DuBose Law Firm, PLLC

Main navigation

You are here: Home / Archives for asbestos lawyer dallas

asbestos lawyer dallas

Asbestos, Quebec Has A New Name

By

Asbestos, Quebec has a new name after an emotional search for a new name to replace the one that once proclaimed the town’s pride as a well-known global exporter of asbestos.

The name discussion began

After years as a global supplier of asbestos from the nearby Jeffrey Mine, there was a suggestion in 2006 that a name change would benefit the town. This was rejected by many. Asbestos produced livelihoods for the community for 141 years. Even with it’s tarnished reputation as a deadly mineral, it continued its emotional attachment to many in the town. Generations worked the mine and it brought prosperity to Asbestos, Quebec.

The name discussion continued

The Jeffrey Mine closed in 2011. That made it necessary to bring in new businesses, but few were willing to attach their names to a town called Asbestos. For decades it was known that asbestos, while it had many good qualities, had negatives that were far grimmer. Exposure to asbestos can bring about lung cancer, asbestosis, and mesothelioma – a disease that can take decades to diagnose, but can kill within a year to five years. Patients rarely live any longer. Residents of Asbestos experienced the ravages of this disease, so were aware of the price paid for the years of prosperity.

With the facts undeniable, the mayor once again brought up a name change in 2019. While the emotions were still there, with many against a change, four potential names were presented to the citizens. None of these was a clear winner, so eventually six names were submitted for a vote. Residents 14 years and older were eligible.

Asbestos, Quebec has a new name

On October 19, after three rounds of voting, Val-des-Sources won with 51% of the vote. Translated, the name means “Valley of the Springs.” Nearly half the eligible population voted, 3,000 residents in all.

Huges Grimard, mayor, said, “I know that changing the name is a very emotional subject — for us, too — since the beginning. But to have all the citizens who came out to vote, that tells me that we succeeded in winning over the population, and that makes me very proud.”

Mountain Creek Generating Plant Is A Dallas Legacy

By

Mountain Creek Generating Plant is a Dallas legacy, though much of its past had undesirable consequences.  

Mountain Creek Lake sounds like such a pleasant place to relax and enjoy the scenery. In actuality, the lake was built, not for relaxation, but as a cooling reservoir for the Mountain View, more generally known as Mountain Creek, power plant. The plant was built starting in 1938, with additional units built in 1945, 1949, 1956, 1958, and 1967. Through the years, it was also called the Dallas Power and Light Mountain Creek Station, Mountain Creek Steam Electric Station, and Mountain Creek S-E Generating Station.

What was the Mountain Creek Generating Plant? 

Mountain Creek was a steam generating power plant that ran turbines, which then generated electricity. Steam plant built in this time period commonly had pipes, steam-lines and steam driven equipment which were extremely hot and therefore were built using asbestos-containing insulation. In addition, gaskets and rope packing were made from asbestos and used on steam flanges and steam powered equipment, like pumps, valves, turbines, and boilers. Steel surfaces also had fireproofing made from asbestos. 

Workers at most power plants through the 1980s were likely exposed to asbestos. In fact, if a power plant was built before 1980, it is almost a certainty that asbestos was in the facility or in the products made there. Because asbestos is comprised of microscopic fibers that are easily inhaled, workers in the plant – and sometimes their families – daily inhaled these fibers, creating a health problem for the future. Asbestos diseases are often fatal, especially mesothelioma. Other diseases include lung cancer and asbestosis. After an individual is exposed to asbestos, it can take 20 to 40 years or more for symptoms to develop. There is no safe level of exposure to asbestos.

What has happened to Mountain View?

In 2018, Exelon Generation Co LLC, going through bankruptcy, sold Mountain Creek along with three other power plants to their creditors.  Two of the generators were retired by that time.

Photo Courtesy of Edwin J. Foscue Map Library, Southern Methodist University

Colombia Banned Asbestos!

By

In a unanimous ruling of the Colombian Congress, Colombia banned asbestos effective immediately. The ruling makes Colombia the seventh country in the world to completely ban the mineral and it joins over sixty countries. This is a positive step to ridding the world of new asbestos products in Colombia and throughout the world.

Victims were invited to the Congress before the final vote to share their testimonies about the illnesses and deaths they, and others, experienced because of asbestos. This deadly mineral is already at least partially banned in 60 countries; however, in the United States it is still not banned though there is world-wide scientific consensus there is no safe level of asbestos.

What does this mean for Colombia?

The Colombian Congress debated for 12 years before coming to this agreement, but now there is a complete ban. Companies that produce floor tiles, adhesives, cement products, coatings, pipeline wrap, felts, and reinforced plastics and many other products will be affected. By 2021, they must change to non-harmful compounds rather than asbestos. They will be aided in the change by the Ministry of Labor. Additionally Colombia banned asbestos mining and exportation.

Why ban asbestos?

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates 100,000 people die each year worldwide due to asbestos. Colombia estimates 1700 citizens died from asbestos exposure over the past 50 years. Exposure to the mineral can lead to lung cancer, asbestosis, and the deadly malignant mesothelioma. Mesothelioma can take up to 50 years for diagnosis, but once diagnosed victims rarely live beyond two years. Fibers generally enter through the lungs. Since there is no safe level of exposure, a complete ban is essential to human health.

There will still be asbestos in products produced before the ban, this is a great first effort for Colombia to eliminate asbestos in their environment.

Asbestos Found in Playskool Crayons

By

When thinking of asbestos exposure, building materials may come to mind first, but now tests show asbestos found in Playskool crayons sold at Dollar Tree.

It appeared that the asbestos found in many brands of crayon in 2015 had been remedied, but this brand still tests positive. Kara Cook-Schultz, toxics director at U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), revealed, “The good news is that when we were testing three years ago, all sorts of brands came back with asbestos. Now it’s just this one.”

Though there were trace amounts found, there is no safe level of asbestos. Children tend to put crayons in their mouths and could breathe fibers transferred to the coloring surface. These fibers can cause breathing problems and even cancer – though these would be discovered years or decades in the future.

While Dollar Tree maintains that independent testing of all their products for children showed they met all legal and safety standards, Hasbro, owner of Playskool, said they will investigate the claim and will work alongside Leap Year that licenses the products.

While U.S. PIRG found the majority of products tested were free of toxins this year, there were some, in addition to the Playskool crayons, that parents and teachers should avoid as they prepare for back to school.

Children’s products to avoid:

Asbestos found in Playskool crayons is not the only asbestos exposure to children

• Blue three-ring binders made by Jot and sold at Dollar Tree tested positive for phthalates, a substance linked with asthma, obesity and lower-IQ scores, for instance.

• Dry erase markers made by Expo and The Board Dudes tested positive for carcinogenic BTEX chemicals, such as benzene, xylene, and toluene.

• Additionally, two types of children’s water bottles were previously recalled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission for containing lead — Reduce Hydro Pro Furry Friends water bottle, sold at Costco and Amazon, and GSI Outdoors Children’s Water Bottles, sold at L.L. Bean. Despite the recall, a CBS New reporter was able to order the Hydro Pro Furry Friends product from Costco online.

The good news

By knowing this information, you can buy clean brands with confidence. In the case of crayons – Crayola, Rose Art, Disney Mickey Mouse Clubhouse Crayons, Nickelodeon Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and other brands were declared safe.

EPA Under Trump May Allow for New Asbestos Use

By

After bipartisan passage to improve the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 2016, asbestos was one of several initial chemicals that would come under review again. In the face of overwhelming scientific consensus established by more than a half century of research, it was widely anticipated that the TSCA review would finally result in a ban on the use of asbestos in the United States. Two years later, and a very different result is unfolding.

EPA proposed a “significant new use rule” for asbestos

On June 1, 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency under Scott Pruitt announced a proposed “Significant New Use Rule” (SNUR) for asbestos. SNURs are a tool under the TSCA that mandate EPA approval when a chemical is used in a significantly new way. To hear former Administrator Pruitt state it, he took an unprecedented stand by requiring importers to receive EPA approval before importing or using asbestos in the manufacture of products.

A look inside the SNUR

A closer look, however, establishes a twofold problem posed by the SNUR which may undercut the EPA’s conclusions at the end of its three year TSCA review of asbestos.

First, the EPA could have used the 2016 TSCA overhaul – which began under Obama and has continued under Trump – to ban any new uses of asbestos. Instead, with the SNUR, the EPA has laid the groundwork to expressly allow new uses of asbestos after evaluation based on “risk evaluation, select studies and use of the best available science.”

Secondly, the way in which the EPA will evaluate that risk is problematic. In May 2018 , the EPA published a “Problem Formulation of the Risk Evaluation for Asbestos” which the EPA will use in evaluating these new uses of asbestos. Importantly, the problem formulation will not include information from existing, or “legacy” uses of asbestos – all of the ways in which millions of Americans have been, and will continue to be, exposed to asbestos from existing asbestos products and asbestos in place. This approach will ignore decades of scientific research establishing an overwhelming scientific consensus about the health risks from the legacy uses of asbestos such as exposure to drywall joint compound, plaster, floor tiles, pipe covering and many other existing, in place asbestos products.

This may serve to severely limit the types of exposures the EPA will include in formulating the potential risk of new asbestos uses.

As reported by the New York Times, such limits on the EPA’s review will necessarily create a flawed analysis of the threat posed by asbestos under the EPA TSCA re-evaluation. “It is ridiculous”, said Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, former EPA scientist, speaking to the New York Times. “You can’t determine if there is an unreasonable risk without doing a comprehensive risk evaluation.”

EPA may allow new asbestos use

While the EPA’s re-review of asbestos is still in the second year of the three year process, the limitations the current administration have already placed on the review will likely result in an outcome that does not protect human health – the core mission of the agency. Instead, by not considering the existing, wide-body of scientific evidence concerning asbestos, the ultimate EPA conclusion will likely find lower levels of risk and as a result impose fewer restrictions or prohibitions. Hopes for a U.S. ban on asbestos – one of the most widely recognized human carcinogens – are sadly diminishing.