Birth Defect Lawyer Blog

Recently, the United Nations World Health Organization disclosed that the dangers to human health caused by air pollution were much greater than once thought. As a result, the World Health Organization is seeking rapid global action in reducing the causes of air pollution.

At a United Nations Environmental Programme Climate and Clean Air Coalition meeting, the World Health Organization informed participants that 3.5 million premature deaths each year could be traced to indoor air pollution. The worst sufferers were those in South Asia, followed by those in Eastern, Central, and Western Sub-Saharan Africa, and then Southeast Asia. Another 3.3 million deaths could be traced to outdoor pollution. Of that number, ground-level ozone alone accounts for 200,000 premature deaths.

According to the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, some of the most dangerous culprits are "short-lived climate pollutants", which include emissions released from diesel engine exhaust, smoke and soot from outdated cook stoves, leakage from oil and natural gas production, and emissions from solid waste disposal. Even one outdated cook stove can emit more than one hundred times the recommended amount of carbon monoxide. The United Nations Environmental Programme notes that fast action to reduce short-lived climate pollutants could lead to a steep reduction in the number of annual deaths. The Climate and Clean Air Coalition has already sought to update the technology in brick production so that it leads to lower black carbon emissions, as well as to distribute cleaner cook stoves in countries such as Bangladesh.

While the focus appears to be primarily on locations in Asia and Africa, the United States should not take too much comfort. Studies -- such as the recent one on traffic-related smog -- have shown that even pollution here can cause greater health problems and birth defects. Significant health problems are also a concern in areas affected by mountaintop removal mining, coal-burning power plant emissions, or agriculture that relies on heavy use of pesticides. Indoor pollution is also a problem here as well: even sitting on the furniture, for instance, can lead to flame retardants in our bloodstream.

What can be done about it? If your child has a birth defect that you believe was caused by one of the above sources of pollution, you have the option of filing a toxic tort lawsuit against the offender. Of course, before you file such a lawsuit, you will want to be certain that the source is the cause. While you may never be able to find 100% conclusive proof, you will at least want to find evidence that strongly supports your position. That may come from official environmental reports, medical reports, or even statements from other people in your area who also have children with birth defects. Once you feel that you can make your case, you would argue that the offender had a duty to the community to operate reasonably according to laws and regulations. The offender breached that duty, and as a result, you were exposed to toxins while pregnant that led to your child being born with a birth defect.

Continue reading "United Nations World Health Organization Claims That Air Pollution Is Far More Damaging to Human Health Than Previously Thought" »

Recently, three environmental groups filed lawsuits against three coal mining companies, claiming that the runoff from their mountaintop removal mines was polluting nearby waterways. Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, and the Sierra Club filed the suits in West Virginia federal court against Alex Energy, Inc, Fola Coal Company, LLC, and Consol of Kentucky, claiming that the mines contaminated the water with sulfate, selenium, and other harmful chemicals.

This blog has frequently discussed the health hazards posed by mountaintop removal mining. The process involves stripping off the top layer of a mountain in order to get to its coal or mineral reserves. Toxic elements within the top layer are then exposed to the air or seep into nearby waterways, where they are ingested or inhaled by members of the community. Toxins associated with mountaintop removal mining, such as mercury and selenium, have been linked to a variety of health problems and birth defects. Selenium, in particular, has been known to damage kidneys, the liver, the circulatory system, and the central nervous system of those with high exposure.

The lawsuits proceed under two separate, but similar, theories. In the suits against Alex Energy and Fola Coal Company, the environmental groups allege that the companies violated West Virginia's "narrative" water quality standards, which establish the criteria for water quality, as opposed to the "numeric" water quality standards, which limit the concentration of specific water toxins. This legal theory was used successfully on a previous occasion, which resulted in a settlement requiring Fola Coal Company to clean up a different waterway. In the third lawsuit, Consol of Kentucky was accused of unleashing "unlawful quantities" of selenium into nearby waterways, in violation of the federal Clean Water Act.

The West Virginia Sierra Club argued that the environmental groups had to file lawsuits because neither the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) nor the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was taking meaningful action to stop the pollution. The WVDEP was simply trying to change the criteria for "impaired" so that fewer waterways would qualify, while the EPA's approach to water pollution amounted to "cross your fingers and hope." Meanwhile, in the West Virginia legislature is a bill that would allow the state agency to raise the level of selenium that is considered acceptable, as long as the change was approved by the EPA.

In addition to suing companies that pollute waterways, the environmental groups have threatened to bring action against the federal regulators if they do not get tough on state regulators. In the current lawsuit, the environmental groups hope to obtain a court ruling requiring the companies to follow pollution regulations, or pay $37,500 each day in civil penalties for every violation.

Continue reading "Environmental Groups Sue West Virginia Companies Over Pollution From Mountaintop Removal Mining" »

This past week, the Obama administration signaled that it was considering a revision to its greenhouse gas guidelines, one that would delay their implementation. The guidelines are aimed at ensuring that emissions from new power plants are strictly regulated. Any rewrite might allow the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set a separate standard for coal-fired power plants, which release twice as much pollution as natural-gas power plants. However, if the rewrites delay implementation, the Obama administration is certain to anger environmentalists who pushed for the new regulations.

Power plants, especially coal-burning power plants, are one of the worst contributors to air pollution in the United States. Not only are they a major source of greenhouse gases, but they are also a source of toxins such as mercury, which gets released into the air and water of nearby communities. Members of these communities might then suffer from health problems, or be at a higher risk of having babies with birth defects. While greenhouse gases themselves have not been tied to birth defects, past studies have found that polar ice cap melt releases mercury and other toxins into the air, when they would have otherwise remained trapped in the ice.

Under the current guidelines, new power plants would be required to emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour of electricity produced. Environmentalists are concerned that if the less-controversial standards for new power plants are not finalized by the April 13 deadline, the standards for existing power plants -- which account for 40% of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions -- will be in jeopardy. Much depends upon the size of the delay. Once any regulations are implemented, the EPA expects to face lawsuits from the industry. Regardless of whether the regulations are delayed, President Obama has signaled that from now on, he will require federal agencies to consider the greenhouse gas effect of projects before approving them.

Again, while greenhouse gases are not directly linked to birth defects, they are part of the overall emissions released by power plants, which include toxins that are linked to birth defects. If your baby has a birth defect that you believe is due to repeated exposure to power plant emissions, you have the option of filing a toxic tort lawsuit. You would argue that the power plant had a duty to the surrounding community to operate as safely as possible, but breached that duty by allowing unhealthy amounts of toxins into the air. As a result, you were exposed to the toxins before, during, and likely after your pregnancy, and your child was born with a birth defect. As always, the biggest challenge is providing sufficient evidence that the power plant was the cause. Your case could be relatively simple if you live within a mile of the power plant, but less so if you live several miles away.

Continue reading "Obama Administration Signals That It May Delay Implementing Greenhouse Gas Rules For New Power Plants" »

A new study has found that toxins found in commonly used sealants pose a threat to the environment. Coal-tar sealants are typically applied to parking lots, asphalt roads, and driveways, and their toxins -- collectively known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) -- can wash into local streams, potentially harming wildlife.

The latest study is just one of several conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey over the years. In 2012, the organization found that newly spread sealant released PAHs into the air at a rate of 30,000 times greater than did unsealed pavement. In 2009, the U.S. Geological Survey performed a study of apartments in Austin, Texas, finding that the PAH levels in household dust were 25 times higher if parking lots nearby were sealed by coal-tar than if they were not sealed.

The most recent U.S. Geological Study was conducted in Milwaukee, Wisconsin between 2009 and 2011. Researchers analyzed sediment from roads, storm sewers, and the stream beds of three streams. They found that more than half of the sediment in storm sewers contained nine PAHs at levels high enough to be harmful to plants and animals. In the streams, 30% of the sediment samples contained "hazardous" concentrations of seven PAHs.

Manufacturers of coal-tar sealant insist that the findings are distorted and the coal-tar sealant is not harmful to humans. One claimed that in 60 years of producing the sealant, not one case of cancer had arisen. The manufacturer did not say whether any other health problems had resulted. Studies have found that PAHs, whether from sealant or other sources, have been linked to birth defects, including neural tube defects and a rare birth defect known as gastroschisis.

If your child has a birth defect that you believe is due to your exposure to PAHs while pregnant, you have the option of filing a product liability lawsuit and/or a toxic tort lawsuit. For a product liability suit, you would need to determine with certainty which manufactured good released the PAHs. PAHs are released from fossil fuels, as well as through tobacco smoke. You would need to determine that a specific product containing coal or oil was the offender, and if so, you would argue that the manufacturer had a duty to consumers (and the wider community) to create as safe a product as was reasonably possible. The manufacturer breached its duty by creating a product that released unreasonably dangerous amounts of PAHs. As a result of the breach, you were exposed to the toxins, and your child was born with a birth defect. If the PAHs were not released by a specific product, but rather by a fuel-burning process, you can file a toxic tort lawsuit against the perceived offender (often a power plant).

Continue reading "New Study Finds That Toxins Released From Pavement Sealant Pose Risks to Plants and Animals" »

A report sponsored by the United Nations recently determined that the rise in cancer and birth defect rates around the world has been at least partially due to our exposure to man-made chemicals in everyday products. U.N. researchers believe that these chemicals could also be linked to a decline in the production of male sperm and female fertility.

While other studies have shown these findings, the new report gives them increased credibility. The latest findings were determined by an international collection of academic experts working with the United Nation's Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Health Organization (WHO). In the report, these experts cited endocrine disrupters, such as phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA), which are used to soften or harden plastic, as among the most harmful. They noted that both humans and animals alike were being exposed to these chemicals that had been little studied and whose effects were little understood. The chemicals pose "a global threat" in need of a resolution.

Certain countries, such as the United States, Canada, and some European countries, have already banned these chemicals in specific products. In some states, like California, BPA has been declared toxic and a reproductive hazard. However, there are still "hundreds of thousands" of chemicals used around the world, of which only a small amount have been assessed for their effect on human and animal hormonal systems. One reason is because manufacturers frequently do not list all of the chemicals used in their products.

The U.N. experts' findings ought to be of concern to everyone, whether or not you have children. Yet if you do have a child with a birth defect that you believe was due to your exposure to BPA or phthalates while pregnant, what are your options? You would likely not be able to sue the manufacturer or the products you used, because there would be so many, it would be almost impossible to narrow them down. You would need to establish that you used certain products during certain periods of time, and that the chemicals in those products were the cause of your child's birth defects. You could file such a lawsuit, but your chance of success would be small.

Your best option for any kind of relief might be to sue the regulatory agency responsible for enforcing the levels of environmental toxins. You could argue that it breached its duty to the community by failing to penalize manufacturers for their inability to make reasonably safe products. However, one challenge would be determining which agency you target -- some toxins are under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), while others are under the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Each has different standards and processes for assessing the safety of a toxin.

Continue reading "New U.N. Report Finds That Increase in Cancer, Birth Defects May Be Linked to Rise in BPA, Phthalates" »

Concerned about the reduction of the European bee population, the European Commission has proposed a two-year partial ban on three types of insecticide. The pesticides would not be used on such crops as cotton, sunflower, maize, and oil rapeseed. The reason for this proposed ban is that the chemicals harm the bees' central nervous system, leading to paralysis and death. The European Union is currently reviewing the Commission's study and determining whether to implement the proposal.

Other studies released in 2012 found that when bees came into contact with insecticides containing neonicontinoids, the population plunged 85%. Already European countries like France, Italy, and Slovenia have introduced bans of these sorts of insecticides. However, other European countries where the chemicals are made, such as Germany, have been more resistant.

Besides harming the bee population, pesticides and herbicides have also been linked to human health problems, including birth defects. Here in the United States, one of the most notorious herbicides, glyphosate (known commercially as Round-up), has come under heavy scrutiny for polluting the ground water and causing a variety of illnesses, including sterility, obesity, cancer, and neurodegenerative conditions. Some companies, like Agri-Neo of Canada, are seeking to develop a bio-pesticide that controls bacteria while being safe for the environment and human health. If the company's efforts are successful, it is unknown when the pesticide would be available on the open market.

Meanwhile, if your child has a birth defect that you believe is due to your exposure to pesticides or herbicides while pregnant, you have the option of filing a toxic tort lawsuit against the companies responsible for spreading the product, as well as a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer. In the case of the toxic tort lawsuit, you would argue that the company (likely an agricultural company or local farm, but may even be a golf course) had a duty to the surrounding community to operate as safely as possible. Instead, the company breached its duty by using an unreasonably dangerous pesticide or herbicide, and you were exposed not only during your pregnancy, but also before and after. As a result of your exposure, your child was born with a birth defect.

With a product liability lawsuit, the steps would be almost the same, except that you would not need to show that the manufacturer was negligent in creating the product -- just that the manufacturer's product was unreasonably dangerous, and/or lacking a proper warning label. Your case would naturally be strongest if you lived very close to the source of the pesticides or herbicides, and if others in your community were similarly affected. If you live a few miles away, it might be less obvious that that particular farm or manufacturer were responsible for your child's birth defect. However, you could obtain samples of your water source and of the water near the source of the pesticides/herbicides and determine whether they contain the same chemicals.

Continue reading "European Union to Consider Partial Ban on Pesticides After Surprising Drop in Bee Population" »

This blog has discussed the ways in which mining can increase the risk of birth defects and pose other concerns for human health, especially the practice of mountaintop removal mining. Mining unleashes toxic metals into the air and water, which can be very harmful even in small doses. While mining is usually associated with the Appalachian states, it is conducted throughout the United States. Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a report finding that in Arizona, mining toxic emissions were increasing. Emissions increased 22% in 2011, and 31% in 2010.

The emissions are coming from locations such as Asarco's Mission Mine Complex, which has received two violation notices in the past two months for dust storms. High winds blow down the Mission Mine Complex tailings piles, resulting in enormous gray clouds blowing through neighborhoods. Some residents in the area have complained about respiratory troubles. In 2009, Pima County ordered Asarco to pay $450,000 in penalties.

While the EPA notes that not all toxic releases mentioned in the report are harmful to human health, that has not soothed the nerves of the Mission Mine Complex's neighbors or of health officials. They are especially concerned about fine particles lodging themselves in people's lungs, leading to greater respiratory distress and cancer.

Of the 98 million pounds of toxins released in 2011, 86% came from mines and metal manufacturing businesses. Of the top 10 releasers in 2010 and 2011, seven came from mining or metal facilities, including Asarco's Mission Mine Complex and the Freeport-McMoRan Copper and Gold's Sierrita Mine. Some mines have reported a decrease in emissions, but the overall level remains a concern -- even though emission levels are lower now than they were in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Toxins from mining, such as mercury and arsenic, have resulted in a variety of birth defects. If your child was born with a birth defect that you believe is due to toxins from a nearby mine, you might consider filing a toxic tort lawsuit against the mining company. You would argue that the company had a duty to comply with state and federal emissions regulations, yet failed to do so. As a result of the company's breach, you were exposed to harmful toxic emissions while pregnant, and your child was later born with a birth defect. Even if the company technically "complied," you could argue that it still permitted unhealthy levels of toxins to be emitted. According to recent studies, those levels were enough to result in a link to birth defects, cancer, and other health problems. You might also consider suing regulatory agencies if you believe that they did not adequately perform their duties -- ensure that the mining companies complied with regulations.

Continue reading "New EPA Report Finds That in Arizona, Emissions From Mines Increased in 2010 and 2011" »

Toxins from cigarette smoke are considered to be a source of birth defects, as well as cancer, respiratory ailments, and heart disease. Yet for those who don't want to break the habit, a new form of cigarette is supposed to replicate the pleasures of smoking while reducing its harmful effects. But is the electronic cigarette appreciably safer than the traditional type?

The electronic cigarette is set up so that an electric light goes off at the tip, so that it appears as though the smoker is lighting up. Instead, the smoke that comes out is not tobacco smoke, but water vapor. Meanwhile, the smoker manages to receive a dose of nicotine with only a tiny trace of other toxins. The electronic cigarette made its debut in China in 2003, where smoking killed six million people every year, and quickly spread across the world. In many countries, these cigarettes are advertised as they were in the 1960s, using glamorous actors to promote the product. In the United States, electronic cigarette sales have doubled each year since 2008, and are expected to reach $1 billion this year.

Yet while health officials concede that the electronic cigarette is less toxic than the traditional type, they caution that "less toxic" does not equal safe. One concern is that electronic cigarettes could get a nonsmoker hooked on nicotine, or lead a smoker who would otherwise quit to delay. Officials acknowledge that research needs to be done to determine the other potentially harmful effects of electronic cigarettes, including any harm that could be secondhand.

Normally, if a mother smokes throughout her pregnancy and her child has a birth defect, she would not have a very strong case if she tried to sue the cigarette manufacturer. That is because in the present day the harmful effects of traditional cigarettes are so widely known, that many would claim that the mother "assumed the risk," and that she bore as much blame -- if not more -- for her child's condition. However, it might be a different story if the mother smoked electronic cigarettes under the assurance that they were "safe." If that were the case, she might have a basis to file a product liability suit against the electronic cigarette manufacturer. She could argue that the manufacturer had a duty to create as safe a product as possible, and provide an adequate warning if there were any dangers. The manufacturer not only failed to make the electronic cigarette as safe as it could have been, but it also did not provide a sufficient warning. In fact, it did the opposite, boasting in advertisements that the cigarette contained no dangers. As a result, the mother was injured through exposure to the cigarette's toxins, and her child was born with a birth defect.

Continue reading "Health Officials Express Concerns That "Safer" Electronic Cigarette May Contain Many Hidden Dangers" »

Beijing, China is notorious for its extremely unhealthy levels of air pollution. However, it recently took its notoriety to new heights, as the smog levels rose from "beyond index" to "hazardous." On a scale of 0 to 500, the smog level was 750 -- far above the level the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers to be hazardous (300). What is worse, the problem is not limited to Beijing; many of China's cities, including Shandong and Guizhou, are failing to meet air quality standards laid out by the World Health Organization. This could pose a long-standing problem, for not only could air pollution exacerbate respiratory ailments and cause cancer, but it has also been linked to miscarriages and birth defects.

Already, it is estimated that tens of thousands of Chinese people die each year as a result of toxic air pollution. China's push toward industrialization has resulted in an increase in lung cancer deaths -- five times greater than the rate thirty years ago.

China's authorities may finally be forced to address the problem in a comprehensive manner. They have already made some small changes, such as improving vehicle emission standards and converting urban heating systems from coal to gas. Those changes might make a difference, but one that likely won't be felt for decades. In the meantime, environmental groups have called upon Chinese officials to adopt tactics such as strengthen and monitor emission standards for coal-burning power plants and other industrial facilities, move the country away from industries that cause pollution, expand public transportation options, and clean up diesel trucks and buses. Finally, these groups have called for China to limit the amount of coal burned - the country accounts for half of the world's coal consumption.

While China's problem is certainly extreme, it is not isolated. Several cities in the United States have problems with poor air quality and smog. Air pollution has been traced to an increase in miscarriages, stillbirths, and birth defects. If your child has a birth defect that you believe was due to your exposure to smog, you might consider filing a toxic tort lawsuit against the offender. That is easiest when you have a known offender, like a single coal-burning power plant. However, if the causes are more diffuse -- such as thousands of cars per day -- you might want to consider a different approach. You might consider suing the state and/or federal regulatory agencies charged with enforcing air quality standards. You would argue that they were breaching their duty to the city's residents by failing to enforce measures that would clean the air. If you go this route, you would not be able to sue for a monetary award, but at least you could help ensure that future children will not be born with birth defects caused by toxins from air pollution.

Continue reading "China's "Hazardous" Air Pollution Levels Pose a Threat to Health and a Risk of Birth Defects " »

An article citing several different reports raises concerns about the healthiness of bottled water compared to water from the tap. The article notes that while tap water must meet certain environmental standards, bottled water is not bound by those standards, and thus contains more chemicals. Certain chemicals in bottled water have been linked to health problems and birth defects.

According to the article, water utilities in the United States spend millions of dollars each year on methods for keeping tap water safe. For instance, 900 water utilities finance the Colorado-based Water Research Foundation for $25 million each year. The Water Research Foundation is the world's largest nonprofit, and its research into drinking water is used by both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Health Canada. The EPA also requires tap water testing by certified labs, which are required to give timely reports of violations. These reports must also be given to customers.

By contrast, bottled water is regulated not by the EPA, but by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA cannot require bottled water companies to disclose where the water came from or what chemicals it contains. While both tap and bottled water may contain cancer-causing chemicals, bottled water appears to be significantly worse. The Washington-based Environmental Working Group conducted a two-year study and found that within the 10 biggest brands of bottled water, 38 chemicals were detected, with an average of eight chemicals apiece per bottle. These chemicals included fertilizer, solvents, chlorine, plastic-forming chemicals, and strontium (a radioactive element).

In particular, bisphenol A (BPA), the plastic softener, is a concern. Some studies have found that BPA from plastic bottles can seep into the water. BPA is an endocrine disrupter that can cause damage to a person's DNA. That means that a pregnant woman exposed to BPA is at a higher risk of giving birth to a child with a birth defect.

If your child has a birth defect that you believe is due to harmful chemicals in the bottled water you consume, you might consider filing a product liability suit against the manufacturer. You would argue that the manufacturer had a duty to consumers to make the bottled water as safe as possible, but breached that duty by not conducting tests, or refining the water well enough. As a result, the water was unreasonably dangerous, you were injured through exposure, and your child was born with a birth defect. The key is to provide strong evidence that the chemicals came only from the bottled water, as opposed to another source, and also to connect that dates during which you consumed the water to your child's birth. If you consumed the water five years beforehand, for instance, it might be difficult to make the connection.

Continue reading "Bottled Water May Contain More Harmful Chemicals Than Tap Water" »

A recent article reports that dozens of the 247 Superfund toxic waste sites in New York and New Jersey may have been disrupted by Hurricane Sandy this past fall. Although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claims that there is no evidence of disruption, the EPA has only done visual inspections, rather than more in-depth testing of the sites. This could pose a serious health threat to those located not far from the site, including a higher risk of birth defects.

Under the Superfund law of 1980, the EPA had the power to order cleanup of certain hazardous waste sites that posed a threat to human health. In New York and New Jersey, such sites include the Raritan Bay Slag site, which was designated in 2009. The site contains high levels of toxins such as lead, arsenic, copper, and antimony. Another site, Newtown Creek, is filled with PCBs, pesticides, metals, and volatile organic compounds. Newtown Creek has been a Superfund site since 2010. While the EPA did test these two sites, countless others have gone untested, leaving residents concerned. Many worry that the toxins could seep into ground water and are not convinced the EPA has done enough. Even politicians are expressing their concern, with New Jersey's Senator Frank Lautenberg requesting that the EPA perform an additional inspection on Hurricane Sandy's impact on the Superfund sites.

If you live near one of the Superfund sites and months after Hurricane Sandy, have a child with a birth defect, you have the option of filing a lawsuit against the EPA. You would argue that the EPA had a duty to ensure that the toxic waste sites had been contained and that the toxins had not spilled into the ground water. The EPA did not take proper steps, such as testing, to ensure that the toxic waste sites were safe, and did not inform members of the community that there could be dangers. As a result, you were exposed to the toxins while pregnant, and your child was born with a birth defect. Had you known that toxins had escaped the Superfund site, you would have taken measures to protect yourself, which could have prevented the birth defect.

The greatest challenge for such a lawsuit is proving that the toxic waste leakage is connected to the birth defect. If you were close to giving birth when the hurricane occurred, you probably would have difficulty making the case that neglected sites affected by Sandy caused your child's birth defect. However, if you were in the first trimester of your pregnancy, you might have an easier time providing evidence -- especially if other pregnant women nearby also had babies with birth defects.

Continue reading "Residents Near Toxic Waste Sites Fear the Effects of Hurricane Sandy" »

One source of toxins that has caught the attention of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is large-scale laundries. Large-scale laundering facilities are responsible for cleaning linens for hospitals, prisons, hotels, and other entities. However, the toxic fumes released during the cleaning process might be making laundry workers and the general public ill.

The problem may not be the cleaning process itself, but rather what is cleaned. The biggest offenders may be shop towels from industrial plants sent to the laundries already covered in oil, paint, solvents, and other chemicals. Once the towels are washed and dried, the toxins that were on them enter the atmosphere. They exit the laundry facilities through vents and exhaust valves, becoming a major source of smog.

In addition to the dangers posed by inhaling the vapors, having so many different toxins together can be dangerous in different ways -- such as causing fires or explosions when chemicals mix together. Until now, regulators have had difficulty cracking down because they did not know whom to hold responsible, with each industrial plant using different chemicals. The EPA, however, has stated that it is the laundry facilities that should be held responsible for what they clean.

Last year, the EPA set its sights on two New England laundry facilities where residents had complained about poor air quality: one in Massachusetts and one in New Hampshire. The EPA got the New Hampshire facility to pay a civil penalty of $65,000, install better filters to prevent so much toxic escape through the vents, and undertake a $220,000 initiative to improve air quality in that part of the state. Up to 35 other facilities have been probed, with some of them facing similar penalties.

Large-scale laundry facilities are not usually the first example that comes to mind when people think of toxic offenders, so it is good that the EPA has chosen to keep an eye on them. Toxins in the air and water have been linked to a variety of health problems, as well as birth defects. However, if the EPA or another regulator has not taken steps to regulate the facilities, you could file a toxic tort lawsuit against the facility if you believe that your health problem, or your child's birth defect, could be the result of its toxins. You would argue that the laundry facility had a duty to the surrounding community to operate reasonably according to health and safety regulations. The facility breached its duty by permitting harmful amounts of toxins to escape into the air when it could have taken reasonable efforts to prevent the emissions. As a result of the breach, you were injured through exposure to the toxins while pregnant. The resulting damage was your child's birth defect.

Continue reading "EPA Starts Regulating Industrial Laundries With the Goal of Preventing Toxic Emissions" »

In past posts, this blog has discussed at length the health problems posed by a practice known as "mountaintop removal mining," or just "mountaintop mining." Performed by coal and mineral mining companies throughout several Appalachian states, it involves stripping the top soil on mountains in order to get to the coal or minerals underneath. The top soil is then often dumped in nearby waterways, with the result being that toxic metals, most notably mercury, seep into the air and water, leading to serious health problems in the surrounding communities, as well as birth defects.

Until recently, those who tried to resist mountaintop removal mining faced an uphill battle. While public opinion appeared to be against the practice, there were state politicians who would defend it as "necessary" for the one of the state's most important industries. Yet now, it appears that Patriot Coal will become the first major mining company to stop the mountaintop removal mining practice, thanks to an agreement made with three environmental groups. The deal came after the three groups sued Patriot Coal over its water pollution in several West Virginia mining locations. The coal mining company agreed to phase out and eventually cease all mountaintop removal mining in central Appalachia. The deal would allow Patriot Coal, which is currently going through Chapter 11 bankruptcy, to postpone $27 million in expenses. This would increase the likelihood of the company emerging from bankruptcy intact.

The agreement places a cap on the amount of coal that Patriot Coal can mine through the strip mining method, from 6.5 million tons in 2014 to 5 million tons in 2017. The company will also immediately retire equipment used for the removal process and will eventually put into place selenium treatment systems at several of its mines. Selenium is an element that at high levels can be toxic to humans, causing damage to the kidneys, liver, and central nervous system.

The environmental groups involved in the agreement have hailed the deal as "historic." It remains to be seen if Patriot Coal's actions will become a model for the industry, but at the very least, it promises to make some difference for the health of the surrounding community. The agreement also highlights the good that can come from filing lawsuits against toxic offenders. In this case, environmental groups sued the coal company, rather than individuals effected, but if your child has a birth defect that you think is the result of mountaintop removal mining, you could file an individual lawsuit. You would most likely accuse the company of acting negligently, of not following reasonable safety standards, leading to your exposure to the harmful toxins while pregnant. The resulting damage would be your child's birth defect. Since you would likely not be the only member of the community suffering from the harmful effects of mountaintop removal mining, you could potentially become part of a class action lawsuit.

Continue reading "Patriot Coal Becomes the First Mining Company to Agree to Phase Out Mountaintop Removal Mining" »

In the past, this blog has discussed the health risks posed by beauty salon treatments, including a hairstyle known as the "Brazilian Blowout." These types of beauty treatments often involve using harmful toxins in a poorly ventilated space. While this can be dangerous for customers, it is especially dangerous for beauty salon workers who are repeatedly exposed to these treatments. Yet there are few regulatory safeguards in place to protect workers from their effects.

The Brazilian Blowout, in particular, has been linked to health problems and birth defects. It involves using formaldehyde, a known carcinogen that can cause nose and throat cancers and leukemia. Salon workers who have administered the treatment have complained of feeling nauseous and of suffering from burning eyes and a sore throat after repeated exposure to the chemicals. Yet there is no federal law requiring cosmetics companies to disclose the toxic chemicals in their products or to receive prior approval before they go on the market. Nor does the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have the authority to recall the products if they are found to be harmful. Part of the reason may be because toxic chemical laws have not kept up with the times: the Safe Chemicals Act, the first major update to the 1976 Toxic Chemicals Act, is slowly working its way through Congress.

Some states, like California and New York, have been fighting back to enforce safety standards. For instance, California's attorney general won a $600,000 settlement against GIB, the manufacturer of Brazilian Blowout, for engaging in deceptive advertising practices. Individual stylists and their customers have also sued GIB, most recently reaching a $4 million settlement. Still, both are probably a drop in the bucket for GIB, given that as many as 100,000 customers have received the treatment from more than 15,000 stylists. Many stylists are reluctant to part with the treatment because customers may pay up to $350 at a time.

Nonetheless, they should be concerned about the treatment's effects on their long-term health, as well as other cosmetic treatments. If you are a salon worker and you have cancer or a child with a birth defect, you also have the option of filing a lawsuit against the cosmetic manufacturer if you suspect its product was responsible. You would file a product liability suit, arguing that the manufacturer had a duty to create as safe a product as was reasonably possible, but breached that duty by designing an unreasonably dangerous product. As a result of the breach, you were injured through exposure to the product's toxins. The result was either your child's birth defect or your health problems, or both. The manufacturer might try to argue that its efforts were reasonable, given the lack of government standards, but since various states and individuals have had successful suits, it is highly possible that this argument will not resonate.

Continue reading "Brazilian Blowout and Other Salon Treatments Continue to Harm Workers While Facing Little Government Oversight" »

Yet more products that people use on a routine basis have been linked to a higher risk of cancer, obesity, and birth defects. In this case, the culprits are men's grooming products. A recent report by a Canadian environmental group, Environmental Defence, found that dangerous levels of toxins could be found in common products like deodorant, shaving cream, and aftershave.

Currently in Canada, the men's grooming industry is growing and is now worth $690 million. In the United States, the average man uses up to six grooming products per day, containing over 80 chemicals.

Environmental Defence conducted its study by testing 17 different products that had been recommended to them by men who had used them. The environmental group found that, of the 17, four held possible human carcinogens, five had chemicals that harmed reproductive health, and 10 had artificial musks linked to hormone disruption. Hormone disrupting toxins have been linked to a variety of health problems, from sperm damage to testicular cancer. This does not even include toxins that seeped into the products through processing.

Overall, the worst 10 toxins that Environmental Defence found in these products were: (1) triclosan, linked to endocrine disruption; (2) artificial musks, linked to hormone disruption; (3) parabens, linked to an increase of breast cancer; (4) dibutyl phthalates, linked to genital abnormalities and testicular cancer; (5) petrolatum, linked to skin irritation and may be linked to cancer; (6) formaldehyde releasing agents, a possible carcinogen linked to immune system toxicity; (7) sodium laureth sulphate, a possible carcinogen that may be linked to brain and nervous system disruption; (8) silicon chemicals, which may be carcinogenic and a reproductive toxin; (9) coal tar-derived colors, linked to cancer; and (10) BHA and BHT, which are possibly carcinogenic and are endocrine disrupters. Although available in Canada, these chemicals are restricted or banned in Europe.

While some of these chemicals (such as dibutyl phthalates) have been banned in the United States for certain products, most appear to still be used in a wide variety of products -- including, quite likely, men's grooming products.

Continue reading "Canadian Environmental Group Issues Report Showing Link Between Toxins in Men's Grooming Products and Health Problems, Including Birth Defects" »