It has now been reported that for the first time in 20 years, U.S. health officials have lowered the threshold for lead poisoning in young children.  The new standard means hundreds and thousands of young children could be diagnosed with high levels of lead.  Too much lead is harmful to developing brains and can mean a lower IQ.  The standard is for children younger than six.

Really there is no safe level of blood lead in children according to Mr. Portier of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Lead poisoning is detected through a blood test.  The change means poisoning will be defined as 5 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood.  The old standard was 10 micrograms.  Under the old standard lead poisoning in children has been on the decline in the United States.  Experts estimated that approximately 77,000 and 255,000 children had high levels of lead.  This recent change could raise the count to 450,000 cases.

For additional valuable information, please visit: Lead Free Kids, Safety At Home or Mayo Clinic.

Yesterday, the administrator of the 20 Billion dollar Gulf Oil Spill Claims Fund, Ken Feinberg, was attending town hall meetings in Fort Walton Beach, Florida and will be addressing certain affected industries in Tampa, Florida.  He noted that over 70,000 people have filed for “quick claims” with the fund, an option that reportedly requires you to waive any future damages claims.  Since the experts appointed to assess the causes and consequences have found that the damages will be epidemic and on-going, one has to wonder at that sort of claim process.

On June 27^th, Co-Chairs of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon oil Spill and Offshore Drilling will be discussing their exclusive findings in Orlando, Florida.  Their comments on the report, which were released on January 11^th, have been made public as recently as yesterday.  In a recent interview, former Florida Governor Bob Graham stated that the oil spill “was not the product of some cosmic force. It was caused by human beings who made a series of bad decisions which were unnecessary.”  He also noted that while the industry has made huge strides in technology focused on getting oil out, they have never been concerned with making advances in dealing with any disasters that might occur.

Interestingly, Feinberg has not appeared to address the Commission’s report entitled “Deep Water, the Gulf Oil Diaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling.”  The report is large (over 350 pages) and has been available for over a week.  It sheds light on many topics of concern including:

a.) the causes of the disaster;

b.) the public consequence of what has largely been determined post-incident false reporting, and

c.) the need for greater regulatory oversight and scientific understanding of the potential impacts of the event.

A significant part of the report deals with the extent of the damage—a topic that many might assume is the fund’s domain.    Yet, as is implied by the commission’s report, the situation is far too complex for such a solution and far too vast for a fund to handle.  Unlike disasters of the past, the damage here was not actually caused by a single event; instead, it is as President Obama termed it, an “epidemic.”

If you are one of the many whose livelihood and/or life has been directly injured by the events, the jostling contradictions do nothing but add to your nauseating reality:  things are going to be worse before they are better.  In such situations, people have traditionally sought the advice of counsel.  Sadly, in this instance, many are being told that this dauntingly murky situation can be handled without expert guidance.  The report of the President’s own advisers implies otherwise.

President Obama created the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon oil Spill and Offshore Drilling on May 22, 2010.   As stated by the Commission itself, its task was to be an independent undertaking:

“The President charged the Commission to determine the causes of the disaster, and to improve the country’s ability to respond to spills, and the recommend reforms to make energy production safer.  And the President said we were to follow the facts wherever they led.”

Appropriately, the President appointed co-chairs for the commission:  Democrat Bob Graham, Florida’s former Governor and former Senator and Republican William K. Reilly, former EPA administrator under George H.W. Bush, and former president of the World Wildlife Fund.

On June 15^th, as cited in the Report, President Obama squarely addressed the reality of the situation facing the Commission and the nation entirely:

“Already, this oil spill is the worst environmental diaster America has ever faced.  And unlike an earthquake or a hurricane it’s not a single event that does it’s damage in a matter of minutes or days.  The millions of gallons of oil that have spilled into the Gulf of Mexico are more like an epidemic, one that we will be fighting for months, even years.”

After an “intense six-month effort to fulfill the President’s charge,” the facts led to many startlingly sad conclusions.   The news that such an atrocity could have been avoided and that a repeat of such an occurrence is still so likely is not at all surprising, but the sadness of that reality remains a shock to the system. Amidst its conclusions, the Commission offers snapshots of individuals whose lives have been turned upside down.  From the most obvious, such as fishermen and oyster farmers, to the more remote, like wedding coordinators, the commission seems to understand that amidst these large, sweepingly affective conclusions, individual victims will bear the cost.

The commission is also willing to confront the unknowns and the decisions that were made even more agonizing in light of our lack of knowledge.  For instance, the report discusses the angst in the decision to use dispersing chemicals when the effects of the chemicals were unknown; it acknowledges how that angst grows when the companies who make them have been unwilling to share what little information they have about them.

Of the many conclusions it draws, a few are of significance to the Gulf community and its advocates:

• The explosive loss of the Macondo could have been prevented.
• The immediate causes of the Macondo well blowout can be traced to a series of identifiable mistakes made by BP, Halliburton, and Transocean that reveal such systematic failures in risk management that they place in doubt the safety culture of the entire industry.
• Because regulatory oversight alone will not be sufficient to ensure adequate safety, the oil and gas industry will need to take its own unilateral steps to increase dramatically safety through the industry, including self-policing mechanisms that supplement government enforcement.
• Scientific understanding of environmental conditions in sensitive environments in deep Gulf waters, along the region’s coastal habitats, and in areas proposed for more drilling, such as the Arctic,  is inadequate.  The same is true of the human and natural impacts of oil spills.

So while the accident was foreseeable and could (and should) have been prevented, there is no way of knowing how big the impacts and injuries will be and there is little reassurance that it won’t happen again.  Usually when a corporation disregards safety, those who are wronged seek remedy in Court.  A jury of their peers determines the extent of the damage and, if relevant, the gravity of the wrong.  A judgement is then rendered that will not only remedy the injured, but will deter future calamities by bringing the corporate wrong-doer a fiscal awareness of the risks that they had previously put upon the public to suffer.  The hoped for and usually achieved reaction is that the relevant industry creates internal guidelines, procedures and policies that keep the risk from happening.  As the commission understands, and as their report states, regulations on their own just don’t do it.  If they had, we would not be in the mess we find ourselves in today.

In the face of a report stating that the injuries will be in the hundreds of billions of dollars; that we are still not certain even of the causative effects of the oil, the gas, the dispsersants and other pollutants; that the industry needs to find motivation to self-govern; and  that the industry let this happen through preventable mistakes, what’s the plan of action for remedying the whole thing?  What has happened?

Our politicians are considering opening more off-shore territory to oil drilling.  The fund would like you to think that the wrongdoers have fairly determined the limits of their liability to the public.  Administrator Feinberg has stated that the damages are not as far-reaching or great as we originally feared and that the fund will be able to fully compensate the injuries.    The Claims fund has created a “quick Pay” option which offers reasonably desperate claimants the right to a quick lump sum payment in exchange for a waiver.  BP’s link offers directions “For Info On How To Make A Claim w/out A Lawyer.”

The reaction is unequivocally contradictory:  The Commission and the President himself have stated that this is a long-term problem; meanwhile,  the fund and the industry act as though there is a “quick fix” option.  And although there are three claims options to choose from, each of which require documented causation, the wrongdoers are actually advising that you go through the process without an attorney, as though they have the injured community’s  interest at heart and individual counsel is superfluous.

Apparently, they have NEVER had the community’s interest at heart.  One has to wonder, in a situation where such learned politicians can recommend diametrically opposing view points, how can the average person find justice  without an attorney?

The “BP Fund Czar”, Kenneth Feinberg, says his staff has been interviewing officials at “government regulatory agencies” to determine how severe the impact of the largest oil spill in the history of the United States will actually be from a long term perspective.

There are at least a couple of noteworthy issues.

First, the largest oil spill in the history of the US has no historical comparisons from which we can make predictions; no models we can use to look into the future and predict what the damage to the environment will be. In large measure, the injury to the environment in the future drives the damages suffered by residents and business owners in the Gulf States, including Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas. If we lack any reliable models, then how can any accurate comparisons or analogies be drawn to allow reliable predictions to be made.

Second, Mr. Feinberg is speaking to people in “government regulatory agencies”? These would presumably be the same agencies that allowed this disaster to happen? Why would the “BP Fund Czar” draw on information and opinions from bureaucrats when he has some of the most brilliant minds in the world available to him? Why would he not organize leading environmental, geologic and business experts to aid him in his conclusions?

Mr. Feinberg says that “he is finding mostly an optimistic view of the Gulf’s future”. Based on…?

The bureaucrats in the “government regulatory agencies” have a need to paint an optimistic future for damages flowing from the oil spill. From a “human nature” perspective they would want their actions and inactions to have the most minimal negative results possible. In addition, the administration would understandably like to solve everyone’s problems and the financial losses as quickly as they can.

Is it wise, a mere 9 months after an oil spill that saw over 205 million gallons of crude oil to free flow into a basin we call the Gulf of Mexico, to declare blue skies and calm seas?

As late as December, BP claimed that:

“They (the government agencies) rely on incomplete or inaccurate information, rest in large part on assumptions that have not been validated, and are subject to far greater uncertainties than have been acknowledged. BP fully intends to present its own estimate as soon as the information is available to get the science right.”

I am not suggesting that BP is a source of unadulterated or reliable information, but so far, reports are that the “government regulatory agencies” have offered as many as 10 different estimates of the extent of the oil spill.

So what can victims do who have suffered as a result of this oil spill? As difficult as it is: exercise caution in transacting claims with the BP Oil Spill Czar. I am not suggesting that everyone who has suffered damages needs to have a lawyer; for many that may be completely unnecessary.

Be aware, though, of what both the “Czar” and, in some respects the government, is trying to achieve:

They want victims to execute full, final and all encompassing releases of their claims. It may be that those who do execute such releases will be forever prevented from pursuing claims against ANY entity for future losses they did not or could not anticipate.

The oil spill happened on the watch of these “government regulatory agencies” and the worse the oil spill damage to environment and economy, the worse their performance as regulators appears.

It is in the best interest of BP and the government that this disaster be put behind everyone as expediently as possible. No one looks good and as time goes by it is reasonable to anticipate that more and more will be learned about why and how this happened.

In order to provide immediate response to victims’ claims and yet balance that against fairness to BP and the other companies who contributed to the oil spill, the government is understandably trying to perform a precarious balancing act over the interests to be protected.

If you intend to process your claims through the BP Oil Spill fund:

• Carefully compile all your losses.
• Carefully document your past losses.
• Look into the future and try to anticipate the losses you may suffer in the future.
• Consult experts (accountants, appraisers, people in your industry) to try and get a reasonable grasp on just what you, more likely than not, can expect into the future.
• Submit your claim.
• If you receive a response to your claim from the BP oil Fund, carefully evaluate what they are offering you.
• Seek the advice and consultation of anyone you feel you need and trust.

If you do not feel the Fund personnel are treating your claim fairly, consult an attorney. Find a good attorney who will give you good advice about what losses you can legally collect; the costs involved in litigating your claims; and the best judgment for the likelihood of success with your claim.

Good attorneys will not try and convince you to litigate claims that do not make sense to litigate, given your financial position or the ability to prove your damages. Good attorneys will not try and convince you to hire them and to file a lawsuit if that is really not in your best interests.

Again, simply exercise caution and understand that the BP Oil Fund employees are not working for you.

High levels of mercury continue to be found in canned tuna and pose health threats to pregnant women and children.

Consumer Reports reported that new tests of 42 samples of tuna from cans and pouches confirmed that white albacore tuna contained much more mercury than light tuna. “If a woman ate two ounces of any of the samples we tested (one serving is 2.5 ounces), she would exceed the daily mercury intake that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers safe,” said Consumer Reports. The study also found that eating only two servings (5 ounces) of the light tuna would also exceed the government limit on mercury levels.

“Canned tuna, especially white, tends to be high in mercury, and younger women and children should limit how much they eat,” says Dr. Urvashi Rangan, Director of Technical Policy, at Consumers Union, a nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports. “As a precaution, pregnant women should avoid tuna entirely.”

Pregnant women and young children who are exposed to even low levels of mercury can develop subtle impairments in hearing, hand-eye coordination and learning abilities. Exposure to high levels of mercury can cause central nervous system damage, hearing loss and vision problems. The EPA and the FDA advise high risk groups, which include pregnant women and young children to limit their consumption of canned tuna to no more than 12 ounces of light tuna and 6 ounces of albacore tuna a week.

Even with all of the mounting evidence about high mercury levels in tuna, the FDA still has not issued a warning to consumers about the dangerous levels of mercury in canned light tuna and albacore. When approached by Food Policy Initiatives at Consumers Union, about why the FDA has failed to issue such a warning, the FDA spokesman indicated that, “The agency had already taken the spike into account when formulating its mercury advice.”

“The FDA should strengthen its current guidance and advise pregnant women to avoid tuna altogether, especially given the uncertainties about the impact of occasional fetal exposure to high mercury levels,” said Jean Halloran, Director of Food Policy Initiatives at Consumers Union. “The FDA should also continue to test for mercury across the spectrum of fish and seafood in the marketplace in order to provide consumers with adequate information on the mercury levels of all fish.”

Other fish that federal agencies have found to contain high levels are mercury and should be avoided by children and pregnant women are king mackerel, shark, swordfish, and tilefish.

“The heavy metal accumulates in tuna and other fish in an especially toxic form, methylmercury, which comes from mercury released by coal-fired power plants and other industrial or natural resources, such as volcanoes,” according  to recent studies by Consumer Reports. “Fortunately, it’s easy to choose lower- mercury fish that are also rich in healthful omega-3 fatty acids,” says Dr. Rangan, “That’s especially important for women who are pregnant or might become pregnant, nursing mothers, and young children, because fetuses and youngsters are still developing their nervous systems and are therefore at particular risk from methylmercury’s neurotoxic effects.”

Health experts advise eating Alaskan salmon, clams, shrimp and tilapia which have been shown time and time again to have low levels of mercury and are healthy for everyone to eat.

The Food and Drug Administration has proposed a new rule, which includes changes to the warnings on cigarette packaging; warnings that have remained largely the same for decades.

These proposed new warnings are obviously intended to be graphic motivation for smokers to quit and for those who have not yet tried cigarettes, to never take that step into addiction.

For decades, the tobacco industry has withheld information about the dangers of smoking; lied about the dangers of smoking; and engaged in advertising campaigns designed to hide the dangers of smoking from the public.

Big Tobacco also, to the present, continues to maintain that cigarettes are not addictive; that smokers can quit anytime they want to do so. Given the extensive manipulation of the chemicals in tobacco by the industry, hooking the American public on cigarettes has been a multi-billion dollar adventure for them. Big Tobacco knows and, in fact, designed a product that begins to addict the smoker when he or she lights up that first cigarette.

We can only hope that these new warnings on the packaging of cigarettes will prove to be a big step in deterring people from smoking or make them think about the consequences when they hold that pack of cigarettes in their hand. Perhaps if smokers view these graphic images enough times, who knows, maybe miracles do happen.

It’s a shame that it took so many years to implement these new, graphic and sobering warnings on tobacco products.

It is shameful that the tobacco industry refused to put even the most benign warnings on their products until they were forced to do so by the government. It is similarly shameful that the tobacco industry persists in trying to sell its canards and propaganda to the public.

To view more information relating to the FDA action and the new warning labels: Proposed Cigarette Product Warning Labels or the Proposed Rule.

Hearings have been occurring in connection with the investigation of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and the Gulf Oil Disaster. Hearings have been held in New Orleans jointly by the Coast Guard and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

Many of the revelations coming out of the testimony at the hearings are interesting, but witnesses who have refused to appear or those who have been reticent to testify on certain matters are also of note.

A BP lawyer testified that the Deepwater Horizon had 390 “past due” maintenance items that should have been corrected and, which were found during a September 2009 audit of the rig. The lawyer testified that the corrections would have required 3,545 man hours to complete. All this data was set forth in a 30 page report submitted to the rig owner, Transocean, long before the tragic explosion on April 20, 2010.

Also testifying was Stephen Bertone, the chief engineer of the Deepwater Horizon rig. He testified that (8) months before the explosion the rig’s propeller that assisted in maneuvering the rig had been “having problems”. Bertone could not recall how many of the 390 deficiencies on the oil rig had been corrected before the explosion and subsequent oil spill.

Bertone also testified that he did not recall whether the general alarm had been bypassed, but did not recall hearing it go off. Bertone said he did not know whether the system for purging gas from the drill shack had been bypassed. This system was the one that kept gas from accumulating and what ultimately ended up igniting the massive explosion that did occur.

Stephen Bertone does recall that hours before the deadly blowout at BP’s Macondo well, a larger than normal number of crew members was gathered in the drilling control room on board the Deepwater Horizon.

“At that point I knew there was something going on, but I didn’t know what it was,” Bertone said.

The visit to the rig’s drill shack, where it was “standing room only,” took place about 5:30 pm, he said.

Later, shortly before 10 p.m., Bertone was reading in his bed when he heard what sounded like a freight train running through his room, then a boom. He felt thumping and saw the lights go out. That set up a chain of events that eventually led to a frenzied exit from the fiery rig.

Wouldn’t it be interesting to inquire with Bertone whether he may have asked, “gee, what is everyone here about” or “what’s the problem”, or hey, guys, what’s up”? Instead, all we know is he went to bed to read.

Bertone said he does recall reviewing an audit before the accident that found larger maintenance issues requiring Deepwater Horizon to go to the shipyard in early 2011 for work on thrusters, engines, seawater systems, ballast systems and drilling equipment.

Mike Williams, a subordinate of Stephen Bertone’s, suggested that some key safety functions on board the rig were set to bypass when the accident occurred.

BP’s well-site manager, Donald Vidrine, declined to testify at the hearings; reportedly due to health concerns.

So far, what we have in the testimony seems to be a frightening inventory of neglect and carelessness on at least the part of the rig operator, BP and the rig owner, Transocean. There seems to be at least some scintilla of suspicion that any of the neglected problems on the Deepwater Horizon may have cause d or contributed to this tragedy. There also seems to be some concern that memories are not as sharp as maybe we had hoped or honesty is in short supply.

The Gulf Oil disaster should not be a place for political bents or muckraking – should it?

I just read two articles from the Financial Post; one I take with a bit of skepticism over whether it portrays the whole story fairly and the other is, well simply unbelievable.

In the first article, author Lawrence Solomon begins with the title “Avertible Catastrophe” and it is, before reading it, about the BP Oil Disaster. He begins the article by applauding the preparedness and capability of the Dutch to anticipate “looming catastrophe and know how to head it off”. It seems pretty clear that in the Netherlands, they take oil drilling and the attendant risks it presents very seriously. They are prepared for disaster. The Dutch know how to handle disastrous oil spills.

Mr. Solomon then goes on to explain the substantial offers to help made by the Dutch and the repeated refusals to those offers of help made by our government. Mr. Solomon is critical of Americans, the US government, US environmental rules, US labor unions, and, possibly, US workers.

(more…)

Most parents want the best for their children. We meticulously search labels, check sugar and salt contents, pack balanced lunches, and try to fix healthy meals for our families. But before you pack that applesauce or tuna fish sandwich into your child’s lunch box, you might want to check the bottom of the plastic container or can it comes in to see if it contains BPA, or bisphenol A.

For years’ concerned mothers, environmental groups, and some scientists have been warning that BPA is unsafe, and can lead to cancers, diabetes, and other diseases. The FDA in 2008 claimed that BPA was safe, but offered tips to decreasing exposure, especially to young children and infants. Recently, the FDA has shifted its position and released that it is “encouraging families to limit their children’s exposure to a chemical found in thousands of household products.”

On Friday, the FDA declared that more research was needed and has suggested reasonable steps to limit the amount of BPA exposure. The FDA is now saying that BPA is “of some concern, especially on the brain behavior and prostate glands in fetuses, infants and young children.”

A noted researcher of BPA, Dr. Frederick vom Saal, at the University of Missouri, stated:

“The FDA formally acknowledging concern about BPA and working with NIH to incorporate research from outside of the chemical industry is a huge step forward,” said vom Saal, who is a Curator’s professor of biological sciences in MU’s College of Arts and Science. “The FDA position presented today [January 19} is consistent with the position that the National Toxicology Program made two years ago. Since then, considerable published research reaffirmed the health dangers of BPA. The FDA says they want to respond more quickly. Now, we will see if they are really able to respond to the huge amount of new science showing dangers not recognized two years ago. They should move quickly to restrict the use of by BPA in products used by adults as well as infants."

However, limiting your exposure to BPA isn’t easy and may be hard to avoid because currently, manufacturers aren’t required to label products containing the chemical. The biggest way to decrease your intake of BPA is by limiting your use of canned foods and foods in plastic containers. Baby bottle manufacturers make bottles that are BPA-free and some plastic containers have the number three or seven on the bottom, which means it does contain BPA. Some recycled pizza boxes also contain the chemical, but are not labeled.

The FDA has historically maintained that BPA is safe largely on the basis of two studies funded by the chemical industry. However, more than 100 independent studies linked BPA exposure to health effects in animals and humans. According to a Washington Post article in 2008, a large study on humans and BPA found that “people with higher levels of bisphenol A had higher rates of heart disease, diabetes and liver abnormalities,” a finding that immediately became the focus of the increasingly heated debate over the safety of the chemical. The government has been looking into whether chemical manufactures unduly influenced the FDA’s stance on BPA.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfOcMzMukeY[/youtube]

In case you missed it during the 2008 presidential primary news blizzard of the past few months, which has consumed the front page of newspapers nationwide, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has once again failed to protect the American public from harm caused by pharmaceutical drugs and devices. Choosing to protect the outrageous profits of the major drug manufacturers over the health and welfare of each of us, and after failing to gain the support of Congress in their quest to do so, the FDA went behind Congress’s back to President Bush to propose new rules concerning labeling requirements on drugs. In addition to the fact that important side effect information would be less likely to reach consumers under the proposed rule, the change would also permit companies to update their drug and device labels with new safety information without waiting for FDA approval.

(more…)

Is the phrase, a government “of the people, by the people, for the people” in the constitution? Popular belief is yes, but it is not actually in the constitution. Rather, this phrase comes from President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address. It is probably a concept that should have been incorporated into the constitution and certainly Lincoln included it to remind citizens that it is their country. I think politicians, and even some of us, forget that it is OUR government and the politicians are OUR employees; they are supposed to be working in OUR best interests.

Business interests are fond of complaining about the jury system and regularly claim that it is “broken”, it needs to be “fixed”. Perhaps the best word is, in fact, “fixed”; they would like to fix the civil justice system so that it can be better influenced in their direction. Should we hold it against them because they work to achieve an unfair playing field? We should not hate Big Corporations for this, but should we allow them to achieve it? Absolutely not!

I think the jury system our founding fathers borrowed from English common law works just fine in protecting the rights of individual citizens. Frankly, I want six of my fellow citizens sitting and listening to evidence in my case. I want six regular people considering what makes sense and what does not make sense. I do not want a special panel appointed to hear my case, as has been promoted by many business “political parrots”. I do not want the government inserting itself into the civil justice system anymore than they already do. I trust an impartial panel of my fellow citizens to fairly weigh the evidence and reach a decision that makes sense.

(more…)