Razed home's owner takes step to sue city

$1M NOTICE OF CLAIM: Columbia Street residence, called 'the cat house,' was torn down after fire Nov. 12

The man who owns a home on Columbia Street that was referred to as "the cat house" by neighbors has filed a notice of claim for $1 million against the city of Watertown for razing its remains after a fire last year.

A notice of claim is a precursor to filing a lawsuit against a municipality.

Oliver J. Wisner is seeking compensation for the "arbitrary, capricious and malicious charging and billing for outrageous unnecessary work on the cleanup of ashes and debris" the claim states.

The Watertown lawyer owns the property at 1205-07 Columbia St., which burned down Nov. 12, forcing neighbors to evacuate their homes during the early morning hours. The heat from the blaze damaged nearby homes, one of which is still uninhabitable.

The city requested that Mr. Wisner remove the remaining debris from the duplex immediately following the blaze. In late December, the city hired Independent Commercial Contractors Inc., Lorraine, for $28,600 to clean the site and remove asbestos. Mr. Wisner was then billed for the job.

Mr. Wisner bought the home June 21, despite the previous owner not allowing him to completely inspect it beforehand, the notice states.

Once the purchase was complete, Mr. Wisner hired cleaners to clear debris from the home.

"The cleaners discovered more than 10 bodies of long-dead cats in the building," the notice states. "The odor from the house and the Dumpsters brought numerous complaints from neighbors."

In June, the city Code Enforcement Office found that an upstairs bathtub in 1205 Columbia St. was filled with cat feces, and cat skeletons were found throughout the apartment.The property was condemned and the tenant, Michael J. Sias, was removed.

Mr. Sias, 58, now of 536 Emerson St., Apt. 103, is facing an animal-cruelty charge on allegations that between June 25 and July 3 he deprived seven cats of necessary sustenance in his former home, "permitting unjustifiable physical pain, suffering and death," according to a city police document. He was charged Tuesday and faces prosecution in City Court.

Some live cats were taken from the home by the SPCA, others were euthanized and six frozen bodies that were found in an operating freezer were sent to Cornell University, Ithaca, for a forensics examination.

Mr. Wisner claims that "it was a matter of public knowledge that persons in the city of Watertown, New York, had called for the burning of the duplex." Throughout the notice, he maintains that an arsonist started the fire and that police did not properly follow leads.

The cause of the fire was never determined and police never made an arrest.

"My position is that there was no emergency and the demolition charges were unlawful and unreasonable and should be reviewed by a court and disallowed as an unlawful taking of private property," the notice states.

Mr. Wisner is asking for $100,000 for the loss of the house and $900,000 for "harassment causing great mental stress and depression." He plans to retain an attorney, the notice states.

City Attorney Robert J. Slye said he did not want to comment about the notice when contacted Friday afternoon.

"We'll certainly wait to see what Mr. Wisner has to say and if he files a suit," he said.

Times staff writer David C. Shampine contributed to this report.

Source

Asbestos victims’ drug hope

VICTIMS of York's asbestos timebomb have been given a major boost after a medicine rationing organisation ruled they are entitled to a vital drug.

The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has decided the drug Alimta should be made available to patients with the asbestos-related cancer mesothelioma.

The York Asbestos Support Group today hailed the decision, saying that while the drug was not a cure, it could both extend life and alleviate symptoms for patients and was the only treatment available.

"The NICE decision brings to a conclusion an approval process which started almost three years ago and which led to one of the worst examples of the health postcode lottery," said the group's delighted founder Kim Daniells.

"Hundreds of patients across the UK were refused treatment with this drug whilst those in Scotland, the North West and North East of England could access treatment."

She said NICE had rejected an appeal against an original decision to approve the use of the drug for the treatment of the condition, which was a fatal tumour of the lung pleura caused by exposure to asbestos.

"In the last three years, many hundreds of patients have been diagnosed with the condition and gone on to die without ever being able to access the treatment. Hopefully this situation will now come to an end."

She said NICE's guidance meant primary care trusts would now be obliged to provide uniform treatment.

They would be given the option of a 90-day lead-in period following the official announcement, but she hoped the guidance would result in mesothelioma sufferers gaining prompt access to the treatment they needed and deserved.

The decision could benefit former York Carriageworks employees who fall victim in future to mesothelioma.

Staff were widely exposed to deadly asbestos dust fibres during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, and even in the 1980s after some measures had been brought in to provide protection to staff.

Scores of ex-workers have died from the devastating cancer.

A NICE spokesman said Alimta was being recommended as a possible treatment for malignant pleural mesothelioma in people with advanced disease, and whose cancer was not suitable for surgical removal and who met certain other conditions.

Source

Supreme Court hears ALCOA asbestos suit

Does a company have responsibility for people — other than its own employees — who are exposed to harmful agents from its facilities? That is the question the Tennessee Supreme Court tried to get its arms around Tuesday in Knoxville.
In late 2003, Maryville resident Amanda Satterfield, who was 23 years old at the time, filed a lawsuit against ALCOA Inc. and Breeding Insulation Co. in Blount County Circuit Court.

In her suit, Satterfield charged that she “was exposed to harmful asbestos dust and fibers from the day of her birth from her father’s use of asbestos products and inadvertent introduction of dust and fibers into their home and personal environments.” Satterfield had mesothelioma, a rare cancer directly associated with asbestos exposure.

On Jan. 1, 2005, at the age of 25, Satterfield lost her battle with cancer.
Doug Satterfield, Amanda’s father and the representative of her estate, continued with the suit after her death. With his 18-year-old daughter Amelia at his side, Doug Satterfield cried throughout the hearing in the Tennessee Supreme Court Building in downtown Knoxville.

Doug Satterfield hauled asbestos for ALCOA, starting his career with the company in 1973. He served in the military from 1975 to 1978 and then returned to work at ALCOA. His lawyers have maintained that Doug Satterfield was exposed to asbestos at ALCOA Tennessee Operations and that he brought home harmful dust and fibers on his clothes, resulting in Amanda contracting mesothelioma.

The lawsuit sought $10 million in compensatory and $10 million in punitive damages — although Satterfield has said the case is about justice and doing the right thing, not money.

ALCOA, represented by attorney John Lucas of Knoxville, argued that the ramifications of what the court is considering go far beyond this case, and could possibly create “an infinite universe of potential plaintiffs.”

Lucas referred to Satterfield’s allegations as the “conduit theory” — stating that, by assigning responsibility to companies for third-party contact with harmful agents, the court would define Doug Satterfield as the “vehicle” that transmitted asbestos into his home.

Tennessee Supreme Court Justice William Koch Jr. asked Lucas how that differed from an employee who drove an ALCOA truck into a neighborhood and exposed residents to asbestos.

“How is it negligent for ALCOA to let asbestos fly out of a truck and not negligent for ALCOA to allow employees to go home with asbestos dust on their clothing?” Koch asked.

ALCOA made a similar arguments during a coal tar pitch-related lawsuit in Knox County Chancery Court last year, charging that it would open the “floodgates of litigation” and that Tennessee would become a “plaintiff’s Mecca.” That case is now proceeding with a class action certification hearing following the conclusion of discovery depositions.

Knoxville attorney Greg Coleman, who represents Satterfield, said the real question was “what did ALCOA know, when did they know it, and what did they do about it?
“Public policy should at least extend to the home,” Coleman said. “ALCOA may not have known if an employee would stop at the Waffle House on his way home from work — but they did know that the employee would eventually end up at his home.”
Satterfield’s case has been in the legal system for more than four years. Originally heard — and dismissed — in Blount County Circuit Court Judge W. Dale Young’s court, the Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed Young’s decision, reinstated the lawsuit and charged ALCOA with the cost of the appeal in April 2007.

The Tennessee Supreme Court Justices are expected to issue a written opinion on the case within three months. They can either return the case to Blount County Circuit Court, where it will proceed, or dismiss it entirely.

After the hearing, Doug Satterfield told The Daily Times, “It seems like ALCOA is trying to change the law to protect itself.

“It’s unthinkable that public policy shouldn’t protect the children of workers.”

Amelia Satterfield, Amanda’s younger sister, said she believed the hearing went well, but said her family was nervous about the court appearance.

Coleman said: “ALCOA is trying to reverse what the law should be. They’re saying the greater the magnitude of the harm and the higher the mortality rate, the less responsibility they should have. Where I come from in Ducktown, Tennessee, that’s called bologna.”

The Tennessee Supreme Court should issue its written opinion by early April.

Source

Victims of asbestos fight payout 'apartheid'

People suffering from pleural plaques through exposure to asbestos will soon be facing a postcode lottery to determine whether they qualify for compensation.

Pleural plaques are a scarring on the lining of the lungs, an asymptomatic sign of exposure to asbestos that does not of itself lead to more serious asbestos-related conditions. While about 1,800 people die of asbestos-related diseases each year in Britain, a number that is rising, some commentators have labelled plaques sufferers as 'the worried well' and the House of Lords recently ruled that the condition was not worthy of compensation.

'When people say those things, it's because they haven't had to live with it,' says Valerie Pask, a 55-year-old mother of seven from Nottingham who was diagnosed with plaques last year. Asbestos has left its mark on three generations of her family. 'I'll never forget my eldest brother in the final weeks before he died,' she recalls. 'He was unable to say more than a few words because his lungs were so congested.'

Valerie's brother died from mesothelioma, the cancer contracted from breathing in asbestos dust. Her father worked all his life as a lagger, fitting insulation at power stations. He died of heart disease in 1980, at the age of 65, with his death certificate recording that the condition was 'related to asbestosis'. 'My eldest brother, Brian, died at the age of 50 in 1987 and my next eldest brother, Michael, died in 1991,' she says. Three sons worked with their father. Two of them had their lives cut short by mesothelioma and the surviving brother was recently diagnosed with asbestosis. Her brother-in-law and sister-in-law, who worked with them, have both died of asbestos-related conditions, as did an uncle who worked in London.

But the tragedy doesn't end there. Valerie and her three sisters would clean their father's dust-covered overalls when he came back from the power stations, where he eventually became a site manager. 'He'd take his work clothes off in the conservatory and we'd beat them and get as much dust off as we could; otherwise our washing machine would get clogged up,' she recalls. Two of the four women have been diagnosed with plaques, as has one of their daughters.

In October, the Law Lords refused to overrule an appeal court ruling in January 2006 preventing plaques sufferers from claiming damages (in Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co). 'Proof of damage is an essential element in a claim in negligence and in my opinion the symptomless plaques are not compensatable,' ruled Lord Hoffmann.

That ruling will affect 'thousands who have faced emotional anguish since their diagnosis', says Adrian Budgen, head of the asbestos unit at law firm Irwin Mitchell. 'Plaques are a consequence of negligent exposure to asbestos. This exposure physically scars victims and is often a precursor to very serious and sometimes fatal disease.' Budgen, who is advising Valerie, adds: 'With a family history like theirs, you're going to be worried. She is a relatively young woman who has to live with this for the rest of her life.'

The Scottish government announced this month that it intended to reverse the Law Lords' ruling by introducing new legislation. 'The effects of asbestos are a terrible legacy of Scotland's industrial past and we should not turn our backs on those who contributed to our nation's wealth,' said Holyrood's Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill. 'Pleural plaques in anyone exposed to asbestos mean they have a greatly increased lifetime risk of developing mesothelioma. This will mean that people diagnosed with this condition will have to live with the worry of possible future ill-health for the rest of their lives.'

The Association of British Insurers calls the Scottish approach 'misguided'. Insurers are 'fully committed' to compensating claimants with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases, says the ABI's Stephen Haddrill, but 'introducing legislation to overturn a unanimous Law Lords' ruling could significantly increase costs for Scottish businesses'.

None the less, insurers had been paying out for plaques for 20 years prior to the Rothwell case and payouts have been modest. Since the January 2006 ruling, 'full and final' damages, which settle the case once and for all, have been cut from £12,500-£20,000 to £5,000-£7,000.

There is a recent precedent for ministers in England and Wales stepping in to protect families from the courts when they overruled the House of Lords judgment by the Law Lords in the case of Sylvia Barker in 2006. In that case (The Observer, 5 March 2006), insurers argued that if there was more than one employer, compensation for mesothelioma should be split between them. As some have now gone out of business, this would have meant families missing out on part or all of their compensation. Ministers therefore amended the Compensation Act to protect families.

Campaigners are pessimistic about Westminster following the Scottish lead on plaques cases, even though the construction union Ucatt last week won a government commitment to review the Rothwell decision. 'It's going to look unjust if you have sufferers in Scotland receiving compensation and those south of the border aren't,' says Tony Whitson, chair of the Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK.

Campaigners point to a growing difference between England and Wales on the one hand and Scotland on the other, where the life-extending drug Alimta is more readily available for mesothelioma sufferers and where bereavement payments of up to £30,000 have been made by the courts (such compensation is fixed at £10,000 in England). Now it seems likely plaques sufferers will only get compensation in Scotland.

Valerie says: 'What makes me angry is that if you have a minor scar on your body you can get compensation. Thousands of people receive compensation for stress, but we get nothing. The scarring is inside me.'

She says she suffers nightmares and has been out socialising only four times since she was diagnosed 18 months ago. 'Employers knew the harm asbestos was doing and carried on using it because it was cheap,' she says. 'Thousands of people are affected now and will be over the next 20 years and it all could have been prevented. It's so wrong.'

Source

Anxiety over Amaca asbestos case

Elizabeth Gosch and Ean Higgins

October 24, 2007 05:58am

LAWYERS for asbestos victims fear the new board of the James Hardie subsidiary Amaca is using a WA case to attempt to limit the number of successful lawsuits.

Denis Walter John Moss and his wife, Patricia Margaret Hannell, won a case against Amaca Pty Ltd, the James Hardie asbestos-producing subsidiary, in December last year and were awarded $5million.

Mr Moss, who died in June, was exposed to asbestos in the mid-1980s and 1990 as a result of occasional work on asbestos cement products in and around his home. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in November 2005.

Amaca appealed against the West Australian Supreme Court decision earlier this year to award damages. The Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge's decision, stating Amaca did not breach its duty of care by failing to advertise the dangers of asbestos in the mass media.

Today in Perth, Mrs Hannell is seeking special leave to appeal against that decision in the High Court.

For decades, the key tenet of asbestos disease litigation, particularly in New South Wales, has been the finding by the courts that James Hardie had actual knowledge of the dangers of asbestos as early as 1938 but did not do enough toprotect workers and warn customers.

Slater and Gordon asbestos litigation specialist Tanya Segelov said it was possible the new Amaca board - appointed by James Hardie and the NSW Government - was testing the water in Western Australia, and if successful, might take a harder line in other jurisdictions.

If Amaca won such cases, it could reduce the ability of thousands of future victims to obtain compensation.

SOURCE

Union Efforts Called Racketeering

A lawsuit filed by Smithfield Foods charges the UFCW with extortion and a smear campaign in the union's efforts to convince the meat processor to agree to voluntarily accept the union without an employee vote. The union says the company has a long history of worker intimidation.

By Joseph A. Slobodzian

It's been used against mobsters, corrupt labor unions and anti-abortion protesters.

Now Smithfield Foods Inc., the Virginia-based meat-processing giant, has joined companies turning to federal racketeering law to try to block a campaign geared to unionization of its employees.

Smithfield Foods' lawyers filed the civil racketeering lawsuit Oct. 17 in federal court in Richmond, Va., the latest development in Smithfield's 14-year fight to prevent the United Food and Commercial Workers from unionizing 4,650 hourly workers at its largest pork-processing plant in Tar Heel, N.C.

The lawsuit contends that the union has resorted to "smear tactics," including trying to undermine the company's stock price by leaking false statements to Wall Street stock analysts.

The lawsuit seeks damages of at least $5.9 million for business losses Smithfield Foods says can be traced to the union campaign, as well as an injunction barring the unions from continuing their activities.

The lawsuit -- Smithfield Food Inc. vs. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union -- has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne.

UFCW officials issued a statement maintaining that Smithfield has a long history of worker intimidation and calling the lawsuit an attempt by Smithfield to avoid a union vote.

UFCW officials noted that the suit was filed two days after negotiators for the company walked out of talks that were close to setting a mutually agreed-upon process for holding a unionization election at the Tar Heel processing plant.

"It is truly shameful that Smithfield is willing to spend millions of dollars on high-priced lawyers and frivolous lawsuits rather than committing the resources needed to provide basic safety and health improvements for Tar Heel workers," the union statement read.

According to the lawsuit, union members have demonstrated at food stores carrying Smithfield Foods products and at public appearances of celebrity chef Paula Deen to urge her to break her contract with Smithfield. Deen's Food Network cable television program, Paula's Home Cooking, features Smithfield products.

The lawsuit contends that in September 2005, the UFCW's Local 400 "decided to abandon all efforts to convince Smithfield employees of the benefits of union membership in favor of a new plan aimed not at the employees, but at Smithfield itself."

The lawsuit says UFCW decided to "extort" Smithfield's recognition of Local 400 "regardless of the degree of actual employee support for such representation, by injuring Smithfield economically until Smithfield either agreed to [union] demands or was run out of business."

In addition to the UFCW international union, in Washington, and Local 400, the Smithfield lawsuit names three groups and seven individuals it describes as "co-conspirators" with the union.

While the use of the federal racketeering statute in a union-organizing dispute may seem unusual, other companies have turned to the racketeering law, says Lynn C. Outwater, a labor relations lawyer and managing partner of the Pittsburgh office of the law firm Jackson Lewis.

Outwater cited the March ruling by U.S. District Judge Brian M. Cogan, of the Eastern District of New York, allowing a civil-racketeering conspiracy case to proceed against the Laborers' International Union.

The lawsuit by the Asbestos & Lead Removal Corp. contended that Laborers Local 78 and business manager Edison Severino carried out a campaign of violence and extortion designed to force the company to agree to a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 78.

The stakes are high in the protracted unionization struggle between Smithfield and the UFCW. With annual sales of $12 billion, Smithfield Foods calls itself the largest producer of hogs and the "leading processor and marketer of fresh pork and processed meats in the United States."

The Tar Heel plant is the largest meat processing plant of its type, according to Smithfield Farms, and slaughters, processes and packages more than 32,000 hogs per day.

The UFCW, on the other hand, represents 1.4 million workers and Landover, Md.-based Local 400 claims 40,000 members.

Local 400 began trying to organize Smithfield's Tar Heel workers in 1994, two years after the sprawling processing plant opened.

SOURCE

Asbestos Exposure: How Risky Is It?

The hazard, exposure, and risks associated with asbestos fibers have been explored and debated for many years. Human evidence suggests an association between exposure to asbestos and asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma, although the lack of consistent information on fiber type, size, and exposure concentrations and duration limit our ability to establish causal relationships between exposure and disease in some cases. While uncertainties remain in our ability to consistently and accurately quantify asbestos risk to humans, progress has been made in characterizing those key factors, namely hazard and exposure, that are critical to an assessment of health risk.

Because asbestos is a natural material, there will always be some background or ambient exposure to humans. Although mining and commercial applications have diminished in some parts of the world, asbestos continues to have commercial applications, and hence, there remains exposure potential from these sources. Chrysotile and amphibole asbestos are the types most commonly used and hence studied experimentally, and it has become increasingly clear that they differ with respect to toxicity and disease potential. This has been demonstrated in animal models, which appear to be reflective of the human situation as well.

Progress on a number of fronts has led to general scientific consensus on the following: (1) amphibole fibers (which tend to be relatively long and thin) are a more potent risk factor for the development of mesothelioma and, to a lesser degree, lung cancer than are chrysotile fibers (which tend to be relatively short and wide); (2) longer, thin fibers are more pathogenic and there appear to be fiber size thresholds below which asbestos fibers do not pose any threat; and (3) those animal studies in which high exposure concentrations resulted in lung overloading are not considered relevant to humans.

Analysis of the epidemiological literature supports some common patterns including:
(1) for occupational and industrial exposures, the weight of evidence does not consistently support causal relationships between asbestos exposure and onset of pulmonary disease, some studies showing associative relationships but others showing no relationship between exposure and disease onset; and (2) chrysotile alone, uncontaminated by other fiber types, particularly amphiboles, does not appear to be a risk factor for mesothelioma, as once thought.

Advances in risk assessment methodology and analytical techniques, together with reevaluation of historical data, reveal that the current Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approach for risk assessment of asbestosis is not in step with current scientific consensus, particularly for chrysotile fibers. In recent years, new knowledge about how asbestos risk can be more accurately and quantitatively determined has been generated. There is thus a scientific basis for adoption of these methods by regulatory agencies, including the EPA. While occupational exposures to asbestos remain and should be vigilantly monitored, there appears to be no compelling scientific evidence that ambient exposure to chrysotile asbestos poses a significant health risk.

SOURCE

Asbestos disease victim goes to court

VICTIM of asbestos-related cancer has launched a high court legal battle against the government for compensation of up to £200,000.

David Parker (67) has developed malignant mesothelioma, a terminal cancer of the tissues surrounding his lungs, according to a high court writ.

It relates to his job as an executive officer at the Prestwich Unemployment Benefit Office in the Longfield, where he was exposed to deadly asbestos dust and fibres.

Now Mr Parker, of Prenton Way, Walshaw, Bury, is claiming damages from the secretary of state for work and pensions, whom he blames for his condition.

The writ says he developed mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos when he worked as a civil servant for the secretary of state's predecessors, the Ministry of Labour, between 1967 and 2000.

The office was subdivided with asbestos partitions, which were in poor condition, and between 1978 and 1984 the office underwent major refurbishment, when the partitions were demolished and false ceilings fitted, it is alleged.

Mr Parker says conditions were dreadful, and that it was very dusty, and that asbestos was released into the air as the partitions were demolished. Elsewhere in the building there was asbestos, on the boiler and pipework, and he thinks it likely that this too produced asbestos dust, which he inhaled.

At the end of the refurbishment work, he was given a letter on June 12, 1984, confirming that asbestos had been found inside the office, the writ claims.

It says that he became breathless in June 2006, and then developed chest pain. His condition of malignant mesothelioma was diagnosed in February 2007, and he is undergoing chemotherapy but the writ claims the disease is expected to cut his life short by around 14 years.

Mr Parker accuses the secretary of state of negligence and breach of statutory duty and says this caused his illness. He says there was a failure to provide a safe place or system of work, failure to warn him of the dangers of asbestos, and failure to keep his workplace properly ventilated.

SOURCE

Senate passes Murray bill to ban asbestos

Sen. Patty Murray has looked into the eyes of too many people who would die from exposure to asbestos.

Thursday, the Senate voted unanimously to pass Murray's ban on the importation of asbestos, which still is found in more than 3,000 consumer products. If approved by the House and not vetoed by the president, the United States will finally join more than 40 other nations that have banned the cancer-causing material.

Lots of tears were shed during Murray's six-year battle to get support for the ban. The Washington Democrat and her staff talked to George Biekkola, a taconite miner from the Michigan Iron Range. They talked to Les Skramsted, who sucked in his lethal dose of asbestos from the vermiculite mine in Libby, Mont. When they, and many others, died, she talked to the widows. Lots of widows, she said.

With an intensity that bordered on obsession, Murray and her staff became experts on asbestos, where it came from and how it killed.

Her schedule shows more than 100 meetings on issues surrounding the ban with labor leaders, lobbyists, lawyers, industry leaders and physicians -- government and civilian -- who were tired of watching their patients die deaths that shouldn't have happened. Murray needed to learn and then to teach.

She met with families in Washington whose homes were insulated with asbestos-tainted vermiculite and listened to their fear of what harm has been done to their families.

She spoke to the children of a brake mechanic from Seattle whose father died of asbestos disease. Her staff had a hard time explaining to the two teenagers why brakes still contained asbestos.

Corporate opposition to Murray's efforts was enormous.

"When you go after an issue like this, you're fighting a lot of big-time money. Lobbyists for manufacturers, the sand and gravel folks, people with commercial interest and a lot of clout fought this," Murray said. "I wasn't surprised that many other (lawmakers) didn't want to get involved because they thought it was impossible."

Early in the fight, the White House did all it could to stymie discussion, let alone passage of the ban. Murray's efforts were a victim of collateral damage from a three-year Republican effort to pass legislation favored by President Bush that would have prevented people injured by exposure to asbestos from suing the companies involved.

For the past seven months, Murray said, she worked closely with Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia. He convinced Republicans of the importance of the ban, she said.

Murray says she's sure it will become law.

"The House leadership said it was waiting for us to act, and I expect them to move quickly," she said. "And, I have not heard a word from the president about vetoing the bill. We worked for months addressing every possible objection and I think the White House would have a very hard time vetoing this."

She said the ban would be the best thing she has accomplished "because it will save lives. Lots of them."

Murray says that two years after her bill is signed into law, there will be no asbestos in hair dryers or brake products or ceiling tiles or 3,000 other imported products.

Among the many demands in the legislation is the banning of the importation, manufacture, processing and distribution of products containing asbestos. It orders the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure asbestos products are off the shelves within two years of the bill's enactment.

It would create a $50 million "Asbestos-Related Disease Research and Treatment Network" of 10 new centers dedicated to finding better treatment, earlier detection and methods of preventing asbestos-related disease.

It says the EPA shall conduct a public education campaign to increase awareness of the dangers posed by products containing or contaminated by asbestos, including in homes and workplaces.

SOURCE

Fury at low cash awards for asbestos victims

FORMER York Carriageworks union leader Paul Cooper has blasted the levels of compensation paid to victims of the asbestos timebomb.

Mr Cooper, who has long campaigned on behalf of people killed because of their exposure to asbestos dust, claimed today that sufferers and their families were getting less in damages than criminals who injure themselves.

He said in a letter to York MP Hugh Bayley that the Government had failed to act on a Law Commission report of 1999, recommending increases in damages for victims of serious diseases such as abestosis and mesothelioma, a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos dust.

He claimed the Government was currently looking at the law of damages, and was planning to study various Law Commission reports from the 1990s which had not been actioned - but the review had left out the crucial 1999 report.

"It would oblige our members, many of whom are your constituents, if you could investigate this new matter and press the concerns of our members and affected constituents," he said.

"We continue to have victims/sufferers of asbestos mesothelioma facing a death sentence, with wives and children receiving little more than £200,000 in compensation for their loss. Criminals who self-injure get £500,000, even though they suffer no losses whilst in prison. It is time for our workers to have real justice."

Mr Cooper, who received a Community Pride Volunteer of the Year award in 2005 for his work on behalf of asbestos victims, said he had written to the MP twice before on the subject, but the Government appeared still to be trying to avoid the issue.

"In the case of the victims from the Carriageworks, the state was responsible for their deaths, so the state should accept responsibility."

Scores of former Carriageworks employees have died from mesothelioma over the years, following widespread exposure to the deadly dust, particularly in the 1950s, 60s and early 70s.

Hugh Bayley said he had been campaigning on behalf of carriageworks asbestos victims since becoming MP, and he had helped ensure that they remained entitled to compensation when the railway industry was privatised in the 1990s.

He said he had only recently signed a Commons Early Day Motion calling for people suffering from pleural plaques - scarring of lung tissues caused by exposure to asbestos - to be given more compensation.

SOURCE