Comments

  • This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

    July 3, 2011 at 7:16 p.m.
  • sanurse,

    What a nurse encouraging smoking? For shame.

    July 3, 2011 at 6:56 p.m.
  • 40 years? You should have kept on going. I'm sure the damage is somewhat done anyway. Oh well.

    July 3, 2011 at 6:49 p.m.
  • Naw, I quit 40 years ago I hated the damn things!

    July 3, 2011 at 3:25 p.m.
  • rollinstone- do us all a favor and have a cigarette.

    July 3, 2011 at 1:56 p.m.
  • You can run but you can't hide - but you can sue all you need is a deep pocket.

    Benzene and gasoline:
    The material safety data sheet for unleaded gasoline shows at least 15 hazardous chemicals occurring in various amounts, including benzene (up to 5% by volume), toluene (up to 35% by volume), naphthalene (up to 1% by volume), trimethylbenzene (up to 7% by volume).

    Benzene and Cigarette Smoke:
    Benzene is present in cigarette smoke and accounts for half of all human exposure to this health hazard. While definitive conclusions have not yet been drawn, it is generally thought that smokers face an increased risk of leukemia over their nonsmoking counterparts

    July 3, 2011 at 12:46 p.m.
  • I agree with True One for admiring this family for having the courage to stand up and say something is wrong. Companies being sued are the Goliath and the family is in a way the David of this lawsuit because it's the little guy against the big guns. Corporate companies hire many lawyers to 'cover' for them in case they get caught, which it looks like since they haven’t been held accountable for their actions. It has gone on way too long. Who knows who else’s lives have been affected by companies “sweeping under the rug” the hazards that such jobs could attribute to a person’s health. I hope that the family will come out on top considering that this man’s life cannot be replaced for the company’s negligence!

    July 3, 2011 at 12:23 p.m.
  • MK, the "Japanese thing" did hurt the nuclear power industry. But I still think burning coal by the trainloads is worse, far worse and its long term effects will probably be catastrophic - we will rue the day we give up on nuclear power. Fortunately there are new reactor designs that can eliminate the "loss of cooling" problem and they have been demonstrated, but they require spent fuel reprocessing - oh no!

    The storage of spent fuel on site was a major problem with the "Japanese thing" - we can thank the "environmentalist" for that. However, I thought Japan at one time processed and reclaimed their spent fuel, but apparently they quit doing that like we foolishly did. Storing this material assumes much more risk than processing it and then burying the small amount of radioactive waste in the mud at the bottom of the ocean.

    And finally MK, what does this unfortunate incident have to do with uranium mining? And contrary to what you've "found" I have not found a single piece of evidence that in situ uranium mining (using current technology) has contaminated any drinking water and I dare you to produce evidence that it has, because I would like to see it.

    BTW, all of this is off topic - whatever!

    July 2, 2011 at 12:52 p.m.
  • This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

    July 2, 2011 at 12:44 p.m.
  • Corporations that violate the environmental laws love those that want to give them immunity by consistently blaming the victims.

    I thought our civil courts were for compensating victims of wrongdoing and throwing out the frivolous lawsuits. So, it's not enough that it is extremely hard to sue a corporation who has several lawyers on the payroll and time and influence on their hand, but now every victim and their lawyer has evil intent?

    Let the case move forward and let the facts determine the winner and loser.

    July 2, 2011 at 12:02 p.m.
  • Jasonb, I am very aware of how much "some" companies spend on safety. In supervision at a plant for 30+ years. The truth in there are large, well known companies that keep 2 sets of audit book.

    "What we said we did" and What we did".

    July 2, 2011 at 11:54 a.m.
  • Anyone can file a frivolous lawsuit, but the truth is that frivolous don’t make to trial. And Jim Cole’s law firm isn’t known for this.

    Raven, since you know he was a smoker, tell us what brand did he smoke.

    And In America companies have a legal obligation to protect workers from harm, if they didn’t then that “owner not responsible for injuries or accident” printed on the back of carnival ride tickets would have the force law behind it.

    I remember back in the 60s when the U.S. Department of Defense, Monsanto,and Dow Chemical said 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid and 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid mixture was harmless, Well we all now know how harmless “AGENT ORGANGE” is.

    July 2, 2011 at 11:32 a.m.
  • Hopefully this frivilous lawsuit gets tossed before the Lawyers for the accuser make to much money.

    And no, profit doesn't come out on top in every company. You have no idea how much money is spent trying to make employees safe while at work.

    July 1, 2011 at 10:49 p.m.
  • Wow, Raven 8- who are you to quickly judge. I am sure the man knew how to read just as you know how to be so rude. Have some respect for the family.

    July 1, 2011 at 9:55 p.m.
  • In America companies have a legal obligation to protect workers from known workplace hazards wither it's in a chemical plant, fast food business, or any other kind of workplace. Companies must identify and mitigate known hazards and not allow workers to be exposed to any known workplace hazard including restricting work or requiring appropriate protective measures. I admire this family for having the courage to stand up and say something is wrong.

    July 1, 2011 at 9:47 p.m.
  • The British government taxed us with out representation, devalued our currency, sent it's soldiers into our homes without legal search warrants, and it punished us for criticizing the British King.

    Thank you for the first law of Independence while we were still subject to the King.
    Which is, our freedoms come from humanity which is a gift from God and do not come from government. The British King said our laws came from him. And could be expanded or shrank at his will.
    Many fought and were wounded and died over this. And we the people wrote a Constitution create and limit a Federal government.
    Then the "government" added the Bill of Rights because the government feared big government.

    Thanks and good luck, and Happy July the Fourth

    July 1, 2011 at 8:34 p.m.
  • LOL woofwoof,

    Well, he hasn't attempted that yet but I did find one around La Salle that did catch fire when I opened up the water filter. Of course, this was natural gas, not benzene.

    Yeah, rollinstone, that is digging pretty deep. Oh, btw, EPA will be in Goliad on August 4th to talk about...umm...remember the uranium mining thing? After all these years, I still haven't found anything positive. I guess the Japanese Chernobyl thing didn't help any, but still, the Administrative Law Judge did state at the contested case hearing that this mining zone lies upon or adjacent to a transmissive fault, and that the permit should be denied.

    I know, same old story about fear mongers and such. I just want to keep my water the way it was, and the way it is. It's all about the money, don't ya know. To heck with me and my family's water. Right?

    July 1, 2011 at 7:36 p.m.
  • Safety Railway Service, Celanese Corporation; Celanese Ltd; Celanese Americas Corporation; Celanese Chemical Inc, E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company; ExxonMobil Corporation; ExxonMobil Oil Corporation; ExxonMobil Texas; GATX; and Union Carbide Corporation.

    Hmmmmm....? Where oh where is that deep pocket?

    July 1, 2011 at 6:36 p.m.
  • Is his water on fire yet?

    July 1, 2011 at 5:51 p.m.
  • TxBohemian,

    My comment is not related to the actual story, but it is related to benzene and exposure. Mr. Frederick's water well developed a "diesel fuel odor" about a year ago. He called TRRC, and they found "nothing wrong". He had his water tested by a private lab and eight benzene compounds were detected in his drinking water. He had been using the water to shower, cook and water his cattle for months.

    After a direct apology by Elizabeth Ames Jones, TRRC Commissioner, Wednesday a week ago in Cuero, a "formal investigation" was launched. Mr. Frederick was contacted by someone down the chain at TRRC and asked, "Do you know how to read this water test? These benzene compounds aren't really benzene, but compounds used in making benzene!" And???

    Benzene is nasty stuff. It's carcinogenic, that's a fact. Yep, it's used in cigarette manufacture and used to be a method for decaffeinating coffee. That was then, this is now.

    ...and yes, some voluntary reports do show that some benzene compounds are added to the water going deep into the ground for hydraulic fracturing.

    Wake up, people!

    July 1, 2011 at 5:48 p.m.
  • I guess my question is when did the exposure occur? I have known about the dangers of benzene for about 25 years. I was given an MSDS sheet when I worked at Union Carbide. Information is available on the Internet as well. If the exposure occurred 50 years ago, the company might not have known of the dangers.

    July 1, 2011 at 3:33 p.m.
  • Just another lawyer getting richer!

    July 1, 2011 at 2:42 p.m.
  • There is an unwritten rule in Industrial Health and Safety.

    "Safety vs. Profit, Profit wins." Large chemical manufacturers will do the right thing for the shareholders. And now there seems to be a public wave of "smaller government", "less regulations", and stopping law suits.

    Then there is the issue of tax breaks for their company Learjets. I have noticed that the CEOs arn't around hazardous material that much unless they get a paper cut from the $100 bill when they light their Cuban cigars.

    July 1, 2011 at 12:43 p.m.
  • Maybe this will remind companies that they too have a responsibility for their workers' safety? The company should have provided all the safety education, equipment necessary, etc. for their workers to get the job done - taking advantage of a population needing jobs or just plain not caring? I think it's "plain not caring" - with people who say, "he could have said, no I will not work until I have the proper equipment" - why should any worker have to say that - pretty stupid comment. COMPANIES should provide for their workers' safety period.

    July 1, 2011 at 11:27 a.m.
  • markkrueger wrote:
    "And Mr. Frederick's water well with benzene compounds? TRRC is back on top of an investigation, but he was told that his water was safe and used it to shower etc. for months. Geez!!!"

    ???

    I guess I missed something here, what does this have to do with this story? Explain please.

    In the article:
    "The thing the family wants most is something to be done to protect other welders from chemicals like this, especially benzene..."
    Soooo... if this is truely what the family "wants most" and these companies agree to better "educate" thier workers and supply them with better equipment -- will she drop the lawsuit?

    July 1, 2011 at 8:43 a.m.
  • And Mr. Frederick's water well with benzene compounds? TRRC is back on top of an investigation, but he was told that his water was safe and used it to shower etc. for months. Geez!!!

    July 1, 2011 at 8:22 a.m.
  • Far from frivolous if this goes to trial

    July 1, 2011 at 7:53 a.m.
  • Firvolous i'd say. What he could not read? He could have said no i will not work until i have the proper equipment. i am sure he knew that the company he worked for would exposed him to hazardous products. And that goes for any other employee current and pass that work for any company that make's products for everyday life. Before you all comment, he was a smoker too. Carcingens in cigarettes too.

    July 1, 2011 at 6:58 a.m.
  • Sorry for the loss of you husband Mrs Rubio.

    July 1, 2011 at 5:22 a.m.