Tech | January 08, 2012 | 10 comments

Ruling leaves dioxin cleanup in Nitro WVa. OUT of Monsanto trial

Image
JanforGore
-- As the trial begins in a major toxic pollution lawsuit against Monsanto Co., jurors won't be allowed to tackle a key issue: Should the company pay to clean up dioxin it allegedly spewed across the city of Nitro?

Experts won't testify about the need for property remediation. Lawyers won't argue about the issue. Jurors won't be asked to force Monsanto to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars such a project could cost.

Judges O.C. Spaulding and Derek Swope issued rulings in July and November that threw out that part of the case.

As a result, Putnam County jurors will decide only if current and former Nitro residents should receive medical monitoring to detect diseases potentially caused by exposure to Monsanto's dioxin. They won't be able to do anything to clean up homes and businesses, ending the toxic exposure.

Lawyers for thousands of residents and property owners in the class-action suit appealed the decisions by Spaulding and Swope. They say the rulings left a huge gap in their efforts to deal with the legacy of Monsanto's chemical-making operations.

"The current presence of dioxin contamination in the class area is a public-health hazard," the lawyers argued in court documents. "It makes little sense to initiate a medical monitoring program for a population without first eliminating that population's exposure to the toxin at issue."

The West Virginia Supreme Court isn't likely to even begin considering the appeal until April. By the time a decision is made, the trial on the medical monitoring question will probably be over.

The situation has left insiders and observers scratching their heads, as lawyers for Monsanto and Nitro residents prepare to head into one of the biggest civil trials in the Kanawha Valley in years.

"It doesn't make any sense from the standpoint of the impact on the community," said longtime Nitro lawyer Harvey Peyton.

Peyton is a former law partner of Charleston attorney Stuart Calwell, who is the lead lawyer for Nitro residents in the case.

Twenty-eight years ago, Calwell and Peyton were among the lawyers who lost in a landmark effort to get jurors to hold Monsanto responsible for dioxin-linked illnesses among Nitro plant workers.

Today, the science showing dioxin's dangers is much more advanced. The law has created some new ways -- such as medical monitoring cases -- to address these issues. Industry has also gotten much better at fighting citizen and worker lawsuits, and at the lobbying and public relations efforts that can block tougher regulations or expensive cleanups.

For decades, chemical plants like Monsanto's provided Kanawha Valley residents with thousands of good-paying jobs. The industry has been in a long decline, and the bulk of those jobs have disappeared. The Monsanto plant went through several ownership changes and then closed in 2004.

Generations of workers put food on their tables and sent kids to college with a chemical plant paycheck. But the industry's legacy also includes tough questions about long-term health effects on workers and plant neighbors.

More than 40 years after Monsanto stopped making 2,4,5-T, the Agent Orange ingredient blamed for much of the plant's dioxin pollution, it's not clear if Nitro residents are any closer to getting answers to such questions.

In the beginning

Nitro was born as a literal World War I boomtown, the location of one of the federal government's large gunpowder plants. The name "Nitro" came from the chemical term Nitro-Cellulose, which was the type of gunpowder to be produced.

When the war ended, private companies took over the government buildings and converted them into chemical plants. Among the companies was Monsanto, which began making rubber chemicals for the tire industry.

In about 1947, Monsanto's agricultural division designed a new molecule called 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacidic acid, or 2,4,5-T. This new substances killed plants by making their roots outgrow their leaves. Plants destroyed themselves through defoliation.

Monsanto began making this powerful herbicide ingredient in Nitro in 1949. Workers cooked batches of it in large pots, called autoclaves, rather than making it through a continuous production stream.

Monsanto made 2,4,5-T in Nitro for more than 30 years. In its best-known form, 2,4,5-T was used as an ingredient in Agent Orange, the defoliant deployed widely in the Vietnam War.

But 2,4-5-T was contaminated. Every batch of it contained 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin. This chemical is also known as 2,3,7,8-TCDD, or more commonly, simply as dioxin.

Dioxin has been linked to cancer, birth defects, learning disabilities, endometriosis, infertility, and suppressed immune functions. The chemical builds up in tissue over time, meaning that even small exposures can accumulate to dangerous levels.

An early sign of dioxin's effects came in March 1949. A massive explosion rocked the Nitro plant when a pressure valve blew on a 2,4,5-T cooking container. More than 220 workers got sick.

Years later, more than 170 workers sued Monsanto, alleging dioxin exposure at the plant had made them ill. Cases involving seven of the workers went to trial in federal court in 1984.

After an 11-month trial, a jury awarded one of the workers, John Hein, $200,000 for bladder cancer he contracted because of exposure at the plant to another chemical, para-aminobiphynol, or PAB.

Jurors found that dioxin had made the other workers sick and that Monsanto had not acted diligently in seeking to determine the possible impact of exposure on worker health.

More at the link
  1. groups:
    News and Politics,   Tech,   Green,   Earth and Science,   8 more
  2. tags:
    Environment Cancer Monsanto Toxic 13 more
  3. recommended by:
    Vierotchka
  4.     
    |

10 comments // Ruling leaves dioxin cleanup in Nitro WVa. OUT of Monsanto trial

  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • Oh well, I guess we will just have to accept that Monsanto, DOW, DuPont and the like can just POISON us and give us cancer at their whim and we have no recourse anywhere.

    • 5 months ago
  • JanforGore
    • +2
      JanforGore  
    • .'If the Bill of Rights contains no guarantee that a citizen shall be secure against lethal poisons distributed either by private individuals or by public officials, it is surely only because our forefathers, despite their considerable wisdom and foresight, could conceive of no such problem."

      From Silent Spring by Rachel Carson: Chapter 2, The Obligation to Endure
      ~~~
      Nor could they conceive of such an evil perpetrated by human beings against the environment that sustains them.

    • 5 months ago
  • Dagum
    • 0
      Dagum  
    • JanforGore:

      Here is the take on that. It' not quite correct. The Constitution, specifically the Bill of rights absolutely does guarantee you the right to be secure against poisoning from private or public officials. Must people don't know about it, because it's VERY complicated to get there.

      The bill of rights doesn't specifically enumerate all your rights. It does some, but in the 9th amendment is a kitchen sink clause that includes "... other [rights] retained by the people."

      How do you make sense of the 9th amendment? Start with the realization that the Constitution doesn't give the people rights, the people already had them. The Constitution enumerates some and through 9th amendment guarantee's all your rights. It's a "guarantee" in the contractual sense, in that as part of the consideration for the creation of the thing known as the U.S.A. the states give an explicit guarantee that the rights of the people will not be abridged by the entity.

      So the Constitution through the 9th protects the rights the people had at the time. What where those understood to be at the time? Common law rights such as rights in Tort, property, and contract.

      Tort law includes the law of personal injury e.g. poisoning. Property, law includes the law of trespass and nuisance e.g. somebody dumping a substance on your land without your consent.

      So Constitutionally you are protected. Unfortunately, to assert your rights you have to know they exist. Most people don't read the Constitution and don't even realize where right's come from. They foolishly believe they have to grovel and beg for rights that are granted by the bequest of a benevolent government. When it's the other way around. The federal government is granted only enumerated powers only so long as it has the consent of the people. YOU already have rights by virtue of being a human being.

    • 5 months ago
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  
    • Dagum:

      Try telling that to Monsanto. I am well aware of my inherent rights. I think Rachel Carson was simply illustrating the decay of humanity over time that could lead to such a devastation of the natural world as something the founders had not even anticipated in their wisdom.

    • 5 months ago
  • Vierotchka
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
    • +3
      JanforGore  
    • The History Of Agent Orange

      From the article:

      "The current presence of dioxin contamination in the class area is a public-health hazard," the lawyers argued in court documents. "It makes little sense to initiate a medical monitoring program for a population without first eliminating that population's exposure to the toxin at issue."
      ~~~
      Their MO is still the same.

    • 5 months ago
  • JanforGore
    • +2
      JanforGore  
    • Image
    • http://mediafilter.org/caq/CAQ58StealingOF.html

      "Lawyers involved in a 1984 worker lawsuit against Monsanto discovered that Gaffey had listed four workers as "unexposed" to dioxin when the same four workers had been classified as "exposed" to dioxin in a previous Monsanto study. Gaffey's co-author, who had worked on both studies, confirmed that the data had been cooked. Six years later the EPA acknowledged that the study was fraudulent and found that dioxin was a probable carcinogen."

    • 5 months ago
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
    • +2
      JanforGore  
    • http://justice.it

      "As the trial begins in a major toxic pollution lawsuit against Monsanto Co., jurors won't be allowed to tackle a key issue: Should the company pay to clean up dioxin it allegedly spewed across the city of Nitro?

      Experts won't testify about the need for property remediation. Lawyers won't argue about the issue. Jurors won't be asked to force Monsanto to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars such a project could cost.

      Judges O.C. Spaulding and Derek Swope issued rulings in July and November that threw out that part of the case.

      As a result, Putnam County jurors will decide only if current and former Nitro residents should receive medical monitoring to detect diseases potentially caused by exposure to Monsanto's dioxin. They won't be able to do anything to clean up homes and businesses, ending the toxic exposure."
      ~~~
      This is a travesty of justice. And looking at what has been done to circumvent responsibility, this is the fallout from a Ron Paul environmental policy or a candidate like him ( which covers just about every Republican and even some Democrats.) Telling us we do not need regulation to keep our waterways clean, our air clean, or rules governing corporate responsibility for pollution and causing illness because it hurts THEM... and then just allowing the culprits to get away with their crimes through legal maneuvering. And now just watch as these plantiffs try to show they have been poisoned by this as it continues to poison people. There will be no causality truly allowed to be established because Monsanto will contend they could have gotten the cancer from anything. Just like effects from GMOs or any other toxic substance made. Even if it should cause their death. There are no words to express the level of hatred I feel for this company and the likes of DuPont and DOW that put their bottomlines ahead of human life and our environment while greenwashing and bsing us. All I can say is good luck to those who fight for justice. It seems that even in our court system that can be bought.

    • 5 months ago
more from Tech:

top videos