the problem could allow hundreds of people to die and suffer long term debilitating health problems and get relief through Congress to allow them to escape furthur obligations to their victims. Rant and rave all you want about "frivolus litigation" but where is the justice to those who are paying the shareholders' dividends with their health and their lives?

[Anonymous]

As far as I'm concerned, if it means the end of Grace, so be it. And I for one would like to see any executive who sat on the news of this poisoning go to jail, and not some "Club Fed." And then to Hades. So much death, so much risk for a slightly better insulation and landscape gardening litter.

[dknelson]

Well now .... remember that there are those experts who believe the Twin Towers might have survivied the 9/11 hit had the builders used .... more asbestos.
Dave Nelson

[gabe]

I deal with this thing at least once a week with my practice.

The truely sad thing is, although the corporation which was responsible for the exposure may have been well aware of the danger and nonetheless exposed various people to it, most of the executives and shareholders who made such decisions are long since retired or dead.

Worse yet, the most culpable corporations are, by definition, bankrupt. So, in effect, you have the least culpable companies footing the bill for those who committed the worst offenses. And, of those companies now footign the bill, the employees who are going to take the hit, were not the ones responsible for the decision to use asbestos in the first place.

It is a bad situation all around with only lawyers, like me, coming out on top. Despite all my criticism, I know not of a better way.

Gabe

[Jack_S]

Just to scotch any party's saying (like Johns Manville did) "But we had no idea asbestos was dangerous!", the first known person to write concerning the hazards of asbestos was Pliny the Elder during the early Roman Empire.

He also did autopsies on silicosis victims and noted the fact that asbestos mine slaves died much quicker than other mine slaves.

[jchnhtfd]

Eh, Gabe -- it's good to have you back! Nice to have a good lawyer who's also intelligent to talk with on occasion...

Seems to me you are right -- the only ones who benefit from the asbestos litigations (and a whole raft of other suits of similar nature) are the lawyers. But I don't think it is quite fair to blame the lawyers for the situation. Rather, the USA seems to have a general culture -- which has developed only relatively recently -- in which there is an extreme aversion to risk and a related tendency for the first reaction to injury to be to sue someone. This is not healthy... but in my trade (I currently work in environmental remediation) we see it all the time, and the results -- while lucrative for my firm -- have little or no benefit to the environment (all too often, in fact, a negative overall impact!).

[gabe]

Jamie,

Thanks for the welcome.

I am not at all blaming the lawyers for the situation. I am just lamenting that they are the only one to really benefit from it.

Gabe

[samfp1943]

QUOTE: Originally posted by JoeKoh

asbestos was used to insulate alot of older buildings.thats why its going to take csx longer to demoli***he depot that burned down over the summer.
stay safe
joe

Vermiculite was an easy material to use in home insulation, it could be poured or blow into voids in buildings, and was used very heavily as a site prepared lightweight concrete mix poured over metal decking for insulation and sound deadening qualities. This is the first time I had heard that it contained asbestos, although it was a fine, powdery substance with lots of fine particles and mica flakes and certainly was breathed by workers, in a time when mask protection was virtually unknown.. Thanks for the info.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd

Rather, the USA seems to have a general culture -- which has developed only relatively recently -- in which there is an extreme aversion to risk and a related tendency for the first reaction to injury to be to sue someone. This is not healthy...

The Libby mines once produced 80% of the world's asbestos.

"The first reaction is to sue someone" ...?

Had that been the case, many lives might have been saved.

Seattle PI, Dec 3, 1999:

Roger Sullivan, whose law firm represents many of the people in the audience in their lawsuits against Grace, presented a detailed history of the mine, which in its heyday produced 80 percent of the world's vermiculite.

Using charts, maps and aerial photographs, he walked the investigators and the townsfolk through Grace's own figures showing how much asbestos was in the dust that escaped from the mine.

A litany of complex statistics and calculations, which might normally set a crowd dozing, had people sitting on the edges of their chairs.

He explained how the largest stack in the ore-processing mill was spewing 10,000 pounds of asbestos each day, and how the wind would disperse it over the town. He said the sparsely covered tailing pile, given a clean bill of health by state investigators, still contains 5 billion pounds of asbestos.

Many in the crowd gasped when he projected a huge blowup of a lethal tremolite fiber. Several people touched their chests. A couple hugged their spouses.

Gayla Benefield lost her parents and was one of the few loud voices telling any government official that she could buttonhole that the health of Libby had to be studied.

She read a news clipping from the local paper, which quoted Grace's manager for the mine cleanup, Alan Stringer, in glowing detail about the "incredible" job that the company did in restoring the mine to such a pristine condition that the Montana Mining Association gave Grace an award of excellence. The article talked of elk grazing in the lush grass and trees that Grace has planted.

"That's not what's up there," she said as she described the towering, mostly barren, tailing pile and the nearby pond, which the state admits are filled with asbestos dust.

"That's the dust which killed my dad. That's the dust that killed mom. I don't want it to harm my children or grandchildren," she said.

".. at least 192 people have died of asbestos-related disease from the mine near Libby ... another 375 have been diagnosed with fatal disease."

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dknelson

Well now .... remember that there are those experts who believe the Twin Towers might have survivied the 9/11 hit had the builders used .... more asbestos.
Dave Nelson

The problem with our approach to such an issue is that we go from one extreme (not doing anything at all even when a problem is diagnosed) to the other (a complete ban of all asbestos products, more litigation than can possibly be wrung from the remaining stakeholders). There are alot of situations in which a problem is identified, what would have occured in older days to remedy the situation pales in comparison to what is thrust forth now. The incentive to admit to and then remedy the situation in due time has been replaced by the fear of what will ensue if anything is brought to light.

Once the litigation orgy started, it pretty much ended any hope of making technological changes to the mining, production, and application of asbestos products, since those who would have invested in the newer technologies are using all their resources to fight or ameliorate the litigation. And what has arisen is a potentially bigger problem regarding fire retardation of building surfaces. Asbestos could be mined and processed with more care, and could be applied to surfaces using the wet mixture process, except there is no longer any incentive to invest in such enterprises anymore.

What has resulted is several generations of buildings with unsatisfactory fire protection, including the World Trade Towers. How many lives on 9-11 would have been saved if the girders had not melted and collapsed due to their scant fire resistance?

There has been much in the way of unnecessary loss of life in this scenario, both in the mining and production of asbestos, and in the subsequent loss of life in buildings lacking fire suppression materials. Common sense and expediency could have saved lives in both situations. If not for our collective legalistic suicide pact..........

[arbfbe]

Let me add one for the lawyers here. Gabe says only the lawyers will make out here. *** doubtful they will sueing a bankrupt company. While they might win the award for themselves and the victims who is going to pay it?

Think about it folks, if no lawyer can afford to take on the case since his payback will be zero and you cannot afford to pay hundreds of dollars an hour to a lawyer to sue account what the company did to you, where is your recourse? That's right, if you cap the damages in all these 'frivolous' law suits no plaintiff can afford to pay the lawyer on an hourly basis and no lawyer can afford to take it on a contingency basis. In effect your right of redress in the courts has been pulled out from under you. Big money wins again. I do not have to mention which party is big on 'tort reform' in this country. Think about where you would be if you got injured on the job and could never work again. What if the cap for losing sight in both eyes was $350,000 and then the company you worked for decided to contest the claim against them. How could you survive for the years they might drag it out. Would an attorney take your claim for 30% or the award which would at best be about $110,000? You will end up paying all the expenses for those years as well. You might end up with less than the attorney. The end result is you cannot afford to sue so you take what ever you are offered.

The next time some talking head on TV yaps about Tort Reform, read between the lines and insert loss of legal redress. Sure the trial lawyers want to protect their income stream but the small folks need to protect their right to sue for a meaningful amount.

[edblysard]

A small aside here...
The insulation and fire retardant on the tower girders worked as designed.

That is to say, had the origin of the fire been, say, several offices involved in a fire that started in a conventional manner, i.e. a trash can fire that spread to office furnishings and building material, the fire prevention and structural protection was well within the design tolerances for such an event.

What was never planed for, and I doubt it every will be, was an event such as airliners at flight speed impacting the buildings, with the resulting explosion, shock waves and vibration from the impact knocking the insulation off the girders.

Add in thousand of gallons of aviation fuel, and the resulting additional heat and fires it generated, and even if you had three times the amount of fire retardant and insulation protection, it would have made no difference.

Short of using the epoxy based adhesive used to glue insulation to the space shuttle, no spray on insulation would have survived such an impact, nor the resulting fire.

This is a set of circumstances that was never planned, designed or budgeted for, and one I doubt ever will be.

The fact that the towers withstood the initial impact, and then retained their structural integrity for as long as they did is testament to the good design that went into them.

Ed

[Anonymous]

Asbestos is a particular nuisance to the rail preservation groups over here - it was used to insulate many items, resulting in massive clean-up costs (many preserved lines won't let anything with asbestos on board near them, and you can't get a certificate to run on the main line without being asbestos-free). Usually removal requires that the vehicle be completely stripped to a bare shell, and frequently interior parts are damaged or destroyed during the process. Take a look at http://www.railcar.co.uk/pics/Preserved/others/DLight/79018.htm to see the effects of asbestos stripping - the top photo is the unit after stripping, the lower one is after a restoration costing nearly $100'000.

[Anonymous]

[gabe]

You might want to further explore the concepts of joint and several liability and the many companies that used asbestos that are still very much solvent--GE, GM, Ford, Chrysler, every railroad, texaco, shell to name a few.

Gabe

QUOTE: Originally posted by arbfbe

Let me add one for the lawyers here. Gabe says only the lawyers will make out here. *** doubtful they will sueing a bankrupt company. While they might win the award for themselves and the victims who is going to pay it?

Think about it folks, if no lawyer can afford to take on the case since his payback will be zero and you cannot afford to pay hundreds of dollars an hour to a lawyer to sue account what the company did to you, where is your recourse? That's right, if you cap the damages in all these 'frivolous' law suits no plaintiff can afford to pay the lawyer on an hourly basis and no lawyer can afford to take it on a contingency basis. In effect your right of redress in the courts has been pulled out from under you. Big money wins again. I do not have to mention which party is big on 'tort reform' in this country. Think about where you would be if you got injured on the job and could never work again. What if the cap for losing sight in both eyes was $350,000 and then the company you worked for decided to contest the claim against them. How could you survive for the years they might drag it out. Would an attorney take your claim for 30% or the award which would at best be about $110,000? You will end up paying all the expenses for those years as well. You might end up with less than the attorney. The end result is you cannot afford to sue so you take what ever you are offered.

The next time some talking head on TV yaps about Tort Reform, read between the lines and insert loss of legal redress. Sure the trial lawyers want to protect their income stream but the small folks need to protect their right to sue for a meaningful amount.

[jchnhtfd]

Dave -- nice commentary! Very well written, and all too true... and I see it in my trade, too, all the time.

And Ed -- thanks for your comments on the WTC; they are right in line with what I have been reading on the subject.

And as I said before... or implied, anyway -- it is impossible to design or use anything in a manner which is completely risk-free. A certain amount of risk must be assumed, if anything is to be done at all. The problem, as I see it (just one man's opinion here, folks) is that the USA has become profoundly risk-averse, to the point of near paralysis. I do not think that it is too strong a statement to make to say that if the present day approach to risk and risk management had prevailed a century and a half ago, there would be no railroads, no cars, no airplanes, no nothing more advanced than a fancy buggy whip.

[Anonymous]

I agree with Futuremodal on this one. It takes a while for something to be recognized as dangerous, then the litigation ensues, then the offending substance becomes demonized. Now, I'm not saying asbestos isn't dangerous. It is, and the type that got mixed up with the vermiculite is the worst kind, doctors say. But let's take a more typical example: elementary schools that have asbestos above the ceiling tile, say. It is important to remember that the presence of that asbestos isn't a "ticking time bomb" despite what people say; the metaphor is inept because it presupposes that the asbestos has been relatively benign up to now (thus assuaging any guilt we might feel about the earlier presence of the asbestos while still allowing us to demonize the substance, but only from now on). Then, once the courts have had their chew, we send cleaner-uppers in wearing hazmat suits, close the school, send the kids to some other school, overcrowding it and making learning difficult for all. Guys, it's dangerous, but it ain't plutonium. The teacher's lounge in that school was probably responsible for more early deaths than any presence of asbestos because of second-hand smoke.

And, by the way, I agree that doing without asbestos is a hassle: no more super-efficient oven mitts, and the semi-metallic brakes in my last two cars don't work very well until I've "scrubbed off the rust" by applying the brakes a couple of times. I wonder how many people don't know that and grind themselves into an accident by having brakes that don't work quite right until the rust has been (temorariliy) scrubbed off. Nonetheless, we're going to do without asbestos and people who have suffered must be decently compensated but let's not get crazy nuts about it. Unfortunately, our litigation system encourtages people to get crazy nuts about it, and I agree it isn't just the ambulance-chasing type of attorney who blows this out of proportion.