They therefore obviously entered despite their training and are at "own risk".... MSDS is inviolable... That, too, is in the training.
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 12:15 PM, reallyconservative < [email protected]> wrote: > To say that FDNY did not know or have access or have notice is just > BULLSHIT > -- > > Who said they didn't? In fact, one of the links I posted states quite > clearly that they did or should have known and made sure all of their > firefighters were equipped with respirators long before 9/11. > > On Mar 21, 1:53 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > I just talked to an old friend of mine that is the Volunteer fire chief > for > > a small town in Ohio.... They have the records for every site that > contains > > hazardous materials in their service area and have "By Federal Law" > > maintained such records since the early 70's when he joined the group. > > > > To say that FDNY did not know or have access or have notice is just > BULLSHIT > > !!! By federal law even a fire unit in PODUNK, USA covers this with ALL > > entrants and has done so for 40 + years. > > > > Maybe those "trained professionals" decided to forego their training and > > listen to "hearsay".... tough shit. > > > > On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 11:24 AM, reallyconservative < > > > > [email protected]> 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 plaintiffs with relatively minor ailments, payments would > > > have > > > > >>> ranged from $3,250 to $9,760. William Groner, an attorney on the > team > > > > >>> that negotiated the settlement, estimated that 40 percent to 60 > > > percent > > > > >>> of the workers would fall into that category. > > > > > > >>> The rest were to have divided the remaining millions in the pot, > with > > > a > > > > >>> handful of the sickest getting $1 million or more. The amount > they > > > got > > > > >>> would have been based on a complicated scoring system > > > > ... > > > > 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. > -- Mark M. Kahle, , www.filacoffee.com -- 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.
