Having problems with message search?
All the questions you have asked have been published in newspapers across the nation and in Alaska. I know because I read each and every one before I shredded them due to lower court judge's order involving the Exxon $5 billion plus interest civil suit just recently decided in Alaska Appeals Court regarding environmental negligence, wildlife contamination, lost wages, sick bird syndrome, etc. and ad nauseum
First of all, you have to understand that Exxon was NEVER solely responsible for clean-up. A collusion of oil companies that invested in the Alaska pipeline -- Alyeska Pipeline Company -- was totally responsible for clean-up. Exxon was responsible only for "containing" the oil spill with rubber ballasts. That is because the Valdez was a double-hulled oil vessel -- only three existed at the time. I believe Exxon had two such oil vessels and Shell had one such vessel. The collusion involved ALL oil companies -- Exxon, Shell,
Chevron, Texaco, etc.
Exxon did in fact contain the spill that was expected for an iceberg. No one understood till about 10 minutes on land that this was no iceberg.
The fisherman you speak of either received payment under the table, for which Exxon was publicly sanctioned. Or the fishermen withdrew their case from Exxon and filed it properly with Alyeska.
And what about that huge oil spill off the coast of Ireland by the Shell double-hulled vessel that spilled three to five times as much oil because the UK has no such "clean-up" arrangement.
Don't give a rat's tail about your opinion on causes of Gulf War Illness -- no longer known as Gulf War Syndrome. I have GWI, you don't. I know what caused mine. And you don't have a clue!
Margaret Diann <mother_margaret@...> wrote:
Margaret Diann <mother_margaret@...> wrote:
" I never saw a claim at all for injury due to Valdez. And I worked there from 1995 through 1997"OK, I would estimate that in that time period you would have mostly issues surrounding the oiled communities or fishermen's claimsThere were some lawsuites in earlier years. Some even won, but I believe the cases were 'sealed' or were supposed to be. I think since Exxon has not even put up a deposit for the lawsuits with fishermen and the punitive damages they are appealing, workers may think there is no hope of winning a suit, and what's the point?"Frankly, in all the litigation, and through all the controversy after the spill, nobody has ever asked the question: What about human health?" said Dr. John Middaugh, Alaska state epidemiologist.milestone article about workersRiki Ott, PHd in biology and also a fisherwoman from Cordova wrote a book that came out not long ago. If you would be interested in reading it, I will see if I can get you a copy.Sound Truth and Corporate MYTH$:The Legacy of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
How to purchase a book?for those who want to buy it?Award-winningSound Truth and Corporate Myths: The Legacy of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (2005) reveals the new science showing that oil is much more toxic toxic than previously thought to humans and wildlife.Sound Truth provides critical new informationfor people working in oil issues and educators.Available on www.soundtruth.info and amazon.comAlso with excerpts with workers ... & interviews with some of themFavorite Quotes and News Articles *It is my personal opinion that until we know what has happend health-wise to the workers of the Exxon Valdez oil spill cleanup, and those who were close to them (second hand solvent exposure) and a true epidemiology picture of what happened to the health of citizens of Valdez after 1989 ... we will never learn the truth about the exposure to oil and the exposure to 2-butoxyethanol in Inipol EAP 22 (now shelved) and Corexit (used since 1972 until the present day).I also firmly believe that had Exxon stopped the cleanup experiment and announced that 2-butoxyethanol was harming workers .... it would not have been continued to be in such widespread use, and that there may have never been a 'gulf war syndrome.'Although military people have many exposures to many things and have health damage from an assortment of things, the one that harmed them the most, the one that is a 'match' for the CFIDS they suffer, etc is the effects of the flu-causing chemical, 2-but0xyethanol. AND there are also many different ways to be exposed to this chemical: it is in gun cleaners, jet fuel, paints, cleaning products of all kinds, and somehow I think it is in explosive vapors ... with fumes in one's eyes as the worst exposure.One EVOS worker of bioremediation workers shared with me that Exxon had a ship nearby for the EXXON observers of the bioremediation experiment. Exxon thought they could protect their own, but they could not. The chemical could blow in their direction and expose them also.prove FATIGUE from InipolWhich kind? or both? http://www.valdezlink.com/inipol/ pages/kind. htm Another issue I notice is that there are so many other things that can take the blame when a worker collapses from lack of oxygen of 'the fatigue' ... like it was a heart attack ... that something else will generally get the blame, and this chemical's effects goes unnoticed
Offline 
Send Email