Yourlawyer.com (Environment / Toxic Substances News)

Independent Study of Cell Phone - Brain Cancer Link Urgently Needed

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:00:00 -0700

A London conference on children and cancer has resulted in a call for more research into the possible connection between cell phones and brain tumors. According to a report from the U.K. Independent, conference attendees also called on governments adopt the ‘precautionary principle’ – advising phone users to take simple steps to protect themselves and their children from potential, not proven, long term health risks of electromagnetic fields.

Studies done to date are almost evenly split on the question of cell phones and brain cancer. But around three quarters of the studies that have found no health risks have been funded by the mobile phone industry. Joel Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, told the Independent that the balance changes if funding sources are considered.

According to the Independent, researchers attending the Children with Cancer conference said new independent research urgently needs. Among other things, they cited recent findings from the Office of National Statistics that suggest a 50 per cent increase in frontal and temporal lobe tumors between 1999 and 2009. Those areas of the brain are most susceptible to cell phone radiation.

The rate of frontal and temporal brain tumors has risen from two to three per 100,000 people in a decade, the Independent said.

“The public have a right to know this information," Denis Henshaw, Emeritus Professor of Human Radiation Effects at the University of Bristol, told the Independent. "We cannot and do not say there is a causal link between brain cancer and mobile phones, but we are right to consider them as one possible explanation for the increase and the public have the right to expect that this is properly investigated.”

Just last year, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) decided to classify cell phone radiation as possibly carcinogenic to humans after reviewing hundreds of human and animal studies. France has banned phones from primary schools and advertising targeted at children, and companies must provide headsets with every phone, according to the Independent. Israel recently became the latest of a very small, but growing number of governments to introduce legislation requiring all mobile phones and adverts to come with a health alert.

Despite assertions from the cell phone industry that the devices pose no health risks, the Independent points out that in small print, companies issue precautionary advice. For example, “use hands-free operation if available and keep the BlackBerry device at least 0.98in (25mm) from your body (including the abdomen of pregnant women and the lower abdomen of teenagers) when the BlackBerry is turned on and connected to the wireless network... reduce the amount of time spent on calls.”

The iPhone4 guide says: “…when using the iPhone near your body for voice calls or wireless data transmission over a cellular network, keep it at least 5/8inch (15mm) away from the body, and only use carrying cases, belt clips or holders that do not have metal parts and that maintain at least 5/8inch (15mm) separation between iPhone and the body.”

Feres Doctrine Cited in Fed's Motion to Dismiss Camp Lejeune Water Contamination Lawsuits

Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:00:00 -0700

The U.S. Government is once again trying to deprive military personnel of their legal rights by pushing a Court to expand the so-called Feres Doctrine. This time, the Department of Justice is trying to have three lawsuits filed on behalf of former Marines allegedly sickened by contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, dismissed under the Feres Doctrine.

The Feres Doctrine, which originated with a 60-year-old Supreme Court decision, holds that service members may not sue under the Federal Torts Claims Act for injuries “arising out of or sustained incident to military service.” In a motion filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Northern Georgia, the Department of Justice seeks to have three lawsuits currently pending in Camp LeJeune water contamination multidistrict litigation dismissed, citing the Feres Doctrine.

A second motion filed the same day seeks to dismiss all seven lawsuits pending in the multidistrict litigation on the basis of the Federal Tort Claims Act, which prohibits lawsuits based upon the government’s performance or failure to perform a discretionary function or duty. The government - which concedes in both motions that its water disposal methods did play a role in the Camp Lejeune water contamination – argues that because the Plaintiffs' cannot argued that because the plaintiffs cannot point to any statute that imposes duties upon the U.S. to provide safe water, such duties are “discretionary.”

This is not the first time the federal government has tried to expand the Feres Doctrine. In fact, courts have already held that the Doctrine bars military personnel from filing medical malpractice lawsuit over stateside medical care provided by U.S. military facilities. Recently, the government has been trying to convince court that the Feres Doctrine also applies to the families of military men and women.

Advocates for military personnel, who have long lobbied Congress to amend the Federal Tort Claims Act to eliminate the Feres Doctrine, argue that it was only ever intended to cover situations that occur during battle or in the course of armed forces activities.

"The Feres Doctrine was never intended to protect the U.S. Government from lawsuits that have nothing to do with military actions. It most certainly was not intended to protect it from basic duties owed by every U.S. municipality to provide all citizens and residents of the nation with life-sustaining services, including clean water," says William Dubanevich, environmental attorney with Parker Waichman LLP. "The U.S. Government should be disgraced at their attempt to hide from their alleged wrongdoings, knowingly exposing service men and women, their spouses and children and civilians to chemical laden water, by invoking the Feres Doctrine in this case."

Parker Waichman LLP Partners with Ohio Law Firm in Counterclaim Against Duck Creek Energy's Defamation Lawsuit

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 00:00:00 -0700

Parker Waichman LLP has joined with Ohio-based law firm, Climaco, Wilcox, Peca, Tarantino & Garofoli Co., LPA, to file a counterclaim in a defamation lawsuit brought against two Ohio women by Duck Creek Energy, Inc. Duck Creek alleges that the defendants' voicing of concerns regarding the environmental and health impact of their municipality’s use of a road deicing product manufactured by Duck Creek Energy, Inc. constitutes defamation.

In their counterclaim, Tish O'Dell and Michelle Aini allege that Duck Creek's defamation lawsuit is an abuse of process. They further allege that the purpose of the suit was to prevent concerned citizens from exercising their first amendment right of free speech and right to petition their government.

According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Ms. O'Dell and Ms. Aini have campaigned against the use of the deicing product called AquaSalina™, a saline product derived from brine produced at oil and gas wells. According to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources,AquaSalina™ contains benzene, a known human carcinogen, in an amount of 7.04 ppm and the maximum allowable level of benzene in drinking water pursuant to Environmental Protection Agency regulations is 5 ppm.

Duck Creek asserts that the deicer is not made with frack water, but rather salty water that follows during the extraction of gas. The company filed against the women on March 20 in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court alleging claims for defamation, tortious interference with business relations and tortious interference with prospective business relations.

Parker Waichman LLP and its partner firm have pledged to "vigorously defend Ms. O’Dell and Ms. Aini against Duck Creek Energy, Inc.’s unabashed attempt to stifle their clients’ First Amendment Rights to petition their government regard the use and dispersal of AquaSalina™ on municipal roadways and other driving surfaces and the potential environmental and health effects such dispersal may have."

Parker Waichman LLP Tapped for Ohio Fracking Lawsuits

Thu, 15 Mar 2012 00:00:00 -0700

Parker Waichman LLP and the Ohio law firm of Climaco, Wilcox, Peca, Tarantino & Garofoli Co., LPA are representing two Medina County, Ohio couples who allege drilling and fracking activities being performed by Landmark 4 LLC near their property polluted their drinking water wells. Among other things, the couples' are seeking to have Landmark 4 pay for a court-established and supervised medical monitoring program because they allege the pollution from the company’s fracking activities has put them at risk for future health problems.

According to a report from The Cleveland Plain Dealer, Landmark 4 is drilling just 2,500 feet from homes owned by Mark and Sandra Mangan, and William and Stephanie Boggs. In addition to fouling the wells they depend on for drinking water, the couples allege that Landmark 4's drilling and fracking activities have contaminated their houses and land with hazardous gases, chemicals and industrial waste, according to the Plain Dealer.

Both lawsuits allege that Landmark didn't have sufficient cement casing on its wells and was negligent in training staff. Among other things, they claim that they must now pay to bring in drinking water from outside sources, that their homes have lost value, and that they "live in constant fear of future physical illness."

According to a report from the Akron Beacon Journal, the Mangans say they discovered their water well had gone dry on September 29, 2008. At the same time, Landmark 4 was drilling for natural gas at nearby Allardale Park. The couple says they were able to ignite the gas bubbles in the water from their kitchen sink. The Boggs reported similar problems, according to the Beacon.

The couples' lawyers, Cleveland attorney John Climaco, and William Dubanevich of Parker Waichman LLP, told the Plain Dealer that in the next couple of weeks they will meet with a number of other Ohio groups who believe they are suffering from the same type of contamination.

The Mangans and Boggs first contacted Climaco, who tapped Dubanevich to assist with the cases, according to the Plain-Dealer. The Parker Waichman lawyer specializes in water contamination lawsuits.

Fee Stipulations Prompt Some Law Firms to Abandon Zadroga Act Clients

Mon, 12 Mar 2012 00:00:00 -0700

Some Ground Zero first responders are apparently being told to go elsewhere if they need assistance filing Zadroga Act compensation claims from the law firms that made millions in fees representing them in the World Trade Center Toxic Dust Settlement. It seems these law firms aren't interested in representing their once lucrative clients, since they won't be able to collect fees on their Zadroga Act claims.

The Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, which became law in December 2010, reopened the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund for five years to provide payment for job and economic losses for first responders, those trapped in the buildings, and local residents, who suffered illness or injuries related to the toxic dust. Sickened Ground Zero first responders who already received compensation under the World Trade Center Toxic Dust Settlement are also eligible for compensation under the Zadroga Act. However, their lawyers aren't able to collect a 10% fee on Zadroga Act recoveries if they have already billed a client a 25% fee for representation in the toxic dust settlement.

According to a report from The New York Post, one large law firm that advertised heavily for business after the Zadroga Act was passed in 2010 has sent a letter to its World Trade Center Toxic Dust Settlement clients, informing those clients it will no longer represent them. “By preventing us to be paid for our overhead and services, it essentially precludes us from representing the interests of our litigation clients” in Zadroga Act claims, the letter states.

John Feal, an advocate for sickened Ground Zero responders, called the letter “disturbing and appalling,” pointing out that this particular firm made about $200 million representing clients in the toxic dust settlement. Feal told the Post that clients had been repeatedly led to believe that the law firm in question would continue to represent them, and he asserted that the firm has an obligation to represent those clients pro bono.

Not all law firms, however, see the Zadroga Acts fee stipulations as a reason to abandon their Zadroga Act clients. The national law firm of Parker Waichman LLP, for one, has promised to stand by the Ground Zero responders, and will continue to represent them in both World Trade Center Toxic Dust Settlement and Zadroga Act claims.

Physicians Want Pause on Fracking

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 00:00:00 -0800

It's time to put a hold on fracking in the U.S. until its health impacts are better understood, some medical doctors say. The physicians were all attending a conference in Arlington, Virginia that’s the first to examine criteria for studying hydraulic fracturing, a controversial process of natural gas extraction.

"We are leaping before we are looking," said Jerome Paulson, of the Mid-Atlantic Center for Children's Health and the Environment. "Those who are drilling and extracting ... have not done the human health research and ecological studies to assure that the process and chemicals they use are the least hazardous possible.”

Among other things, Paulson called on major natural gas drillers to set up a foundation to fund fracking research. He also advocated for more independent study of fracking public health impacts.

Paulson's group, along with Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for Healthy Energy helped sponsor the conference. According to Reuters, the groups hope to set up a consortium to collect and assess scientific data on the effects of shale development on the public.

Other attendees pushed for a halt of fracking while its public health implications are studied.

"We’ve got to push the pause button, and maybe we’ve got to push the stop button” on fracking, Adam Law, a physician with Weill Cornell Medical College and head of Physicians Scientists and Engineers for Healthy Energy, told Bloomberg News.

In hydraulic fracturing, fracking fluids are injected into the ground at high pressure to shake loose gas and oil deposits. Studies have shown that fracking fluids often contain some hazardous chemicals, including the carcinogen, benzene, and diesel. Opponents of fracking are concerned that this type of natural gas drilling could lead to pollution of vital drinking water sources. According to Bloomberg, anecdotal evidence has tied fracking to water pollution around the country, including Pennsylvania and Wyoming.

Youngstown Fracking Disposal Well Eyed in Swarm of Earthquakes

Tue, 03 Jan 2012 00:00:00 -0800

More earthquakes, this time near Youngstown, Ohio, have been blamed on a fracking-related operation. According to various media reports, 11 earthquakes have occurred since March 2011 near a Youngstown fracking wastewater injection well. The latest, a 4.0 magnitude tremblor was felt Saturday as far away as Toronto, Canada and Morgantown, West Virginia.

The Youngstown injection well, owned by D&L Energy Group, is used to dispose of millions of gallons of brine and other waste liquids produced at natural-gas wells being fracked in Pennsylvania. According to a report from The New York Times, the well reaches a depth about 9,200 feet.

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources first asked that injections at the well be halted on December 30, following a 2.7 magnitude Christmas Eve tremblor that occurred less than 2,000 feet below the well. A moratorium was imposed on injections there after the latest New Years Eve quake. A Depth estimate on that quake should be available this week.

Scientists who have been studying the Youngstown quakes seem fairly certain that the fracking injection well is to blame.

“In our minds, we were already pretty convinced that these events were connected to the well,” John Armbruster, a seismologist with Columbia University's Lamont -Doherty Earth Observatory, told the Times. “Having that many earthquakes fairly close to a well in Ohio, where there aren’t a lot of earthquakes, was suspicious.”

He also warned that the tremblors will likely continue, despite the moratorium on injections.

“This one year of pumping is a pulse that has been pushed into the ground, and it's going to be spreading out for at least a year," he told the New York Daily News.

EPA Cites Fracking for Pavillion, Wyoming Aquifer Pollution

Fri, 09 Dec 2011 00:00:00 -0800

Chemicals in a contaminated aquifer in Pavillion, Wyoming, are "likely associated with gas production practices, including hydraulic fracturing,” according to a statement issued late yesterday by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Environmentalist are hailing the EPA's finding, saying the agency's draft report on the Pavillion aquifer finally provides the evidence they need to push for more regulation of fracking.

“It’s a game-changer. EPA experts and scientists have recognized that there is real contamination, that there is a real scientific basis for linking it to fracking," Amy Mall, senior policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council, told Bloomberg News.

The EPA has been investigating groundwater contamination since 2008, and last year dug two deep monitoring wells to sample water in the aquifer. According to the statement released by the agency yesterday:

"EPA’s analysis of samples taken from the Agency’s deep monitoring wells in the aquifer indicates detection of synthetic chemicals, like glycols and alcohols consistent with gas production and hydraulic fracturing fluids, benzene concentrations well above Safe Drinking Water Act standards and high methane levels. Given the area’s complex geology and the proximity of drinking water wells to ground water contamination, EPA is concerned about the movement of contaminants within the aquifer and the safety of drinking water wells over time."

The agency also said that chemicals detected in the most recent samples from Pavillion area water wells were consistent with those identified in earlier EPA samples and include methane, other petroleum hydrocarbons and other chemical compounds that are consistent with migration from areas of gas production. However, detections in drinking water wells are generally below established health and safety standards, according to the agency.

Calgary-based Encana Corp. (ECA), Canada’s largest natural- gas producer, owns about 150 wells in Pavillion. A spokesperson for the company told Bloomberg he wasn't sure if Encana used any of the chemicals detected in the aquifer in its wells.

According to Bloomberg, Encana has been providing drinking water to about 21 families in Pavillion since August, 2010. Last year, the EPA warned residents not to cook with or drink their well water, and to ventilate homes when they showered.

Oil Fracking Boom Causes Anxiety in North Dakota

Mon, 05 Dec 2011 00:00:00 -0800

An oil fracking boom in western North Dakota is straining the resources of rural communities there, leading many to question whether the benefits accompanying the oil rush are worth the disruption it has brought in its wake.

The fracking boom is centered in the Bakken oil field, one of the biggest energy plays in American history. According to a report from NPR, the industry believes that by employing hydraulic fracturing technologies, as much as 2 billion barrels of oil could be extracted from the field. There are 201 oil drilling rigs already operating in the Bakken field, and before the rush is over, as many as 48,000 new wells could be dug. Drilling could continue in the field for two decades, NPR said.

The boom has meant low unemployment for North Dakota, as well increased revenues flowing to state coffers. But there's also been a down side - pollution, near-constant truck traffic, and a population spike the area's small rural communities are ill-equipped to handle.

"What we have now is the complete industrialization of western North Dakota. To expect a county of 20,000 people to overnight absorb another 20,000 people is ludicrous," Dan Kalil, chairman of the Williams County Commission, recently told NPR.

"They're consuming all of our people looking for jobs. All the employee base is used up. Our roads system is being used up. All our water is being used up. All our sewage systems are being used up. [They're] overwhelmed. All of our leadership time as local public officials is consumed with this."

According to NPR, many western North Dakota residents worry that the area’s traditional farming and ranching culture will not be able to co-exist with oil industry.

"Just about anybody I talk to that's a neighbor — and some of them are getting wealthy — are sick of it. It's never going to be the same in this country, and they're starting to realize that we had it kind of good, even though we weren't No. 1 in oil and we weren't the No. 1 state economically," Rancher Donnie Nelson told NPR. "We had a good life up here."

New Jersey Assembly Committee Approves Fracking Wastewater Bill

Tue, 29 Nov 2011 00:00:00 -0800

A New Jersey State Assembly panel has Ok’d a bill that, if it becomes law, would ban the disposal or storage of hydraulic fracturing wastewater anywhere in the state. While the bill likely won't pass before the end of the Legislature's lame duck session, backers of the bill told NJSpotlight.com that it would still serve to highlight New Jersey's strong opposition to fracking.

Fracking is a controversial method of natural gas extraction in which millions of gallons of chemical-laced fracking fluids are injected into the ground at high pressure to shake loose gas deposits. The process also produces millions of gallons of wastewater that may either be stored in underground injection well, sent to wastewater treatment plants and discharged into rivers and streams, or recycled.

Currently, no fracking is taking place in New Jersey. However, fracking for natural gas is booming in nearby Pennsylvania, and there are plans to bring hydraulic fracturing to the Delaware River Basin in the northeast part of that state. The Basin provides drinking water for millions living in the Northeast, including New Jersey. Earlier this month, the Delaware River Basin Commission postponed adopting a new rule that would lift a moratorium on new drilling operations there, in the wake of vigorous opposition.

The fracking wastewater bill passed the Assembly Environment and Solid Waste Committee by a 4 to 1 vote, with one abstention. Those on the committee who favored the bill were not swayed by industry claims that fracking wastewater poses no environmental or health threats.

“Until such time as we are reasonably convinced of the science of the affluent [wastewater from fracking operations] is safe, we should put a brake on it," said Assemblyman John McKeon (D-Essex), the chairman of the committee, according to NJSpotlight.com.

As passed by the Committee, the bill prohibits wastewater treatment facilities from treating fracking wastes, something environmentalists argued most treatment plants are not equipped to do. According to NJSPotlight.com, the Committee struck a provision dealing with the transportation of wastewater over concerns that would violate federal commerce law.

According to a report from the New Jersey Star-Ledger, the bill has little chance of actually becoming law. The Senate Environment and Energy Committee is scheduled to discuss the bill later this week, but does not plan a vote on it. If it does not get through the full Legislature by the end of the session, proponents will have to reintroduce it and restart the process.

Study Finds Ground Zero First Responders Face Heart Risks

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 00:00:00 -0800

Evidence continues to mount regarding the health problems faced by Ground Zero first responders. According to a new study from Mount Sinai Medical Center, rescue workers who responded within the first two days of the 9/11 terrorist attacks may be at higher risk of suffering atherosclerosis, heart attacks, and strokes.

The new study, which was presented at the annual meeting of the American Heart Association in Orlando, Florida, was conducted by researchers at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine who have been studying cardiovascular health in Ground Zero first responders since 2007. It is the first to use MRI imaging evaluate cardiovascular risk in World Trade Center first responders.

According to a press release issued by the Mount Sinai Medical Center, MRIs of blood vessels of 31 responders found that 19 workers who were exposed to the initial dust cloud had higher blood vessel formation in their artery plaque compared to 12 people with lower exposure. The study also demonstrated impaired vascular reactivity, or dysfunction of the inner lining of blood vessels, in those with higher dust exposure. This dysfunction may accelerate the progression of atherosclerosis. The Mount Sinai team discovered this association in Ground Zero workers independent of other clinical factors.

According to a report from Bloomberg News, the 31 people involved in the study were relatively young and healthy, with an average age of about 46, which makes the findings even more disturbing.

The study was conducted through Mount Sinai Medical Center’s WTC Clinical Center of Excellence at Mount Sinai. The program identifies mental and physical health problems needing timely treatment; evaluates the health of first responders; monitors the development of symptoms; and researches the effects of 9/11 through data collection and analysis. Located at Mount Sinai and several other clinics in the tri-state area, the Clinical Centers of Excellence and Data Centers are the result of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, which provides $4.3 billion in federal funding to serve the health needs of Ground Zero rescue and recovery workers.

Pavillion, Wyoming Water Aquifer Polluted with Fracking Chemical

Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:00:00 -0800

Evidence that fracking has polluted drinking water in Pavillion, Wyoming, continues to grow. According to a new report from ProPublica, monitoring wells dug by the U.S. Environmental Protection (EPA) turned up one chemical used in hydraulic fracturing, as well as other pollutants known to cause cancer.

The data released so far is only raw data, which according to ProPublica, means the EPA has not yet tried to interpret it, including determining a source of the pollution. But there are some intriguing clues that point to fracking. For one thing, the EPA said it had not found contaminants such as nitrates and fertilizers that would have signaled that agricultural activities were to blame. Also, methane gas that saturated the water samples did match the type of gas that is found in the deep layers that are being drilled around Pavillion, not shallower methane that the gas industry says is naturally occurring in water.

The chemicals detected by the EPA monitoring included 2-Butoxyethanol (2-BE), which is widely used in fracking, as well as the carcinogens benzene (at 50 times the level that is considered safe for people) and phenols. Also detected were acetone, toluene, naphthalene and traces of diesel fuel, ProPublica said.

The EPA has been investigating water problems in Pavillion since 2008, but residents there have long complained about black water, water that smells like gasoline, and health problems that they blame on fracking. EnCana, the company doing the drilling has insisted its operations are safe, but last year, the EPA warned Pavillion residents not to drink or cook with the water and to ventilate their homes when they showered after finding some of their wells were polluted.

The EPA says it will release a lengthy draft of the Pavillion findings, including a detailed interpretation of them, later this month, according to ProPublica.

EPA Puts Off Fracking Air Pollution Rules until April

Thu, 27 Oct 2011 00:00:00 -0700

It's going to take a month longer than planned for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to finalize new emission rules for hydraulic fracturing operations. The delay was announced yesterday, after the EPA and environmental groups that sued the agency for new fracking air pollution regulations agreed to a 35-day extension, according to a Reuters report.

A court order had mandated that the rules be finalized by February 28, 2012, but now that won't happen until April 3. The EPA also granted a 30-day extension to the public comment period on the standards to November 30 this year, Reuters said.

An agency spokesperson said the extra time was needed to allow the EPA to review comments.

The proposed rules would apply to emissions from more than 11,400 new oil and gas wells that are fracked annually and another 14,000 that are refracked, plus storage tanks and other equipment. The regulations are aimed at reducing emissions of volatile organic compounds by 95 percent from “fracked” wells and 25 percent industrywide.

According to Reuters, the EPA has been under attack by Republican lawmakers who say its proposed regulations will kill jobs. But the agency claims the rules could save the industry $30 million per year because the technology needed for drillers to come into compliance would also allow them to capture and sell gas that would normally go to waste.

Group Rebuts Latest Cell Phone-Brain Tumor Findings

Mon, 24 Oct 2011 00:00:00 -0700

A group of experts is not impressed with a recent study that appears to give cell phone radiation a clean bill of health when it comes to brain tumors. According to a rebuttal posted on ElectromagneticHealth.org, a U.S.-based health education and advocacy group, the new study is “unsurprising, biased and misleading."

The study, entitled “Use of mobile phones and risk of brain tumors: update of Danish cohort study,” was published online in the British Medical Journal. Its authors claim their findings show no link between long-term use of cell phones and tumors of the brain or central nervous system among 358,403 mostly male cell phone subscribers over the age of 30 during the period 1990-2007. The report is a follow-up to an earlier Danish analysis of the same group that also reported no cell phone-cancer link when the average use of cell phones was less than a decade.

Technical experts from the U.K., U.S., Austria, Sweden and Australia, all of whom who have provided critical reviews on the study to Environmental Health Trust, claim the it is seriously flawed, and was designed to fail to find any link between cell phone radiation and cancer.

“From the way it was set up originally, this deeply flawed study was designed to fail to find an increased risk of brain tumors tied with cell phone use. In order for any study of a relatively rare disease like brain tumors to find a change in risk, millions must be followed for decades," Devra Davis, PhD, MPH, cancer epidemiologist and President of Environmental Health Trust, commented. "By extending an earlier analysis on the same group of cell phone users this new report provides unsurprising, biased and misleading conclusions. It uses no direct information on cell phone use, fails to consider recent and rapidly changing nature of and exposure to microwave radiation from cell phones, cordless phones and other growing sources, and excludes those who would have been the heaviest users—namely more than 300,000 business people in the 1990s who are known to have used phones four times as much as those in this study."

Among other things, the rebuttal raises questions about the individuals chosen to represent the study's control group. According to a report from MedScape, the Danish researchers compared the rates of brain tumors that occurred from 1990 to 2007 in those who began using cell phones after 1987 with the rates in those who were nonsubscribers when the study started. "This understates risk, because most of those who began as 'nonsubscribers' to cell phone service (i.e., the 'controls' at the time the cohort was collected) became cell phone users later on, and accumulated almost as many years (on average per person) as the 'exposed' subscribers. Hence, the comparison to the population not contained in the subscriber sample is a comparison between 2 exposed groups," the group writes. This weakness, they assert, "would dilute any association between [cell-]phone use and cancer risk, and this is important for a negative study like the current one."

The rebuttal also asserts that while the Danish study is being promoted in the media as having not found a link between radiation and cancer, it did, in fact find "a significant increased risk of a very rare form of glioma of the cerebral ventricle based on 8 cases." "Ina study of relatively rare diseases, such as brain tumors, the failure to obtain statistical significance should not be confused with a lack of public health importance." the rebuttal states.

Fracking Eyed in British Columbia Earthquake Spike

Tue, 04 Oct 2011 00:00:00 -0700

A spike in earthquake activity in part of the Canadian province of British Columbia has many worried that hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is behind the tremblors. The concern has prompted the British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission to launch a probe of seismic activity in its Horn River Basin, an area in the far northeast corner of the province.

According to the Calgary Herald, the Horn River Basin is an area of high natural gas activity. Prior to 2009, no earthquake had ever been recorded there. Since 2009, however, 31 earthquakes, ranging from 2.5 to 3.5 in magnitude, have been recorded. The quakes are strong enough to be felt, but have caused no damage.

John Clague, a geologist at Simon Fraser University, told the Calgary Herald that he believes the earthquakes are the result of hydraulic fracturing, either due to fracking itself, or because of the high pressure injection of fracking waste water into underground reservoirs.

The Oil and Gas Commission, however, was quick to point out that it has not definitively linked fracking to any of the quakes.

This isn't a new phenomenon. Recently, Arkansas recorded an increase in earthquakes, and even had the largest tremor recorded in the state in 30 years. Most of the earthquakes - 90 percent of - seen in the state since 2009 have occurred within six kilometers of underground salt water disposal sites associated with fracking operations. Earlier this year, those disposal sites where shut down because of the earthquake fears.

Similar concerns have arisen in West Virginia and Texas in recent years

New York Says No to Drilling in Allegany State Park

Mon, 03 Oct 2011 00:00:00 -0700

With New York set to soon open the state to hydraulic fracturing, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed legislation on Friday protecting Allegany State Park from natural gas and oil exploration and drilling. Allegeny State Park's 65,000 acres constitute the largest tract of intact, unfragmented forest land in the western half of New York State, and include mature second-growth as well as extensive old-growth forests.

New York is poised to adopt regulations that will open about 85 percent of its Marcellus Shale region to high-volume, horizontal fracturing. A fracking moratorium that existed in the state for more than two years officially expired on July 1, and the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) recently issued proposed regulations for the industry. The DEC has scheduled public hearings on the proposed fracking regulations for November 16 in Dansville, November 17 in Binghamton, November 29 in Sheldrake, and November 30 in Manhattan.

On Friday, Governor Cuomo signed two bills into law that would effectively put Allegany State Park off limits to oil and natural gas drilling. According to The Buffalo News, the legislation holds that any oil and gas claim not actively used within the past 20 years shall be considered "extinguished" and the rights reverted to the state. The second law gives the state parks department broad new powers over any effort to explore or drill in the park. Both pieces of legislation had broad support, even among those who want to expand oil and natural gas drilling in New York.

According to The Buffalo News, Allegany State Park is unique in New York in that private ownership of subsurface oil and gas rights were still maintained nearly 100 years ago when the state acquired the land. Two years ago, Getzville-based by U.S. Energy Development Corp. announced plans to drill there, claiming it had subsurface mineral rights beneath 2,800 acres in the Red House section of the park. The adoption of the new legislation should put an end to those plans.

Imprelis Judge to Hear Evidence Preservation Arguments Today

Tue, 20 Sep 2011 00:00:00 -0700

A federal judge in Delaware will hear arguments today over a proposed injunction that would require DuPont to notify property owners and landscapers of the appropriate way to preserve evidence of damage caused by its now-banned Imprelis herbicide. The injunction is being sought by plaintiffs’ attorneys in a consolidated case involving six Imprelis lawsuits.

In August, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) formally banned sales of Imprelis after data provided by DuPont confirmed that certain coniferous trees, including Norway spruce, white pine and balsam fir, were susceptible to being damaged or killed by the application of Imprelis. DuPont later sent customers a letter with information about its Imprelis recall. Among other things, the letter stated that DuPont has established partnerships with several tree companies contracted to help customers with tree removal and disposal procedures.

The plaintiffs' motion, filed on August 22, states that "evidence that may be necessary to prove which trees it injured and killed, and the amount of damages that resulted, is dissipating with each passing day and may be unwittingly destroyed as trees are replaced." According to the Associated Press, they argue that the proposed injunction is needed to prevent victims of Imprelis tree damage from unknowingly disposing of important evidence. DuPont, however, is seeking to block the injunction, saying it shouldn't assist in preserving evidence that might be used against it in Imprelis lawsuits.

Meanwhile, an Imprelis ban has been issued in the state of Indiana that prevents lawn care professionals from distributing the tree-killing herbicide. Under the Indiana order, lawn care professionals may only return Imprelis to DuPont.

"This is a way to plug any holes, because the EPA order technically applied only to DuPont," Dave Scott, pesticide administrator with the Indiana State Chemists Office, told TheIndyChannel.com.

Fort Detrick Covering Up Cancer Cluster, Grieving Father Alleges

Mon, 19 Sep 2011 00:00:00 -0700

Two groups - the Kristen Renee Foundation and Fighting for Frederick - claim they have been in contact with more than 40 current and former employees at Fort Detrick Army Base near Frederick, Maryland, who have provided evidence that soil and water in and around the base was contaminated by toxic chemicals. The groups are urging people who blame their cancer on Fort Detrick to file claims against the U.S. Army under the federal Tort Claims Act.

Randy White, the founder of the two groups, established them after his 30-year-old daughter died from cancer in 2008. His ex-wife was diagnosed with renal cancer in 2010 and later died. He blames their deaths on toxic contamination from Fort Detrick.

For decades Fort Detrick was the site for the Army’s biological weapons program. According to The Washington Post, Fort Detrick’s Area B was used for Agent Orange testing, as well as for buried disposal of a number of contaminants including drums containing organic solvents such as tetrachloroethene (PCE) and trichloroethene (TCE), all of which have been associated with cancers like leukemia and lymphoma. In April 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) added Fort Detrick Area B Groundwater to the National Priority List (NPL) based on PCE and TCE detections in offsite drinking wells.

At a news conference last week, White accused the U.S. Army of covering up health risks associated with Fort Detrick.

“Fort Detrick needs to have full disclosure,” White said during a news conference at the W Hotel in Washington last week. “They’re lying. They lie. They cover up and they need to be open about what they’re doing.” “Fort Detrick needs to have full disclosure,” White said during a news conference at the W Hotel in Washington last week. “They’re lying. They lie. They cover up and they need to be open about what they’re doing.”

White, who is being represented by Parker Waichman LLP, plans to file a mass tort lawsuit against Fort Detrick under the federal Tort Claims Act. He urged others to do the same.

"We are bringing all of the victims together and we are asking them to follow along and file suit against Fort Detrick," White said at a news conference last week.

According to ABC News2.com, White said a year-long investigation by the Kristen Renee Foundation and Fighting for Frederick found a startling number of people with cancer living in that area. There are 22 on Kemp Lane, 42 on Rocky Springs, and 60 on Shookstown Road.

At least 80 people have filed claims with the Army so far, saying Fort Detrick contamination contributed to their cancer.

The Maryland Health Department has not found any link between Fort Detrick and cancer. The Army says it is investigating, and denies a cover-up.

Federal Chinese Drywall Remediation Guidelines Revised

Fri, 16 Sep 2011 00:00:00 -0700

New Chinese drywall remediation guidelines issued yesterday by the U.S Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development no longer call for the removal of gas service piping or glass bulb fire sprinkler heads. However, the guidelines continue to recommend that homeowners replace all problem drywall; smoke and carbon monoxide alarms; electrical distribution components, including receptacles; switches and circuit breakers (but not necessarily wiring); and fusible-type fire sprinkler heads.

According to the CPSC, tests just completed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) found no corrosion on smoke alarms, fire sprinkler heads, or gas service piping provided no evidence of a substantial product safety hazard, as defined by the Consumer Product Safety Act. Corrosion of gas service piping was uniform and minimal compared to the thickness of pipes. Some smoke alarms and fire sprinkler heads showed small changes in performance due to accelerated corrosion, but these changes were generally within accepted industry standards.

The agencies do, however recommend the replacement of all fusible-type fire sprinkler heads, because one fusible-type sprinkler head sample that had been exposed to accelerate corrosion did not activate when tested.

In addition, CPSC staff continues to recommend that homeowners replace smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms as part of remediation.

The CPSC says it believes these new guidelines will enable homeowners to comprehensively remediate those homes containing defective Chinese drywall with potentially lower costs than by following the previous remediation guidance.

Going forward, the CPSC said its staff continues to work with voluntary standards organizations to develop improved standards for drywall to prevent this type of problem from reemerging. The standard setting body ASTM International Inc. is also moving to require that all drywall sheets are marked with the manufacturer’s name or a unique identification code, the manufacture date, and the source materials, the agency said.

CPSC believes there may be as many as 6,300 U.S. homes with problem drywall. To date, the CPSC says it has received 3,905 reports from residents of 42 states and the District of Columbia, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico, who believe their health symptoms or the corrosion of certain metal components in their homes are related to problem drywall.

Lancet Study Sees Higher Cancer Risk among 9/11 Firefighters

Tue, 06 Sep 2011 00:00:00 -0700

New York City firefighters exposed to toxic dust and smoke at Ground Zero in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks face a higher risk of developing any type cancer, according to an important new study. The lead author of study, which appears in a special issue of The Lancet, told Reuters that the research ''clearly shows World Trade Center exposure" caused the spike in cancer rates among the Ground Zero first responders.

According to the Lancet report, firefighters responding to the World Trade Center disaster would have been exposed to potentially hazardous aerosolized dust consisting of pulverized cement, glass fibers, asbestos, lead, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls, and polychlorinated furans and dioxins produced as combustion byproducts from the collapsed and burning buildings. They were also exposed to potentially toxic fumes -- initially from burning jet fuel and, during the 10-month recovery effort, from diesel smoke emitted by heavy equipment.

The study found that male firefighters exposed to Ground Zero faced a 19 percent higher risk of getting cancer of all kinds than colleagues who were not exposed. The study looked at nearly 10,000 male firefighters, and limited the cancers it examined to those that developed within seven years of exposure. The researchers adjusted for factors such as age and prior cancer diagnosis that could have skewed results.

The study's results "support the need to continue monitoring firefighters and others who responded to the World Trade Center disaster or participated in recovery and cleanup at the site,’ said Dr. David Prezant of the Fire Department of the City of New York, the report’s lead author. "This monitoring should include cancer screening and efforts to prevent cancer from developing in exposed individuals."

Like other studies, this research did not see an increase risk of lung cancer among exposed firefighters. This did not surprise the researchers, however, as it can many years for lung cancer to develop after toxic exposure.

To date, only a handful of smaller studies have shown increased rates of cancer among Ground Zero first rsponders. The Lancet study was the first effort to assess the incidence of cancer among an entire cohort exposed to dust and fumes at Ground Zero.

The studies findings come just two months after the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) determined that Ground Zero responders suffering from cancer would not be eligible for compensation under the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. NIOSH made the decision to exclude cancer because, "Insufficient evidence exists at this time to propose a rule to add cancer, or a certain type of cancer." Of course, cancer can take decades to develop, so it’s not surprising that concrete evidence has been slow to surface.

The Lancet study authors said they expect their new study will feature prominently in the next NIOSH WTC cancer report scheduled for 2012. According to a Reuters report, Dr. Prezant said Dr. John Howard, director of NIOSH, was aware of the study's findings.

According to a report from The Wall Street Journal, James Melius of the New York State Laborers' Health Fund, who reviewed the research, acknowledged that the new study has limitations. But he pointed out that it could 40 years or more after exposure for cancer to appear, by which time many Ground Zero responders will have already died.

“We ought to give responders the benefit of the doubt,'' he said.

Imprelis Lawyers Headed to Court Over Evidence Preservation

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0700

Lawyers for Imprelis victims want a court to require that DuPont notify property owners and landscapers of the appropriate way to preseve evidence of damage caused by the banned herbicide. A group of attorneys in six combined Imprelis lawsuits filed a motion with the U.S. District Court in Delaware seeking a preliminary injunction against DuPont. A hearing on the motion is scheduled for September 20.

DuPont announced on August 4 that it would suspend sales of Imprelis, and said that it was working on a refund and return program for its customers. A week later, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) formally banned sales ofImprelis after data provided by DuPont confirmed that certain coniferous trees, including Norway spruce, white pine and balsam fir, were susceptible to being damaged or killed by the application of Imprelis.

Just last week, DuPont sent customers a letter with information about its Imprelis recall. Among other things, the letter stated that DuPont has established partnerships with several tree companies contracted to help customers with tree removal and disposal procedures.

The plaintiffs' motion was filed on August 22. It states that "evidence that may be necessary to prove which trees it injured and killed, and the amount of damages that resulted, is dissipating with each passing day and may be unwittingly destroyed as trees are replaced."

Earthquakes Raise Fracking Concerns

Mon, 29 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0700

An earthquake in Colorado last week has helped reignite fears that activities associated with hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, could increase seismic activity. The 5.3 magnitude tremblor occurred last Monday southwest of Trinidad in southern Colorado, an area where fracking is being used to tap shallow coal-bed methane gas reserves.

According to the Colorado Independent, the earthquake was considered rare but "consistent with the region and historic activity in the area," so for now, no one is blaming fracking. But a September 2001 swarm of earthquakes in the same area prompted an investigation by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) that was unable to rule out fracking activity as a possible cause.

There are two ways fracking operations can cause earthquakes. Fracking itself, which involves injecting a cocktail of water, sands and chemicals into the earth at high pressure, can result in small tremblors.

"You're not going to get a really big earthquake," Mark Zoback, a Stanford University geophysics professor who has studied the issue, told the Chronicle "To get a big earthquake, you'd need a really big fault. When these oil fields are being developed, the companies are very aware of where the faults are. They don't want to do something stupid."

Injecting waste into underground fracking disposal pits may cause bigger quakes.

"It's a little bit like an air hockey table," Cliff Frohlich, associate director of the Institute for Geophysics at the University of Texas, Austin, and a member of a team that studied earthquakes in Dallas that occurred near such disposal pits, told the Chronicle. "You pump air into an air hockey table so that when you push something, it will slip."

This isn't a new phenomenon. Recently, Arkansas has recorded an increase in earthquakes, and even had the largest tremor recorded in the state in 30 years. Most of the earthquakes - 90 percent of - seen in the state since 2009 have occurred within six kilometers of underground salt water disposal sites associated with fracking operations. Earlier this year, those disposal sites where shut down because of the earthquake fears.

Similar concerns have arisen in West Virginia and Texas in recent years. Even last week's 5.8 earthquake that was centered in Virginia and shook much of the East Coast fueled speculation that fracking activities might be to blame. However, according to a report in The San Francisco Chronicle, the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy says no fracking activities are underway near the quakes epicenter.

Property Owners, Landscapers Wait for Imprelis Answers from Dupont

Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0700

It's been three weeks since DuPont announced that it would recall Imprelis, an herbicide that has been blamed for the deaths of hundreds of evergreen trees. However, Imprelis customers are still waiting to learn the details of the recall, and property owners who have lost trees to the herbicide have not been given information on what DuPont plans to do to compensate them.

DuPont announced on August 4 that it would suspend sales of Imprelis, and said that it was working on a refund and return program for its customers. A week later, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) formally banned sales ofImprelis after data provided by DuPont confirmed that certain coniferous trees, including Norway spruce, white pine and balsam fir, were susceptible to being damaged or killed by the application of Imprelis.

Now, customers and property owners are waiting on DuPont's next steps. Landscapers are worried that if DuPont doesn't make things right with them or their clients, it will cost them dearly.

"It's horrible," Terry Wagenschutz of Wagenschutz Lawn Spraying told the Detroit Free Press. "It's an absolute nightmare."

Even if his insurance pays for his Imprelis-damaged trees, the Michigan landscaper said his deductibles could total well over $100,000.

Property owners who have lost trees to Imprelis say they expect to be made whole. Jerry Richart, of Troy, Michigan, told the Free Press wants comparable trees for the 40-foot evergreens that are dying on his property, and he wants everything paid for, including the removal of the dead trees and planting of new ones. He also said he doesn't trust DuPont, and would rather give his lawn care service the chance to make things right.

A DuPont spokesperson told the Free Press that the company is working out the return and refund program that it hopes to start soon. She also said the company has sent out 20 arborist companies to evaluate "our customers' problems." However, major questions, including how trees will be valued and replace, still remain unanswered.

FDA Still Dragging Feet on Triclosan

Mon, 22 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0700

Nearly 30 years since it first proposed regulating triclosan, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) is still far from reaching a decision. The agency was expected to release the findings of its triclosan review several months ago, but according to a New York Times report, is delaying the release until 2012.

Triclosan, developed 40 years ago as a surgical scrub, can now be found in a host of consumer products, from hand wash, to toothpaste, to cutting boards. It can also be found in human beings: A survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found the chemical present in the urine of 75 percent of Americans over the age of 5.

Dial Complete Antibacterial Foaming Antibacterial Handwash is among the many consumer products that contain triclosan.   The makers of that handwash claim that triclosan enables it to kill more germs than similar products. But some consumers have taken issue with those claims, alleging in lawsuits that they are not backed by any serious scientific studies. Those lawsuits also allege that triclosan has been linked to antibiotic resistance. Just last week, 10 Dial Complete lawsuits filed in federal courts around the country were consolidated in a multidistrict litigation and transferred to U.S. District Court, District of New Hampshire.

Consumer advocates say fears about triclosan are well-founded. According to the Times, several studies have indicated that the chemical may alter hormone regulation in laboratory animals or cause antibiotic resistance. Last year, Representative Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) pressured the FDA to write regulations for antiseptic products like hand soap, including those that use triclosan, and pushed the agency to ban its use in consumer products. That same year, the National Resources Defense Council sued the FDA, in an attempt to force it to finish its triclosan review.

But it appears the agency has not been moved by that pressure. Since it first proposed regulating triclosan in 1972, it has done little other than issue statements that indicate triclosan is not all its promoters claim it should be.   In 1978, for example, the FDA proposed eliminating triclosan as an active ingredient in hospital scrubs and in hand soaps, and it issued a similar proposal in 1994. But on both occassions, nothing happened.

In 2005, the FDA concluded that antimicrobial soaps and sanitizers do not reduce the risk of illness and infection in the home. Then, in an April 8, 2010 “Consumer Update”, the FDA stated that it does not have evidence that triclosan-containing antibacterial soaps and body washes provide any extra health benefit over soap and water alone.

In the 2010 Consumer Update, the FDA said it would communicate its findings by spring of 2011.   So far, it's said nothing. According to a report on the National Resources Defense Council's staff blog, Switchboard, the FDA recently edited its triclosan page on its website to say that it would communicate its findings in the winter, 2012 (here’s a link to the page last year, and here’s a link to the webpage from today.)

The agency has not given any reason for the delay, Switchboard said, or provided any type of update about its ongoing triclosan review.

Frackers Face More Scrutiny in New York

Fri, 19 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0700

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is taking on the hydraulic fracturing industry again, apparently opening a probe into methods the drillers use to value their natural gas discoveries. According to a report from The New York Times, Schneiderman subpoenaed Range Resources Corp., Goodrich Petroleum Corp. and Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, as part of the probe. He has also expanded an investigation into a fourth, Chesapeake Energy, and has asked it to respond to similar questions.

The subpoenas seek information on formulas used by the firms to determine how long their wells can be expected to produce gas without new fracking. Schneiderman also wants to know how the companies calculate their natural gas reserves and how they represent their profitability to investors.

Schneiderman is pursing his investigation under a New York State securities law known as the Martin Act, which allows prosecution without proving intent to defraud. In June, Schneiderman also made use of the Martin Act when he subpoenaed five natural gas drillers as part of a probe into whether disclosures they made to investors regarding the environmental risks from fracking were accurate.

The New York Times is reporting that this latest probe was launched in response to a series of articles it published that raised questions about the accuracy of information natural gas drilling firms were giving investors regarding the true costs and profitability of natural gas extraction. New York has a lot at stake here, as it has more than $45 million of its pension money invested with the four companies being targeted by Schneiderman.

Schneiderman is also involved in a legal battle over fracking in the Delaware River Basin, having recently filed a lawsuit against 10 federal agencies to stop the adoption of new drilling regulations that would allow the controversial drilling method in the environmentally sensitive watershed. The Basin supplies New York City with much of its drinking water, and Schneiderman's lawsuit is seeking to force the Delaware River Basin Commission to conduct a full environmental review before any new regulations are adopted.

DuPont Tried to Shift Blame for Imprelis Tree Deaths, Attorney Charges

Thu, 18 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0700

DuPont waited too long to take responsibility for tree deaths blamed on its now-banned Imprelis herbicide, according to a partner with Parker Waichman LLP. The firm is currently representing plaintiffs in about a dozen Imprelis lawsuits, and plans to file more in the near future.

“They tried to shift the blame and said ‘It’s not us.’ The landscapers didn’t follow directions or they mixed it with other herbicides, or they tried to blame it on the weather," Jordan Chaikin of Parker Waichman LLP told Biocycle. "That’s nonsense. Manufacturers are always shifting blame and looking to point a finger.”

Chaikin also denied DuPont's assertion that its August 4 decision to pull Imprelis from the market was voluntary, pointing out that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had already threatened to issue an Imprelis stop-sale order in a letter to DuPont dated August 3.

Parker Waichman LLP has filed Imprelis lawsuits on behalf of client groups in Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Iowa, and Minnesota and plans to file additional actions in Wisconsin, Illinois, Kansas and South Dakota. According to Chaikin, the epicenter o the catastrophe appears to be the state of Ohio.

"We have one Ohio homeowner who planted a tree 50 years ago when her daughter was born. It sits in middle of her property and is dying because of Imprelis,” he said.

DuPont and the EPA had both begun Imprelis investigations earlier this summer, after receiving reports that evergreen trees had been damaged, and in some cases killed, after Imprelis was applied to nearby lawns. Imprelis, which DuPont began marketing last year, was supposed to be an environmentally safe solution for controlling broadleaf weeds. It was not sold over the counter, but was only available to licensed landscapers.

Reported Imprelis side effects include twisting and curling, possibly followed by browning of needles, shoots and branch tips. While most damage reports involve coniferous trees, such as white pine and Norway spruce, injury has also been seen on other ornamental plants and deciduous trees, according to one alert issued by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.

At least 18 Imprelis lawsuits are pending in federal courts in Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah and Wisconsin. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation announced earlier this week that it will convene a hearing on September to consider consolidation of Imprelis lawsuits to a single case.

Imprelis Treated Grass Clippings Not Fit to Mulch

Wed, 17 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0700

Gardeners who compost might want to make sure any grass clippings they mulch haven't been treated with DuPont's Imprelis herbicide. According to a warning from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, such grass clippings may contain enough Imprelis to cause damage to trees.

“Homeowners should not spread Imprelis-treated grass clippings near trees, other ornamental plants or gardens," Pesticide and Fertilizer Division Director Greg Buzicky said in a posting on the Department's website. “If clippings are not left on the lawn, they can be disposed of in the trash, but only where allowed by local yard waste regulations. Clippings should not be added to garden compost or collected for composting facilities.”

Last Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officially issued DuPont a Stop Sale, Use or Removal Order (SSURO) after data provided by DuPont confirmed that certain coniferous trees, including Norway spruce, white pine and balsam fir, were susceptible to being damaged or killed by the application of Imprelis. A week prior, DuPont had announced it would voluntarily stop selling Imprelis, and establish a recall and return program for its customers.

DuPont and the EPA had both begun Imprelis investigations earlier this summer, after receiving reports that evergreen trees had been damaged, and in some cases killed, after Imprelis was applied to nearby lawns. Reported symptoms included twisting and curling, possibly followed by browning of needles, shoots and branch tips. While most damage reports involve coniferous trees, such as white pine and Norway spruce, injury has also been seen on other ornamental plants and deciduous trees, according to the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.

Imprelis, which DuPont began marketing last year, was supposed to be an environmentally safe solution for controlling broadleaf weeds. It was not sold over the counter, but was only available to licensed landscapers.

At least 18 Imprelis lawsuits are pending in federal courts in Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah and Wisconsin. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation announced yesterday that it will convene a hearing on September to consider consolidation of Imprelis lawsuits to a single case.

Hearing to Consolidate Imprelis Lawsuits Scheduled for September

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0700

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has scheduled a hearing for September 27 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to consider consolidating all federal Imprelis tree death and damage lawsuits in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in one federal court. There are currently 18 Imprelis lawsuits pending against DuPont in federal courts through the U.S.

Imprelis lawsuits claim that DuPont's herbicide caused extensive and permanent damage to plaintiffs’ trees, lawns and gardens. They accuse DuPont of, among other things, negligence and fraud in the marketing of Imprelis, and seek various damages, including the cost of replacing trees allegedly killed by Imprelis.

Of the 18 Imprelis lawsuits currently pending in federal courts, five were filed in Delaware; two each were filed in the states of Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota and Ohio; and one each was brought Kansas, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Utah and Wisconsin.

Three plaintiffs - two from Delaware and one from Ohio - moved for the consolidation. The Delaware plaintiffs are seeking to have the litigation transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Luanne Miller, lead plaintiff in the Ohio lawsuit, has requested consolidation in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. One of the Delaware plaintiffs requesting consolidation has also suggested the District of New Jersey as an alternative venue.

An MDL allows lawsuits associated with a particular product to be coordinated under one judge for pretrial litigation to avoid duplicative discovery, inconsistent rulings and to conserve the resources of the parties, witnesses and the court. When lawsuits are consolidated as a multidistrict litigation, each retains its own identity. If the multidistrict litigation process does not resolve the cases, they are transferred back to the court where they originated for trial.

DuPont marketed Imprelis, which was only available to licensed turf management professionals, as an environmentally friendly way to eliminate broadleaf weeds. Approved last October, DuPont's promises induced landscapers throughout the country to switch to Imprelis this spring. According to The Columbus Dispatch, industry sources estimate that in central Ohio, for example, 75 percent of landscapers and golf courses switched to Imprelis.

By Memorial Day, however, reports began to crop up around the country of tree damage that followed Imprelis application. In June, several extension services issued warnings about Imprelis. By August 4, DuPont announced it would voluntarily stop selling Imprelis, and was working on a refund and return program for its customers. Last Thursday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a stop sale order for the herbicide, after data provided by DuPont confirmed that certain coniferous trees, including Norway spruce, white pine and balsam fir, were susceptible to being damaged or killed by the application of Imprelis.

Parker Waichman LLP, LLP, one of the law firms representing Ohio plaintiff Luanne Miller, has filed a dozen Imprelis lawsuits against DuPont in federal courts across the Midwest, and more are pending. A partner with the firm recently told the New York Times that damages from the Imprelis litigation could exceed a billion dollars.

"You are talking about a lot of people who have dead trees 40 to 50 feet tall, 30 or 50 years old that each cost $20,000 or $25,000 to replace," Jordan Chaikin said.

Morgantown Loses in Bid to Ban Fracking

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0700

An energy company has prevailed in its quest to kill Morgantown, West Virginia's fracking ban. Last Friday, Monongalia County Circuit Judge Susan Tucker ruled that a ban on hydraulic fracturing within a mile of Morgantown city limits was preempted by state law.

As we reported previously, the Morgantown fracking ban was enacted earlier this spring, when it was learned Northeast Natural Energy had begun operating wells just upriver from the area’s drinking water intake on the Monongahela River. Northeast Natural Energy originally sought a temporary injunction to prevent the ordinance from taking effect. However, that was denied.

Northeast Natural Energy then filed suit, claiming, among other things, that Morgantown City Council overstepped it's authority in passing the fracking ban, and violated the rights of private property owners.

On Friday, Judge Tucker agreed with Northeast Natural Energy, ruling that the ordinance was preempted.

"Governmental entities are required to supplement and complement the efforts of the state by coordinating their programs with those of the state," she wrote. Where there's a conflict, the state Supreme Court has ruled, "The municipal ordinance must yield."

Morgantown officials have not said if they will appeal, though Judge Tucker's order is being reviewed.

"If we did appeal it, I'm not sure exactly how that would end up," Mayor Jim Manilla told WV Metro News. Manilla pointed out that if the appeal is not successful, Morgantown could end up having to pay millions of dollars to Northeast.

Imprelis Ban Raises Questions about EPA Oversight

Mon, 15 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0700

DuPont's Imprelis herbicide, blamed for causing damage and death to thousands of evergreen trees in Minnesota, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Wisconsin, was finally banned by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last week. While the ban is good news, many are wondering how a product so damaging to trees was ever allowed on the market to begin with.

DuPont marketed Imprelis, which was only available to licensed turf management professionals, as an environmentally friendly way to eliminate broadleaf weeds. Approved last October, DuPont's promises induced landscapers throughout the country to switch to Imprelis this spring. According to The Columbus Dispatch, industry sources estimate that in central Ohio, for example, 75 percent of landscapers and golf courses switched to Imprelis.

By Memorial Day, reports began to crop up around the country of tree damage that followed Imprelis application. In June, several extension services issued warnings about Imprelis. The damage was extensive, with Ohio landscaper Mark Wehinger telling the Dispatch that Imprelis e was lawn-care industry's Hurricane Katrina. Wehinger, a partner in the Dublin, Ohio lawn-care company Environmental Management, estimated that the herbicide has killed more than 1,000 of his customers' trees.

Most landscapers were pretty sure the problems they were seeing - yellowing, browning and curling o new growth, as well as massive needle loss - was the result of their use of Imprelis.

"The only thing that changed this year was the Imprelis, so we're confident that is the sole reason we have some of the damage,” Devon Stanley, maintenance-division manager of Benchmark Landscape Construction in Plain City, Ohio, told the Dispatch.

Extension services reached similar conclusions, with Ohio State University issuing a bulletin that stating that "a common denominator of this particular damage on these samples appears to be ... Imprelis."

By August 4, DuPont announced it would voluntarily stop selling Imprelis, and was working on a refund and return program for its customers. Last Thursday, the EPA issued a stop sale order for the herbicide, after data provided by DuPont confirmed that certain coniferous trees, including Norway spruce, white pine and balsam fir, were susceptible to being damaged or killed by the application of Imprelis.

So how did something so destructive make it to the market in the first place? According to a report from “Insects in the City,” a blog published by the Texas A&M Extension service, products like Imprelis are tested on a variety of tree species and under a variety of conditions, but not on all species under all conditions. As a result, problems with these types of products often don’t become apparent until they have been on the market for months.

According to a report published by The New York Times last month, the EPA reviewed Imprelis for 23 months before granting it conditional approval, meaning that all of the safety data was not yet in but the agency judged Imprelis to be a good product. DuPont says Imprelis went through about 400 trials, including tests on conifers, and performed without problem.

Unfortunately, it's not unusual for such testing to miss big problems. “Testing for all products continues even after a pesticide has been registered and sold,” according to "Insects in the City." To some extent, “real world testing is always going to be more comprehensive and rigorous than the pre-registration screening process.”

Australian Farmers in Fracking Fight

Mon, 15 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0700

Farmers in Queensland and New South Wales, Australia are waging a war against hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, by vowing to "lock out" mining companies that want to access coal seam gas on their land. In addition to posting signs promising to "lock out" the drillers, these farmers have promised to go further, even to the point of standing in front of fracking equipment to keep it from reaching their property.

At least 2,000 Australian farmers are participating in the "Lock the Gate" campaign. Their fracking opposition is seen as unusual, given their usual pro-business, conservative stance on most issues. But according to Sky News, they fear that fracking for coal seam gas will poison underground water, contaminate good agricultural soil and cause serious health problems.

Coal seam gas is methane gas found that is found in pores and ‘cleats' of coal seams, often trapped there by water. Proponents of coal seam gas purport that this methane, when burnt, produces about 40 percent less greenhouse gas than coal. But un-burnt it is at least 20 times more polluting than carbon dioxide.

According to Sky News, environmentalists in Australia says drilling leases in Queensland and New South Wales already cover an area ten times the size of Tasmania. They want a ban on fracking until all health, social and environmental risks have been fully explored.

But there is a lot of pressure on Australian politicians to let frackers have their way. The government of Queensland, for example, estimates that taxes and royalties from just one coal seam gas export project could earn it as much as $1 billion per year. In tough economic times like these, it's hard to ignore that promise.

Members of the Lock the Gate Alliance face an uphill battle in the fight against frackers. If Australian politicians don’t see things there way, several coal seam gas companies have already said they will take farmers to court to force their way onto their lands.

Federal Fracking Report Fails to Ease Environmental Fears

Fri, 12 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0700

A federal panel says hydraulic fracturing can be done safely if certain safeguards, such as full disclosure of fracking chemicals and air and water quality monitoring, are put in place. The panel’s report, however, is being greeted with skepticism by environmentalists, and seems to have done little to ease their concerns about this form of natural gas drilling.

The Shale Gas Production Subcommittee was convened by Secretary of Energy Steven Chu earlier this year It was directed by President Obama to study fracking, a controversial method of oil and natural gas extraction that involves the injection of a cocktail of water, sand and chemicals into the ground at high pressure to shake loose gas and oil deposits.

A report released by the panel on Thursday endorsed fracking for natural gas as a way to meet U.S. energy needs, but at the same time acknowledged that there are concerns with the drilling method, including: methane and chemical pollution of groundwater; air pollution; disruption of communities; and cumulative impacts on the environment

"To say that there are not serious environmental impacts is not sustainable. When you realize we may have several thousand such wells drilled in the U.S. over the next 20 years, it’s important to get this right.” John Deutch, chair of the subcommittee, told The Wall Street Journal.

The report recommends actions that it purports will allow fracking to be done safely, including:

•    stronger air quality regulations,
•    disclosure of air pollutants and the types of chemicals used in the process,
•    a study of water quality issues,
•    the creation of industry best practices,
•    more public education to help people understand the process.

The panel envisions a combination of industry cooperation and some beefed up federal regulations to make all that happen. However, it did not recommend any specific regulations.

The energy industry is using the report as an excuse to dismiss environmentalists' reservations about fracking. For their part, environmentalists aren't impressed with the report.

An official with the Environmental Working Group told The Wall Street Journal that the report fell short of what it felt was needed. In the past, the group criticized the panel's seven members as having too-close ties to the energy industry. In particular, they expressed qualms that Deutch served on the board at Cheniere Energy Inc. and previously on the board at Schlumberger Ltd., which is active in fracking.

Others are worried that the panel’s seeming endorsement of fracking will undercut results of a major study of its impact by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency due next year, according to The Christian Science Monitor.

“The committee appears to be performing advocacy-based science and seems to have already concluded that hydraulic fracturing is safe,” scientists at 22 universities in 13 states said in a letter sent to Energy Secretary Chu one day before the report’s release. “We believe that the best science should be done first to determine whether increased unconventional natural gas production is sufficiently safe – from the individual water well to climate impact and that policy should follow.”

Judge Gives Feds Go Ahead to Seek Dismissal of New York Fracking Lawsuit

Thu, 11 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0700

The U.S government can move to have New York State’s lawsuit over hydraulic fracturing in the Delaware River Basin dismissed, a federal judge said yesterday. The lawsuit, which was filed by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, names 10 federal agencies as defendants, and seeks a wider review of fracking in the environmentally sensitive region before the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) approves regulations that would allow the controversial drilling method there.

"There are constitutional issues,” U.S. District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis, of Brooklyn, said. “It’s regulatory. It’s statutory. It’s quite a mix of arguments.”

A separate lawsuit brought by the Delaware Riverkeeper Network that makes the same claims against U.S, according to Bloomberg. Garaufis also said it was likely that its claim will be consolidated with the New York lawsuit.

Damascus Citizens for Sustainability, an environmental group based across the border in Pennsylvania, also plans to file a similar lawsuit in the same court, Bloomberg said.

Once the DRBC adopts new drilling regulations, it is estimated that as many as in 15,000 to 18,000 natural gas wells - most of which would use fracking - could be drilled within the Basin, which sets atop the Marcellus shale. Fracking in the Basin is controversial, however, because of fears that such drilling will endanger the waterways that supply 17 million East Coast residents with water. Many New York City residents are especially concerned, as the Basin covers 58 percent of the land area of its watershed west of the Hudson River. New York City has spent almost $1.5 billion to protect the drinking water it obtains from the watershed.

In May, Schneiderman filed suit against the federal government in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn, claiming that the National Environmental Policy Act required a full environmental review prior to the adoption of any new drilling regulations. According to Bloomberg, two of federal agencies named as defendants - the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - support his claims and have urged a wider review of fracking in the Basin.

Industry trade groups, however, oppose the lawsuit, stating in court documents that litigation might shut down gas development in the Delaware River Basin “for many years to come.” The American Petroleum Institute, the Independent Petroleum Association of America and the US Oil & Gas Association said they asked to intervene in the case because their members will be economically impacted by the outcome, Bloomberg said.

EPA Orders Imprelis Ban

Thu, 11 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0700

There is more bad news today for DuPont on the Imprelis front. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has formally banned sales of the allegedly tree-killing herbicide, issuing DuPont a Stop Sale, Use or Removal Order (SSURO) yesterday.

The SSURO was issued after data provided by DuPont confirmed that certain coniferous trees, including Norway spruce, white pine and balsam fir, were susceptible to being damaged or killed by the application of Imprelis, the EPA said in a statement on its website. The order was issued under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which requires the registration of pesticide products and pesticide-production facilities, and the proper labeling of pesticides.

The EPA said it is investigating whether Imprelis tree death and damage is the result of product misuse, inadequate warnings and use directions on the product’s label, persistence in soil and plant material, uptake of the product through the root systems and absorbed into the plant tissue, environmental factors, potential runoff issues or other possible causes. It's not known if Imprelis will be allowed to return to market once the EPA finishes its review.

DuPont brought Imprelis to market last fall, touting it as an "innovative solution to control a wide spectrum of broadleaf weeds,” including dandelion, clover and wild violet. But shortly after Memorial Day, landscapers and property owners throughout the country began complaining that trees on their lawns were damaged or had died following Imprelis applications. By June, both DuPont and the EPA were investigating the problem.

On August 4, DuPont voluntarily halted the sale of Imprelis and announced it would soon establish return and refund program for its customers.

In the past several weeks, scores of property owners have filed lawsuits to obtain compensation for the trees they allegedly lost to Imprelis. The national law firm of Parker Waichman LLP, LLP has filed a dozen Imprelis lawsuits against DuPont in federal courts across the Midwest, and more are pending.

“We expect at the end of the day there’s going to be more than a billion dollars of damage or as much as several billion,” Jordan Chaikin, a partner in the firm, told The New York Times. “You are talking about a lot of people who have dead trees 40 to 50 feet tall, 30 or 50 years old that each cost $20,000 or $25,000 to replace.”

Industry-Supported Fracking Damage Fund Proposed in New York

Tue, 09 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0700

If New York State is going to allow high-volume, horizontal hydraulic fracturing, Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli says it must come up with a way to ensure natural gas drillers pay for any environmental damage that results from fracking. According to The New York Times, DiNapoli is proposing legislation today that, if enacted, would set up an industry-supported fund to do just that.

The fund would save private property owners the trouble of taking drillers to court should their property be fouled by fracking or other types of drilling. Among other things, the proposed law would also give state regulators the power to order immediate remediation after a drilling accident, and take control of cleaning up contaminated sites.

According to the Times, DiNapoli's proposal was inspired by a fund New York established in the 1970s to pay for oil spill damages.

“Given the great concern that many have, if we do go down this road, to provide this level of protection, I think, makes a lot of sense,” DiNapoli told The New York Times.

DiNapoli's proposal comes just a little over a month since New York's moratorium on high-volume, horizontal fracking expired on July 1. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) recommended that fracking be allowed on private lands in much of the state. If the DEC's recommendation is adopted by the state, approximately 85 percent of the Marcellus Shale in New York would be accessible to natural gas extraction via fracking.

Governor Andrew Cuomo is expected to allow fracking to commence in the state in the near future.

Ohio Fracking Memo Endorses Deception in Soliciting Leases

Mon, 08 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0700

The discovery of a mysterious memo has added a new wrinkle to the fracking debate in Ohio. The memo, which was discovered in the driveway of a Greene County resident, appears to direct natural gas and oil drilling industry landmen to mislead property owners in order to induce them to sign a lease that would allow hydraulic fracturing on their property.

The memo is entitled “Talking Points for Selling Oil and Gas Lease Rights” and is marked “Proprietary — Do Not Disclose.” Among other things, the memo directs the reader to avoid mention of water contamination, radioactivity, and loss of property value in their discussion with landowners.

The big mystery is the author of the memo. West Bay Exploration Co., the only driller soliciting for leases in Greene County, denies the memo belongs to it or the landman it has working the area. The Ohio Attorney General has been unable to find evidence it belonged to West Bay, or that the memo was used to mislead landowners, the Courier-Journal said.

Environmentalists are pointing the finger at natural gas drillers, possibly a rival to West Bay. The industry has even charged the memo could be a fabrication by fracking opponents who want to discredit natural gas and oil drilling.

Green County is located in Ohio's Utica and Marcellus shale regions. So far, according to the Courier-Journal, no Greene County residents have signed leases with West Bay or any other energy company.

Decades-Old EPA Report Blamed Fracking for Tainted West Virginia Water Well

Thu, 04 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0700

A 1987 report from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) detailed a case of well water contamination in West Virginia that the agency said was the result of a nearby hydraulic fracturing operation. The discovery of the report has prompted one environmental group to question industry assertions that the fracking process has never been associated with an instance of drinking water contamination.

A year long investigation conducted by the Environmental Working Group and Earth Justice uncovered the EPA report, which detailed the 1984 incident. According to a statement from the groups, evidence in the West Virginia case was consistent with pollution from hydraulic fracturing, though it is possible that another stage of the drilling process caused the problem.

According to the 1987 EPA report, fracking gel used by Kaiser Exploration and Mining Company to frack a natural gas well turned up in water well located on the property of James Parsons in Jackson County, West Virginia. The natural gas well, which was drilled to a depth of more than 4,000 feet, was located about 600 feet from Parsons' well. The Environmental Working Group and Earth Justice found that several abandoned natural gas wells located near the fractured well in West Virginia could have served as conduits that allowed the gel to migrate into the water well.

"During the fracturing process,” EPA investigators wrote in the 1987 report, which focused on the handling of natural gas, oil and geothermal wastes generally, “fractures can be produced, allowing migration of native brine, fracturing fluid and hydrocarbons from the oil or gas well to a nearby water well. When this happens, the water well can be permanently damaged and a new well must be drilled or an alternative source of drinking water found.”

The Environmental Working Group's investigation also uncovered a document submitted in 1987 by the industry group, American Petroleum Institute that appeared to agree with the EPA finding but suggested that it was not typical.

“When you add up the gel in the water, the presence of abandoned wells and the documented ability of drilling fluids to migrate through these wells into underground water supplies, there is a lot of evidence that EPA got it right and that this was indeed a case of hydraulic fracturing contamination of groundwater,” Dusty Horwitt, the Environmental Working Group’s senior oil and gas analyst and author of the group's report on the EPA’s finding, said in a statement. “Now it’s up to EPA to pick up where it left off 25 years ago and determine the true risks of fracking so that our drinking water can be protected.”

DuPont Discussing Imprelis Recall with EPA

Thu, 04 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0700

DuPont is in talks with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to stop sales and recall its Imprelis herbicide. Imprelis, which DuPont brought to market last fall, has been blamed for the deaths of landscape trees, especially Norway spruce, white pines and other conifers.

Imprelis tree damage is marked by curling and browning, especially on new growth. In scores of cases, mature landscape trees have died following Imprelis applications. According to DuPont, Imprelis problems appear to be concentrated in Minnesota, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Wisconsin.

DuPont has already been named in several Imprelis class action lawsuits by property owners who have lost trees to the herbicide. Parker Waichman LLP and its partner firms have already filed three such Imprelis class action lawsuits, two in Iowa and one in Ohio. The lawsuits seek, among other things, compensation from DuPont to replace damaged trees.

This afternoon, DuPont issued a statement saying it was consulting with the EPA to "determine the appropriate path forward including the most effective way to implement our recommendation of a voluntary suspension of sale of DuPont Imprelis herbicide, and a product return and refund program. “ The company also acknowledged that it had received letters from the EPA urging it to release thousands of confidential documents on Imprelis’ safety and effectiveness.

According to a report from the Detroit Free Press, DuPont is set to meet with the EPA next week, and the agency has confirmed it is preparing a “stop sale order” to take Imprelis off the market.

Imprelis received a conditional approval from the EPA last October. DuPont marketed the herbicide, which was only sold to professional landscapers, as "the most scientifically advanced turf herbicide in over 40 years.” The company promised Imprelis was an environmentally safe way to eliminate broadleaf weeds, including dandelion, clover, plantains, wild violet and ground ivy. But around Memorial Day, complaints about tree damage and death following Imprelis applications began to sprout up around the country. By June, several extension services issued alerts about Imprelis, and DuPont acknowledged receiving complaints.

The EPA began an expedited review of Imprelis last month. Last week, DuPont said that based on its own review, “we have observed tree injuries associated with Imprelis, primarily on Norway spruce and white pine trees.”

U.S. Wants New York Fracking Lawsuit Dismissed

Wed, 03 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0700

Insisting that the New York attorney general has no business suing it over possible hydraulic fracturing in the Delaware River Basin, the U.S. government says it will ask a federal judge to dismiss the state's claim. The fracking lawsuit, filed by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in May, seeks to force the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) to conduct an environmental impact study from adopting new drilling regulations that would allow fracking in the Basin.

Schneiderman claims such a study is required by the National Environmental Policy Act. He alleges fracking in the Basin, which supplies water to 17 million people living in East Coast cities, including Philadelphia and New York City, puts vital sources of drinking water at risk. The lawsuit cites “hundreds of violations of water pollution laws," associated with fracking in nearby Pennsylvania, including the April 19 blowout of a natural-gas well owned by Chesapeake Energy Corp. in Bradford County. That accident spewed thousands of gallons of fracking fluid onto nearby land, some of which made it into a tributary of a creek that eventually flows into the Susquehanna River.

But in a letter to U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis in Brooklyn, New York, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sandra Levy asserts the New York lawsuit has no standing because it is barred by sovereign immunity, a legal principle that protects the U.S. from lawsuits unless the federal government specifically waives immunity. She further asserts that the claim is not "ripe" because the DRBC hasn't finished its review of proposed new drilling regulations. Finally she calls the lawsuit’s claim that New York will be harmed by fracking in the Basin "conjectural and hypothetical, and not actual or imminent."

Once the DRBC does adopt new drilling regulations, it is estimated that between 15,000 to 18,000 natural gas wells could be drilled there, most of which are expected to be developed by fracking.

Fracking Could be Costly for New York Roads

Tue, 02 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0700

New York State has been promised huge economic benefits if gas drilling via hydraulic fracturing is allowed to commence in much of the state. But fracking opponents continue to warn that the environmental consequences of opening up New York's Marcellus shale to fracking could outweigh most of those supposed benefits. Now, one environmental group is warning that fracking consequences could also include road damage from truck traffic that could cost New York State and its municipalities millions of dollars to repair.

Somehow, the Chenango, Delaware and Otsego Gas Drilling Opposition obtained a leaked copy of a draft report entitled "Transportation impacts of potential Marcellus Shale Gas Development,” which was repaired by the New York Department of Transportation. The report, dated June 22, warns that heavy truck traffic from Marcellus shale drilling will take a heavy toll on New York road:

"It will be necessary to reconstruct hundreds of miles of roads and scores of bridges and undertake safety and operational improvements in many areas" where Marcellus Shale drilling is expected to take place, the report states.

The report estimates that natural gas drilling in the Marcellus shale could increase heavy truck traffic on local roads by as much as 1.5 million more trips per year. Repairing road damage caused by those trucks could cost state and local municipalities between $121 million to $222 million PER YEAR.

This will put a huge strain on state and local governments, the report warns: "there is no mechanism in place allowing state and local governments to absorb these additional transportation costs without major impacts to other programs and other municipalities in the state.”

The posting of the DOT draft report comes just a little over a month since the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) recommended that fracking be allowed on private lands in New York. If the DEC's recommendation is adopted by the state, approximately 85 percent of the Marcellus Shale in New York would be accessible to natural gas extraction via fracking.

For its part, the DEC is already disavowing the DOT's draft report, stating it is based on obsolete data. A spokesperson for the DEC told Press Connects that the department's final regulations or fracking, which it is currently working on, will include mitigation measures associated with road damage.

Cancer Victim Advocates Dispute Fort Detrick Cancer Cluster Study Findings

Thu, 28 Jul 2011 00:00:00 -0700

Advocates for cancer victims who live or have lived around Fort Detrick, Maryland are disputing a statistical study that failed to find evidence of a cancer cluster around the U.S. Army base. They argue that analysis is flawed and does not represent the number of cancer cases found near Fort Detrick.

Various Maryland health departments conducted a review of cases in the Maryland Cancer Registry from 1992 to 2008, and found a slightly lower incidence rate for the disease compared to the average either countywide or statewide, reported 9News Now.

“It doesn’t look a lot different, in other words, from Frederick County as a whole or the state of Maryland as a whole,” said Dr. Clifford Mitchell of the state health department.

Mitchell used 10 census tracks near the fort when he conducted the study.

But activists say those numbers don't add up.

“Right now we have 1,100 victims who have had or have cancer within a four-mile radius of Fort Detrick,” said a representative of the Kristen Renee Foundation, which represents the cancer victims’ families in the area.

Randy White started the Foundation after his daughter died of a brain tumor in 2009.

The Foundation previously conducted an independent study from the community to determine how many families, if any, were affected by the contaminated areas. The study asked participants how long they lived in Fredrick, whether there were any cases of cancer in their household and if their family had a history of cancer.

The data revealed 228 people who lived within miles of Fort Detrick developed cancer.

From 1944 to 1963, the U.S. Army tested Agent Orange at Fort Detrick. Area B of Fort Detrick was also used as a landfill and in 1992, the state and county health officials reported that the residential wells in the area were contaminated.

Since the 1990s, the military has spent over $46 million in efforts to clean the toxic waste, reported the Fredrick News-Post.

According to Rachel Pisani of the Foundation, there are 36 houses surrounding Area B and “33 of the 36 have or have had cancer.”

This information is “most likely not” included in Dr. Mitchell’s data, said Piscani.

Fort Detrick officials have performed an archival search for information regarding the use of Agent Orange and other toxic chemicals, and concluded there was no link to the contaminated Area B and the reported cancer cases.

Parker Waichman LLP Files Second Imprelis Class Action Lawsuit

Thu, 28 Jul 2011 00:00:00 -0700

Parker Waichman LLP and its partner firms have filed a second class action lawsuit claiming DuPont's Imprelis herbicide caused damage to landscape trees. The Imprelis lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division, and seeks damages from DuPont on behalf of any property owner who sustained damage as a result of Imprelis.

The lead plaintiffs in the Imprelis class action lawsuit are Daryl and Mary Ann Haley. They are seeking injunctive relief barring DuPont from continued sale of Imprelis, and compensatory and other damages including the cost of replacing trees damaged by Imprelis.

The Haley's lawsuit alleges that Imprelis is a "frighteningly effective tree killer," and that "thousands of trees have been reported as being infected by Imprelis, and tens of thousands more reports are expected in the future.” The Haley's lawsuit charges DuPont with, among other things, negligence and breach of implied warranty.

Just yesterday, DuPont issued a letter to turf management professionals acknowledging its own investigation had found tree injuries associated with Imprelis, primarily on Norway spruce and white pine trees. The problems are concentrated in Minnesota, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Wisconsin, the letter said. The letter promised to work with recipients to "promptly and fairly resolve problems associated with our product," and announced the launch of the Imprelis-Facts website, as well as a toll-free number for information that will go online next week.

Imprelis, which is sold exclusively to licensed landscapers, was only brought to market last October. It is used to eliminate broadleaf weeds, and was touted by DuPont as being environmentally safe and an "innovative solution to control a wide spectrum of broadleaf weeds." However, by Memorial Day, turf professionals around the country began reporting damaged and dying trees on lawns were Imprelis was sprayed. By June, extension services in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Michigan had issued alerts about Imprelis, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was preparing to launch an "expedited" review of Imprelis.

Just last week, Parker Waichman LLP and it partner firms filed their first Imprelis lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division on behalf of an Ohio property owner. The group expects to file additional Imprelis tree poisoning claims in the near future.

Cancer-Stricken World Trade Center First Responders Denied Zadroga Act Benefits

Wed, 27 Jul 2011 00:00:00 -0700

August 2, 2011: Newsday.com reports the latest anger on Long Island over the Zadroga decision to not compensate cancer-stricken 9/11 first responders stating that scientific evidence is insufficient to support the connection between Ground Zero workers and the disease.

Some sick Ground Zero workers are being left out again. This time they are being excluded from benefits under the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act because they have cancer, after a federal agency determined that there is not enough scientific evidence to prove a link between toxic dust at Ground Zero and cancer.

Many of these cancer-stricken Ground Zero workers were also left out of the World Trade Center Toxic Dust Settlement that was approved last year. About 325 first responders were deemed not eligible for that settlement because they missed the deadline to file a lawsuit in the litigation - in some cases by just days. The early April 2010 deadline was not announced until June of that year, exempting some who were impacted by rescue and recovery activities and who had filed cases as negotiations for the cut-off were ongoing.

Advocates for these workers, including Parker Waichman LLP, which represents 13 first responders in this position, had believed the Zadroga Act would provide them much needed health care. But while it will cover asthma, interstitial lung disease and mental illnesses such as post-traumatic stress disorder, cancer is being excluded for now. Yesterday, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) announced that WTC Administrator John Howard, M.D., had determined that cancers will not yet be considered covered conditions under the Zadroga Act.

“These limitations in the exposure assessment literature make scientific analysis of a causal association between exposure and health effects, such as cancer, quite challenging,” the report said.

NIOSH will revisit the decision next year, when it conducts its next review. But for then, Ground Zero cancer victims who lack health insurance, and/or are not eligible for the World Trade Center Toxic Dust Settlement will have to go without.

“This is not just about compensation, this is also about healthcare,” Matthew McCauley, an attorney with Parker Waichman LLP said. “All of the people who are now barred from obtaining any compensation from the settlement are also barred from getting healthcare from Zadroga. It’s a triple whammy. Not only can’t you work, but now you have developed cancer and you have no access to healthcare to treat that cancer.”

McCauley also found it ironic that the NIOSH report cited a lack off scientific evidence.

"The decision essentially said there is not enough scientific data to analyze these cases and this is due to the Bush administration's refusal to fund these studies,” McCauley said. "The Obama administration reversed this and I'm cautiously optimistic that in time, when additional studies can be conducted, that we can overturn this decision."

New York Post Fracking Editorial Leaves Out Key Facts

Tue, 26 Jul 2011 00:00:00 -0700

The New York Post really likes fracking, and its editors really want Andrew Cuomo, the Governor of New York, to lift restrictions on the controversial natural gas drilling process as quickly as possible. In its editorial "Just the Fracks” the Post praises the "notable economic rewards that may be possible from fracking."

The Post is really excited about a study recently released by Penn State University researchers that touted the purported economic benefits of the ongoing hydraulic fracturing boom in Pennsylvania. According to the Post editorial, the study found that Pennsylvania “will reap a $12.8 billion bonanza this year from drilling. The spike in activity has helped create nearly 140,000 jobs, both inside and outside the industry."

According to the Post, New York's southern tier could also experience that kind of economic boom if Cuomo allows fracking in the Marcellus shale to commence.

But according to a report from Media Matters, the Post left out one important fact about the Penn State study - it was paid for by a drilling industry group, the Marcellus Shale Coalition. That's something the Post editorial writers should have known, as been mentioned by numerous media outlets reporting on the study, and was disclosed by the researchers themselves.

Media Matters also disclosed some interesting facts about two of the Penn State researchers - Timothy J. Considine and Robert Watson. It seems they wrote two other studies on fracking that were also funded by the Marcellus shale coalition. In 2009, they were taken to task by the dean of Penn State's College of Earth and Mineral Sciences for failing to disclose the coalitions funding in an initial version of that report.

The New York Post editorial also left out that interesting little fact.

DuPont Hit with another Imprelis Lawsuit

Wed, 20 Jul 2011 00:00:00 -0700

DuPont's Imprelis headaches continue, with another lawsuit claiming the new and highly-touted herbicide is killing and damaging trees. The lawsuit, which was brought by a Pennsylvania homeowner and Indiana golf course company, was filed Monday in federal court in Delaware. The complaint is the second to be filed over Imprelis in less than a week, but it likely won't be the last.

According to The New York Times, this latest Imprelis lawsuit accuses DuPont of being negligent or reckless in bringing Imprelis to market, and claims the company failed to warn Imprelis users that the herbicide the potential to migrate through the soil and come into contact with root systems. It asserts Imprelis is killing trees, shrubs and ornamental shrubs across the country and seeks compensation for all property damage suffered as a result, as well as an injunction barring DuPont from selling the product and unspecified punitive damages.

This filing came just days after the Polo Fields Golf & Country Club LLC of Southfield, Michigan filed a similar Imprelis lawsuit, also in Delaware. That lawsuit alleges Imprelis caused "the loss of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of mature pine and spruce trees," and the nationwide damage "is mounting with no end in sight."

DuPont has acknowledged receiving reports of Imprelis tree death, and says it is investigating. In a letter to turf managers dated June 17, the company told Imprelis users to avoid spraying it near Norway Spruce or White Pines, or in places where the product might drift toward such trees or run off toward their roots.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which granted Imprelis conditional approval last October, also said recently it would launch an "expedited review" of the herbicide. The EPA held a teleconference on July 6 discussing suspected incidents of tree death and damage in Minnesota, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, Wisconsin and West Virginia that could be associated with Imprelis.

EPA Set to Investigate Imprelis

Mon, 18 Jul 2011 00:00:00 -0700

DuPont and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are investigating the herbicide Imprelis, after landscapers in several states reported incidents of tree death and damage that followed application of the weed killer. Last month, DuPont warned professional gardeners and landscapers not to spray Imprelis near Norway Spruce or White Pine trees, and at least one class action lawsuit has been filed claiming the herbicide is responsible for killing thousands of trees throughout the country.

According to the Detroit Free Press, the EPA held a teleconference on July 6 discussing suspected incidents of tree death and damage in Minnesota, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, Wisconsin and West Virginia that could be associated with Imprelis. Incident reports are being collected from those states, and other states have been notified of the problem, the EPA said. The agency is expected to launch an "expedited review" soon, the Free Press said, and could end up ordering label changes for Imprelis, require additional testing, or order the herbicide off the market.

Imprelis, which is only sold to landscapers and professional gardeners, only came on the market in 2010. Claims that it was environmentally safer than previous products soon prompted many commercial turf managers to switch to Imprelis, and the product is now commonly used on golf courses and lawns.

But sometime around Memorial Day, Imprelis users began complaining that Imprelis was killing and damage evergreen trees, especially Norway Spruce and White Pine. By June, extensions services in several had issued alerts about the reports. An alert issued by the Michigan University Extension Service warned that: "Damaged trees have symptoms consistent with growth regulator type herbicides. Injury includes curling and twisting of new growth." According to the extension service, universities "from Kansas to Pennsylvania have reported injury to conifers associated with Imprelis application to turf and lawns.'

In a letter dated June 17, DuPont acknowledge the reports and said it was investigating the problem. In addition to warning Imprelis users to avoid spraying it near Norway Spruce or White Pines, the letter also said to avoid spraying it in places where the product might drift toward such trees or run off toward their roots.

Just last week, members of the Michigan Polo Fields Golf & Country Club LLC of Southfield, Michigan filed suit against DuPont alleges that Imprelis caused "the loss of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of mature pine and spruce trees," and the nationwide damage "is mounting with no end in sight." The lawsuit, filed in Delaware federal court, seeks class actions status on behalf of all users and purchasers of the herbicide.

San Francisco Board of Supervisors to Vote on New Cell Phone Radiation Ordinance

Wed, 13 Jul 2011 00:00:00 -0700

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors will try one more time to make sure consumers in that city have easy access to information about cell phone radiation. The Board is scheduled to vote on another version of a cell phone radiation ordinance, months after an industry group filed suit and scared the city into abandoning an earlier measure.

According to BayCitizen.org, the new version would require retailers to display an information placard informing customers that cell phones emit radiation. Retailers would also have to provide tip sheets on how to reduce exposure, BayCitizen.org said.

The original ordinance, which passed by a 10-1 vote, would have mandated that stores selling the devices post the specific absorption rates (SAR) – the levels at which radio frequencies penetrate body tissue – near cell phones in at least 11-point type. It was never enacted because of a lawsuit filed by industry group CTIA, which claimed the ordinance was over-reaching and infringed on the industry's First Amendment.

The Board of Supervisors will vote on the new ordinance on July 19 and July 26, and it's expected to pass easily, according to BayCitizen.org. The city's Mayor would have 10 days to sign it.

Despite the fact that this new version is watered-down compared to what the Board originally approved, CTIA is still opposed. The group argues that it places an undue burden on retailers, and continues to insist the link between cell phones and cancer is unsubstantiated.

Fracking Wastewater Killed Plant Life in Study

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:00:00 -0700

Fracking wastewater can be deadly to plant life according to a new study published in the Journal of Environmental Quality.   The study found that dousing an area of forest with flowback water from hydraulic fracturing kills groundcover immediately, and trees within a couple of years.

Representatives of the natural gas industry have disputed this new study because of the large volume of fracking flowback water that was used. But according to a report from the Harrisburg Patriot-News, drilling accidents in Pennsylvania have allowed large quantities of fracking fluid to spill onto the ground, resulting in vegetation die-offs similar to what was seen in this new study.   Truck accidents that resulted in fracking wastewater spills also caused damage to vegetation in that state.

This new study was conducted by scientist Mary Beth Adams, who doused a quarter-acre plot of land in West Virginia's Fernow Experimental Forest (located within the Monongahela National Forest) with 75,000 gallons of fracking fluid.   Shockingly, drillers in West Virginia are permitted to dispose of fracking fluid in precisely that way, though other states - like Pennsylvania - forbid it.

According to Adams, testing found that surface soil concentrations of sodium and chloride increased 50-fold as a result of the fracking fluids. Though the contaminants leached out of the soil within two years, by then the damage was done. Groundcover exposed to the fracking water died almost immediately, while leaves on trees began to turn brown after two days. Within two years, more than half of 150 trees in the area died.

Adams blamed the vegetation die-off on the high salt content of the fracking fluid.

Environmentalists Slam Cuomo over New York Fracking Decision

Fri, 08 Jul 2011 00:00:00 -0700

Environmental groups are up in arms over New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's decision to lift a ban on high-volume, horizontal hydraulic fracturing in the state. Recently, a 49-member coalition of environmental groups, including Food & Water Watch, Frack Action, Democracy for America, Friends of the Earth, Credo Action, Center for Heath Environment and Justice, Catskill Mountainkeeper and Citizen Action New York, sent a letter to Cuomo's office demanding a state-wide ban on fracking.

“Fracked natural gas is a dirty fuel that will make global warming worse,” Alex Moore, dirty fuels campaigner, Friends of the Earth, said in a statement issued by the coalition. “Governor Cuomo should put clean water and a safe environment ahead of gas company profits.”

The New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) put a hold on issuing drilling permits for fracking in 2008 while it studied the environmental impacts of fracking. The DEC finished its environmental review and issued its draft recommendations July 1, calling for fracking to be allowed in most of New York. Its recommendations, however, also call for high-volume fracking to be prohibited:

•    In the New York City and Syracuse watersheds, including a buffer zone;
•    Within primary aquifers and within 500 feet of their boundaries;
•    On state-owned land including parks, forest areas and wildlife management areas.

A moratorium on fracking imposed by former Governor David Patterson expired on July 1. While the Democratic-controlled State Assembly did vote to extend the moratorium for another year, a similar bill has gained no traction in the Senate. Cuomo's decision not to extend the fracking moratorium means that roughly 85 percent of the Marcellus Shale in New York will be accessible to natural gas extraction once the DEC finalizes its rules and begins issuing permits.

Needless to say, environmentalists aren't impressed.

“By banning fracking in the New York City and Syracuse watersheds, the Cuomo administration is clearly demonstrating awareness about the potential for serious hazard to the citizens of those municipalities,” said David Braun, co-founder of United for Action. “ It is unacceptable however, that they create a double standard and leave the rest of the good citizens of New York State completely vulnerable to serious toxic threat, and protect only a portion of the population. Why are upstate citizens any less important?”  

The coalition maintains that allowing fracking to flourish in some areas will breed catastrophic accidents that could affect all New York residents. The groups point out that the DEC's fracking plan will allow thousands of new wells to be drilled across New York, using billions of gallons of fresh water, and industrializing rural communities across the state.

Expert Calls Industry-Funded Cell Phone Study "Propaganda"

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 00:00:00 -0700

An expert on cell phone radiation is slamming an industry-funded study that claims there is no link between the radiation emitted by the devices and cancer. The study, conducted by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, claims to have debunked a recent World Health Organization (WHO) finding that cell phone radiation is a possible human carcinogen.

Among other things, Dr. Devra Davis scoffed at the Commission’s assertion that funding from industry groups like the Mobile Manufacturers' Forum didn't influence its findings. Dr. Davis claims the study's conclusions are wrong and misleading, and says the study is propaganda.

The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection published its study in Environmental Health Perspectives. It proclaims the "trend in the accumulating evidence is increasingly against the hypothesis that mobile phone use can cause brain tumors in adults." As evidence, the researchers point to "Studies from several countries have shown no indication of increases in brain tumor incidence up to 20 years after the introduction of mobile phones and 10 years after their use became widespread."

But Dr. Davis, who runs the group Environmental Health Trust, told the Toronto Sun that the group's conclusions don't pass muster.

"The fact that we don't have an epidemic (of brain cancer) right now is of course what we expect," she said. "It is actually preposterous to imply or they really say that because don't have any increase now, there's no problem. It's really very sad."

Dr. Davis insisted that cell phone radiation constitutes a major public health issue, and said governments should not wait to take action until there are "enough sick people or dead bodies."

Environmental Law | Toxic Tort Attorneys. Toxic Injury Cases. Benzene Leukemia Lawsuits, Claims.

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 00:00:00 -0700

Environmental Lawsuit Litigation | Toxic Tort, Toxic Substances Lawyer, Attorney, Class Action Lawsuit

Parker Waichman LLP is a leading personal injury law firm with experienced Environmental Lawsuits Litigation | Toxic Tort, Toxic Substances, Class Action Lawsuit attorneys on staff. We are currently evaluating environmental lawsuit litigation claims, toxic substance, toxic tort, and toxic injury claims throughout the United States.

Toxic injury can be caused by a wide variety of substances that are manufactured every day for all kinds of products and uses. When these hazardous chemical substances are accidentally released into surrounding air, water, or ground environments they can pose a serious health risk.

A toxic injury can involve exposure to hazardous chemical or toxic biological substances that may cause permanent injury or death. For example, asbestos exposure, toxic mold, welding rod fumes, mercury poisoning, benzene exposure and lead poisoning can all cause serious or life threatening injuries.

The toxic tort lawyers at Parker Waichman LLP have represented hundreds of victims who have been exposed to toxic substances. We aggressively strive for the best financial results, and we are always sensitive to the needs of our clients, assuring you are treated with dignity and compassion. To view more information involving toxic substances, including benzene exposure, and to learn more about the legal remedies that may be available to you and your family, please click on one of the topical links listed below.

If you think you may need an experienced toxic tort attorney, please fill out the form at the right for a free case evaluation by one of our qualified personal injury attorneys.

Visit our Toxic Substances Archives Page

If the Toxic Substance lawsuit you are looking for is not listed in the links below please Visit our Toxic Substances Archives Page for additional articles about Toxic Substance lawsuits that Parker Waichman LLP has defended for our clients.