California Personal Injury Blog - Toxic Substances

New Limits On Toxic Substances To Take Effect

Chrissie Cole — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:59:00 GMT

On February 10, two key provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act designed to limit the amount of phthalates (pronounced "thay-lates") and lead in children’s products will take effect.

The new law will limit the total lead content in most children’s products to no more than 600 parts per million in any part. This limit applied only to lead in paint and surface coatings previously.

The law will also limit the amount of six phthalates to 1,000 ppm. Phthalates are used in plastic primarily to make the material soft and flexible. The same chemicals are also banned from children’s products sold in Europe.

The CPSC also announced that it would not enforce the overall testing and certification requirements for one more year in order to give the agency and those affected by the requirements time to sort out compliance issues.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

Two Teens Die of Alcohol Poisoning over Holidays

Todd Slaughter — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:55:28 GMT

Today, the Enterprise Record Searchlight sadly reported the death of an 18-year-old Chico High Student that occurred in the early morning hours of New Years Day. Witnesses reported that he had been drinking earlier that night and retired about 2:30 am. Soon thereafter he was found vomiting and convulsing. He was rushed to the hospital but was declared dead at 5:00 am. Toxicology reports have not yet confirmed the cause of death.

The Holiday Season was marred by another tragic death when a 17-year-old Redding student was found unconscious in the bathroom of her friend's house. The two had been drinking after the parents had apparently gone to bed. Alcohol poisoning was determined to be the cause of death.

These two events in such a short span of time in Northern California reminds us of the importance of communicating the potential lethal nature of so-called "binge drinking" with our adolscents. These young people do not appreciate the intoxicating effects of these beverages, nor how alcohol impaired judgment can lead to dangerous behavior that results in a lethal overdose.

The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism has recently published a Statistical Snapshot of Underage Drinking at www.niaaa.nih.gov . This report shows that alcohol is the preferred drug of teenagers with 3/4's of 12th graders, 2/3's of 10th graders and as many as 2/5's of 8th graders admitting to its use. The study also reports as many as 5000 alcohol-related underage deaths occur each year, the majority arising from vehicular crashes.

Parents and other adults need to be reminded that providing alcohol to a minor is illegal in California and significant criminal penalties can attach.

SAFETY TIPS

The Student Health Services of the University of California at Davis has published guidelines on monitoring and responding to someone potentially suffeing from alcohol poisoning. For ease of reference, these steps are restated here:

Continually monitor the intoxicated person.
Check their breathing, waking them often to be sure they are not unconscious.
DO NOT exercise the person.
DO NOT allow the person to drive a car or ride a bicycle.
DO NOT give the person food, liquid, medicines or drugs to sober them up.
DO NOT give the person a cold shower; the shock of the cold could cause unconsciousness.

REMEMBER: THE ONLY THING THAT CAN SOBER A DRUNK PERSON IS TIME.

How to Tell if Someone Has Alcohol Poisoning

If the person is breathing less than 13 times per minute or stops breathing for periods of eight seconds or more CALL 9-1-1.
If the person is asleep and you are unable to wake him/her up, CALL 9-1-1.
Look at the person's skin. If it is cold, clammy, pale or bluish in color, CALL 9-1-1.
If the person is continually vomiting (repeated, uncontrolled), CALL 9-1-1.

Other Important Factors

Stay with a person who is vomiting. Keep him/her sitting up. If s/he must lie down, keep them on their side with head turned to the side. If person begins to choke, GET HELP IMMEDIATELY, CALL 9-1-1.
Any person that has altered consciousness, slowed respiration, repeated, uncontrolled vomiting, or cool, pale skin is experiencing acute alcohol intoxication (alcohol poisoning). This is a medical emergency and you MUST get help! CALL 9-1-1.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Oroville Man Gets $1.4 Million from Malicious Trucking Firm

Amber Wheat — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:57:28 GMT

We have all heard the adage “Time is Money”. Unfortunately, a Dixon-area trucking firm, B.C. Leaseco took that advice too far. Their trucks are used by Button Transportation for transporting and pumping toxic chemicals into holding tanks. To save time, B.C. Leaseco removed a safety flapper valve on the truck’s pumping system.

This, of course, lead to a serious injury to a driver, Mr. Raymond Kean. On April 29, 2005, the highly corrosive aqueous ammonia liquid fertilizer he was pumping backed up and sprayed onto him. Luckily, a worker was there with a hose and got the chemical off of him immediately. But it wasn’t enough. Mr. Kean had already breathed in the chemical sustaining major damage to his eyes and respiratory system.

For trying to save time and money, B.C. Leasco now has to pay Mr. Kean $1.4 million. And because the jury found that the trucking firm acted with malice, they are subject to punitive damages which will be quantified next month. It doesn’t seem like enough, but at least it’s something. Mr. Kean will have to have both scarred lungs replaced.

In this economy, everyone is trying to save money here and there, but it is never okay to compromise the safety of others in the process. I am proud of the eight-person jury who found both B.C. Leasco and Button Transportation liable. The award is among the largest personal injury verdicts handed down in the Chico area.

Props to Kean’s attorney Mark Valez, and his wife, Karen Valez. Good Job!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat

Fire Fighter's Benefit Leads to E-Coli Outbreak

Todd Slaughter — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:28:48 GMT

OROVILLE, Calif. - A fundraising benefit for the Forest Ranch volunteer fire department has been identified as the source of a recent outbreak of E. coli related illnesses in Butte County. The fundraiser took place on September 6, 2008. There have been 13 reported cases of E. coli related illnesses. Four people have been hospitalized and one young girl had to be air lifted to U.C. Davis Medical Center in Sacramento.

The Chico Enterprise Record reports today that Butte County health officials suspect that the E. coli bacteria was contained in tri-tip meat served at the benefit. The strain is the dangerous E. coli 0157:H7. How the bacteria was introduced to the meat has not been determined.

Between 300 and 400 people attended the fundraiser. If you attended and are having any abdominal disorders, flu-like symptoms, feelings of weakness or malaise, you should be examined immediately. Young children and the elderly are particularly at risk for the serious complications that can accompany ingestion of this bacteria. Be safe and check with your physician.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Ban on Phthalates Takes Effect in California January 2009

Susan Devine — Wed, 07 May 2008 13:28:08 GMT

Last October 2007, California Assemblywoman Fiona Ma introduced legislation to ban the use of phthalates in California. The law was passed by the California Legislature and will take effect in January 2009. Essentially, the new law prohibits any product made for young children that contains more than one-tenth of one percent of phthalates from being made or sold in California.

So what are phthalates? Phthalates (pronounced "thay-lates")are chemicals that are used in plastics to make them soft. They are found in a wide variety of products including children's toys, shower curtains, dashboards . . . you name it. It is almost impossible to figure out what products contain phthalates however, as most manufactures do not divulge this information. Four types of phthalates are known reproductive toxins.

Various scientists and consumer organizations are opposed to the use of this chemical because they believe it can have serious adverse health effects on humans. The European Union agreed and banned the use of the chemical. Industry representatives disagree and argue the amount in most products is so low that there is no health risk. According to Mark Shapiro, who has written about the issue, the EU is sending its rejected toys to the United States, where they are sold to our children.

An excellent overview of the issue is available by clicking on this link to an interview of Mark Shapiro by Terry Gross. I would urge you to listen to the interview and draw your own conclusions.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Susan Devine

Debate Over Alleged Dangers of BPA Ramps Up

Miriam Schimmel — Fri, 02 May 2008 20:07:56 GMT

The latest environmental hot button is the bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical contained in polycarbonate plastics. While BPA has existed since its creation in 1890 and the first evidence of toxicity became known in the 1930s, it jumped to the forefront of health and environmental news when popular outdoor sporting good store, REI, pulled the very popular Nalgene plastic drinking bottles from its stores several months ago. Since then, debate has swirled around the presence of BPA in plastics and its alleged links to endocrine problems such as infertility, lower sperm counts, enlarged prostrate glands, pre-cancerous lesions in breast and prostate tissue, and other symptoms of hormone disruption. Other companies have followed suit. In April, WalMart stopped selling baby bottles that contained BPA and Target is now doing market testing for selling glass baby bottles.

What’s more, BPA is found not only in plastics, but it is also in the linings of metal food and drink cans, and the more acidic the food or drink, the greater the danger since the acid promotes leaching of the chemical into the food product. For example, foods like tomatoes, citrus fruits, soda, and even infant formula, are believed to cause greater leaching of BPA into the product.

How do you know if the bottle you’re drinking from polycarbonate plastic? Simple: look at the bottom of the bottle and check the number in the little recycling triangle. The bottles deemed safer and without the presence of BPA are noted with either a “5” (polypropylene) or “2” (polyethylene).

In animal studies, BPA has been shown to be an endocrine disruptor which mimics the female hormone, estrogen, and is allegedly associated with the above abnormalities, as well as with obesity, insulin resistance, and even behavioral changes in animals. But these are animal studies, and many question their applicability to humans. As stated by Rich Kassel in his December 2007 article on the Gotham Gazette: “Although we can't say with certainty that BPA causes the same problems in humans as it does in the laboratory animals, the weight of scientific evidence should prompt us to err on the side of caution and avoid BPA exposures where possible.” Mr. Kassel is a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). But the danger – or extent of the danger – is still not known. As recently as last month, the National Toxicology Program of the NIH indicated potential risks BPA may have on human development, therefore raising greater concern over its use and potential harm to infants, children, and pregnant women. USA Today reported on April 27, 2008, that the FDA, while not yet raising its safety standards have initiated a review of the safety of baby bottles, formula cans and other products made with BPA.

Despite many who seem to discount the alleged health dangers, Frederick vom Saal, Ph.D., a developmental biologist at the University of Missouri, believes that studies showing BPA is safe are "profoundly flawed and in some cases exhibit outright fraud." In fact, vom Saal published a paper showing that all 11 of the industry-funded studies found no harmful effects from BPA, but 90 percent of the 104 government-funded low-dose studies did find harmful effects.

Human studies might prove the only way to settle the controversy over BPA. However, to date they have been too limited to draw conclusions one way or the other. The National Toxicology Program published a report in February 2007, and is now planning a future evaluation of BPA.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Miriam Schimmel

California Officials Warn About Lead Danger

Shannon Weidemann — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 07:08:17 GMT

Lead is a toxic substance that can cause brain damage, seizures and death. The California Department of Toxic Substance Control is trying to get the message out that lead can even be found in something that seems harmless like jewelry. Jewelry used in piercings can be especially dangerous.

"Body piercings may be particularly vulnerable to poisoning since lead can enter the bloodstream through the pierced areas," said Maureen Gorsen, director of California's Department of Toxic Substances Control in a written statement.
To get the point across, officials of the department were in Berkeley on Thursday at Zebra Tattoo and Body Piercing Shop to spread the word that jewelry must have less than 10 percent lead as of March 1 and less than 6 percent by Aug. 30, 2009.

Stores found to be selling jewelry with a lead content that exceeds the legal limit will be fined up to $2,500 a day for each piece of jewelry.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Shannon Weidemann

$7 Million Awarded to Mesothelioma Victim

Miriam Schimmel — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:22:09 GMT

Asbestos manufacturer, Georgia Pacific Corp., was ordered by a San Francisco jury to pay in excess of $7 million to plaintiffs, Joan and Daniel Mahoney. Plaintiffs sued Georgia Pacific claiming that Mrs. Mahoney developed terminal cancer from exposure to asbestos fibers released during her work in a home remodeling business with her husband.

Her husband testified that she was exposed to the asbestos fibers from using Georgia Pacific joint compound to fill cracks in sheetrock while working their part-time remodeling business in the late 1960s. Mrs. Mahoney was diagnosed with mesothelioma, which is a type of lung cancer believed to be caused primarily by exposure to asbestos fibers.

Plaintiffs asserted that Georgia Pacific continued to manufacture the joint compound well after they knew that asbestos could cause cancer and after other companies had found substitutes.

Defendant's lawyers argued that Mrs. Mahoney's frequency of use and amount of exposure, as well as the type of asbestos fibers in the subject joint compound, were not sufficient to have caused her illness or injuries.

Mrs. Mahoney is living in pain from the disease while also caring for her husband who suffered a stroke last year.

The $7million award represents only Georgia Pacific's assigned responsibility - i.e., 30% of the total $20 million award, which is one of the largest verdicts in an asbestos case. The rest of the award will likely go unpaid.

Georgia Pacific intends to appeal.

Kiesel, Boucher & Larson, LLP has a demonstrated history of success representing individuals who developed mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Miriam Schimmel

British Petroleum to be Fined for Explosion

Lance Rubin — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:23:16 GMT

The 2005 explosion at British Petroleum's Texas City plant killed 15 people and injured more than 170 others. Civil suits filed by the injured people and the families of those killed have been mostly resolved, but BP is being fined for its wrongdoing.

The explosion at the Texas City plant about 40 miles southeast of Houston occurred after a piece of equipment called a blowdown drum overfilled with highly flammable liquid hydrocarbons.
The excess liquid and vapor hydrocarbons then were vented from the drum and ignited as the isomerization unit -- a device that boosts the octane in gasoline -- started up. Alarms and gauges that were supposed to warn of the overfilled equipment did not work properly.

Though the fines that BP must pay could be up to $3.2 billion dollars, BP and prosecutors are trying to cut a deal whereby BP would only pay $50 million in fines. That sounds like a lot, but not when you compare it to the billions of dollars in profit BP makes every year. This sweetheart deal benefits nobody but BP.

Over 4,000 suits were filed against BP for injuries that occurred after the explosion. About half have been resolved to date.

After a refinery explosion or burst pipe, it's not only those who were directly injured that may have claims. Toxic chemicals are often released in a "plume" of hazardous gasses that can affect those who were near the refinery at the time. People who inhale these toxic fumes often develop lung or other respiratory problems, asthma, headaches, watery eyes and other symptoms.

Kiesel Boucher Larson has experience suing refineries for personal injuries that occur after explosions or pipe ruptures. The firm was successful in bringing claims for hundreds of injured people against ARCO, Tosco and Unocal.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Lance Rubin

CA Consumers May Sue Grocery Stores to Enforce State Labeling Laws

Shehnaz Bhujwala — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:19:25 GMT

Last week, California's Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a federal food labeling law does not preclude California citizens from using state consumer laws to enforce an identical state labeling law. The High Court's ruling means consumers may sue grocery store chains to enforce a state law requiring labeling of dyes added to farm-raised salmon.

Do you recall a time in the not-too distant past when salmon was touted by experts as a superfood? With its high Omega-3 fatty acid content and myriad benefits for the heart, brain function and cellular renewal, salmon was the veritable darling of restaurants in the early 2000s, with US restaurants reporting record sales of salmon entrees by customers.

Then came a few cautionary reports about farm-raised salmon, raising public concern over the toxins and dyes found within the fish. Environmental groups also warned about overfishing of wild species and its effects on the environment. More recently, consumers have learned about the excessive mercury levels in many different types of seafood, including salmon; the NRDC and other respected organizations have issued advisories to consumers, asking us to limit our consumption of certain types of seafood, including salmon.

Navigating seafood options has truly become an extraordinary feat, but as always, our choices are better and a little easier with the right information. The U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and California's Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law both require labeling of artificial dyes used in food. This is fantastic consumer protection in theory, but what about practice? Many grocery store chains allegedly fail to label farm-raised salmon to inform consumers of the dyes added to the fish. Clearly, these laws must be adhered to and enforced in order to be effective!

Thankfully, a recent Supreme Court ruling will enable California consumers to sue grocery store chains to enforce compliance under California law. The High Court issued its ruling in San Francisco last week in a case consolidating lawsuits filed by individual consumers in Los Angeles, Alameda and Monterey counties to require grocery chains to label farm-raised salmon as containing dyes. The lawsuits allege that two petrochemical-based dyes, astaxanthin and canthaxanthin, are added to farm-raised salmon to make it appear the same pink color as wild salmon. Without the dyes, plaintiffs' have alleged, the farm-raised salmon would be grayish in color. The lack of pink coloring in farm-raised salmon may also indicate lowered Omega 3 fatty acid content.

The decision overturns prior rulings in which a Los Angeles Superior Court trial judge and the state Court of Appeal in Los Angeles declared the lawsuits violated federal preemption laws. In the opinion, Justice Carlos Moreno wrote that the federal labeling measure explicitly allows states to pass identical state laws. He said there is no indication in the U.S. law that Congress "intended to limit the scope of remedies states might choose to provide for violations of those laws."

Kevin Golden, a lawyer with the Center for Food Safety in San Francisco, told CBS News: "[T]he decision means citizens have a right to know what's in their food and sends a strong message that California citizens can enforce state food safety laws as a matter of state law." The food safety group filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting plaintiffs in the case. Craig Spiegel, a lawyer for the consumer plaintiffs, said his clients don't want to ingest the chemical dyes and said, "People have the right to determine whether to put artificial dyes in their bodies."

Another friend-of-the-court brief supporting the consumer plaintiffs was filed by the Los Angeles city attorney and the district attorneys of 12 counties, including Alameda, Marin, Monterey, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano and Sonoma counties.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Shehnaz Bhujwala