Having a really busy job, I found myself watching Erin Brockovich on t.v. while I worked. I've seen it several times, but was really curious as to the reality of it. It claims it was based on a true story, but I also realize that true is sometimes a matter of opinion, and not based on fact.
So as I watched the movie, I made note of several things. Before I launch into that, let me just point out that the movie basically is a story of David vs. Goliath. A small law firm takes on a utility company for using Chromium VI that eventually contaminated the water supply in Hinkley, California. Most people have seen it or at the very least heard about it. Julia Roberts plays the part of Erin Brockovich and is the most noted actor in the movie.
As I watched the movie, several things stood out to me and I set on a small journey to determine the truth. Was the story of Erin Brockovich really true or was it more a souped-up Hollywood feel-good story invented to make someone a lot of money?
I would just like to say that ... you know, I really care about the truth. Sometimes, we accept things at face value and don't bother to ask questions about their validity. The truth is important to me; it's important to a lot of people. Sometimes, something can sound so true and seem so real, but in reality, all it is is smoke an mirrors. Let's take a look and see ...
The movie asserts that "The film tells the true story of Erin Brockovich, a legal assistant, who in 1993 lined up some 650 prospective plaintiffs from the tiny desert town of Hinkley, Calif., to sue Pacific Gas & Electric.
PG&E's nearby plant was leaching chromium 6, a rust inhibitor, into Hinkley's water supply, and the suit blamed the chemical for dozens of symptoms, ranging from nosebleeds to breast cancer, Hodgkin's disease, miscarriages and spinal deterioration. In 1996 PG&E settled the case for $333 million."
In researching the "facts" I stumbled across several articles completely contradicting the Brockovich movie and actually stating that the lawyers in the Brockovich "team" were merely sharks out to get a buck. The biggest attacker of their claims is Michael Fumento who, in The Wall Street Journal, March 28, 2000 article attacked each of the movies claims as false.
In reviewing this, let's take a look at the major facts claimed to be true in the movie:
Claim #1. Over 650 people in the town of Hinkley claimed they suffered such ailments as to be simple nosebleeds, rashes, to the more serious cancer and even death.
Michael Fumento claimed, "A study by Mr. Blot and others, just published in The Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, evaluated almost 52,000 workers who worked at three PG&E plants over a quarter of a century. One was the Hinkley plant, and another is near Kettleman, Calif., where Ms. Brockovich's firm is rounding up plaintiffs today. The researchers found cancer rates were no higher than in the general California population and death rates significantly lower than expected."
Wow, that's a pretty solid argument if you ask me. If after a quarter of a century, the population and death rates were "lower than expected" then how is it that 650 people were convinced they were suffering ailments as a result of Chromium VI? I think I might have an answer to that question. But when I first read this, I was really starting to question the validity of the entire movie. After all, the attourneys in the real case did manage to get over $133 million. Was it possible that they merely wanted to take advantage of a big corporation? Let's take a closer look ...
Claim #2. Chromium VI is a dangerous chemical.According to Fumento, "We now know the scientific evidence doesn't back her [claim] up." He claims that chromium was scientifically proven to not pose a significant risk to anyone's health and any dangerous reactions are the result of inhalation not ingestion as the Brockovich team (and the movie) claim. Here's more of what he had to say, "Chromium-6, derived from ubiquitous chromite ore, is considered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ... as a human carcinogen within certain limits. Its connection is only to two types of cancer, that of the lung and of the septum... Further, as one might guess from these two cancers, it's only a carcinogen when inhaled. Even then, research indicates it takes massive doses over many years and according to William J. Blot, head of the International Epidemiology Institute in Rockville, Md., "It appears the problem has been associated with production of the compounds, not the actual use." Her further stated, "According to the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), updated in September 1998, "No data were located in the available literature that suggested that [chromium-6] is carcinogenic by the oral route of exposure." As a slam-dunk to make his case, he further asserts, "Cancer aside, exhaustive, repeated studies of communities living adjacent to landfills with huge concentrations of chromium-6, including that detectable in residents' urine, have found no ill health effects. A report out of Glasgow, Scotland, in January indicated exposed residents showed 'no increased risk of congenital abnormalities (birth defects), lung cancer, or a range of other diseases.'" That pretty much solidifies his argument. As you might expect, Erin Brockovich herself wrote to the editor of the newspaper defending the firm's claims. Further, she claimed that people were hurt and were rightfully compensated. But Fumento's argument seems pretty solid. His argument used actual studies (and official words) while Brockovich's merely illustrated her astute grasp of the English language. I was beginning to fear that I had believed in something that was just a figment of a money-hungry lawyers imagination.
However, several questions still lingered in my mind. There were things not argued by Mr. Fumento that were a matter of unquestioned and undisputed facts. Specifically, the following:
#1) Why would PGE give in to false claims and give $333 million if chromium was completely safe? The company attempted to buy the land from the residents and even offered free water to residents. Why? Why would the company attempt to buy the land if there was no problem with it?
Fumento asserts that it was just giving in to the powerful legalities that they feared would cost them, that and the fact they were receiving bad publicity. However, the attempts to purchase the land from the residents came long before Ed Masry and Brockovich even came along and long before there was even an issue with the plants. So why would a company give money to something or for something that was harmless?
#2) How could 650 people possibly have illnesses from a chemical supposedly scientifically proven to be harmless?
Since I didn't have the answer to either of these questions, I did some further research of my own to finally put to rest whether or not this was a true story.
I found myself at the official website for the Department of Health And Human Services, specifically the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease and looked up Chromium VI. This is an official government agency not profiting from having an opinion either way. According to the website, "Breathing high levels of chromium(VI) can cause irritation to the nose, such as runny nose, nosebleeds, and ulcers and holes in the nasal septum."
Uh oh, I noticed it said breathing not ingesting. Then I read on "Ingesting large amounts of chromium(VI) can cause stomach upsets and ulcers, convulsions, kidney and liver damage, and even death.Skin contact with certain chromium(VI) compounds can cause skin ulcers. Some people are extremely sensitive to chromium(VI) or chromium(III). Allergic reactions consisting of severe redness and swelling of the skin have been noted."
Further at the site, under the section of "how likely it is to cause cancer" it says, "Several studies have shown that chromium(VI) compounds can increase the risk of lung cancer. Animal studies have also shown an increased risk of cancer. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that certain chromium(VI) compounds are known to cause cancer in humans." Oh yeah, and according to Wickipedia (I love that site), "The lethal dose of poisonous chromium (VI) compounds is about one half teaspoon of material." I should also note that one of the biggest contentions of Fumento is that the levels of Chromium noted in the movie is .58 parts per million (which is really high) but claimed that a level like that would not cause significant harm. According to Wickipedia, "The OSHA PEL for Hexavalent Chromium is 5 µg/m3 (0.005).[2]
Now, it doesn't take a scientist to figure out that .005 is much lower than .58!
Well there we go. There's the answer I was looking for, at last. The site describes chromium VI as a carginogen and extremely dangerous. Why would the utility company bother paying out $333 million dollars? Probably because they knew they had done something wrong.
My faith in truth and justice has been restored and all it took was a little bit of internet research. I would like to point out that, in doing this research, I discovered statements from Hinkley residents claiming how unhappy they were with the amount of money they received. That is truly a shame, because it's difficult to place a price tag on a human life, disease, or illness, no matter what the cause.
If the amounts gathered for the purposes of making the claimants whole weren't gathered fairly (as some claim) then I feel bad for those poor people who have suffered or continue to suffer as the result of that contamination. Hopefully the money they got was enough for their medical bills and a little bit of their pain and suffering.
I can never know what they went through. To me, the bigger picture is that winning the case was more than just about giving money to the people that were harmed. The bigger picture is to fight for the cause of justice. To fight against the use of chromium not just to give people money they felt they deserved, but to prevent the continued use of the chemical and to prevent it from happening to anyone else! It's about protecting future generations and making our world a safer place.
Anyways, I thought I would share this with you ... if you get a chance, watch the movie. It's interesting at the very least. While I think that perhaps the facts on either side of the case seem a little bit skewed, it seems that perhaps chromium VI is a little more dangerous than Fumento would have you believe. I wouldn't want to drink the water. Would you?
But this leads me to my next point: sometimes what we are presented with isn't always the truth. It's best to take a look deeper and investigate before we jump to a conclusion one way or the other.
Sources:
Fumento, Michael "Erin Brochovich Exposed" http://www.fumento.com/erinwsj.html
Brockovich, Erin "'Erin Brockovich,' Affirmed"http://www.fumento.com/brocklett.html
Department of Health and Human Services, "Chromium VI"http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts7.html
Time.Com "Erin Brockovich's Junk Science"http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,464386,00.html
Wickipedia.com "Chromium VI"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_VI
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Having a really busy job, I found myself watching Erin Brockovich on t.v. while I worked. I've seen it several times, but was really curious as to the reality of it. It claims it was based on a true story, but I also realize that true is sometimes a matter of opinion, and not based on fact.
So as I watched the movie, I made note of several things. Before I launch into that, let me just point out that the movie basically is a story of David vs. Goliath. A small law firm takes on a utility company for using Chromium VI that eventually contaminated the water supply in Hinkley, California. Most people have seen it or at the very least heard about it. Julia Roberts plays the part of Erin Brockovich and is the most noted actor in the movie.
As I watched the movie, several things stood out to me and I set on a small journey to determine the truth. Was the story of Erin Brockovich really true or was it more a souped-up Hollywood feel-good story invented to make someone a lot of money?
I would just like to say that ... you know, I really care about the truth. Sometimes, we accept things at face value and don't bother to ask questions about their validity. The truth is important to me; it's important to a lot of people. Sometimes, something can sound so true and seem so real, but in reality, all it is is smoke an mirrors. Let's take a look and see ...
The movie asserts that "The film tells the true story of Erin Brockovich, a legal assistant, who in 1993 lined up some 650 prospective plaintiffs from the tiny desert town of Hinkley, Calif., to sue Pacific Gas & Electric.
PG&E's nearby plant was leaching chromium 6, a rust inhibitor, into Hinkley's water supply, and the suit blamed the chemical for dozens of symptoms, ranging from nosebleeds to breast cancer, Hodgkin's disease, miscarriages and spinal deterioration. In 1996 PG&E settled the case for $333 million."
In researching the "facts" I stumbled across several articles completely contradicting the Brockovich movie and actually stating that the lawyers in the Brockovich "team" were merely sharks out to get a buck. The biggest attacker of their claims is Michael Fumento who, in The Wall Street Journal, March 28, 2000 article attacked each of the movies claims as false.
In reviewing this, let's take a look at the major facts claimed to be true in the movie:
Claim #1. Over 650 people in the town of Hinkley claimed they suffered such ailments as to be simple nosebleeds, rashes, to the more serious cancer and even death.
Michael Fumento claimed, "A study by Mr. Blot and others, just published in The Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, evaluated almost 52,000 workers who worked at three PG&E plants over a quarter of a century. One was the Hinkley plant, and another is near Kettleman, Calif., where Ms. Brockovich's firm is rounding up plaintiffs today. The researchers found cancer rates were no higher than in the general California population and death rates significantly lower than expected."
Wow, that's a pretty solid argument if you ask me. If after a quarter of a century, the population and death rates were "lower than expected" then how is it that 650 people were convinced they were suffering ailments as a result of Chromium VI? I think I might have an answer to that question. But when I first read this, I was really starting to question the validity of the entire movie. After all, the attourneys in the real case did manage to get over $133 million. Was it possible that they merely wanted to take advantage of a big corporation? Let's take a closer look ...
Claim #2. Chromium VI is a dangerous chemical.According to Fumento, "We now know the scientific evidence doesn't back her [claim] up." He claims that chromium was scientifically proven to not pose a significant risk to anyone's health and any dangerous reactions are the result of inhalation not ingestion as the Brockovich team (and the movie) claim. Here's more of what he had to say, "Chromium-6, derived from ubiquitous chromite ore, is considered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ... as a human carcinogen within certain limits. Its connection is only to two types of cancer, that of the lung and of the septum... Further, as one might guess from these two cancers, it's only a carcinogen when inhaled. Even then, research indicates it takes massive doses over many years and according to William J. Blot, head of the International Epidemiology Institute in Rockville, Md., "It appears the problem has been associated with production of the compounds, not the actual use." Her further stated, "According to the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), updated in September 1998, "No data were located in the available literature that suggested that [chromium-6] is carcinogenic by the oral route of exposure." As a slam-dunk to make his case, he further asserts, "Cancer aside, exhaustive, repeated studies of communities living adjacent to landfills with huge concentrations of chromium-6, including that detectable in residents' urine, have found no ill health effects. A report out of Glasgow, Scotland, in January indicated exposed residents showed 'no increased risk of congenital abnormalities (birth defects), lung cancer, or a range of other diseases.'" That pretty much solidifies his argument. As you might expect, Erin Brockovich herself wrote to the editor of the newspaper defending the firm's claims. Further, she claimed that people were hurt and were rightfully compensated. But Fumento's argument seems pretty solid. His argument used actual studies (and official words) while Brockovich's merely illustrated her astute grasp of the English language. I was beginning to fear that I had believed in something that was just a figment of a money-hungry lawyers imagination.
However, several questions still lingered in my mind. There were things not argued by Mr. Fumento that were a matter of unquestioned and undisputed facts. Specifically, the following:
#1) Why would PGE give in to false claims and give $333 million if chromium was completely safe? The company attempted to buy the land from the residents and even offered free water to residents. Why? Why would the company attempt to buy the land if there was no problem with it?
Fumento asserts that it was just giving in to the powerful legalities that they feared would cost them, that and the fact they were receiving bad publicity. However, the attempts to purchase the land from the residents came long before Ed Masry and Brockovich even came along and long before there was even an issue with the plants. So why would a company give money to something or for something that was harmless?
#2) How could 650 people possibly have illnesses from a chemical supposedly scientifically proven to be harmless?
Since I didn't have the answer to either of these questions, I did some further research of my own to finally put to rest whether or not this was a true story.
I found myself at the official website for the Department of Health And Human Services, specifically the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease and looked up Chromium VI. This is an official government agency not profiting from having an opinion either way. According to the website, "Breathing high levels of chromium(VI) can cause irritation to the nose, such as runny nose, nosebleeds, and ulcers and holes in the nasal septum."
Uh oh, I noticed it said breathing not ingesting. Then I read on "Ingesting large amounts of chromium(VI) can cause stomach upsets and ulcers, convulsions, kidney and liver damage, and even death.Skin contact with certain chromium(VI) compounds can cause skin ulcers. Some people are extremely sensitive to chromium(VI) or chromium(III). Allergic reactions consisting of severe redness and swelling of the skin have been noted."
Further at the site, under the section of "how likely it is to cause cancer" it says, "Several studies have shown that chromium(VI) compounds can increase the risk of lung cancer. Animal studies have also shown an increased risk of cancer. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that certain chromium(VI) compounds are known to cause cancer in humans." Oh yeah, and according to Wickipedia (I love that site), "The lethal dose of poisonous chromium (VI) compounds is about one half teaspoon of material." I should also note that one of the biggest contentions of Fumento is that the levels of Chromium noted in the movie is .58 parts per million (which is really high) but claimed that a level like that would not cause significant harm. According to Wickipedia, "The OSHA PEL for Hexavalent Chromium is 5 µg/m3 (0.005).[2]
Now, it doesn't take a scientist to figure out that .005 is much lower than .58!
Well there we go. There's the answer I was looking for, at last. The site describes chromium VI as a carginogen and extremely dangerous. Why would the utility company bother paying out $333 million dollars? Probably because they knew they had done something wrong.
My faith in truth and justice has been restored and all it took was a little bit of internet research. I would like to point out that, in doing this research, I discovered statements from Hinkley residents claiming how unhappy they were with the amount of money they received. That is truly a shame, because it's difficult to place a price tag on a human life, disease, or illness, no matter what the cause.
If the amounts gathered for the purposes of making the claimants whole weren't gathered fairly (as some claim) then I feel bad for those poor people who have suffered or continue to suffer as the result of that contamination. Hopefully the money they got was enough for their medical bills and a little bit of their pain and suffering.
I can never know what they went through. To me, the bigger picture is that winning the case was more than just about giving money to the people that were harmed. The bigger picture is to fight for the cause of justice. To fight against the use of chromium not just to give people money they felt they deserved, but to prevent the continued use of the chemical and to prevent it from happening to anyone else! It's about protecting future generations and making our world a safer place.
Anyways, I thought I would share this with you ... if you get a chance, watch the movie. It's interesting at the very least. While I think that perhaps the facts on either side of the case seem a little bit skewed, it seems that perhaps chromium VI is a little more dangerous than Fumento would have you believe. I wouldn't want to drink the water. Would you?
But this leads me to my next point: sometimes what we are presented with isn't always the truth. It's best to take a look deeper and investigate before we jump to a conclusion one way or the other.
Sources:
Fumento, Michael "Erin Brochovich Exposed" http://www.fumento.com/erinwsj.html
Brockovich, Erin "'Erin Brockovich,' Affirmed"http://www.fumento.com/brocklett.html
Department of Health and Human Services, "Chromium VI"http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts7.html
Time.Com "Erin Brockovich's Junk Science"http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,464386,00.html
Wickipedia.com "Chromium VI"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_VI
So as I watched the movie, I made note of several things. Before I launch into that, let me just point out that the movie basically is a story of David vs. Goliath. A small law firm takes on a utility company for using Chromium VI that eventually contaminated the water supply in Hinkley, California. Most people have seen it or at the very least heard about it. Julia Roberts plays the part of Erin Brockovich and is the most noted actor in the movie.
As I watched the movie, several things stood out to me and I set on a small journey to determine the truth. Was the story of Erin Brockovich really true or was it more a souped-up Hollywood feel-good story invented to make someone a lot of money?
I would just like to say that ... you know, I really care about the truth. Sometimes, we accept things at face value and don't bother to ask questions about their validity. The truth is important to me; it's important to a lot of people. Sometimes, something can sound so true and seem so real, but in reality, all it is is smoke an mirrors. Let's take a look and see ...
The movie asserts that "The film tells the true story of Erin Brockovich, a legal assistant, who in 1993 lined up some 650 prospective plaintiffs from the tiny desert town of Hinkley, Calif., to sue Pacific Gas & Electric.
PG&E's nearby plant was leaching chromium 6, a rust inhibitor, into Hinkley's water supply, and the suit blamed the chemical for dozens of symptoms, ranging from nosebleeds to breast cancer, Hodgkin's disease, miscarriages and spinal deterioration. In 1996 PG&E settled the case for $333 million."
In researching the "facts" I stumbled across several articles completely contradicting the Brockovich movie and actually stating that the lawyers in the Brockovich "team" were merely sharks out to get a buck. The biggest attacker of their claims is Michael Fumento who, in The Wall Street Journal, March 28, 2000 article attacked each of the movies claims as false.
In reviewing this, let's take a look at the major facts claimed to be true in the movie:
Claim #1. Over 650 people in the town of Hinkley claimed they suffered such ailments as to be simple nosebleeds, rashes, to the more serious cancer and even death.
Michael Fumento claimed, "A study by Mr. Blot and others, just published in The Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, evaluated almost 52,000 workers who worked at three PG&E plants over a quarter of a century. One was the Hinkley plant, and another is near Kettleman, Calif., where Ms. Brockovich's firm is rounding up plaintiffs today. The researchers found cancer rates were no higher than in the general California population and death rates significantly lower than expected."
Wow, that's a pretty solid argument if you ask me. If after a quarter of a century, the population and death rates were "lower than expected" then how is it that 650 people were convinced they were suffering ailments as a result of Chromium VI? I think I might have an answer to that question. But when I first read this, I was really starting to question the validity of the entire movie. After all, the attourneys in the real case did manage to get over $133 million. Was it possible that they merely wanted to take advantage of a big corporation? Let's take a closer look ...
Claim #2. Chromium VI is a dangerous chemical.According to Fumento, "We now know the scientific evidence doesn't back her [claim] up." He claims that chromium was scientifically proven to not pose a significant risk to anyone's health and any dangerous reactions are the result of inhalation not ingestion as the Brockovich team (and the movie) claim. Here's more of what he had to say, "Chromium-6, derived from ubiquitous chromite ore, is considered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ... as a human carcinogen within certain limits. Its connection is only to two types of cancer, that of the lung and of the septum... Further, as one might guess from these two cancers, it's only a carcinogen when inhaled. Even then, research indicates it takes massive doses over many years and according to William J. Blot, head of the International Epidemiology Institute in Rockville, Md., "It appears the problem has been associated with production of the compounds, not the actual use." Her further stated, "According to the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), updated in September 1998, "No data were located in the available literature that suggested that [chromium-6] is carcinogenic by the oral route of exposure." As a slam-dunk to make his case, he further asserts, "Cancer aside, exhaustive, repeated studies of communities living adjacent to landfills with huge concentrations of chromium-6, including that detectable in residents' urine, have found no ill health effects. A report out of Glasgow, Scotland, in January indicated exposed residents showed 'no increased risk of congenital abnormalities (birth defects), lung cancer, or a range of other diseases.'" That pretty much solidifies his argument. As you might expect, Erin Brockovich herself wrote to the editor of the newspaper defending the firm's claims. Further, she claimed that people were hurt and were rightfully compensated. But Fumento's argument seems pretty solid. His argument used actual studies (and official words) while Brockovich's merely illustrated her astute grasp of the English language. I was beginning to fear that I had believed in something that was just a figment of a money-hungry lawyers imagination.
However, several questions still lingered in my mind. There were things not argued by Mr. Fumento that were a matter of unquestioned and undisputed facts. Specifically, the following:
#1) Why would PGE give in to false claims and give $333 million if chromium was completely safe? The company attempted to buy the land from the residents and even offered free water to residents. Why? Why would the company attempt to buy the land if there was no problem with it?
Fumento asserts that it was just giving in to the powerful legalities that they feared would cost them, that and the fact they were receiving bad publicity. However, the attempts to purchase the land from the residents came long before Ed Masry and Brockovich even came along and long before there was even an issue with the plants. So why would a company give money to something or for something that was harmless?
#2) How could 650 people possibly have illnesses from a chemical supposedly scientifically proven to be harmless?
Since I didn't have the answer to either of these questions, I did some further research of my own to finally put to rest whether or not this was a true story.
I found myself at the official website for the Department of Health And Human Services, specifically the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease and looked up Chromium VI. This is an official government agency not profiting from having an opinion either way. According to the website, "Breathing high levels of chromium(VI) can cause irritation to the nose, such as runny nose, nosebleeds, and ulcers and holes in the nasal septum."
Uh oh, I noticed it said breathing not ingesting. Then I read on "Ingesting large amounts of chromium(VI) can cause stomach upsets and ulcers, convulsions, kidney and liver damage, and even death.Skin contact with certain chromium(VI) compounds can cause skin ulcers. Some people are extremely sensitive to chromium(VI) or chromium(III). Allergic reactions consisting of severe redness and swelling of the skin have been noted."
Further at the site, under the section of "how likely it is to cause cancer" it says, "Several studies have shown that chromium(VI) compounds can increase the risk of lung cancer. Animal studies have also shown an increased risk of cancer. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that certain chromium(VI) compounds are known to cause cancer in humans." Oh yeah, and according to Wickipedia (I love that site), "The lethal dose of poisonous chromium (VI) compounds is about one half teaspoon of material." I should also note that one of the biggest contentions of Fumento is that the levels of Chromium noted in the movie is .58 parts per million (which is really high) but claimed that a level like that would not cause significant harm. According to Wickipedia, "The OSHA PEL for Hexavalent Chromium is 5 µg/m3 (0.005).[2]
Now, it doesn't take a scientist to figure out that .005 is much lower than .58!
Well there we go. There's the answer I was looking for, at last. The site describes chromium VI as a carginogen and extremely dangerous. Why would the utility company bother paying out $333 million dollars? Probably because they knew they had done something wrong.
My faith in truth and justice has been restored and all it took was a little bit of internet research. I would like to point out that, in doing this research, I discovered statements from Hinkley residents claiming how unhappy they were with the amount of money they received. That is truly a shame, because it's difficult to place a price tag on a human life, disease, or illness, no matter what the cause.
If the amounts gathered for the purposes of making the claimants whole weren't gathered fairly (as some claim) then I feel bad for those poor people who have suffered or continue to suffer as the result of that contamination. Hopefully the money they got was enough for their medical bills and a little bit of their pain and suffering.
I can never know what they went through. To me, the bigger picture is that winning the case was more than just about giving money to the people that were harmed. The bigger picture is to fight for the cause of justice. To fight against the use of chromium not just to give people money they felt they deserved, but to prevent the continued use of the chemical and to prevent it from happening to anyone else! It's about protecting future generations and making our world a safer place.
Anyways, I thought I would share this with you ... if you get a chance, watch the movie. It's interesting at the very least. While I think that perhaps the facts on either side of the case seem a little bit skewed, it seems that perhaps chromium VI is a little more dangerous than Fumento would have you believe. I wouldn't want to drink the water. Would you?
But this leads me to my next point: sometimes what we are presented with isn't always the truth. It's best to take a look deeper and investigate before we jump to a conclusion one way or the other.
Sources:
Fumento, Michael "Erin Brochovich Exposed" http://www.fumento.com/erinwsj.html
Brockovich, Erin "'Erin Brockovich,' Affirmed"http://www.fumento.com/brocklett.html
Department of Health and Human Services, "Chromium VI"http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts7.html
Time.Com "Erin Brockovich's Junk Science"http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,464386,00.html
Wickipedia.com "Chromium VI"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_VI
Saturday, May 12, 2007
I have always been the type of person to really soak up life. But there are times when my enthusiasm gets the better of me and my personality becomes ... I don't know, perhaps too much for others to handle. Perhaps I am just a little too sarcastic, or my words hit a little too close to home. Whatever the case, I will explain more tomorrow when I am well rested ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)