|
|
Hotels: mesothelioma law firm |
|
|
|
Cancer - One in Two Men and One in Three Women Will Get It. What to Do?
There is nothing that puts more fear in people than a diagnosis of Cancer. Statistically speaking, we now have one in two chances (male) or one in three chances (female) of getting cancer before the end of our life (American Cancer Society statistics for the year 2003). At the beginning of the 20th century, statistics gave us one in 500 chances of getting cancer.
All cancers considered, if you have a primary cancer (in one location only) the most optimistic statistics only give you 28% chances of recovery. If you have metastatic cancer (in more than one location) then your chances of recovery are 0.1% or in other words, one chance in one thousand to recover - (statistics from Dr Philip Binzel book "Alive and Well" published by American Media).
The news is bleak to say the least. However, as we will see later on, this need not be the case.
Ever since I can remember, I have read newspaper articles, heard claims on TV or radio, reporting new "wonder" cures on the war against cancer. Victory against this terrible disease was, according to these reports, just around the corner. Why is it then that so many people are still dying from this disease? Are the 600 UK cancer charities (The largest UK charities being Imperial Cancer Research Fund, Cancer Research Campaign and Institute of Cancer Research) lying to us?
The "American Cancer Society" is the richest charity in the world. All debts paid, it would still have half a billion dollars in the bank!
Linus Pauling, the winner of two Nobel prizes, seemed to think so when he said: "Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them."
What is Cancer?
Modern researchers have for many years been exploring the virus connection at a cost of billions of dollars and pounds. The pitiful result is that "no cancer that was incurable 25 years ago is curable today and that, for the most common cancers that kills 90% of patients today chemotherapy is no better than snake oil" (The Cancer Handbook. What Doctors don't tell you publication. By Lynne Taggart).
When you are diagnosed with cancer, what the doctor is really saying is that you have one or several tumours in your body and that at least one of the tumours contains some cancer cells. They see the tumours as the enemy that has to be fought and destroyed and all their efforts are directed against eradicating the tumours.
What is a tumour though? A tumour is only a symptom; it shows that something has gone wrong in your body and that your immune system is no longer available to fight it. Many researchers claim that we all have tumours in our body and that several times in our life we get cancer. However, we do not all die from cancer. The reason is that our body's defence mechanism spring into action when a tumour is formed and gets rid of it or at least neutralises it. If cancer cells are beginning to form, these are killed off by our immune system and all is back to normal.
However if for some reason our immune system is severely deficient and we are unable to fight off the formation of the cancerous cells, then disease spreads.
What needs to be done to fight the tumour is not so much to remove it (surgery), burn it (radiation) or poison it (chemotherapy) as all these will weaken our immune system (damaging both our liver and kidneys to a point where it is difficult for our body to fight off any health problem). But to find out why the tumour formed in the first place and remove the cause.
Fighting it according to Dr Binzel is no good, our body now has in its memory the recipe to form tumours and uses the negative ingredients we feed it with to form new tumours and it will rarely stop doing so unless we remove the cause. The lack of positive ingredients (Vitamins, minerals and essential enzymes) to fight off the tumour is just as important.
Let me compare this reasoning with the simple example of a tooth infection. There is no point in taking painkillers to fix the tooth. I grant you that they will probably relieve the pain but I profess that they will not cure the tooth. What needs to be done is to get rid of the infection with antibiotics or have the tooth removed.
What do cancer cells feed on?
Several factors such as diet, negative emotions/ stress and environmental toxins are usually responsible for the development of cancer. Dietary speaking, cancer cells need food to survive. Dr Otto Warburg received the Nobel Prize for scientifically proving that cancer feed from the fermentation of sugar:
"in cancer cells [the feeding] is replaced by an energy-yielding reaction of the lowest living forms; namely, a fermentation of glucose" (quoted in prevention - May 1968).
According to Macrobiotic medicine theory, cancer cells also feed on animal protein (all types of meat, especially chicken but also very much on dairy, eggs etc..)
Detecting cancer
Currently, surgeons often perform a biopsy when cancer is suspected. A biopsy is a way of extracting a quantity of matter from a tumour and test it to see if it is cancerous. The problem with this method is that if the tumour is cancerous and the tumour is punctured, there is a definite risk that the cancerous liquid will spread to surrounding cells and spread the cancer around the body (Roger Delin - medical analyst - Philippines.
Breast cancer is often diagnosed using a mammogram. The main manufacturer of mammographic equipment is a company called "Smarlight Mammographics". They state: "We expected error rates to be around 30%, but the wide range of results (10%-90%) was an eye-opener." Amazing admission from the largest manufacturer of what is considered as the ultimate test to detect breast cancer. Unbelievable !
It is interesting to learn that autopsies have shown that many undetected cancers were present in the body of people who died from other causes. This makes a mockery of medical statistics and confirms that in fact a substantial number of cancers are never detected and do not obligatorily cause death.
Asbestos Health Risks And Litigation
Asbestos is a naturally-occuring fibrous mineral of metamorpic hydrous magnesium silicate. The term "metamorphic" is used to describe a process of extreme heat and pressure which creates specific secondary patterns of minerals with new chemical and/or physical properties. As the primary rock is heated and recooled, silicate crystals align in long rows of mineral fibers, which easily separate into tiny shards thinner than a human hair. Asbestos fibers are not a health risk as long as they are undisturbed. However, when asbestos is undergoes natural weathering, or is mined and processed, the microscopic particles waft into the air and cause disease if they are inhaled.
Asbestosis occurs when an inhaled asbestos particle irritates the body's natural defence mechanisms, causing inflammation and scarring which eventually restricts lung function. Mesothelioma is a malignant tumor of the membranes surrounding the heart, lungs and abdominal cavity. Asbestos can also cause cancer of the mouth, throat, esophagus, larynx, stomach, lung and lymphoid tissue.
Asbestos exposure can also cause non-fatal illnesses such as asbestos warts, caused when asbestos fibers are lodged in the skin, causing lumps of scar tissue to form around the irritant in the same manner as they do in the lungs to cause asbestosis; pleural plaques, discrete, sometimes calcified fibrous lesions which can be seen on X-rays but are too small to cause breathing impairment; and diffuse pleural thickening, which can cause breathing impairment if it is extensive.
Due to its fire resistant properties, asbestos has been used historically for household and industrial purposes. It has been found woven into burial cloths in ancient Egypt, and Charlemagne reportedly had a tablecloth made of asbestos which he would throw into a fire to clean.
In World War II asbestos was considered so important by the War Department that it was considered a strategic material, and many American workers were exposed in the World War II boom in shipbuilding. After the war, it was widely used in the construction industry.
In modern Western society, it was used for such diverse purposes as lamp wicks, brake shoes, oven insulation, electrical hotplate wiring and home insulation, roofing and flooring. For instance, some kinds of vermiculite used in home insulation into the 1970s contained asbestos. The EPA banned this product in 1977.
When a home owner discovers asbestos in an old home, it should not be a cause for immediate panic. If the asbestos looks intact and is not pulverized, it is best to leave it alone. However, because of legal liability, schools and businesses containing asbestos usually must undergo a costly removal process, hazardous in itself because disturbing the stable asbestos product causes fibers to fill the air. Special equipment must be used to insure that the removal process does not cause health problems where non existed before.
Most industrialized nations have reduced or banned the use of asbestos for at least 30 years and now use fiberglass or woven ceramic fiber as a substitute, but since asbestos-caused disease has a latency period of up to 50 years, patients are still presenting with these illness today. Every year in America, approximately 3000 new cases of mesothelioma are diagnosed, and 550 deaths occurs due to asbestosis. According to the March 1991 Report of the Judicial Conference Ad Hoc Committee on Asbestos Litigation, asbestos exposure has caused the deaths of approximately 200,000 to 265,000 Americans.
Asbestos use peaked in the United States in 1973, when 1 million tons of the material were used. The EPA attempted to institute a complete legal ban on the use of asbestos products in 1989; however, this ban was largely eviscerated by the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in 1991, and some restricted use of asbestos, albeit in fewer products than than before, resumed. Therefor, even today some workers are being exposed to this toxic material.
Asbestos is a serious continuing concern to the Environmental Protection Agency, and their website has detailed information on asbestos and its removal.
Concerns about the health risks of asbestos exposure date back to 1898, when the Chief Inspector of Factories of the United Kingdom reported to Parliament in his Annual Report about the "evil effects of asbestos dust". He noted that the "sharp, glass like nature of the particles" when allowed to remain suspended in the air, "have been found to be injurious, as might have been expected". In 1906 a British Parliamentary Commission confirmed the first cases of asbestos-related deaths in Bristish factories and called for improved ventilation and other safety measures. In 1918 an American insurance company produced a study showing premature deaths in the asbestos industry in the United States and in 1926 the Massachusetts Industrial Accidents Board processed the first successful compensation claim by a sick asbestos worker.
Today, lawsuits claiming compensation for asbestos-related illnesses are a growth industry in the legal profession. An internet search of "mesothelioma lawyer" yields 1,910,000 results. The original manufacturers of asbestos products have long since been driven into Chapter 11 bankruptcy; plaintiffs have now turned to suing corporations with peripheral connections to asbestos products. More than 70 American corporations have filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy in due to asbestos liability claims.
Since the 1970's, approximateley 6% of all lawsuits filed in American courts have been asbestos-related. The lawsuits now facing the courts have been described as "an elephantine mass" by the US Supreme Court, and are expected to cost between 200 to 275 billion dollars to settle. Asbestos liability is one of the largest issues facing the global insurance industry today.
Most epidemiological studies expected the number of lawsuits to peak in the 1990s, but this has not occurred, either because of the long latency period of asbestos-related diseases, or because legal action is becoming more popular among asbestos-exposed members of the public due to high-profile legal cases and widespread advertising by attorneys who specialize in such cases.
Many complaints have been made by representatives of industries facing lawsuits and the insurance companies who will be expected to pay them that the asbestos-lawsuit industry is rife with fraud, with less that half of all payouts reaching the plaintiffs. Aggressive, ambulance-chasing lawyers are said to exaggerate medical disability and coach clients on their testimony.
The group of plaintiffs includes not only ill people, but also those who have merely have a history of asbestos exposure and want compensation for potential future health risks. According to the American Academy of Acturaries Mass Tort Work Group, more than 100 million Americans have been exposed to asbestos in their workplace during the past century.
California Asbestos Removal Companies
Asbestos removal is the process of ridding a building or material of the asbestos that it may have been originally built with. Abatement companies all over California are busy with asbestos removal, in part due to the influx of asbestos litigation and mesothelioma lawsuits. Asbestos removal by a professional abatement company is only a fraction of the cost of a mesothelioma lawsuit.
Asbestos litigation can cost a company millions while asbestos removal only costs a few thousand dollars by comparison. Granted, large companies may have to spend more than a drop in the bucket to an abatement company for adequate asbestos removal, but it is still only a drop in the bucket when compared to the cost of a mesothelioma lawsuit, not to mention the human cost.
Companies of the seventies and earlier were permitted to build their buildings with large amounts of asbestos in order to protect them from the potential of fire damage. Companies and buildings created post 1980 were subject to different laws and were permitted what was then considered minimal amounts of asbestos in their production. Unfortunately, asbestos was still used in the automotive industry, construction companies, and a few other companies during this time.
Even older homes and office buildings were built using asbestos. Asbestos removal has become increasingly important as it is not so difficult to trace back one case of mesothelioma to a company, which means there is likely to be more asbestos litigation on the way. An abatement company can have the toxic material removed from the building in a very short period of time and workers can return to their employment with a renewed sense of safety.
Ironically, companies have become less devoted to their employee safety over the past 20 years. Abatement companies were much busier with jobs concerning asbestos removal with companies voicing concern for workforce safety ten years ago than they are today.
High turnover and the potential to leave a job and create a cheaper workforce are all reasons cited for this, but asbestos removal is appropriate regardless of the turnover rate or employee dissention. Asbestos litigation can occur regardless of whether the employee worked for the company all their life or only worked there just long enough to get sick.
Asbestos removal is a company's best chance at avoiding costly asbestos litigation and defending themselves in a mesothelioma lawsuit. A mesothelioma lawsuit can cost a company upwards of ten million dollars by the time damages are awarded and court and attorney fees are factored in. Asbestos removal by a certified abatement company is really much cheaper.
While mesothelioma may take decades to surface after an employee has gone off to other employment or retired, many companies are finding that the damages awarded in a mesothelioma lawsuit are considerable less if they have gone through an abatement company and requested asbestos removal.
By following through with asbestos removal, juries do notice that there is obvious concern for employee health at a later time and do take that into consideration. Most companies who are involved in asbestos litigation are under new management or ownership by the time asbestos litigation is filed, and the public appreciates a minimal effort of asbestos removal.
Of course, this changes nothing for a mesothelioma victim, and asbestos litigation is still necessary in order to attain the financial means needed to fight for their lives. Doing something is still better than doing nothing.
Mesothelioma lawsuits and asbestos litigation are in effect helping to prevent asbestos related diseases as companies who follow through with asbestos removal are effectively removing the danger for future and present employees. This means that there is a chance that mesothelioma victims are helping to save lives by filing a mesothelioma lawsuit.
At least, it is considered hopeful that their fight will save a few lives down the road. Nobody can be certain of this, but asbestos removal, even if prompted by a legal case, is always the best preventative measure against mesothelioma.
Mesothelioma is a terrible disease that attacks thousands of victims every year and is only caused by exposure to asbestos, a toxic chemical that can be removed from a building by an abatement company. It is unfortunate that it has cost so many lives and so much time tied up in asbestos litigation to encourage asbestos removal by companies who knowingly are exposing their workforce to this deadly and dangerous toxin. The effects of asbestos have been understood since the 1920's. With that knowledge, abatement companies should no longer have asbestos removal jobs to take on.
California Asbestos Lawyers in High Swing
Few people give much consideration to California asbestos lawyers, and often it is something that catches a person by surprise when they are suddenly realizing they need to consider filing a mesothelioma lawsuit. After all, that sort of stuff happens to other people, right? Unfortunately nearly 3000 people every year find themselves considering whether a mesothelioma lawsuit would be in their best interest.
Asbestos litigation is increasing and California asbestos lawyers are more active in the fight for mesothelioma victims' rights than ever before. While there was an expectation of declining asbestos litigation in the late 1990's, asbestos litigation has reemerged as cases of mesothelioma are still being diagnosed at an alarming rate.
Asbestos laws are keeping lawyers on their toes, as the changes implemented in recent asbestos laws have not been very mesothelioma victim friendly. Conversely, the changes to asbestos laws are more likely to protect the businesses that affected the 3000 lives annually.
Lawyers are working diligently to continually keep the victims of big business from taking a serious financial hit, as there isn't much a California asbestos lawyer can do to prevent the health implications that are associated with mesothelioma.
Asbestos removal is an expense that companies really can no longer afford to neglect. In the eighties, asbestos removal was significantly overlooked by various companies throughout the United States with a high percentage of those companies originating in Texas and California.
Companies that ignored the ease of asbestos removal back then are now facing lawyers in court, answering the question, why wasn't employee health important enough for the nominal cost of asbestos removal, when the human cost of ignoring the need for asbestos removal is so high.
Naturally, these companies have little to say to their victims, and the only place a victim can turn for financial help is a mesothelioma lawsuit. A mesothelioma lawsuit does not help the victim regain his priceless health, and in the wake of the small cost of asbestos removal, mesothelioma is a painful slap in the face to loyal company employees.
A mesothelioma lawsuit in California means finding a top notch lawyer to take on the big companies in the face of the ever changing California asbestos laws. The issue of asbestos removal has never been adequately addressed in the courts, as asbestos laws still allows for a percentage of asbestos to be used in new construction, and health code standards have already proven that in today's society, asbestos removal is vital for the health of worker health.
With the California asbestos laws favoring big business, winning a mesothelioma lawsuit requires a lawyer that has experience, gumption, integrity, and the desire to fight this fight in spite of the less than perfectly fair asbestos laws. A mesothelioma victim can win a mesothelioma lawsuit and provide financially for the expense of treatment as well as provide for their families after death.
However, doing so requires understanding that a California asbestos lawyer is going to have to place a lot of resources into the case and prove the negligence. This is a perfectly attainable goal for a seasoned lawyer, but certainly not something that should be handled by a novice.
Mesothelioma lawsuits are really just the beginning for lawyers. There are numerous lawyers who are fighting for better changes in the asbestos laws. The mesothelioma lawsuits have proven to a small spectrum of judges that the asbestos laws do not do enough to protect mesothelioma victims nor do they require adequate asbestos removal of current construction and workforce protection.
This in no way implies that California asbestos laws prevent the filing of a mesothelioma lawsuits, nor that mesothelioma victims can not bring their legal and legitimate needs to the attention of a jury, it is simply stating that asbestos laws need a certain amount of re-examining.
Asbestos litigation helps to open the doors for future mesothelioma lawsuits and keeps legal attention on the needs for stricter asbestos removal laws as well as better compensation for victims of mesothelioma and other asbestos related illnesses.
Asbestos litigation in the hand of high quality asbestos lawyers means that California asbestos laws have a change at being re-evaluated and perhaps one day will change in favor of mesothelioma victims. Until then, the need for high quality, top notch asbestos lawyers will continue to climb, and mesothelioma lawsuits will still be fought with aggressive representation.
Bras and the Breast Cancer Cover-up
"Whom can you trust when your culture is the biggest enemy of your health? Can you trust your culture's leading authorities? Can you trust your culture's government? Can you trust your culture's private industry?"
We asked those questions in 1995, at the end of our book, Dressed To Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras. Before writing our book, we sent details of our research to the National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, President's Cancer Panel, American Women's Medical Association, National Organization for Women, National Women's Health Network, and National Women's Health Resource Center. There was no response. Not one. Given the lack of interest, we decided to publish our findings in a book, getting the information directly to the women who needed to hear it.
But are women getting the message?
It has been 13 years since our book was first published. Over that time, more than 500,000 women in the US alone have died from breast cancer, with another 2,000,000 having been diagnosed with this terrible disease -- a disease that is in most cases preventable by simply loosening up or eliminating the bra. And yet, this lifesaving information has been actively suppressed and censored by the medical and lingerie industries.
Examples of Suppress and Censorship
A large public relations firm in New York City was willing and eager to help us release this information to the public. "My wife just had breast cancer, and I'm sure you are right," the head of the firm confessed. A big media announcement and celebration were planned. Days later, however, the firm withdrew its offer to help, stating that one of their clients, a large medical center, objected to their working with us.
A Sydney, Australia public relations firm agreed to help publicize our work when we were doing outreach efforts in their country. But it, too, reversed itself. We had asked if they had any conflicts of interest, such as lingerie industry clients. They said they had none. But as it turned out, they did represent a pharmaceutical company that makes a breast cancer treatment drug, and the prevention of breast cancer and its treatment are in conflict, they explained.
The Intimate Apparel Council (which is the US trade association for the multi-billion dollar bra industry) threatened our publisher, Avery Publishing Group, with a lawsuit if Dressed To Kill was released. The publisher said the publicity would help spread the word. The lawsuit never materialized.
After the book was released, the NBC television news show, Dateline, was interested in doing a story on our work. We were extensively interviewed by a skeptical reporter who became a supporter. The story was then abruptly terminated. The producer confidentially explained that the policy of General Electric, which owns NBC, is to avoid airing news stories that can adversely impact on other GE interests. As it happens, GE is a manufacturer of mammography machines.
Women's magazines, such as Glamour, Self, and others, ran critical stories condemning our work, and finding "experts" to encourage women to continue wearing bras. Elle magazine planned a positive story about the bra/cancer link, but was coerced into pulling the story by bra advertisers. In various newspapers around the world, such as the Guardian in the UK, stories were pulled prior to publication because of fear that they may "panic the public", including their lingerie advertisers.
The British Fashion Council (which is the UK's equivalent of the Intimate Apparel Council) published the Breast Health Handbook in 1996 to oppose our efforts. They announced the formation of the Breakthrough Breast Cancer Foundation, which was to receive donations from bra sales to fund genetic research into breast cancer. The book criticized our work, claiming, "The idea that wearing a bra encourages cancer by trapping toxins was recently put forward by researchers at the Institute for Culturogenic Studies (sic) in Hawaii. Researchers from more august establishments promptly dismissed it as claptrap." Without any medical evidence or research, the book informs women that wearing bras is a health necessity, and should be worn as early in life as possible to prevent breast damage.
Our original publisher, Avery, was purchased by giant Penguin Putnam in 1998. The new publisher did not list the book for three years and refused to revert publication rights to the copywrite holders, Singer and Grismaijer. The book was virtually unavailable, and it was thought to have gone out of print. Finally, after repeated requests, the publishing rights were released to us in October, 2001. (ISCD Press has been keeping it in print since then.)
A television documentary was produced in the year 2000 by Channel 4 in the UK, called, Bras- The Bare Facts. In the documentary, 100 women with fibrocystic breast disease went bra-free for 3 months to document the effect on breast cysts and pain. Two prominent British breast surgeons conducted the study. The results were astounding, and clearly demonstrated that the bra is a serious health hazard. We were interviewed for the program to discuss the bra/cancer connection, which was considered highly plausible and important by the doctors interviewed. Some theorized that, in addition to lymphatic impairment, the bra could also cause cancer by overheating the breasts. The documentary made newspaper headlines in British Commonwealth countries throughout the world, but no mention of it was made at all in the US. The following day, headlines in the U.K. tried to suppress fears of the bra/cancer link, and the doctors in the study quickly distanced themselves from the cancer issue, telling women to continue wearing bras. Their research for the documentary was supposed to be published in a medical journal, but never was. And no further research ever materialized to follow-up on their work, which they said they would do. Extensive news coverage of the program was available on the Internet soon after it aired, but most articles were removed shortly thereafter.
No follow-up studies have been done to refute or confirm our research. None. While a Harvard study, published in the European Journal of Cancer in 1991, discovered that bra-free women have a lower rate of breast cancer, the results were not central to the research they were conducting and were considered unimportant and not followed-up. In fact, apart from our initial 1991-93 Bra and Breast Cancer Study, discussed in detail in Dressed To Kill, and our follow-up research in Fiji, discussed in our book, Get It Off!, there are still no other studies on the bra/cancer link. Not even a letter or discussion of the issue can be found in any medical journal. After decades of breast cancer research, the bra is still completely ignored as even being a potential factor for consideration. It's like studying foot disease and ignoring shoes.
Keeping the Public Mystified
This lack of research, and the consequent ignorance, are then used by cancer organizations to justify further suppression of the issue. As the American Cancer Society states on its website, (ignoring the Harvard study), "There are no scientifically valid studies that show a correlation between wearing bras of any type and the occurrence of breast cancer. Two anthropologists made this association in a book called Dressed To Kill. Their study was not conducted according to standard principles of epidemiological research and did not take into consideration other variables, including known risk factors for breast cancer. There is no other, credible research to validate this claim in any way." And they don't seem interested in funding any such studies in the near future, either. There are other organizations that are similarly critical of the bra/cancer link for lack of research evidence, while at the same time discouraging any research on the subject.
Of particular interest is when breast cancer organizations antagonistic to the issue declare the bra/cancer link to be "misinformation" or a "myth", without any scientific study supporting their claims. They say bras are important for women to wear for support, without any evidence showing bras are safe or necessary. They then encourage regular mammograms, cancer prevention drug therapy (not realizing that "prevention therapy" is an oxymoron), and even preventative mastectomies (which means that those who are high risk for breast cancer but who don't want to get it can have their breast removed as a prevention strategy). Of course, it is better to remove the bra instead of the breasts, but bra removal is not a billable procedure.
Keep in mind that bras have been associated with other health problems, such as headaches, numbness in the hands, backache and other postural problems, cysts, pain, skin depigmentation, and more. And lymphatic blockage, which is the result of bra constriction, has already been associated with various cancers. Clearly, the bra/cancer link needs further research, while women take the precaution of loosening up.
Why the resistance?
What harm could there be in following our simple advice, or in even researching this issue? Why the defensive reaction?
There are three reasons:
1. The bra industry fears class action lawsuits. Many insiders have admitted to us that for years the industry suspected underwires were causing cancer. They know that tight bras cause cysts and pain. It is only a matter of time until a lawsuit is made against a bra manufacturer. As a defense, the industry is shifting the blame to the customer, claiming that most women are wearing their bras too tightly, and should get professional fittings. (How do you get a properly fitted push-up bra?) Breaking ranks with their industry peers, and trying to capitalize on the bad news, are several bra manufacturers that now offer newly patented bras claiming to mitigate the damage, including cancer, caused by conventional bras.
2. The medical industry is making billions each year on the detection and treatment of breast cancer. As mentioned above, there is a conflict between the prevention and the treatment of disease, especially if the prevention does not include drugs or surgery. The fact is that our treatment-focused, profit-oriented medical system is making a killing treating this disease, and has billions to lose if breast cancer goes out of fashion along with bras.
In addition, the bra issue will revolutionize the breast cancer field, embarrassing many researchers. Breast cancer research to date that has ignored the bra issue is seriously flawed as a result, which is why the "experts" are still unable to explain the cause of over 70% of all breast cancer cases. Career cancer researchers who have ignored the bra issue will have to admit this fatal flaw in their work, which they are not inclined to admit in their lifetimes.
3. Finally, there is the dogmatic, fearful resistance from some women who find their personal identity so connected to their bras that they would rather risk cancer than be bra-free (which some women have actually told us.) Women are cultural entities, and so long as our culture scorns a natural bustline, many women will submit to the pain, red marks and indentations, cysts, and even the threat of cancer rather than face potential public ridicule (which never really happens.)
There are also women who believe the myth that bras will prevent droopy breasts. The bra industry admits this is a myth, while it still promotes it to improve sales. In fact, bras cause breasts to droop, as the breasts become dependent on the bra for support and the natural supportive mechanisms atrophy from non use.
Despite the resistance, however, some women have gotten the message. And many health care professionals, who have also suspected bras for years, are now spreading that message. As women hear the news and discover that eliminating the bra also eliminates cysts and pain, the news further spreads by word of mouth.
There are now thousands of websites on this subject, many from health care professionals including medical doctors, naturopathic doctors, osteopathic doctors, chiropractors, massage therapists, lymphatic specialists, nutritionists, and others who care about women and helping end this epidemic. Grassroots efforts to keep this information alive and spreading have supplanted the traditional medical research approach, which has disqualified itself for lack of interest and conflict of interest.
When a disease is caused by the culture and its habits, attitudes, fashions and industries, there is bound to be resistance to change. Industries that contribute to disease will be defensive, and industries that profit from disease will be conflicted. However, the truth has a way of getting out, despite the resistance and suppression. Thank Goodness the truth does have a way of getting out.
Parts of the House Which Need Asbestos Removal
Many older buildings contain asbestos which up until the late 70s was usually applied with a sprayer and used as a flame retardant or as insulation. In some cases it was sprayed above false ceilings and inside certain ducts. The production of asbestos was banned in the early 70s but the ban did allow for the use of existing stock, so houses still used asbestos until the mid 80s. Today these homeowners are faced with the need for asbestos removal in these older homes, and the only way to tell if these houses have asbestos in them is by having an asbestos removal expert take a sample and have it tested by a specialized lab.
Other possible ways of recognizing asbestos:
Asbestos is generally an off white material, although sometimes it was made in blue or brown and the appearance changes depending on the material it was mixed with. Sometimes it was mixed with cement, asphalt, starch, polymers and other adhering materials.
A common place where asbestos material might be found is in the heating ductwork. Some ducts were made of asbestos and others were wrapped in a form of asbestos. These old ducts look a bit like corrugated cardboard and some insulation has a similar appearance but without being corrugated. When you find this type of material, you should call an asbestos removal specialist to come in and take a sample.
Duct work made of asbestos is of special concern because as it begins to deteriorate the fibers are blown into the house by the air conditioner. Some duct wrapping can be encapsulated so as to avoid having any of the fibers blown into the house. Otherwise asbestos removal is your best bet. Although somewhat expensive it is preferable to make this expense rather than have to deal with the problems that come from asbestos exposure.
Another likely place to find asbestos is in or near a furnace. The furnace may have an asbestos lining or it may even sit on an asbestos pad. Wear and tear to these items will cause the fibers to float around, so it is best to remove it, or to encapsulate it.
At one point, pipes where lined with asbestos, especially pipes that connected to radiators or heating systems. If you find a white surface material, then it is probably best to repair it with glass cloth.
Be careful with old wiring. There were some old knobs and tube wires that had a white coating material that was covered with black fabric. Don’t pull these out, just bypass with new wiring.
Artificial fireplaces that were made prior to 1978 used asbestos as ashes. If these still exist it is essential to remove them. Vinyl flooring and roofing tiles were also made of asbestos. In some cases you should apply asbestos removal, but in others you should place an overlay and lay your floor on top. It really depends on what the asbestos contractor suggests.
Depending on the way asbestos was applied, it may or may not pose a threat to the users of the house or building. It does not pose a threat if the fibers cannot come loose, but many forms of its application, especially when sprayed on allow the fibers to become loose and go airborne. In these cases you may need asbestos removal.
Find a Professional Contractor for Asbestos Removal
Due to the nature of asbestos and the terrible diseases it can cause, asbestos removal is a process that requires a specialized contractor and cannot be done by just anyone.
You’ve probably heard of the terrible things that asbestos can do to your body. You’ve seen it on the news, and in special reports. You know that asbestos causes cancer and lung disease which in many cases can even kill you. Yet many homes and buildings that were built prior the 1990s still have asbestos in them. It is therefore important to find an expert in asbestos removal when you find asbestos in your home or office. Because of the dangers of asbestos, not just anyone can work in the asbestos removal process.
Contractors who work with asbestos removal are required to go through strict licensing regulations. The licensing is a way that the government can ensure that asbestos removal contractors have the right training, experience and skills to ensure the safe removal of the product. In this way they can be assured that the removal work does not become a threat either to the worker o the environment
What are the requirements for an asbestos contractor?
• A person who decides to become an asbestos contractor needs to be at least 18 years of age.
• They have to demonstrate that they are the appropriate person for the license and that means demonstrating the appropriate training and technical knowledge in working with asbestos. This person is required to take an examination for licensing purposes
• They must have 3 years experience in the field.
• They must own the appropriate safety equipment to work with asbestos
• They must have workers compensation insurance and liability insurance which covers working with asbestos.
Once a contractor has applied for a license, it takes about four weeks for approval. They cannot work on an asbestos related projects unless they have a license which must be renewed every two years. The purpose of contractor licensing in this area is to ensure that a contractor has the right skills, and experience so as to avoid environmental contamination or a workers contamination.
When there is a job that requires asbestos removal, a permit is required. The reason for this notification and permit is so that any job involving asbestos can be monitored by government officials. During the term of a license, checks will be made at different intervals to make sure that the appropriate procedures and equipment are being used. Not only that, but a license can be cancelled if it is determined that the contractor is not working in compliance with the regulations.
As you can see, working with asbestos is quite complicated and requires a specialized contractor to remove any traces of this material from a home or building. It is important to remove asbestos, but it must be done by a licensed and qualified contractor, and under no circumstances should it ever be done by the owner himself or by an unqualified contractor.
Asbestos Litigation Facts
Mesothelioma is a type of cancer that affects the thin lining that covers and holds in our internal organs. Asbestos is the cause of approximately 90 percent of all mesothelioma cases. Anyone who has worked in an industry or lived in an area where asbestos exposure has occurred may be entitled to damages if they've developed mesothelioma. If you or someone you know have developed mesothelioma, here are some asbestos litigation facts that might help you as you explore your own litigation options.
Because the disease may not develop for up to sixty years after asbestos exposure, asbestos litigation often doesn't take place until long after the fact. A sum of roughly $9 million was awarded in an asbestos lawsuit to a gentleman in 2005 after he developed mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure that occurred in the 1960s. Another woman was awarded $16 million in 2002 for mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure in childhood. One important asbestos litigation fact to keep in mind is that you may be suffering from asbestos-related mesothelioma even if your exposure took place decades ago. Even though a lot of time has passed, you could still have a case.
Another important asbestos litigation fact to keep in mind is that the government passed the FAIR Act in 2005. The FAIR Act provides vital facts for anyone considering asbestos litigation. Included are requirements for bringing asbestos litigation and who might have a case. There is a statute of limitations on filing asbestos litigation, so it is important that you know whether or not time has run out on your case.
Because asbestos is no longer used, many of the companies against which someone might want to file a claim have gone out of business. Still, a company may exist that is partially responsible for your mesothelioma. If you're interested in finding out who may be at fault, seek the advice of legal counsel who can help you with your asbestos litigation.
Other diseases of the lungs may be caused by asbestos exposure, so you may want to explore more asbestos litigation facts pertaining to any lung disease you developed after being exposed to asbestos. Lung cancer and various respiratory diseases have also been linked to asbestos. It is important to note that smoking has not been shown to contribute to the development of mesothelioma, and this asbestos litigation fact may help you determine if you have a case.
Armed with asbestos litigation facts about the period of time between exposure and development of mesothelioma, the financial reparations typically handed out, and the governmental regulations covering asbestos litigation, you may want to find a lawyer who specializes in asbestos lawsuits. There is help available, and you don't have to go through this ordeal alone.
Human Papilloma Virus and Cancers
In recent years, it has become clear that certain types of human cancers have a viral component to their etiology. Cancers due to Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) are most common among these. This has been a study of intense research for number of years. Specific types of HPV genotypes were found to be the causative agents of some common cancers, most notable invasive cervical carcinoma. Apart from this anogenital cancer, HPV’s are also causally associated with other anogenital cancers such as cancers of vulva, vagina, penis and anus. HPV is also responsible for approximately 20-30% of head and neck cancers [1].
Association OF HPV with Cervical cancer
The link between HPV and cervical cancer is now established beyond doubts. Many epidemiological [2], [3] and molecular evidences [4] suggest the causal association of HPV’s with cervical cancer. It has been estimated that about 500,000 women acquire cervical cancers every year and 75% of this are from developing countries. In United States about 13000 cervical cancer cases are diagnosed every year and about 7000 deaths annually from prevalent disease [5].
Evidence suggests that the great majority of all grades of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia can be attributed to cancer-associated types of HPV infections [3]. It has been estimated that only about 10% of the HPV patients would develop cervical dysplasia and of these only few people would develop cervical cancer. Studies conducted on HPV DNA in a variety of genital lesions suggested that HPV types 16 and 18 are most closely associated with risk of genital cancers [4] and some of HPV types are considered to be more prevalent among cervical cancer patients in a specific geographical areas; HPV 45 in Western African [6].
The development of cervical cancer is associated with factors other than just high risk HPV infection. Factors like impaired cell mediated immunity, long term use of contraceptives and smoking also increase the risk of gaining and the persistence of HPV types which in turn may lead to cervical cancers [7],[8].
Association of HPV with other anogenital cancers
Strong links between HPV and anogenital cancers such as penile, anal, vulvar cancers have been demonstrated by many studies. These cancers are formed from lesions develop in the vagina, vulva, penis and anus as the result of sexual contact [9]. But the exact role of HPV in the natural history of anal squamous intraepithelial lesions is still unknown [10].
Studies indicate that about 1% of sexually active adults in the United States show visible genital wart and about 15 % have sub clinical infection. The most commonly detected HPV types were found to be HPV 16 and 18 [11]. But, HPV types 56, 59-64 and 71 also have been isolated in vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia [12] .
Association of HPV with head and neck cancer
The term head and neck cancer refer to the cancers in the oral cavity, lip, nose, para nasal sinuses, naso-pharynx, oro-parynx, larynx, oesophagus, salivary glands, soft tissues of the neck and ear. Oral cancer is the sixth most prevalent cancer worldwide and about 620,000 patients are diagnosed with cancer of oral cavity every year [13]. Many studies have found evidence suggestive of a role for human papilloma virus in head and neck cancer [14],[15]. Though the exact mode of transmission of HPV infection in the head and neck region has not been determined, it’s association with sexual behavior and perinatal transmission have been demonstrated [16].
During the pathogenesis of HPV, it enters to the host through the mucosal epithelial layer surface. Oral mucosa resembles the mucosa of the genital region in their histological structure. As the correlation between HPV and cervical cancer are well established, the resemblance of the mucosal histology led to the suggestion that HPV could play a role in the development of benign and malignant lesions of the oral mucosa [17].
After the first report of papilloma virus in tongue carcinoma[14], many studies have shown the presence of HPV DNA in oral cavity [15] and head and neck cancer [13]. The most prevalent HPV types in these were found to be HPV 16 and 18. Further epidemiologic and molecular investigation should be carried out to establish a precise relationship between HPV and head and neck cancer.
HPV INDUCED CANCER DETECTION
Detective measures to date have centered on screening programs for HPV induced cancers. The most common and the traditional way of screening for cervical cancer and cervical dysplasia are to conduct a pap smear test. This has significantly reduced the incidence of cervical cancers in recent years. If the result is turned out to be positive, then the colposcopy would be carried. Since cervical cancer and anal cancer resembles in their biological features, it has been observed that screening for anal high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions with anal pap smear allows detecting individuals at risk of developing anal cancers. To obtain a confirmatory result, an anoscopic examination should be performed [18, 19].
Detection of earlier stage of head and neck cancers as well as premalignant lesions can be done by regular physical examinations by the doctor. Any abnormalities should be further evaluated. An endoscopy is performed on the samples obtained from throat, larynx, and upper esophagus. Computed tomographic (CT) scans, magnetic resonances imaging (MRI) scans or ultrasounds could be performed to identify the size and extent to which the cancer has spread from its site of origin [20].
No standard screening tests are followed for vulvar cancers. In vulvar cancer lymph node pathologic status is the most important predictive factor. A study conducted by De Ceccoc et al indicated that Lymphoscintigraphy and sentinel-node biopsy under gamma-detecting probe guidance are easy and reliable methods for the detection of sentinel node in early vulvar cancer [21]. Coloscopy can also be used to detect abnormalities on vulvar epethilia [19].
The above mentioned tests cannot be used to detect the presence or absence of the virus which would eventually cause a cancer. A test based on the hybrid capture technologies is now available to detect 13 cancer causing kinds of HPV. This technology is based on the principle of signal amplification of a hybrid species produced by RNA probes fixed with HPV DNA [22]. Polymerase chain reaction is one of the most sensitive tests for HPV DNA detection [23]. But Zhao M. et al suggest that there could be limitations in this method when applying to a broad population [24]. Studies indicate that HPV DNA testing is one of the most effective tests which could be used for the prevention of cervical cancer [25].
In a study conducted by Reid et al, to compare the efficacy of cervical cytology, cervicography and/or DNA hybridization for cervical cancer screening, showed that none of the tests succeeded in identifying all the abnormalities [26].
REFERENCES
1. I. Benjamin Paz, N.C., Tamara Odom-Maryon, Yuan Xie, Sharon P. Wilczynski,, Human papillomavirus (HPV) in head and neck cancer. Cancer, 1997. 79(3): p. 595-604.
2. Koutsky, L.A., et al., A cohort study of the risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 in relation to papillomavirus infection. N Engl J Med, 1992. 327(18): p. 1272-8.
3. Schiffman, M.H., et al., Epidemiologic evidence showing that human papillomavirus infection causes most cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. J Natl Cancer Inst, 1993. 85(12): p. 958-64.
4. JC Macnab, S.W., JW Cordiner, and JB Clements, Human papillomavirus in clinically and histologically normal tissue of patients with genital cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine, 1986. 315(17): p. 1052-1058.
5. Parkin, D.M., P. Pisani, and J. Ferlay, Estimates of the worldwide incidence of 25 major cancers in 1990. Int J Cancer, 1999. 80(6): p. 827-41.
6. Bosch, F.X., et al., Prevalence of human papillomavirus in cervical cancer: a worldwide perspective. International biological study on cervical cancer (IBSCC) Study Group. J Natl Cancer Inst, 1995. 87(11): p. 796-802.
7. Calore, E.E., S.M. Pereira, and M.J. Cavaliere, Progression of cervical lesions in HIV-seropositive women: a cytological study. Diagn Cytopathol, 2001. 24(2): p. 117-9.
8. Brisson, J., et al., Risk factors for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: differences between low- and high-grade lesions. Am J Epidemiol, 1994. 140(8): p. 700-10.
9. Jung, W.W., et al., Strategies against human papillomavirus infection and cervical cancer. J Microbiol, 2004. 42(4): p. 255-66.
10. Palefsky, J.M., et al., Detection of human papillomavirus DNA in anal intraepithelial neoplasia and anal cancer. Cancer Res, 1991. 51(3): p. 1014-9.
11. Koutsky, P., Laura, Epidemiology of Genital Human Papillomavirus Infection. The American Journal of Medicine, 1997. 102(5, Supplement 1): p. 3-8.
12. Longuet, M., S. Beaudenon, and G. Orth, Two novel genital human papillomavirus (HPV) types, HPV68 and HPV70, related to the potentially oncogenic HPV39. J. Clin. Microbiol., 1996. 34(3): p. 738-744.
13. Syrjanen, S., Human papillomavirus (HPV) in head and neck cancer. J Clin Virol, 2005. 32 Suppl 1: p. S59-66.
14. de Villiers, E.M., et al., Papillomavirus DNA in human tongue carcinomas. Int J Cancer, 1985. 36(5): p. 575-8.
15. Palefsky, J.M., et al., Association between proliferative verrucous leukoplakia and infection with human papillomavirus type 16. J Oral Pathol Med, 1995. 24(5): p. 193-7.
16. Szentirmay, Z., et al., Human papillomavirus in head and neck cancer: molecular biology and clinicopathological correlations. Cancer Metastasis Rev, 2005. 24(1): p. 19-34.
17. Woods, K.V., et al., Analysis of human papillomavirus DNA in oral squamous cell carcinomas. J Oral Pathol Med, 1993. 22(3): p. 101-8.
18. Sheary B, D.L., Cervical screening and human papillomavirus. Aust Fam Physician., 2005. 34(7): p. 578-80.
19. JD., O., Genitoanal papillomavirus infection--a diagnostic and therapeutic dilemma. Semin Dermatol., 1990. 9(2): p. 141-7.
20. Antunes, J.L.F., et al., Trends and spatial distribution of oral cancer mortality in Sao Paulo, Brazil, 1980-1998. Oral Oncology, 2001. 37(4): p. 345-350.
21. C De Cicco, M.S., M Bartolomei, C Grana, M Cremonesi, M Fiorenza, A Maggioni, L Bocciolone, C Mangioni, N Colombo and G Paganelli, Sentinel node biopsy in early vulvar cancer. British Journal of Cancer, 2000. 82: p. 295-299.
22. Thomas, R.J., Early Detection of Cervical Cancer -New diagnostics identify HPV. Modern Drug Discovery, 2000. 4: p. 57-58.
23. Miller CS, Z.M., White DK., Detection of HPV DNA in oral carcinoma using polymerase chain reaction together with in situ hybridization. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol., 1994. 77(5): p. 480-6.
24. Ming Zhao, E.R., Andre Lopes Carvalho, Wayne Koch, WeiWen Jiang, David Sidransky, Joseph Califano,, Feasibility of quantitative PCR-based saliva rinse screening of HPV for head and neck cancer. International Journal of Cancer, 2005. 117(4): p. 605-610.
25. Denny, L.A., Human papillomavirus testing and screening. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 2005. 19(4): p. 501-15.
26. Harry, T.C.S., K.M., Evaluation of the Hybrid Capture human papillomavirus deoxyribonucleic acid detection test. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 1996. 175(3): p. 758-9.
Asbestos Litigation in California
California asbestos laws have changed over the past few years, showing more favor toward the side of companies that have violated California asbestos laws prior to the year 1980.
Asbestos litigation has taken on a whole new meaning as lawyers have had to take on this new specialty and grow into asbestos lawyers. What does all this mean for California residents in need of asbestos litigation?
It means that the lawsuit being filed by California based asbestos lawyers are under a more scrutinous attack, which mean the time to enter into an asbestos lawsuit in the state of California is now.
Asbestos lawyers recommended a consultation for any individual who has been exposed needlessly to asbestos, even if they have not yet been diagnosed with Mesothelioma, the cancer specifically caused by asbestos exposure.
Filing asbestos litigation cases prior to determining that the exposed victim is ill is not uncommon. This is done to protect the rights of the victim while the California asbestos laws allow for a tolerable and reasonable settlement, as California asbestos laws change often enough to complicate cases in the future.
Of course, victims with open and shut cases will always have some favor in the eyes of California asbestos laws, but open and shut cases are harder and harder to come by. Most asbestos litigation isn't as simple as it seems. Often people were employed by more than one company within their working lifetime and proving that the asbestos exposure that is prompting the asbestos litigation came from any one particular company is not always simple.
Many companies who have experienced asbestos litigation understand the penalties for intentionally or negligently exposing their employees to asbestos, and have chosen unscrupulous routes to avoid ending up in any additional asbestos litigation.
California asbestos law is complex and requires an expert to help decipher it. It is important for those considering pursuing asbestos litigation to get the professional counsel that an asbestos lawyer can offer.
Asbestos lawyers are up to date on all the changes in California asbestos law and can help those who were needlessly exposed to asbestos understand their rights within the realms of the ever changing California asbestos laws. Naturally, the entire state of affairs is completely unfair, and people need to understand that while companies may be empathetic to a victim's plight, most companies by now have changed hands, or at least management, and are now also trying to protect the rights of the current workforce, even if that means allowing a Mesothelioma victim flounder in their pain, suffering, and exorbitant medical bills.
This is of course unfair to those who worked tirelessly for these companies in the past, and it is a fine ethical line for the companies of the present to find a middle ground to protect all employees, past, present, and even future.
California asbestos laws are not the only asbestos laws which have undergone change over the past few years. Asbestos lawyers all over the country are having to fight harder for victim's rights. However, in most cases, these victims are still receiving fair judgments and settlement offers, at least for now.
There have been asbestos litigation cases that have been filed on behalf of those who are not sick and may or may not become ill in the future, however the threat that asbestos exposure brings with it is often enough to enter into asbestos litigation. It takes a talented asbestos lawyer, one who is on top of every change in California asbestos laws, to complete these premature examples of asbestos litigation, however the claims are still very legitimate.
The best advice an asbestos lawyer can offer anyone wondering if they qualify for asbestos litigation under the current California asbestos laws is to receive a consultation. Most asbestos lawyers will in fact meet with a client with a potential claim free of charge in order to determine if the information provided is adequate for entering into asbestos litigation.
A consultation can place the minds of potential and actual victims at ease as they attempt to make decisions about their future. Asbestos litigation is a complex field, and not every average attorney can truly handle the specified laws that relate to asbestos cases.
Just as a victim of road rage would not hire an asbestos lawyer, victims of asbestos exposure should not hire an attorney not equipped to handle the intricate California asbestos laws associated with asbestos exposure in the state of California. It is of course, common sense.
The Facts About Asbestos Exposure
Knowing the facts about asbestos exposure will help you to protect yourself and your loved ones. The U.S. and many other governments have compiled fact sheets and created guidelines and laws for handling and reporting asbestos exposure, as well as strict guidelines for asbestos removal and abatement. Being informed about asbestos and the dangers of asbestos exposure can help you avoid becoming a statistic.
Why Asbestos Exposure is a Problem
The danger of asbestos exposure arises from inhaling and swallowing tiny dust particles and fibers. Those particles are released when asbestos is broken up or disturbed in anyway. Once the asbestos fibers have been inhaled or swallowed, they may lodge in the lining around the lungs, heart or abdominal cavity and go unnoticed for decades.
Eventually, though, they cause scarring and cell changes that can become a malignant cancer known as mesothelioma. Even when mesothelioma does not develop, asbestosis and other asbestos related conditions can cause pain, restricted breathing and other difficulties.
How Asbestos Exposure Happens
There are many ways to be exposed to asbestos, but the most common type of asbestos exposure is occupational, or work related. Asbestos was used in the construction industry, the auto industry, on the railroads and in shipyards and in many factories that made items coated with or woven with asbestos.
When the asbestos was broken, moved, sanded, poured or otherwise manipulated, fine particles and dust was released into the air, where it was inhaled and swallowed. Family and household members of people who worked with asbestos were also often exposed to the dust when it was carried home in clothing and hair.
People who lived in the vicinity of asbestos plants may have been exposed to asbestos in the environment. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, residents who lived near asbestos plants may have been exposed to asbestos by breathing the air within a few blocks of the plant, playing in waste piles of rock near the factories and moving or handling waste rock from processing plants.
In addition, there is a significant risk of exposure to asbestos in some older buildings where asbestos laced materials were used in construction. These materials are safe as long as they are covered and/or in good condition. However, asbestos may be disturbed during renovations, demolition or when flooring, ceilings and walls become damaged.
How to Protect Yourself from Asbestos Exposure
Although the use of asbestos in new products is now heavily regulated, there are still ways that you might be exposed to asbestos. If your home was built before 1978, for instance, it likely contains many materials that were made with asbestos.
Most of these materials only become a concern when they are disturbed or start to decay. Asbestos exposure can become a significant risk if you are renovating or dealing with the aftermath of a flood, fire or other event that damaged your home. If you're not certain about materials in your home that may contain asbestos, it's best to contact your local town offices or health department to find out about having your home evaluated for asbestos and what sort of asbestos abatement regulations apply in your area.
What You Can Do If You Believe You Were Exposed to Asbestos
Mesothelioma affects thousands of people every year. Because its earliest effects are often mistaken for the symptoms of a cold, virus or flu, it's often not diagnosed until it has progressed beyond the treatable stage.
For that reason, anyone who worked or works in a job with a high risk of asbestos exposure should have regular medical checkups that include lung x-rays, and be especially watchful for respiratory ailments which may be the earliest symptoms of mesothelioma.
In addition, when asbestos exposure combines with smoking, your risk of developing lung cancer increases astronomically. If you were exposed to asbestos in the past and you smoke, quitting now can significantly reduce your chances of developing lung cancer.
Why Asbestos Exposure is a Legal Issue
Asbestos was one of the most widely used industrial minerals through the early to mid 1970s. The companies that mined, distributed and used asbestos were very aware of the danger that asbestos posed to their workers.
Instead of warning them and providing for safer handling, the industry deliberately hid those dangers from the public, their workers and the government. In doing so, they callously exposed hundreds of thousands of workers and their families to a deadly carcinogen.
Because these companies were aware of the dangers of asbestos and did nothing to warn or protect their workers intentionally, they may be legally liable for compensating people who became ill because of asbestos and their families.
If you believe that you or a family member became ill because of asbestos exposure, a law firm experienced in handling asbestos-related cases can evaluate your claim and help you get the compensation you deserve for your loss.
California Asbestos Lawyers Representing Thousands
Asbestos litigation and mesothelioma lawsuits are on the rise once again in California. Thankfully, there are top notch, eager asbestos lawyers ready to handle the workload as mesothelioma victims are coming by the thousands in search of their day in court. Mesothelioma lawsuits are now one of the fastest growing medically based lawsuits bracket in California, a perfectly preventable tragedy.
California asbestos laws have attempted to make mesothelioma lawsuits harder to file, but the evidence can not be swept under the rug and asbestos lawyers are proving time and again that the American dream was flushed down the hall of hopes with big business taking callous and careless attitudes toward the dutiful employees that made them wealthy.
California asbestos laws can't hide the negligence, and asbestos lawyers are fighting on behalf of victims and their families to prove this. Asbestos litigation is nothing new. The first filing of a mesothelioma lawsuit dates all the way back to the 1930's. It would have made sense for big business to have addressed their asbestos problems by now, or perhaps it is way past time for tougher California asbestos laws for asbestos neglect by businesses and corporations.
With the history of mesothelioma lawsuits and asbestos litigation, it would have made sense for California asbestos laws to require more stringent bans on the use of asbestos and higher standards for company policies involving employee protection. However, asbestos is still in use today, granted in smaller amounts, but still at high enough concentrations to cause more mesothelioma lawsuits in the future.
If California asbestos laws would impose a ban on asbestos and require asbestos removal, the health of California employees would simply no longer be at risk. It's just logical.
Asbestos litigation and asbestos lawyers are hard at work presenting this logical thought process to juries throughout the state. Jury awards in asbestos litigation tends to run very high, as asbestos lawyers have been able to impress upon juries how simple and cost effective it would have been for companies with asbestos exposure problems to protect their employees.
Juries, who are typically average hardworking individuals themselves, understand the insanity of being in a situation that requires a mesothelioma lawsuit, and often have had enough of big business practices which do not consider employee health or well being.
Thus businesses that are guilty of asbestos exposure are likely to run into numerous mesothelioma lawsuits in the near future. Mesothelioma lawsuits are the only voice that a mesothelioma victim has against the company that negligently contributed to their illness and asbestos lawyers are their very necessary mouthpiece.
Asbestos lawyers have sent eh detrimental nature of mesothelioma, and are fighting diligently both in the courtrooms of California as well as in the California legislature to hopefully amend California asbestos laws to work more in favor of harsher discipline for violators of asbestos safety requirements, as well as to tighten the belt of requirements as soon as possible.
While asbestos is a fire retardant, there are now newer and safer materials that can do the job of asbestos, although granted not as cheaply. California asbestos laws are too lenient on the use of asbestos as well as violators of current California asbestos laws. It takes a very good asbestos lawyer to fight this battle in full flair, but the necessity of the fight can no longer be denied.
Mesothelioma victims who file mesothelioma lawsuits do so in order to protect their family's financial future, to help offset the astronomical costs of mesothelioma treatments, and to heighten awareness of asbestos related illness and their ability to be prevented.
It is senseless that a lifetime of service to a company and a dedication that employees have shown end up in a courtroom fighting a mesothelioma lawsuit, and in a hospital room fighting a mesothelioma prognosis.
Every human being has the right as a human to be treated with respect of health and well being. There truly is no excuse for asbestos exposure in our age of technological advancements and our ability to produce safer and more effective fire resistant materials.
Perhaps it will take more than a few dedicated asbestos lawyers and mesothelioma lawsuits and asbestos litigation to drive these points home and change California asbestos laws, but it the place we have to start. With the dedicated expertise and the heart of the victims, California asbestos laws are bound to face changes one day.
Unfortunately for the thousands in California alone who are already affected by mesothelioma and asbestos related disease, someday did not come soon enough.
|
|
|