BNSF sued for cancer

[Krazykat112079]

causing many (myself included) to somewhat naturally assume such litigation is founded in greed rather than in fact.

Ah, but that is my contention.  The facts do not point anywhere yet.  Especially with the partial view that the media gave us.  So one man said his child was born with a cleft palate?  Cleft palates occur at a rate of 1 in 700 births in the US.  A town with a population of 1700 should have at least 2 residents, statistically, that were born with cleft palates.  There is also no one  definite cause for cleft palates.  Toxic chemicals are only one suspected cause.  There are several other suspected causes as well, including genetics.  Birth defects as a whole occur 1 in 33 births in the US with cleft palates being the most common.

Also, they interviewed a lady who had many sick friends.  Well, there is a lot of story missing there.  Are all of her firends sick?  Does she consider everyone in town her friend?   Most of my grandmother's friends are all sick, but no one is calling her town a toxic dump.  Once again, in a town with 1700 residents, statistics show that almost 700 of them should be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime.  The media tells the tale of a man that lost his brother, father, and uncle to cancer.  By the time I am this man's age, I expect that I will have lost as many if not more family members to cancer.  According to the state of Texas, the cancer rate for the county is not above normal, something the lawyers and townsfolk dispute, but no numbers have been reported to support their claim.

 

 

Incidentally, in my searches I came upon some interesting not-really-related trivial knowledge:

1. Somerville is named for the Santa Fe VP of the time, Mr. Frank Somers.  This is disputed info, though, and some claim it was named for the first president of the Gulf, Colorado, and Santa Fe Railway Company, Albert Somerville.

2. The tie plant was built in 1897 and been in continuous operation since 1906.

3. The government created a resevoir for municipal water supply, called Lake Somerville, in 1966 (started in '62). 

[MichaelSol]

causing many (myself included) to somewhat naturally assume such litigation is founded in greed rather than in fact.

Ah, but that is my contention.  The facts do not point anywhere yet. 

They seemed to point somewhere for you quite easily yesterday:

If damages are awarded, it would be poetic justice for the companies to produce the funds by laying off all the employees and liquidating the factory. 

 

[eolafan]

Folks, with all due respect to all posters here, this subject has taken up lots of everybody's time and energy, and while it may indeed be a subject worthy of such passion...it is not directly a railroad related subject (despite the railroad being sued) so let's lighten up a bit here and get back to our "happy and pleasurable" passion...RAILFANNING!  Agreed?

[Krazykat112079]

causing many (myself included) to somewhat naturally assume such litigation is founded in greed rather than in fact.

Ah, but that is my contention.  The facts do not point anywhere yet. 

They seemed to point somewhere for you quite easily yesterday:

If damages are awarded, it would be poetic justice for the companies to produce the funds by laying off all the employees and liquidating the factory. 

You seemed to have missed a conditional modifier in there.

[MichaelSol]

causing many (myself included) to somewhat naturally assume such litigation is founded in greed rather than in fact.

Ah, but that is my contention.  The facts do not point anywhere yet. 

They seemed to point somewhere for you quite easily yesterday:

If damages are awarded, it would be poetic justice for the companies to produce the funds by laying off all the employees and liquidating the factory. 

You seemed to have missed a conditional modifier in there.

I saw and understood exactly what you meant: that if these people won one red cent from the railroad company, they should be punished appropriately by being laid off and the factory torn down; that if a jury actually found the charges true, it would be "poetic" if suffering and dying people were punished and lost their jobs and medical coverage.

Even though the "facts" didn't point anywhere, your attitude surely did. Yours may be one of the most objectionable comments I have ever read on Trains forums.

And this goes to my objections to the comments on this thread: if a railroad is involved, a good portion of the occupants here all too automatically flock to condemn the injured, dead, and dying and make the railroad company, perversely, the victim even as it earns record profits.

The Railroad increased its profits by not installing proper equipment, by not spending any money on training, not lifting a d*** finger to make that plant safe.

As an earlier poster said, it's all about greed.

Inexplicably, he meant on the part of the dead and dying.

 

 

[Krazykat112079]

I saw and understood exactly what you meant: that if these people won one red cent from the railroad company, they should be punished appropriately by being laid off and the factory torn down; that it would be "poetic" if suffering and dying people were so punished and lost their jobs and medical coverage.

Even though the "facts" didn't point anywhere, your attitude surely did. Yours may be one of the most objectionable comments I have ever read on Trains forums.

And this goes to my objections to the comments on this thread: if a railroad is involved, a good portion of the occupants here all too automatically flock to condemn the injured, dead, and dying.

I see.  Opinions are faux pas, even when twisted and contorted.  Since the debate is stale and you want to argue the acceptability of my comments as you percieve them, then have at it.  I'm done.

[MichaelSol]

Once again, in a town with 1700 residents, statistics show that almost 700 of them should be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime. 

Well, I don't know about the opinions, but the statistics you propose don't support what you are saying at all. But, if you are accepting the statistical base as true, then it offers some relevant facts.

If 700 people were to be diagnosed with cancer in a static population of 1700 residents, over their lifetimes, the odds of anyone in the population having cancer at any given point in time is about 0.41% -- that is, in this town, 7 people total would be statistically expected to have cancer at any given point in time. Thirty people are identified as having cancer of some type -- over four times the national average according to your statistic.

There are 12 cases of stomach cancer alone in Somerville. Based on the usual rate of stomach cancer, we would expect, statistically, no one to have stomach cancer, and the probability of anyone having it at any given point in time as .01%. The stomach cancer rate is over 60 times the national average.

Two cleft palate births in the past three years are identified by name; others are referenced. In a town the size of Somerville, you would statistically expect one cleft palate birth every 23 years. Even at only two such births in the time period, this is over 15 times the national average of "normal" cleft palate births, again, using your statistical representation.

You put your statistics on here, but carefully misrepresented them for this population size, attempting to show the exact opposite of what they actually mean. Why? 

News Item:

In depositions, former Somerville tie plant superintendents Samuel Barkley and Vernon "Gene" Welch both admitted they had no clue what chemicals constituted creosote or whether any were considered carcinogenic. Though ultimately responsible for worker safety, both said they never informed employees about potential health risks.

They also expressed a general belief that exposure to low concentrations of creosote and the other heavy-duty pesticides used at the plant did not require any special precautions.

"I don't recall that we gave them-that I gave them any instruction," said Barkley, superintendent from 1971 to 1986, in an April 2003 deposition. "I mean, I would assume that they would make every effort not to get anything on them."

Barkley said that MSDS were kept on file in the main office, where rank-and-file employees were not permitted.

"...I never knew that there was a hazard in creosote," he said, adding that he never researched the subject or received any special training from his corporate bosses at the railway company.

...

In a sworn statement, Robert Urbanosky, who worked at the tie plant from 1977 to 1995 and now serves as a Burleson County justice of the peace, said he frequently suffered from headaches and nosebleeds while at the facility. He also testified that the treating chemicals were commonly used for dust control.

"I would never do that; that's against the law," Shaw, the Koppers representative, said in his deposition, adding that creosote has been a federally registered pesticide since the 1980s. "I don't think you can spray any pesticides on the roads for dust control or spray any pesticides just for the hell of it..."

Mendoza said in his deposition that Pentacon, a powder form of the federally registered pesticide pentachlorophenol [PCP/Dioxin], was often sprayed to kill weeds and control dust from the late 1960s through the 1980s.

He also testified that on rainy days back in the 1970s, Superintendent Barkley would open the valve tanks on the cylinders and flush the chemicals into unlined ditches behind the plant. Workers called it the "Santa Fe flush."

The tie plant routinely discharged wastewater into local creeks, Mark Stehly, BNSF assistant vice president of environmental research and development, affirmed in an August 2007 deposition.

When asked about the potential hazards of creosote, Stehly said: "There are constituents within creosote that can cause cancer; there's lots of constituents in creosote that don't cause cancer."

In his deposition, Welch said he never warned employees against taking chemicals home on their skin and clothes: "It was such a minimal thing that I wouldn't have been concerned with it."

Regarding protective equipment, Welch said: "I don't know that anybody ever came to me and said, 'I need a respirator...If he would've we would've investigated to see why he needed a respirator and if we felt like it was justified he would have been furnished a respirator."

 

[spokyone]

Barkley said that MSDS were kept on file in the main office, where rank-and-file employees were not permitted.

Now I wonder what year that policy changed. I showed each new employee exactly where they were located. (On a shelf out on the shop floor, right next to the time clock.)We attended a yearly class on their use. Per WISHA in WA.

[sgtbean1]

And this goes to my objections to the comments on this thread: if a railroad is involved, a good portion of the occupants here all too automatically flock to condemn the injured, dead, and dying and make the railroad company, perversely, the victim even as it earns record profits.

You may have a very valid point here, but as Eolafan already pointed out:

You'll have to excuse us novices who look at such litigation with something of a jaundiced eye as we do so based on the extreme levels of unjustified litigation in this country in recent decades.

You can't deny there's a level of truth to that either.

But anyway, my first reaction to this story was "another one of those". Your contributions, founded in experience and knowledge of the subject, have caused me to see this story in a somewhat different light. This story may not be as far fetched as others. On the other hand, BNSF are still innocent until PROVEN guilty. My fear in these cases is always that a jury may come to a verdict based more on emotions than actual facts.

As always the truth will most likely be somewhere in the middle, not pure or simple.

[MichaelSol]

On the other hand, BNSF are still innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Well, the lawsuit isn't a criminal proceeding, and you are referring to a criminal standard.

However, just across the street from me, executives from W.R. Grace Co. are, in fact, facing Federal criminal charges, possible fines and up to twenty year prison sentences for knowingly permitting toxic substances into the air, water and soil at Libby, Montana during their operation of a vermiculate (asbestos) mine there.

Just from reading the papers, I can see that BN is in full panic mode on the Somerville case.

Various posters here worry about a jury awarding damages based on "emotion". I don't know what kind of "emotion" these posters worry about when corporate executives, pulling down milllions of dollars in pay and options, create a condition that they know will ultimately kill people, possibly hundreds -- their own hard-working employees and their families -- causing them to die horrible, painful deaths.

On a scale of ultimate justice, "jury emotions" are pretty far down my list of worries for these poor beseiged corporate execs.

 

[sgtbean1]

On the other hand, BNSF are still innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Well, the lawsuit isn't a criminal proceeding, and you are referring to a criminal standard.

I know. But the essence is the same: if BNSF did nothing wrong, then they shouldn't have to pay up, right?

 

... I don't know what kind of "emotion" these posters worry about when corporate executives, pulling down milllions of dollars in pay and options, create a condition that they know will ultimately kill people, possibly hundreds -- their own hard-working employees and their families -- causing them to die horrible, painful deaths.

Thank you for proving my point, however unintentionally. That's exactly the emotion I refer to. Just so you know: I'm not against you, or the people of Somerville. I'd like to know the facts. And I hope the jury will judge the case on those very facts.

[MichaelSol]

You'll have to excuse us novices who look at such litigation with something of a jaundiced eye as we do so based on the extreme levels of unjustified litigation in this country in recent decades.

You can't deny there's a level of truth to that either.

Actually, I do deny that. Maybe I don't get out much, but the cases I see, even the headline makers, almost always have a sound basis for the jury award, although one of the key causes of high verdicts in some cases is simple corporate arrogance, brought into the courtroom by arrogant corporate counsel. And, the jury gets mad.

The Ford Motor Co. Pinto case is a good example. The jury there heard the testimony that Ford's actuarial calculations on the Pinto gas tank design would "only" result in 8 deaths per year, and that Ford could fight off the resulting litigation far more cheaply than the cost of building the safer tank and supporting structure. It was the corporation's decision to choose litigation as the result of choosing a design they knew would result in deaths, rather than choosing an alternative to a safer design.

They built the cost of knowingly killing people into the manufacturing cost and calculated rate of return on the Ford Pinto -- "the Barbeque that seats four".

Then, "corporate counsel" argued to the jury that the company had every right to build a design that they knew would kill people: "the job of the corporation is to make money."

It's expensive to handle these cases. Any lawyer handling one has to make an assessment as to the viability of the case -- a purely business judgment since in these cases, the clients don't have the money -- unlike the corporation -- to litigate, and so it is all on the lawyer's dime that the litigation is commenced. It is entirely a personal financial risk on the part the lawyer, and that adds a very clarifying element to assessing the risks of ever filing such a case.

 

[eolafan]

You'll have to excuse us novices who look at such litigation with something of a jaundiced eye as we do so based on the extreme levels of unjustified litigation in this country in recent decades.

You can't deny there's a level of truth to that either.

Actually, I do deny that. Maybe I don't get out much, but the cases I see, even the headline makers, almost always have a sound basis for the jury award, although one of the key causes of high verdicts in some cases is simple corporate arrogance, brought into the courtroom by arrogant corporate counsel. And, the jury gets mad.

The Ford Motor Co. Pinto case is a good example. The jury there heard the testimony that Ford's actuarial calculations on the Pinto gas tank design would "only" result in 8 deaths per year, and that Ford could fight off the resulting litigation far more cheaply than the cost of building the safer tank and supporting structure. It was the corporation's decision to choose litigation as the result of choosing a design they knew would result in deaths, rather than choosing an alternative to a safer design.

They built the cost of knowingly killing people into the manufacturing cost and calculated rate of return on the Ford Pinto -- "the Barbeque that seats four".

Then, "corporate counsel" argued to the jury that the company had every right to build a design that they knew would kill people: "the job of the corporation is to make money."

It's expensive to handle these cases. Any lawyer handling one has to make an assessment as to the viability of the case -- a purely business judgment since in these cases, the clients don't have the money -- unlike the corporation -- to litigate, and so it is all on the lawyer's dime that the litigation is commenced. It is entirely a personal financial risk on the part the lawyer, and that adds a very clarifying element to assessing the risks of ever filing such a case.

 

OK, yes I did say enough is enough on this post, but after you deny above that there is a horrendous amount of frivolous litigation I can only say two things to you and then I will end my participation in this thread...those two things are...

GET "REAL" FELLOW and GET A LIFE!

[youngengineer]

I believe everyone has mixed up I'm suing mcdonalds because I'm fat with people who where knowingly put into harms way. The corporation doesnt care if you die, the corporation doesnt care if your kids have disabilties, the corporation cares about how much money can we make. Michealsol talks from experience, and a lot of his own investigation to come to his conclusions. Maybe the rest of us, should take the time to research our conclusions, or just maybe you should really think about what you want to say.

Remember the corporation not only has lawyers but also has a PR firm representing them, do you think that maybe the fake data, or skewed data is a result of the PR firm changing how you look at a case before you even know about the case.

[n012944]

Based on the data you have produced, MichaelSol, they have suspected that something was amiss since the 70's.  Would you not consider then that the town also bears partial responsibility for not addressing the issue 30+ years ago? 

Good grief.

The railroad said that creosote was not dangerous. The plant manager received no warning from the company that there was a problem. The creosote was incinerated in an ordinary incinerator. It was dumped in the creek.

Have you complained to a company lately about them poisoing the town?

Did you keep your job?

I can tell you exactly what happened to any whisteblower in the 1970s. They were fired.

They left town.

They died of cancer somewhere else; probbly couldn't even afford the medical care and the family went broke.

And no one noticed.

And I would just bet there are people here who say they deserved it for squealing on their employer. That's how some of you think.

In any event, there appears to be a number of suffering people involved. The situation doesn't warrant the usual armchair judgments from afar.

The Railroad increased its profits by not installing proper equipment, by not spending any money on training, not lifting a d*** finger to make that plant safe.

As an earlier poster said, it's all about greed.

Again, what happend to your statement about not judging from afar?  Why is it ok for you to judge a company, but when someone else does in a manner that you do not like, they are horrible people.  It is sad to see that this has turned into the typical Michael Sol thread, he is right and if you disagree with him then you are a moron.

[MichaelSol]

... I don't know what kind of "emotion" these posters worry about when corporate executives, pulling down milllions of dollars in pay and options, create a condition that they know will ultimately kill people, possibly hundreds -- their own hard-working employees and their families -- causing them to die horrible, painful deaths.

Thank you for proving my point, however unintentionally. That's exactly the emotion I refer to. Just so you know: I'm not against you, or the people of Somerville. I'd like to know the facts. And I hope the jury will judge the case on those very facts.

It doesn't seem to be the case or the facts that worry you, but whether or not the jury will use "emotion". As I say, when there is evidence of intentional disregard for health and safety that is, in some cases, found to be tantamount to murder, what is an "unemotional" response?

If an individual engages in pre-meditated behavior that he knows will kill you, the various levels of manslaughter and murder charges that can be brought require ultimate penalties up to and including life imprisonment and even the death penalty. Are those "emotional" responses? What should a jury award if the allegations are proven -- and judging by the depositions of company officials, admissions of record, there is little doubt on culpability here -- what are the appropriate measures of damages? A hundred bucks? What's a life worth?

Part of the economic thinking built into jury verdicts is, in fact, the concept of not just compensation, but punishment -- punitive damages; damages designed to punish and deter intentionally reckless behavior.

The reasoning is that, even after compensatory damages are assessed for causing pain, suffering and death, the original motivations may still represent a profit to a corporation -- exactly along the lines of Ford Motor Company's thinking. To protect society, how does a jury "punish"? You might call it emotion -- based solely on the size of the award, but the concept -- that such damages are supposed to be in excess of compensation --is, in fact, based on a recognized economic theory and need.

This tie plant didn't get retrofitted with appropriate pollution control equipment at the time that the risks became recognized. I don't know what the costs might have been in 1975 to retrofit a tie plant, but I know that similar pollution control equipment to remove dioxins and other toxic materials from both effluent and combustion gas release was on the order of $25 million or so under other industrial circumstances in the 1970s. That's a chunk of change and what leads me to suspect that there was an intentional decision made at a corporate level on this plant.

Using the "Ford Motor Company" method of risk calcuation, over a thirty year period, the investment cost savings of not making the pollution control investment, at 8% amounts to $503 million.

Well, that's the means by which a corporation assesses the value of human life that it knows it will be taking "unfairly." And certainly, it does lack the emotional content that you fear may guide human decisions. It is emotion-free. I don't agree that's a good way to always make decisions.

If a jury came back with a $100 million award, based on a finding of an intentional tort, the Company in essence is still ahead by a $400 million profit by the avoided expenditure of control and safety equipment over the time frame involved. They will write the check, kicking and screaming and complaining about greedy plaintiffs and unfair juries, and then laugh all the way to the bank as the plaintiffs, one by one, die off in horrible and slow and tragic circumstances which some seem to feel is only designed to appeal to emotion -- rather than representing exactly the suffering inflicted that is supposed to be compensated for by jury awards.

And death and suffering are emotional events for people. These aren't carrots. How do you instruct a jury to "not care" about a deformed baby who will never have a normal life because some jerk in charge of safety didn't want to spend the money to keep the creosote out of the air and water?

People only get one crack at living, and when some executive takes that opportunity away by making a decision to pad the corporate bottom line and increase his stock options by "saving" some money on pollution control equipment, what is a jury to do?

So, what would you consider an "unfair" award, driven by emotion, in a case such as this if the allegations are proven true? At $500 million, the company would break even -- the cost of litigation equals the savings/profit made from the decision. There is no incentive there to prevent the next cruel decision involving the arbitrary taking of human lives in the name of profit. Well, how about $600 million?

Enough? Not enough?

You might say that the jury award of $3 million per plaintiff is excessive. The jury may be looking at trying to prevent company behavior by removing the financial incentive to kill people -- through the use of punitive damages. You may read the paper and make a conclusion; the jury may have been looking at decision memos -- the ones that the company didn't get destroyed -- that showed a careful, if cruel, calculation.

Whose "right" -- you ... or the jury?

And what I am trying to point out here is that there is an accepted economic theory for imposing judgments far in excess of actual damages, and specific statutes that permit and define it and, in the broad scheme of things, it is necessary.

 

[selector]

Everybody was up dancing and having fun, and then the music stopped.

Metaphorically, wasn't that what happened?  Were not all parties getting exactly what they needed/wanted out of the dance? 

To me, if the jury buys that there was purposeful, and insidious, obfuscation, negligence, or willful and blatant disregard for known problems and laws and policies extant at the time these problems were germinating, the jury will certainly impose their outrage and fury on the defendants....and God help them.  Of course there is emotion in the process....in the absence of emotion there would be little empathy, little care or interest in seeing to the matter. 

Frivolity is in the eyes of the beholder.  It is as clear to me that some cases are frivolous as that some judges err in supporting them...or denying them.  This is evinced by the levying of costs and then countersuits against the plaintifs.  Turnabout is fair play.

Note that these are my opinions.  It is the jury's that counts.

[MichaelSol]

You'll have to excuse us novices who look at such litigation with something of a jaundiced eye as we do so based on the extreme levels of unjustified litigation in this country in recent decades.

You can't deny there's a level of truth to that either.

Actually, I do deny that. Maybe I don't get out much, but the cases I see, even the headline makers, almost always have a sound basis for the jury award, although one of the key causes of high verdicts in some cases is simple corporate arrogance, brought into the courtroom by arrogant corporate counsel. And, the jury gets mad.

The Ford Motor Co. Pinto case is a good example. The jury there heard the testimony that Ford's actuarial calculations on the Pinto gas tank design would "only" result in 8 deaths per year, and that Ford could fight off the resulting litigation far more cheaply than the cost of building the safer tank and supporting structure. It was the corporation's decision to choose litigation as the result of choosing a design they knew would result in deaths, rather than choosing an alternative to a safer design.

They built the cost of knowingly killing people into the manufacturing cost and calculated rate of return on the Ford Pinto -- "the Barbeque that seats four".

Then, "corporate counsel" argued to the jury that the company had every right to build a design that they knew would kill people: "the job of the corporation is to make money."

It's expensive to handle these cases. Any lawyer handling one has to make an assessment as to the viability of the case -- a purely business judgment since in these cases, the clients don't have the money -- unlike the corporation -- to litigate, and so it is all on the lawyer's dime that the litigation is commenced. It is entirely a personal financial risk on the part the lawyer, and that adds a very clarifying element to assessing the risks of ever filing such a case.

OK, yes I did say enough is enough on this post, but after you deny above that there is a horrendous amount of frivolous litigation I can only say two things to you and then I will end my participation in this thread...those two things are...

GET "REAL" FELLOW and GET A LIFE!

What I am objecting to is your characterization that there is "an extreme level" of frivolous litigation and a "horrendous amount". Based on both experience and the assessment of the reality of the costs of litigation, I am disagreeing with your premise, because I suspect you are basing it on reading a few headlines, and are for some reason anxious to perpetuate a myth. There is always some nut somewhere that will file something, and those are the ones people read about, but they don't represent any measurable reality, and the terms "extreme" and "horrendous" simply misrepresents "real life".

Settle down and just listen to yourself. You're coming across pretty poorly by shouting. You've read probably innumerable stories about train derailments. Are you going off to other threads to lecture engineers about their "extreme" and "horrendous" accident rates? Based on your confident knowledge gained from reading the headlines about how to maintain railroads, run trains, and that you are just the guy to tell them how bad off their industry is in "real life"? Let me suggest that "get real" and "get a life" is advice well taken when you decide to lecture others on businesses, industries, and professions you do not, in fact, have experience in.

And I'm not trying to be my usual cranky self here, but as I have mentioned before, I appreciate an opinion backed up with facts, courteously presented, and you're not it right now. This thread is about litigation, and whether or not it is "unjustified". I am offering you a perspective on what this kind of litigation can actually mean, and what kind of financial considerations go into both sides of the issue from the standpoint of genuine experience on the matter. If you don't want to participate that's fine, but your attitude that you can lecture people about what you "know" about something that you actually "don't" can be left at the door.

 

[eolafan]

Whatever

[MichaelSol]

Frivolity is in the eyes of the beholder.  It is as clear to me that some cases are frivolous as that some judges err in supporting them...or denying them.  This is evinced by the levying of costs and then countersuits against the plaintifs.  Turnabout is fair play.

I've got a frivolous lawsuit sitting on my desk at the moment, filed by what I can only assess by the manner and tone of the complaint a complete nitwit, against one of my corporate clients. Filed pro se, incidentally, because he couldn't find a lawyer who would handle it for him. It won't go far, but it is the price to be paid for having a system of laws and rights, and a relatively open access to the court system to make the laws and rights meaningful. I supose we could eliminate frivolous lawsuits, doctors commiting malpractice, bankers embezzling, robbery, murder, corporate accountants loading off-balance entities with corporate funds, excessive compensation for CEOs, lying politicians, careless workers, and any other set of complaints about real life, but for every freedom, there is the price of abuse built-in. Given the alternatives, perhaps it's not so bad after all.

 

[AT&SF]

Mr. Sol- I applaud your efforts in trying to educate the posters on this matter. As an Attorney for the last 30 years and former ATSF employee I have sat here ashamedly and done nothing as I read the mind less drivel spouted by the ignorant individuals that dismiss the justice system as tainted by greedy lawyers and opportunists, with little if any insight into the merits of the claim or a working understanding of the civil justice system as it involves railroads or any other enterprise in our society.

 So I salute you and your efforts, but wonder if it has any effect.

[selector]

AT&SF, this is one of my pet peeves.  I know for a fact that there are many erudite, educated, informed, and intelligent people, probably quite busy...so not here often...who rarely pipe up and add some clout and perspective to the expressions of those who go to a lot of trouble to bolster their positions with documentation, press releases, statements of proceedings, minutes of meetings, and so on...as and when they are available.  Even if they are not schooled in the topic, they can at least recognize a reasoned approach to a given side of the argument.  Yet, we get shrillness and denials, contradictions, with no proferred evidence to support them that go on and on.

I have been accused of being impartial as a moderator.  Guilty...a thousand times guilty.  I will always jump in when I know that someone is being driven from a forum because his reasoning is contrary to opinion when the opinion is unsubstantiable and the reasoning robust.  Opinions are like hair follicles...we all have them.  They are merely fatuous when they are not offered in sincerity, with supporting facts, and then left for the judgment of other readers without resorting to ad hominems arguments in an attempt to improve them.

When I start to see robust counter arguments come from members who really have a solid grip on the facts, no one will be more pleased than I.  It will mean I can go on and address other issues elsewhere.  But the personal and directed comments have no place here, for the record, and I won't let them pass.   As I said in my posted sticky last week, if you are out of ammo, or if the other person is willfully intransigent, then withdraw....it's that simple.  State you have nothing further to add, and be done with it.  They're only marbles after all.

So, to you, Sir, thank-you for adding some dignity to this discussion, and to your status as a bona fide member.  I hope your example and contrition will inspire others to join in, even if every single one goes against Michael.  But more involvement from a responsible membership would be helpful to settle these things than the same voices all the time...either side.

-Crandell

 

[n012944]

Interesting, a lifetime of Smoking had nothing to do with it, yeahhh...right!

Smoking causes stomach cancer?

 

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/cancer

According to the goverment, yes it does.

"Cigarette smoking causes 87 percent of lung cancer deaths (1). Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in both men and women (3). Smoking is also responsible for most cancers of the larynx, oral cavity and pharynx, esophagus, and bladder. In addition, it is a cause of kidney, pancreatic, cervical, and stomach cancers (2, 4), as well as acute myeloid leukemia (2)."

I am sure that to some people here, the cancer was still caused by the mean old greedy BN, and not a lifetime of abuse of a deadly habit.

[selector]

Yeessss!  A focused and robust reply that stands on its own.  Now we can debate this nicely and with a reasonable purpose.

[MichaelSol]

Interesting, a lifetime of Smoking had nothing to do with it, yeahhh...right!

Smoking causes stomach cancer?

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/cancer

According to the goverment, yes it does.

"Cigarette smoking causes 87 percent of lung cancer deaths (1). Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in both men and women (3). Smoking is also responsible for most cancers of the larynx, oral cavity and pharynx, esophagus, and bladder. In addition, it is a cause of kidney, pancreatic, cervical, and stomach cancers (2, 4), as well as acute myeloid leukemia (2)."

I am sure that to some people here, the cancer was still caused by the mean old greedy BN, and not a lifetime of abuse of a deadly habit.

First you said "no" it isn't, now you say "yes", it is.

Internet research is a fickle mistress.

You leave out the fact that the rate of stomach cancer in the United States is extremely low. Indeed, to find a correlation between smoking and stomach cancer, one has to go to studies of other populations where stomach cancer rates are much higher, in order to get enough of a sampling to even measure.  

If she were not a smoker, Linda Faust's risk of stomach cancer would be substantially less than .01% over her lifetime. In the town, the likelihood that someone would develop stomach cancer over a 78 year lifespan is low -- a town of 1700 might see 8 cases over the 78 year period. 

Linda Faust has an infection with a bacteria known as Helicobacter pylori, which increases the risk of stomach cancer. Combined with smoking, Linda's risk of stomach cancer during her lifetime increased seven-fold, because of the presence of both the bacteria and being a smoker. All the way up to three hundredths of a percent risk. A very small risk times 7 is still a very small risk. Another way of looking it -- 99% of people who smoke don't get stomach cancer. And this is why the studies are carefully worded that smoking "can" cause stomach cancer, because it actually usually doesn't.

In addition, Linda Faust represents several conditions that show reduced risk of stomach cancer. I don't know why you would have left that out. 

Linda is a Caucasian female, age 47. All of these represent lower risk factors, because men tend to develop stomach cancer more often than woman, Hispanics and Blacks more frequently than Caucasians, and most people develop stomach cancer in their 60s, 70s, and 80s.

Given a higher risk because of smoking and H. pylori, Linda enjoys a reduced risk because of her demographic. Statistically, it is still unlikely that Linda would develop stomach cancer, and particularly at the age that she was diagnosed with it.

Over a ten year period, a town the size of Somerville might be likely to develop, at most, one case of stomach cancer, most likely in a Hispanic man over the age of 60. The town itself, at this point in time, statistically should have no cases of stomach cancer.

It has 12 such cases. Linda is part of a cluster of stomach cancer cases which is over 60 times the national rate of stomach cancer.

Because she belongs to a demographic that, even with smoking, is less likely to get stomach cancer, because she got it at a substantially earlier age than is typical for stomach cancer victims, and because she is part of very unusual cluster, I think this fairly raises the question of causation: something caused stomach cancers in people unlikely to get stomach cancer, and a very unlikely circumstance to develop it in such numbers.

Does a factory producing known carcinogens offer an explanation?

I think it has to. And I think it is completely reasonable for these people to question the source of their illnesses and the management of that tie plant and their actions.

As with most comments in this vein, however, with the poster the idea here is obviously to offer something off the internet, and conclude "she smokes, she got stomach cancer, she deserves it."

And if "mean old greedy BN" just happened to put known carcinogens into the air, water, and ground for well over 30 years -- well, that just proves it must be Linda's fault!

As usual, with contentions offered by certain specific posters, closer evaluation all too often tells a different story -- and it's interesting how often this seems to be true with certain posters, when more, rather than fewer, facts are brought to bear.

It is obvious that this particular poster brings a personal animus to the discussion -- he's posted twice just to engage in personal attacks. He does it on nearly every thread I ever post to. This is the third post of his on this thread, and his reference to "mean old greedy BN" in the sarcastic fashion makes it clear that he has his mind made up on this serious event, and it has nothing to do with the facts at all.

Rather, and this goes to my initial gripe: it is the knee-jerk reaction that governs certain posters, notwithstanding any facts to the contrary: "railroad good, people bad".

Always.

No matter what.

 

 

[n012944]

Interesting, a lifetime of Smoking had nothing to do with it, yeahhh...right!

Smoking causes stomach cancer?

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/cancer

According to the goverment, yes it does.

"Cigarette smoking causes 87 percent of lung cancer deaths (1). Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in both men and women (3). Smoking is also responsible for most cancers of the larynx, oral cavity and pharynx, esophagus, and bladder. In addition, it is a cause of kidney, pancreatic, cervical, and stomach cancers (2, 4), as well as acute myeloid leukemia (2)."

I am sure that to some people here, the cancer was still caused by the mean old greedy BN, and not a lifetime of abuse of a deadly habit.

First you said "no" it isn't, now you say "yes", it is.

Internet research is a fickle mistress.

You leave out the fact that the rate of stomach cancer in the United States is extremely low. Indeed, to find a correlation between smoking and stomach cancer, one has to go to studies of other populations where stomach cancer rates are much higher, in order to get enough of a sampling to even measure.  

If she were not a smoker, Linda Faust's risk of stomach cancer would be substantially less than .01% over her lifetime. In the town, the likelihood that someone would develop stomach cancer over a 78 year lifespan is low -- a town of 1700 might see 8 cases over the 78 year period. 

Linda Faust has an infection with a bacteria known as Helicobacter pylori, which increases the risk of stomach cancer. Combined with smoking, Linda's risk of stomach cancer during her lifetime increased seven-fold, because of the presence of both the bacteria and being a smoker. All the way up to three hundredths of a percent risk. 

On the other hand, Linda Faust represents several conditions that show reduced risk of stomach cancer. I don't know why you would have left that out. Perhaps an unintentional oversight.

Linda is a Caucasian female, age 47. All of these represent lower risk factors, because men tend to develop stomach cancer more often than woman, Hispanics and Blacks more frequently than Caucasians, and most people develop stomach cancer in their 60s, 70s, and 80s.

Given a higher risk because of smoking and H. pylori, Linda enjoys a reduced risk because of her demographic. Statistically, it is still unlikely that Linda would develop stomach cancer, and particularly at the age that she was diagnosed with it.

Over a ten year period, a town the size of Somerville might be likely to develop, at most, one case of stomach cancer, most likely in Hispanic man over the age of 60. The town itself, at this point in time, statistically should have no cases of stomach cancer.

It has 12 such cases. Linda is part of a cluster of stomach cancer cases which is over 60 times the national rate of stomach cancer.

Because she belongs to a demographic that, even with smoking, is less likely to get stomach cancer, because she got it at a substantially earlier age than is typical for stomach cancer victims, and because she is part of very unusual cluster.

As with most comments in this vein, the idea here is obviously to offer something off the internet, and conclude "she smokes, she got stomach cancer, she deserves it."

And if "mean old greedy BN" just happened to put known carcinogens into the air, water, and ground for well over 30 years -- well, that just proves it must be Linda's fault!

As usual, with contentions offered by certain specific posters, closer evaluation all too often tells a different story -- and it's interesting how often this seems to be true with certain posters, when more, rather than fewer, facts are brought to bear.

It is obvious that this particular poster brings a personal animus to the discussion -- he's posted twice just to engage in personal attacks. He does it on nearly every thread I ever post to. This is the third post, and his reference to "mean old greedy BN" in the sarcastic fashion makes it clear that he has his mind made up on this serious event, and it has nothing to do with the facts at all.

Rather, and this goes to my initial gripe: it is the knee-jerk reaction that governs certain posters, notwithstanding any facts to the contrary: "railroad good, people bad".

Always.

No matter what.

 

 

I didn't leave anything out.  I answered a question that YOU asked.  There is a link between smoking and stomach cancer.Whatever the BN did, Linda also put a known carcinogen into her body by smoking.  Which by the way DOUBLES her chance of stomach cancer.There are many things that we don't know about Linda that also could increase her risk for cancer.  Was she overweight?  Does stomach cancer run in her family?  Did she have some sort of stomach surgey before she had cancer? Does she have type A blood?  All of these increase the chance for stomach cancer.  Here is the kicker, there is a chance that any of these things where to blame for Linda's cancer.  And btw I don't feel that ANYONE deserves to have cancer, no matter what they have done in their lifetime, and I am not quite sure why you would imply that I would.  As for my two other postings, you chastised other posters for judging from afar, but is seems that you are already doing that.

[MichaelSol]

I didn't leave anything out.  I answered a question that YOU asked. 

And this is what you said:

Interesting, a lifetime of Smoking had nothing to do with it, yeahhh...right!

Smoking causes stomach cancer?

No, but according to a couple of web sites I visited, neither does creosote.

No, then yes, then maybe ... do I get this impression you just want to argue? You do this every thread.

 

[selector]

Michael, I got a lot out of your long reply above, two or three posts higher.  Nothing personal, but I offer this comment: I didn't get a lot out of the first two lines, and not from the last 15 or so, where you were making a general comment about how others participate.  I had hoped we could move beyond that in an attempt to keep focused on the issues and debate them.

-Crandell

[n012944]

I didn't leave anything out.  I answered a question that YOU asked. 

And this is what you said:

Interesting, a lifetime of Smoking had nothing to do with it, yeahhh...right!

Smoking causes stomach cancer?

No, but according to a couple of web sites I visited, neither does creosote.

No, then yes, then maybe ... do I get this impression you just want to argue? You do this every thread.

 

  I will admit that I was wrong at first.  After doing some futher reasearch, I found out that there is a link between the two. 

[MichaelSol]

Michael, I got a lot out of your long reply above, two or three posts higher.  Nothing personal, but I offer this comment: I didn't get a lot out of the first two lines, and not from the last 15 or so, where you were making a general comment about how others participate.  I had hoped we could move beyond that in an attempt to keep focused on the issues and debate them.

-Crandell

Well, I suppose the fact that he stated that I called someone a "moron" earlier -- a false statement just designed to stir the pot -- and that he used the words "mean old greedy BN" weren't meant to bring his usual mistatements and antagonisms to this thread. There's a history with this gentlemen. Its like a moth to a flame.

And yes, my comments do go to how he participates, and to his motives for doing so. His first two posts here were clearly designed to start a fight, and when that didn't work, he posted something exactly the opposite of what he earlier stated -- demonstrating that the facts clearly don't matter with this individual -- he's got a different purpose here and its not honest discussion.