Fw : Edelman.pdf (application/pdf Object)

[Guest guest]

Pages 5, 8, 22 and 23 for educational purposes looked pretty good in explaining

the concepts of contributory and comparative negligence.  In some jurisdictions,

if the court finds you 1% at fault you cannot recover one penny.  

One could make the analogy of asbestos to mold and take it from there.  And the

factor of smoking which the defense will bring in.  It can be a harsh rule.  

This is where I was going with the earlier posted case from 2000.  Some cases

can be very old and yet be " good law " that the court will rely on. 

This is not an attack on smokers, it is there to show smoking as an impediment

to " recovery " of damages in a Water Damaged Building. 

This is not legal advice.

--

Objet: Edelman.pdf (application/pdf Object)

À: " ginloi " <ginloi@...>

Date: Mardi 1 juin 2010, 5h53

 http://lawreview.wustl.edu/inprint/85/1/Edelman.pdf

[Guest guest]

my point is that it shouldn't be. many things could weaken the lungs.

many jobs are a lung hazard, you have a choise to work there or not.

let's say a judge had weakened lungs from being in a fairly sick court house for

many years, his job, his choise.

ignorance is no excuse,right?

than say he got very much sicker from a roof leak at his home and ended up like

us.

are they going to say, you dont get a dime because you choise to work in a old

dusty contaminated court house for 20 years before your exposure and it may have

weekend your lungs and even though the lung damage is probably the best known

effect of mold exposure we are not giveing you a dime because you may have had

weakened lungs before your exposure. and inless he had some doctors report of

problems with the lungs prior to his exposure, who can say if his lungs were

weakened or not. that assumeing, I thought things had to be proven.

if someone smoked before their mold exposure and had a very physical job and had

no lung problems,no medical records of lung problems, how can you possably say

it was a factor.

>

>

> Pages 5, 8, 22 and 23 for educational purposes looked pretty good in

explaining the concepts of contributory and comparative negligence.  In some

jurisdictions, if the court finds you 1% at fault you cannot recover one penny.

 

>

> One could make the analogy of asbestos to mold and take it from there.  And

the factor of smoking which the defense will bring in.  It can be a harsh rule.

  This is where I was going with the earlier posted case from 2000.  Some cases

can be very old and yet be " good law " that the court will rely on. 

>

> This is not an attack on smokers, it is there to show smoking as an impediment

to " recovery " of damages in a Water Damaged Building. 

>

> This is not legal advice.

> --

>

> Objet: Edelman.pdf (application/pdf Object)

> À: " ginloi " <ginloi@...>

> Date: Mardi 1 juin 2010, 5h53

>

>

>

>

>

>

>  http://lawreview.wustl.edu/inprint/85/1/Edelman.pdf

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

people get sick from water damaged building exposures weither they smoke or not.

and the lungs are not the only thing that gets damaged.

last time I looked, smokers were not loseing chunks of brain matter because of

smokeing or getting their nerves damaged beyond repair.

in my opinion, that may have worked in 2000 because in 2000, you were lucky if

they even reconized that WDB exposure could hurt you and if they did at all it

was only the lungs damage that they considered.

I think that belongs in the trash along with some other theories that went

there.

>

>

> Pages 5, 8, 22 and 23 for educational purposes looked pretty good in

explaining the concepts of contributory and comparative negligence.  In some

jurisdictions, if the court finds you 1% at fault you cannot recover one penny.

 

>

> One could make the analogy of asbestos to mold and take it from there.  And

the factor of smoking which the defense will bring in.  It can be a harsh rule.

  This is where I was going with the earlier posted case from 2000.  Some cases

can be very old and yet be " good law " that the court will rely on. 

>

> This is not an attack on smokers, it is there to show smoking as an impediment

to " recovery " of damages in a Water Damaged Building. 

>

> This is not legal advice.

> --

>

> Objet: Edelman.pdf (application/pdf Object)

> À: " ginloi " <ginloi@...>

> Date: Mardi 1 juin 2010, 5h53

>

>

>

>

>

>

>  http://lawreview.wustl.edu/inprint/85/1/Edelman.pdf

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

That may all be true. But tobacco by products seems to be fungal carcinogens,

because aspergillus is in the mix and a. fumigatus is a prime fungal carcinogen

in both water damaged buildings and smokes.

In a lawsuit you want to put " your hand " in " someone else's " pocket, and they

want to minimize their " exposure " financially by creating as many " defenses " as

possible and that includes " smoking " and even fire departments are hiring

" non-smokers " exclusively to make sure they are not paying claims for

" non-business related " smoke inhalation from actual firefighting.

And while it may not be perceived as fair, insurers are checking to be sure that

you don't smoke and " rating " your insurance policies accordingly and it stands

at least as an impediment to a successful claim. It is a very difficult and

expensive habit. And the health risks were not revealed until the 1950's.

Smoking was Hollywood glamorized and even docs would suggest you relax and

" light up " back in the day. Contributory Negligence and Comparative Negligence

all vary according to state statute, so like Workers' Comp.,you have to check

each state to see what the rules are. None of this is fair, but it is " what it

is. "

It was not fair that I had to go to law school near retirement age, sick, and a

single parent, but those were the " cards " I was dealt. I could either " let it

take me down, " or " dust myself off and fight. "

You are a good fighter,and an excellent researcher, too. Don't let things get

you down. It is the way the " other side " wins. The key is eliminating anything

they can " throw at you " as a weapon, and if that thing is cigarettes, and you

want to prevail badly enough, you will do it. It is hard, but you can " take

their weapons! "

Not legal advice.

>

> people get sick from water damaged building exposures weither they smoke or

not. and the lungs are not the only thing that gets damaged.

> last time I looked, smokers were not loseing chunks of brain matter because of

smokeing or getting their nerves damaged beyond repair.

> in my opinion, that may have worked in 2000 because in 2000, you were lucky if

they even reconized that WDB exposure could hurt you and if they did at all it

was only the lungs damage that they considered.

> I think that belongs in the trash along with some other theories that went

there.

>

[Guest guest]

so explain to me the difference in moldy crops that we consume.

heres something to thing about, mold likes fluid, theres juice in every single

nuggett on a ear of corn. I hope your not eating corn because it no doubt is

carcinogenic. it might not get the lungs, maybe instead, the stomach or gi tract

or bowels.

I hope you are not eating any crops at all.

please tell me exactly how we avoid mold/fungal carcinogens in everything we

live,eat and breath. no really, I not seeing a difference here. I can step

outside in smoke through a filter or I can just step outside and breath either

way I'll probably get some mold. mold is not just carcinogenic because it's in a

cigerette.

> >

> > people get sick from water damaged building exposures weither they smoke or

not. and the lungs are not the only thing that gets damaged.

> > last time I looked, smokers were not loseing chunks of brain matter because

of smokeing or getting their nerves damaged beyond repair.

> > in my opinion, that may have worked in 2000 because in 2000, you were lucky

if they even reconized that WDB exposure could hurt you and if they did at all

it was only the lungs damage that they considered.

> > I think that belongs in the trash along with some other theories that went

there.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I am not a doctor or a biologist...I am a layperson. I think there is a

difference. People are sucking that smoke directly into their lungs. It

actually deprives the facial and lip area of oxygen and it a reason that smokers

can experience premature wrinkling.

There are huge problems in the food chain. I use probiotics, now, to help my

intestines rebuild my immune system; I don't eat stuff where I see High Fructose

Corn Syrup, on the labeling, and have cut back on carbs, and eat more salad, and

protein. I take good supplements and rest when I am tired. I don't drink juice

other than orange juice. My life is different but I control what I can and leave

the rest to God. If he brought us to it, He will bring us through it.

The food industry has gotten away with so much over the years that they write

their own ticket like the oil industry. The FDA recently announced that they

are unable to supervise all that requires supervision. There is no quality

oversight.

It has always been my position that the key to this was in the " agrarian

context " - there are many types of lung conditions in the same vein as tobacco

workers' lung, rice workers' lung, bakers' lung, and they are ailments that are

not getting a lot of attention.

Even chewing tobacco is carcinogenic. Dentists often find oral cancer in the

jaw pocket where it is chewed or " held " - I look at it as a kind of " repetitive

injury " like carpal tunnel, where it hits that tissue all the time and wears it

down. That is how, I, as a lay person gets my " head around it. "

We had the bad luck to get " mega-doses " but I think of those teachers and staff

with whom I taught and whom are dead. So, I find myself pretty lucky, all

things considered. It was not " my plan " it must have been His. All we can do

is keep our fragile health in the best condition possible.

>

> so explain to me the difference in moldy crops that we consume.

> heres something to thing about, mold likes fluid, theres juice in every single

nuggett on a ear of corn. I hope your not eating corn because it no doubt is

carcinogenic. it might not get the lungs, maybe instead, the stomach or gi tract

or bowels.

> I hope you are not eating any crops at all.

>

> please tell me exactly how we avoid mold/fungal carcinogens in everything we

live,eat and breath. no really, I not seeing a difference here. I can step

outside in smoke through a filter or I can just step outside and breath either

way I'll probably get some mold. mold is not just carcinogenic because it's in a

cigerette.

>

[Guest guest]

Something that seems to be frequently overlooked with mold toxins is that

ingestion can occur because the toxins settle onto food, cooking utensils, and

other surfaces that people touch (and put their hands in their mouths). Reports

that declare mycotoxins are only problematic if they are ingested in

contaminated food products do not take other routes of ingestion into account.

Connie Morbach

M.S.,CHMM, CIE

Sanit-Air, Inc.

>

> so explain to me the difference in moldy crops that we consume.

> heres something to thing about, mold likes fluid, theres juice in every single

nuggett on a ear of corn. I hope your not eating corn because it no doubt is

carcinogenic. it might not get the lungs, maybe instead, the stomach or gi tract

or bowels.

> I hope you are not eating any crops at all.

>

> please tell me exactly how we avoid mold/fungal carcinogens in everything we

live,eat and breath. no really, I not seeing a difference here. I can step

outside in smoke through a filter or I can just step outside and breath either

way I'll probably get some mold. mold is not just carcinogenic because it's in a

cigerette.