You have proof the staff firefighters were ALL provided with that info and provided respirators? Then why didn't you testify at that trial (since the city apparently had no such proof)?
On Mar 21, 2:19 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > 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.
