Register free!
Search
 
     

The Green Industry's Resource Center


Click for Weather
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #181  
Old 05-23-2012, 11:59 AM
cindyb's Avatar
cindyb cindyb is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: KY
Posts: 354
I don't want to post the email publicly, they shut it down and on the phone, they stop answering, thats why I wanted to pm you.
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 05-23-2012, 12:02 PM
Starbuy Starbuy is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Summit County, Ohio
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by AIRCORP View Post
Starbuy listed some very interesting information concerning the half life of Imprelis in a recent post. This information is taken from the following EPA document which can be downloaded from the web.

EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0789-0014[1] Registration

Look on page 13 - 14 concerning "Environmental Fate". You may want to read other sections as well. There are about 2.54 cm per inch for conversion purposes.
Aircorp, would you mind allowing private messaging once you get to 10 posts so I can PM you?
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 05-23-2012, 12:04 PM
cindyb's Avatar
cindyb cindyb is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: KY
Posts: 354
2005 Dupont and Teflon cookware

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500395_162-1083164.html

Quote:
The EPA alleged that DuPont for 20 years covered up important information about C8's health effects and about the pollution of water supplies near the company's Washington Works plant.

Under federal law, DuPont could face civil fines of more than $300 million for not reporting information that showed C8 posed "substantial risk of injury to health or the environment." The company has set aside $15 million to cover the costs of the lawsuit, according to corporate disclosures filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 05-23-2012, 12:11 PM
cindyb's Avatar
cindyb cindyb is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: KY
Posts: 354
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1638487957001/ Fox news and Geraldo

New Jersey community devastated by contaminated water

Pompton Lakes residents plea for more to be done to rid lake of poisonous DuPont chemicals

http://www.wolfenotes.com/2012/05/du...l-these-years/
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 05-23-2012, 12:14 PM
cindyb's Avatar
cindyb cindyb is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: KY
Posts: 354
Quote:
Residents were poisoned in their homes by Dupont pollution – something known as “vapor intrusion”. Dupont, DEP, and EPA knew about the vapor problem for over a decade but didn’t inform homeowners, who unknowingly were needlessly exposed to cancer causing chemical gases (hit this link for a chronology of who knew what when).

Outrageously, the residents were not told about the vapor intrusion problem until after residents executed a legal settlement with Dupont that waived their ability to sue Dupont [read US District Court decision]. In the summer of 2008, just after the ink was dry on that litigation settlement agreement , DEP and EPA suddenly claimed to have discovered the vapor problem.

But, this is not the first time that DEP withheld scientific information from the public to shield Dupont – the same thing happened during litigation on PFOA contamination of groundwater from Dupont’s Chambersworks facility in South Jersey. DEP did not release site remediation information until a lawsuit there was settled.

EPA also issued false certifications to Congress that groundwater and human health exposure at the site were “under control”.

These kinds of potential frauds and conspiracies warrant investigation.
Scary stuff and to think the EPA knew?
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 05-23-2012, 12:17 PM
cindyb's Avatar
cindyb cindyb is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: KY
Posts: 354
You have to be a member 10 days to get pms and have 10 posts
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 05-23-2012, 12:28 PM
Starbuy Starbuy is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Summit County, Ohio
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by cindyb View Post
Scary stuff and to think the EPA knew?
And, according to the law firms representing the Imprelis class action, Dupont also knew before they put Imprelis on the market to be used by professionals on residential properties that Imprelis could kill conifers. The fact that they allegedly did not have proper labeling is what will sink them in court big time. The law firm I spoke to involved in the class action says this will get settled, but if I file separate (if the Dupont direct process continues to be a lowball sham) the settlement would have to be enough to make it worth my while since 30% goes to the firm. I think I would have to reject settlement in Philli so that the case comes back to Ohio, then deal with my own settlement or go all the way to jury. I don't think I'll come out okay if accepting a small fraction of the class action settlement. They want too much in lawyer fees and too many golf courses and tree farms with more damage than me. I'd want this coming back to Ohio courts eventually. Still searching for the right law firm in case I need them. Won't pay more than 30% and won't pay lawyer fees out of my compensation if it's more than 35%. If it goes all the way thru jury trial than all attorneys fees should get paid by Dupont. Just thinking ahead.

Last edited by Starbuy; 05-23-2012 at 12:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 05-23-2012, 12:48 PM
cindyb's Avatar
cindyb cindyb is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: KY
Posts: 354
So we are figuring out why dupont wants to pay us and walk away leaving us with toxins in the ground for no telling how long.

The attorney(s) I've talked to said I'd come out ahead but I'd rather settle with Dupont. 33% and additional bills for things like calls and other services. I don't want class action either, it would come back to Kentucky. If it comes down to going to court, we'll have to discuss attorneys by pm.

THis is interesting. The Supreme court ruled homeowners can sue the EPA

http://conservative-wanderer.com/201...s-can-sue-epa/

They aren't above the law

Quote:
President Obama’s imperial administration through Executive Branch agencies like the EPA got a big setback today, courtesy of the Supreme Court (emphasis in original).
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 05-23-2012, 01:12 PM
Starbuy Starbuy is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Summit County, Ohio
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by cindyb View Post
So we are figuring out why dupont wants to pay us and walk away leaving us with toxins in the ground for no telling how long.

The attorney(s) I've talked to said I'd come out ahead but I'd rather settle with Dupont. 33% and additional bills for things like calls and other services. I don't want class action either, it would come back to Kentucky. If it comes down to going to court, we'll have to discuss attorneys by pm.

THis is interesting. The Supreme court ruled homeowners can sue the EPA

http://conservative-wanderer.com/201...s-can-sue-epa/

They aren't above the law
Well, once you have your second or even third offer from Dupont, if you decide to go to court, maybe ask the attorney if you'll get more than that offer even with subtracting all their commission and fees. If they're really confident that you'll come out way ahead then surely they'll accept a set commission with no additional fees like some do with car accident cases.
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 05-23-2012, 01:54 PM
AIRCORP AIRCORP is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: New Franklin, MO
Posts: 16
Ground water contamination

Hey everyone. Calm down. There is no evidence that Imprelis will harm humans. I am not an alarmist here. You all have to think logically about this. Use the EPA documents I previously mentioned. On page 7, there is only one mention of possible drinking water problems but it is below the level of concern for the EPA. You can trust in the EPA scientists on this. Here is the section.

1.2.1.1. Degradate of Concern
An environmental photodegradate of aminocyclopyrachlor present only in surface water was of possible concern for drinking water exposures. This photodegradate, cyclopropane carboxylic acid (IN-V0977), has a different mode of toxic action than aminocyclopyrachlor. Oral administration of cyclopropane carboxylic acid causes severe impairment of mitochondrial function by inhibiting the beta oxidation of fatty acids, resulting in microvesicular steatosis (accumulation of small fat droplets in cells). The liver is the most sensitive organ, and hepatocellular microvesicular steatosis is often accompanied by liver necrosis and inflammation, decreased hepatic glycogen, and decreased blood glucose levels. These effects have been
observed with acute (one to three days) and longer (up to 14 days) exposure. The most sensitive species is the rabbit. Hepatic microvesicular steatosis in the rabbit follows a different dose response than body weight decreases observed with aminocyclopyrachlor and aminocyclopyrachlor-methyl in rats, with a lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) that is
100-fold lower. However, based on the new use pattern, the dietary exposure to IN-V0977 from drinking water is below the Agency’s level of concern (LOC) (see Section 1.2.4).
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2012, LawnSite.com™ - Moose River Media
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:28 AM.

Page generated in 0.08416 seconds with 8 queries