In the first place you have to acquire the respirators before you can get them to the area. --
According to the link above that you apparently chose not to read, that was supposed to have been done long before 9/11/01. And I've made no claims whatsoever, other than there were apparently a lot of people working and living there who didn't wear masks and that they were assured the air quality was fine. And I provided proof of those claims. You asked why the city was sued - THAT is why. On Mar 21, 1:46 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > And you base that on what? Define proper warnings. Tell me how you > get all the required respirators to all those at Ground Zero on Day One > after what had just happened and the number of people who either live or > work in that area. In the first place you have to acquire the > respirators before you can get them to the area. Then you have to > transport them to the area. Once you do, unless you are bulldogging > everyone, some are not going to heed the warnings. And I am supposed > to believe that one? I only know that what I saw and what I experienced > and what the man who lived next door experienced at Ground Zero. He > was a heavy equipment operator and volunteered for 3 weeks operating the > heavy equipment to help clear out Ground Zero. Neither of us saw what > you claim happened and both of us saw the EMT and the fire dept and the > police dept and the way they handled things. That most definitely does > not agree with your claims at all and we were there. > > reallyconservative wrote: > > Yes, everyone who disagrees with you is a liar and full of shit. > > >http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/02/28/2010-02-28_a_911_smoki... > > > No - the city and feds never told people the air was safe to breathe: > > >http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/02/07/usat-wtc-acov.htm > > > Nah, there was no problem with enforcing regulations that required > > people to wear respirators: > > > Remarkably, not one fatal accident occurred on the pile. But the > > city�s inspectors found that by late October, only 29 percent of > > ground zero workers were wearing the sophisticated respirators that > > were required by OSHA. Even Mr. Giuliani sometimes showed up without > > one. > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/14/nyregion/14giuliani.html?_r=1&pagew... > > > Nah, no ground zero workers or residents have died from rare lung > > diseases: > > >http://autoimmunedisease.suite101.com/article.cfm/post_911_sarcoidosis > > > And while I agree that if the masks and proper warnings were indeed > > provided to everyone in danger, those who chose to not wear them have > > nobody to blame but themselves, it doesn't appear that the proper > > warnings were provided NOR the respirators to all of those at Ground > > Zero from day one. > > > On Mar 20, 11:11 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> As one who worked in that area, you are full of s*it. The city had > >> special setups all over the place with EMT, face masks, bottled liquids > >> 24/7 for weeks after the event. We were not even permitted to go to > >> work for 3 weeks and even then they still had all the EMT, face masks, > >> bottled liquids after that. The technicians were all over the place to > >> see that people were safe. What more could they do. I know what they > >> did. I was there. I worked in that area. I have emphysema and they > >> sure saw that I was safe. You really do not know what you are talking > >> about. > > >> reallyconservative wrote: > > >>> Not true. Apparently there were a ton of toxins (including asbestos > >>> and benzene) in that rubble. And the workers were told not to concern > >>> themselves with it and to go about their business. That's > >>> negligence. The city (or the leaders of the first responders) should > >>> have made sure all of them wore protective masks before digging in > >>> that rubble. > > >>> On Mar 20, 10:34 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> Why in the hell would ANYONE get a settlement unless they were suing > >>>> al-Qaeda ??? The only "fault" or action lies with them..... > > >>>> Talk about drinkin' kool-aid !!!!!!! > > >>>> On Mar 20, 1:12 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>> Originally published 12:05 a.m., March 20, 2010, updated 12:30 > >>>>> a.m., March 20, 2010 > > >>>>> Judge rejects settlement for 9/11 rescuers > > >>>>> ASSOCIATED PRESS > > >>>>> NEW YORK | A federal judge on Friday rejected a legal settlement that > >>>>> would have given at least $575 million to people sickened by ash and > >>>>> dust from the World Trade Center, saying the deal shortchanged 10,000 > >>>>> ground zero workers whom he called heroes. > > >>>>> "In my judgment, this settlement is not enough," said U.S. District > >>>>> Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who delivered his pronouncement to a stunned > >>>>> gallery at a federal courthouse in Manhattan. > > >>>>> Rising from his chair, the 76-year-old jurist said he feared police > >>>>> officers, firefighters and other laborers who cleared rubble after the > >>>>> Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks were being pushed into signing a deal few > >>>>> of them understood. > > >>>>> Under the terms of the settlement, workers had been given just 90 days > >>>>> to say yes or no to a deal that would have assigned them payments based > >>>>> on a point system that Hellerstein said was complicated enough to make a > >>>>> Talmudic scholar's head spin. > > >>>>> "I will not preside over a settlement that is based on fear or > >>>>> ignorance," he said. > > >>>>> Of the proposed settlement of $575 million to $657 million, workers > >>>>> stood to get amounts ranging from a few thousand dollars to more than $1 > >>>>> million. > > >>>>> Hellerstein said the deal should be richer. Too much of it would be > >>>>> eaten up by legal fees, he said. > > >>>>> A third or more of the money set aside for the workers was expected to > >>>>> go to their lawyers. Some plaintiffs had agreed at the start of the case > >>>>> to give as much as 40 percent of any judgment to cover fees and > >>>>> expenses. That might have meant $200 million or more going to attorneys. > > >>>>> Hellerstein, who presides over all federal court litigation related to > >>>>> the terror attacks, ripped into the agreement after hearing several > >>>>> ground zero responders speak tearfully of their illnesses and after > >>>>> receiving letters and phone calls from others expressing confusion about > >>>>> the deal. > > >>>>> He said he was speaking "from the heart" out of great compassion for the > >>>>> thousands of men and women who spent time at ground zero. > > >>>>> It wasn't immediately clear whether the judge's actions would kill the > >>>>> settlement entirely. > > >>>>> The deal had taken years to negotiate and was announced March 11, with > >>>>> about two months to go until the first trials. > > >>>>> A spokeswoman for the law partnership that negotiated the settlement on > >>>>> behalf of the workers said she had no comment on the judge's remarks. > > >>>>> Christine LaSala, president of the WTC Captive Insurance Co., a special > >>>>> insurance entity created by Congress to represent the city in the > >>>>> lawsuit, said the judge "has now made it more difficult, if not > >>>>> impossible, for the people bringing these claims to obtain compensation > >>>>> and a settlement." > > >>>>> She said the lawyers would confer with city officials and "try to find a > >>>>> way forward." > > >>>>> New York City's chief lawyer, Michael Cardozo, said, "We have great > >>>>> respect for Judge Hellerstein and will consider his comments, but his > >>>>> reaction to the settlement will make it extremely difficult to resolve > >>>>> these cases." > > >>>>> Hellerstein laid out a number of proposed fixes for what he saw as > >>>>> deficiencies in the settlement and told the two sides to resume > >>>>> negotiations. > > >>>>> He rejected the idea that a third or more of the money should go to the > >>>>> plaintiffs' lawyers and said the legal fees should be paid by the WTC > >>>>> Captive, not the workers. > > >>>>> Hellerstein said workers should have ample opportunities to ask > >>>>> questions and get answers about the settlement, and he offered to go on > >>>>> a mini-speaking tour to get information to the plaintiffs. > > >>>>> "I will make myself available in union halls, fire department houses, > >>>>> police precincts and schools," Hellerstein said. > > >>>>> He said more money should be set aside for people who later develop > >>>>> cancer that may be linked to ground zero toxins. He said he wanted to > >>>>> retain ultimate control over which workers were entitled to have claims > >>>>> paid. > > >>>>> Hellerstein acknowledged that he felt a personal connection to the case, > >>>>> calling it "the greatest burden in my life," but insisted that his > >>>>> unusual intervention was legally and morally necessary, given the > >>>>> importance of the Sept. 11 attacks to the country. > > >>>>> "This is no ego trip for me. This is work," he said. > > >>>>> Hellerstein spoke after several ground zero recovery workers had risen > >>>>> in court to describe a litany of health problems they believe are linked > >>>>> to inhaling the ash and dust left by the collapse of the World Trade > >>>>> Center. > > >>>>> The settlement rejected by the judge would have created a pool of at > >>>>> least $575 million for sick workers. That amount could rise to as much > >>>>> as $657 million if enough people accept the deal. Injured workers would > >>>>> get a payment in exchange for dropping their suits against New York City > >>>>> and the dozens of construction contractors it hired to handle the > >>>>> cleanup. > > >>>>> Money for the settlement would be funded with nearly $1 billion in > >>>>> federal taxpayer money that has already been appropriated. > > >>>>> The deal covers a broad list of ailments suspected of being linked to > >>>>> trade center dust, including asthma, chronic coughing and interstitial > >>>>> lung disease, which involves scarring of lung tissue. Some types of > >>>>> cancer are also covered. > > >>>>> For the > > ... > > read more » -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to politicalforum+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.
