Ok well a friend of mine is gong through a lawsuit about some asbestos where he formerly worked. It was a paper mill that was around his family and most of his family and friends worked there(The mill closed down like in the early 90s). A lawyer approached him and his family/friends telling them that they had a case. So they went ahead and sued and for over 10 years the case has been in the process. Now the case is supposedly settled. He called the lawyer and the lawyer says its supposed to be millions but he doesn't know the exact amount. Some people in his family have died from brain damage, cancer, etc. which we don't know if its asbestos related it could have been. The lawyer says you only get money if you have some kind of birth defect but you don't get money for the brother/sister, mother/father that you lost that was possibly from the asbestos in the mill. Do you think this case is fishy? I think its strange that they don't know how much money him and his family are getting....
Also the case was held in Texas and we're in Louisiana so all the court dates or whatever were never attended by him or his family/friends only by the lawyer. So no one knows what went on in the court room. His family trusts the lawyer with everything! They think that he's going to do everything honestly but I was trying to tell them that lawyers are crooks and you can't trust them to handle everything for you. Next week the family is supposed to sign to close the case and he still doesn't know how much each family will receive. He says after they sign next week the checks will be sent out in the upcoming weeks. Plus there are some people in my friends family that weren't on the list anymore because they didn't have a birth defect...I think this is very fishy. Please tell me what do you think I should tell him to do because he feels that its stranger too. Thanks a million!

according to an article in Time Magazine, he lied or exaggerated 10 times recently, and Hillary is chewed up on the Bosnia incident: Check out Obama's lies!

Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama’s Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements

Once again, the Obama campaign is getting caught saying one thing while doing another. They are personally attacking Hillary even though Sen. Obama has been found mispeaking and embellishing facts about himself more than ten times in recent months. Senator Obama’s campaign is based on words –not a record of deeds – and if those words aren’t backed up by facts, there’s not much else left.

“Senator Obama has called himself a constitutional professor, claimed credit for passing legislation that never left committee, and apparently inflated his role as a community organizer among other issues. When it comes to his record, just words won’t do. Senator Obama will have to use facts as well,” Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said.

Sen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor. The Sun-Times reported that, “Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama’s primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter.” In academia, there’s a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not. [Hotline Blog, 4/9/07; Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04]

Obama claimed credit for nuclear leak legislation that never passed. “Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was ‘the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.’ ‘I just did that last year,’ he said, to murmurs of approval. A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks. Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate.” [New York Times, 2/2/08]

Obama misspoke about his being conceived because of Selma. “Mr. Obama relayed a story of how his Kenyan father and his Kansan mother fell in love because of the tumult of Selma, but he was born in 1961, four years before the confrontation at Selma took place. When asked later, Mr. Obama clarified himself, saying: ‘I meant the whole civil rights movement.’” [New York Times, 3/5/07]

LA Times: Fellow organizers say Sen. Obama took too much credit for his community organizing efforts. “As the 24-year-old mentor to public housing residents, Obama says he initiated and led efforts that thrust Altgeld’s asbestos problem into the headlines, pushing city officials to call hearings and a reluctant housing authority to start a cleanup. But others tell the story much differently. They say Obama did not play the singular role in the asbestos episode that he portrays in the best-selling memoir ‘Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.’ Credit for pushing officials to deal with the cancer-causing substance, according to interviews and news accounts from that period, also goes to a well-known preexisting group at Altgeld Gardens and to a local newspaper called the Chicago Reporter. Obama does not mention either one in his book.” [Los Angeles Times, 2/19/07]

Chicago Tribune: Obama’s assertion that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing ’strains credulity.’ “…Obama has been too self-exculpatory. His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004 — more than a year before the adjacent home and property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos.” [Chicago Tribune editorial, 1/27/08]

Obama was forced to revise his assertion that lobbyists ‘won’t work in my White House.’ “White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was forced to revise a critical stump line of his on Saturday — a flat declaration that lobbyists ‘won’t work in my White House’ after it turned out his own written plan says they could, with some restrictions… After being challenged on the accuracy of what he has been saying — in contrast to his written pledge — at a news conference Saturday in Waterloo, Obama immediately softened what had been his hard line in his next stump speech.” [Chicago Sun-Times, 12/16/07]

FactCheck.org: ‘Selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers pump up Obama’s health plan.’ “Obama’s ad touting his health care plan quotes phrases from newspaper articles and an editorial, but makes them sound more laudatory and authoritative than they actually are. It attributes to The Washington Post a line saying Obama’s plan would save families about ,500. But the Post was citing the estimate of the Obama campaign and didn’t analyze the purported savings independently. It claims that “experts” say Obama’s plan is “the best.” “Experts” turn out to be editorial writers at the Iowa City Press-Citizen – who, for all their talents, aren’t actual experts in the field. It quotes yet another newspaper saying Obama’s plan “guarantees coverage for all Americans,” neglecting to mention that, as the article makes clear, it’s only Clinton’s and Edwards’ plans that would require coverage for everyone, while Obama’s would allow individuals to buy in if they wanted to.” [FactCheck.org, 1/3/08]

Sen. Obama said ‘I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage,’ but Obama health care legislation merely set up a task force. ”As a state senator, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to pass legislation insuring 20,000 more children. And 65,000 more adults received health care…And I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage.” The State Journal-Register reported in 2004 that “The [Illinois State] Senate squeaked out a controversial bill along party lines Wednesday to create a task force to study health-care reform in Illinois. […] In its original form, the bill required the state to offer universal health care by 2007. That put a ‘cloud’ over the legislation, said Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon. Under the latest version, the 29-member task force would hold at least five public hearings next year.” [Obama Health Care speech, 5/29/07; State Journal-Register, 5/20/04]

ABC News: ‘Obama…seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he made’ on ethics reform. “ABC News’ Teddy Davis Reports: During Monday’s Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he has made on disclosure of “bundlers,” those individuals who aggregate their influence with the candidate they support by collecting ,300 checks from a wide network of wealthy friends and associates. When former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel alleged that Obama had 134 bundlers, Obama responded by telling Gravel that the reason he knows how many bundlers he has raising money for him is “because I helped push through a law this past session to disclose that.” Earlier this year, Obama sponsored an amendment [sic] in the Senate requiring lobbyists to disclose the candidates for whom they bundle. Obama’s amendment would not, however, require candidates to release the names of their bundlers. What’s more, although Obama’s amendment was agreed to in the Senate by unanimous consent, the measure never became law as Obama seemed to suggest. Gravel and the rest of the public know how many bundlers Obama has not because of a ‘law’ that the Illinois Democrat has ‘pushed through’ but because Obama voluntarily discloses that information.” [ABC News, 7/23/07]

Obama drastically overstated Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance. “When Sen. Barack Obama exaggerated the death toll of the tornado in Greensburg, Kan, during his visit to Richmond yesterday, The Associated Press headline rapidly evolved from ‘Obama visits former Confederate capital for fundraiser’ to ‘Obama rips Bush on Iraq war at Richmond fundraiser’ to ‘Weary Obama criticizes Bush on Iraq, drastically overstates Kansas tornado death toll’ to ‘Obama drastically overstates Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance.’ Drudge made it a banner, ensuring no reporter would miss it.
I have a life, unlike the Obamanators I don't sit around waiting for the government to FIX it for me! I fix it myself and I am BLACK!
the ARTICLE is in TIME MAGAZINE feel free to pull it up and they are FAR from being biased! Unlike the Huffington post which is far left, time magazine presents BOTH SIDES! Truth hurts I know!
http://thepage.time.com/clinton-camp-memo-on-obamas-embellished-words/

Do people think that hazardous chemicals simply go away? Are that not aware that some toxic chemicals can have a shelf life that can last hundreds, or even thousands of years?

I'm no tree hugger, but I do not believe you can keep polluting our rivers, lakes, and streams without some type of catastrophic event happening in the future. What if one day we must live off the land like they did in the 1800's?

Why do you suppose cancer and heart disease is more common now than it was in the beginning of the 20th century? More people? NO! The percentage is still higher. More smokers? NO! People actually smoke less today. Cancer is not caused by simply smoking alone. There is a wide range of causes.

Why is it that a perfectly healthy person can get lung cancer even though they never have been exposed to asbestos, and most importantly, THEY NEVER SMOKED!

Does the food I eat have the same amount of nutrients and pollutants that it had 50 years ago? Something tells me probably not!
Somehow our government needs to find a way to protect the environment without harming prosperity. Hydrogen powered cars are a start, but thats only a small fraction of the problem.
volcanos are out of our control. And why compound the problem? Should we simply give up because a volcano erupts? That would only make it worse.
Seeing is believing. I have seen it with my own eyes. I live in a state in which every stream and lake is polluted. There was a time when people were not afraid to eat the fish. NOT ANYMORE!

I have also seen a company get fined for dumping toxic wastes into a nearby river. luckily, they got caught! I wonder how many don't.
Great point Jeff, but wouldn't more pollution mean less oxygen? It doesn't have to be cigarette smoke!
It is literally impossible for the environment to be cleaner now than it was 40 or 50 years ago.

What happens if you don't clean your room? Stuff piles up and it looks worse and worse everyday right? These chemicals don't simply rot. They stick around for a very long time!

MY DAD DIED 4 WEEKS AGO FROM ASBESTOS POISONING, MY SIBLINGS AND STEP MOM HAVE A WRONGFUL DEATH SUITE HAPPENING,.WHAT OR HOW IS IT DETERMINED WHAT THE VALUE OF MY FATHERS LIFE WAS. ITS A HORRIABLE HORRIABLE CANCER ANND HE WAS JUST 65.

Are there any statistics online?

he told me that he might have inhaled some asbestos fibers yesterday, and now 2day he said he has a bad cough! obviously that isnt a good thing!

if the fibers stay in ur lungs 4 a long time they can cause a certain kind of lung cancer....i am very worried about him because he is my guy version of BFF

please help! and thank u if u do!

My dad had 4 spots on his lung and he was worried it was lung cancer because when he was younger he worked around asbestos. After the chest x-ray he had a CT scan. The results came back today that they are (from what my dad has told me) are calcium build up spots and could or couldn't be cancer cell. They could be scars but no one would know until a biopsy. My dad opted against it because he had one along time ago I believe and he said it was VERY painful and he has a huge phobia of doctors and hates it.

The doctors got together and told him since they were so small, he could come back in a year and have another chest x-ray and they could compare to see if they got bigger. Now to me that's just plain stupid and horrible advice from a doctor. Why risk it? Why not just get the biopsy and rule out if it is cancer. Or if it is, catch it early before he goes back in a year and it be 4 times in size and be told "if only you did the biopsy could we have saved your life"

My dad does a lot for me, and usually puts me before himself. I'm going to business school and something like this would haunt me everyday unless he does it. My dad believes there is no cure for lung cancer, however I read that if you catch it early your chances are way higher.

Where can I find proof that catching any kind of lung cancer is better then waiting? Proof that a biopsy is a good idea. Please help me.
I think the main factor for not doing it is because the doctors said they were small and "nothing yet" however that is horrible information because if it is cancer it could become very bad within a year.

Also, i'm not looking for "he should suck it up" or do it, I'm looking for links with prove that there is cures, and caught early can improve your chances a lot because I want to show him the proof. Also he's 58 and has nothing else wrong with him (had blood tests done to make sure of other things)

If we can prove with scientific evidence as good as any normal medical research that going to prison terms for more than 20 years significantly increases the chances of cancer, would sentencing people to prison become a cruel and unusual punishment?

We don't sentence people to slow painful deaths and we don't condemn people to live in asbestos insulated houses. Would we be in good conscience be able to sentence people to prison if it increases the chances of cancer?
Sorry. I said a significant increase meaning if you think there is a level of increase where you would call it inhumane.

Assuming it is the behavior in prison that increases chances.
People get all worked up when fat foods increase people's chances of dieing even though it is a lifestyle choice. We complain about creating an environment that encourages that behavior. It is the same for prison. We create an environment that encourages it.

Is the pink material found in attics a cause of lung cancer? I have heard that the material may have similar health risks to asbestos. Can anyone please inform me more about the health risks, if any, found in the pink insulation? Thank you

Has anyone else heard that the tampon companies put asbestos in the tampons to make you bleed more so that you have to buy more tampons? Supposedly, this is also a contributing factor to the rise in cervical cancer. I just heard this and I'm wondering how valid it is.