Senate Whistleblower Hearing Thursday – Contact Congress Today! Send a Letter

Senate Whistleblower Hearing Thursday

Contact Congress Today!
 
Dear Action Alert Member,

Thank you so much for your continued support for whistleblower protection.  In the past year, you have sent over 11,000 messages to Congress demanding stronger whistleblower protection.  Congress has heard your voice, and this Thursday, June 11th, the Senate is holding a hearing on amendments to the Whistleblower Protection Act.

Now we need you, the American people, to testify.  The Senate wants to hear testimony and create a record in the Senate before making a decision on including critical provisions in the Act.  Currently the Senate legislation lacks full court access for federal employees and coverage for national security whistleblowers.  The Senate needs to pass the protections included in the House bill H.R. 1507.

Tell Congress meaningful whistleblower protection must include universal coverage and jury trials for all federal employees.

We must act now to convince the Senate that the public will not stand by idly and watch as the government undertakes unprecedented spending without protecting the federal employees responsible for oversight.  Please send a letter to Congress and pass this letter on to your friends and family.

Sincerely,

Stephen M. Kohn
President
National Whistleblowers Center

Take Action!

Posted in Civil Justice, Environmental Health Threats, Mold and Politics, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

ToxLaw.com – Another Sick Teacher Speaks Out Against ACOEM Mold Statement – State Board of Health – Olympia, Washington

Posted by Sharon on ToxLaw.com

Denise Frisino
P.O. Box 25083
Seattle, WA 98165

March 2, 2009

State Board of Health
Olympia Washington

Dear State Board of Health Members,

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter and my enclosed materials.

I ran into two of my former students from Hamilton International Middle School in the last two weeks, usually a very joyous encounter. However, when I learned of their health problems, I was deeply saddened.

While at Hamilton, a school that is in the process of being partially renovated, a building where some of the workers performing this renovation have become ill and have been out on L & I, a building in which I got cancer, I taught these students.

One told me she finally saw a doctor pertaining to her reoccurring problem, the same problem she always complained about in my class, and the doctor told her he needed toimmediately remove the large growths on her ovaries. One of the other teachers in this building had a growth removed “the size  fruit”. My other student told me she had her breast cancer removed at age 21. Theses two students were lucky; two students have died of brain cancers.

I remind you of how the District responded to our complaints of indoor air problems and molds. They hired EXPERTS who found nothing.

Enclosed is a recent review of one of the EXPERTS hired by the district.

A Critique of the ACOEM Statement on Mold, by James Craner, MD, MPH, FACOEM, FACP

When reading the recommendations Dr. Craner states:

RECOMMENDATIONS

ACOEM as an organization should not continue to defend its Mold Statement. Instead, it should acknowledge its wrongdoings and retract both the original Statement88 and the JOEM publication of it,3 as well asits “Ambush” response.117  If ACOEM is to salvage any respect as an organization, it must create an open process with its membership to address mold and other controversial issues in a much more balanced manner, consistent with the stated ACOEM mission and generally accepted methods for evidence-based guidelines and peer review.5–7,47–49

The events that led to the Mold Statement’s publication justify the need for a review and overhaul of ACOEM management and policies. Important questions must be asked from within and outside the organization.  As an organization that represents the majority of OEM physicians, ACOEM must find leadership and management that embraces a willingness to accept meaningful, substantive reform to deal with the serious ethical and professional problems of OEM. The following measures would begin the necessary steps toward achieving such reform:

VOL 14/NO 4, OCT/DEC 2008 • http://www.ijoeh.com Conflicts of Interest and the ACOEM Statement on Mold • 295 – PDF

We are late to the aid of my former students and their health. We are late to providing SAFE environments to our current students across the State because there are no rules to protect them. We are late in insisting our Government take the correct actions for the health and benefit of our students and staff, a Legislature that now claims there are no funds to implement these rules. We are late because you chose to wait. Act now. Your delay has prolonged the process and pushed it into an unknown future.

Thank you,
Denise Frisino

Posted in Environmental Health Threats, Health - Medical - Science, Mold and Politics, Mold Litigation, Toxic Mold | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Doubt Is Their Product: Manufactured Uncertainty & Public Health discussed at AIHce Conference

Posted by Sharon on ToxLaw.com

Jun 2, 2009 by Sandy Smith

David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, a front-runner in the race to head OSHA, offered the Jeffrey S. Lee Lecture on the opening day of the American Industrial Hygiene Conference and Expo in Toronto this week.  According to Michaels, a strategy of “manufacturing uncertainty” successfully has been used by polluters and the manufacturers of dangerous products to oppose public health and environmental regulations.

Michaels claims that this strategy has been so successfulthat is now is unusual for science not to be challenged by industries facing increased regulation.  In fact, he says, a cottage industry has sprung up to help create manufacturing uncertainty, with technical consulting firmsadvertising “product defense” or “litigation support.”

“I call this the Enronization of science,” says Michaels.  “These scientists are hired to defend products in regulatory and legal arenas.  Their value is their ability to influence regulation and litigation.”

These scientists, says Michaels, who is the director of the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy and a research professor and interim chairman, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health at the George  Washington School of Public Health and Health Services, “produce science of questionable value.”

Citing what he calls “the funding effect,” Michaels noted, “There’s a close correlation between the results desired by a study sponsor and the results reported.”

Asking, “Can we trust the advice of conflicted scientists?” Michaels quoted Upton Sinclair: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

Michaels makes these suggestions for keeping research honest:

Require full disclosure of all health and safety data.  Michaels pointed out that regulatory agencies do not require or even ask for conflicting disclosures.

Eliminate conflict of interest by banning employees from product defense firms from science advisory committees and by promoting institutional structures that protect research independence integrity and transparency.

And don’t think for one minute that research published in a peer reviewed journal isn’t tainted, Michaels cautioned, saying, “Peer review is not the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.”

Maybe the names of the peers doing the reviewing should be published, he suggested, placing more pressure on them to conduct a thorough review of the science, since their names will be attached to the studies or papers they review.

For more information, he suggests visiting
defendingscience.org.

Posted in Environmental Health Threats, Health - Medical - Science, Mold and Politics, Toxic Mold | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Precautionary Principle in the Real World – Environmental Research Foundation

Environmental Research Foundation

By Peter Montague

The Wingspread Statement’s definition of the precautionary principle is now widely quoted:

“When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.

“In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof.

“The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.”

The Essence of Precaution:

Critics say that the precautionary principle is not well-defined. However, the Science and Environmental Health Network (SEHN) points out that, in all formulations of the precautionary principle, we find three elements:

1) When we have a reasonable suspicion of harm, and

2) scientific uncertainty about cause and effect, then

3) we have a duty to take action to prevent harm.

The precautionary principle does not tell us what action to take. However, proponents of a precautionary approach have suggested a series of actions we can take:

(1) Monitor carefully (pay attention), and heed early warnings.

(2) Set goals;

(3) Examine all reasonable ways of achieving the goals, intending to adopt the least-harmful way;

(4) Shift the burden of proof — when consequences are uncertain, give the benefit of the doubt to nature, public health and community well-being. Expect responsible parties (not governments or the public) to bear the burden of producing needed information. Expect reasonable assurances of safety for products before they can be marketed — just as the Food and Drug Administration expects reasonable assurances of safety before new pharmaceutical products can be marketed.

(5) Throughout the decision-making process, honor the knowledge of those who will be affected by the decisions, and give them a real “say” in the outcome. This approach naturally allows issues of ethics, right-and-wrong, history, cultural appropriateness, and justice to become important in the decision.

(6) Monitor results, heed early warnings, and make mid-course corrections as needed;

Instead of asking the basic risk-assessment question — “How much harm is allowable?” — the precautionary approach asks, “How little harm is possible?”

In sum: Faced with reasonable suspicion of harm, the precautionary approach urges a full evaluation of available alternatives for the purpose of preventing or minimizing harm.

Further reading:

In the U.S., the leading proponent of the precautionary approach is the Science and Environmental Health Network (SEHN). Their web site is a gold mine of information.

Here are some suggested readings:

Precautionary principle – overviews

– By Schettler, Barrett and Raffensperger (2001?) – By Nancy Myers (2002) – The Wingspread Statement (1998) – By Jared Blumenfeld (2003) – Peter Montague, A Better World is Possible (PowerPoint) (2007) – Peter Montague, A Better World is Possible (short version; 2008) – Peter Montague, Opportunity of a Lifetime

Precautionary principle in the workplace:

– By Eileen Senn (2003)

– By Frank Ackerman and Rachel Massey (2002)

– By The American Public Health Association (1996)

– By Eileen Senn Tarlau (1990)

– By Anne Stikjel and Lucas Reijnders (1995)

Precautionary principle and environmental justice:

– By the California Environmental Protection Agency (2003)

– By Peter Montague (July, 2003)

– By Peter Montague (Feb., 2003)

Precautionary principle and municipal/county government:

The San Francisco Precaution Ordinance (2002)

– The San Francisco White Paper on Precaution (2002)

Precautionary principle and environmental science:

– By David Kriebel and others (2001)

Precautionary principle and children’s health:

– By The American Public Health Association (2000)

Precautionary principle and public health:

– By Tickner, Kriebel, and Wright (2003)

Precautionary Principle and Risk Assessment:

– By Peter Montague, Getting Beyond Risk Assessment

Precaution and the Law:

-By Joe Guth, Transforming American Law to Promote Preservation of the Earth

– By Joe Guth, A model little NEPA law

precaution.org

Posted in Civil Justice, Environmental Health Threats, Health - Medical - Science, Mold and Politics, Mold Litigation, Toxic Mold | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Louisiana Anti-Senior Citizen Bill Defeated – The Pop Tort

Great news, civil justice fans! It’s an “ask and ye shall receive” kind of day here at ThePopTort!  Just one day after we told you about a horrendous anti-civil justice, anti-consumer, anti-senior citizen law that was under consideration in Louisiana, the state’s House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to give it the old heave ho!

The measure, as we explained yesterday, would have made it extremely difficult for nursing home residents who have been injured by incompetent or negligent staff to bring a lawsuit.  And it would have severely limited compensation to these residents – subjecting them to the state’s draconian malpractice caps.

Thankfully, by a 60-38 vote, the bill was mercifully launched into the ether.

Rep. Chris Roy, (D-Alexandria), delivered an “impassioned opposition” to the bill, urging his colleagues “not to believe the malarkey” that the bill was somehow “consumer oriented.”

Props to the AARP, Louisiana Association for Justice, and other groups who fought hard to defeat this unbelievably mean-spirited bill!

thepoptort.com

Posted in Civil Justice, Politics | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment