San Francisco Injury Lawyer Blog

At The Brod Law Firm, we serve those impacted by environmental disasters in San Francisco and throughout Northern California. Our San Francisco class action attorney can handle cases in both federal and state courts in the state. We keep informed about important cases throughout the nation so that we can better serve our local communities when similar issues arise in our jurisdiction.

One of the biggest environmental disasters in recent years was the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil spill. On April 20, 2010, an explosion rocked at a nine year old offshore drilling unit that was being leased and operated by BP. Within a couple of days, an oil slick appeared near the rig, confirming fears that the explosion had caused a leak. Before the leak was stemmed, approximately 4.9 million barrels of oil leaked into the Gulf of Mexico waters. Industries and individuals in several states suffered significant economic losses as a result of the spill and the clean-up effort. Health concerns remain an issue for Gulf coast residents.

The oil spill resulted in multiple lawsuits, including individual and class claims against BP. The filing deadline for the existing Quick Payment program has recently been extended from May 7 to June 11. Pursuant to the program, individual claimants are eligible for a $5,000 payment and businesses can receive $25,000. By filing a claim and receiving a payment pursuant to the Quick Payment program, claimants waive the right to any future claims stemming from the 2010 disaster with the exception of those related to injury or death.

Authorities overseeing the resolution of claims are in the process of phasing out the existing Gulf Coast Claims Facility (“GCCF”). Instead of the GCCF, claims will be handled by a Court-Supervised Settlement Program. This program is part of a settlement agreement applicable to more than 100,000 claimants and is a portion of the resolution to two class actions against BP. It is designed to determine and remedy both individual and business losses stemming from the Deepwater Horizon accident via a court-supervised process. In setting forth the terms of the process, United States District Judge Carl Barbier has implemented a filing deadline of either April 22, 2014 or six months from the effective date of the settlement.

Pursuant to the court-supervised program, individual claim amounts will be calculated by estimating the difference between projected earnings and actual earnings for the period between May 2010 and either December 2010 or April 2011, depending on the industry involved. Additional awards to individual claimants will account for costs of lost health insurance and pension benefits, as well as the costs involved in job searches or re-training necessitated by the spill. Existing businesses will be compensated based on profit losses that lasted for three or more consecutive months in the eight month period following the spill and also based on comparing profits to growth trends at the industry and economy-wide levels. The court-supervised program also sets forth guidance for compensating failed start-up businesses, successful start-ups that may have been limited by the spill, and losses impacting multi-facility businesses.

As a Northern California toxic tort law firm, we are prepared to help should an environmental disaster akin to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill impact our region. Our San Francisco oil and gas lawyer will continue to follow the lawsuits stemming from the 2010 tragedy so that our team can better serve local individuals and businesses that may be harmed by a spill in the Pacific waters or by another industrial accident that results in similar economic and/or health damages.

See Related Blog Posts:
Proposed Gas Storage Field Raises Safety Concerns
Safety in the Wake of the 2010 San Bruno Pipeline Explosion

Safety is always foremost in the mind of our Sacramento natural gas accident attorney and our entire legal team. The Brod Law Firm is proud to support victims of utility accidents in Sacramento and to represent both individuals and class action groups in Sacramento toxic tort lawsuits. We also support efforts to ensure that utility companies operate in a safe manner that helps to prevent tragic accidents that can end or forever alter the lives of our fellow Californians.

Commissioner Florio of the California Public Utilities Commission (“PUC”) is working to block a local utility company from storing natural gas in a sandstone formation 3,800 feet below Avondale Glen Elder, a neighborhood in Sacramento. Florio is opposing the request by Sacramento National Gas Storage LLC to undertake the $70 million project and store 7.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas. The site is the former Florin Gas Field, a depleted natural gas reservoir, located underneath a 379 acre parcel of land containing more than 700 homes. If the PUC approves the request, the company would then need to seek a permit from the city for the project. Ultimately, the company would seek contracts with utility companies looking to store gas at the location. Company officials say they already have a commitment from the Sacramento Municipal Utility District that would use at least half of the field’s capacity.

In his statement opposing the project, Florio cited three significant impacts that, per the environmental impact report, could not meet the requirement of being mitigated to less than significant levels. The three areas are: 1) Potential hazard of a gas leak following gas field re-pressurization for storage; 2) Potential impact on the quality of groundwater due to operations and maintenance of the gas field; and 3) Temporary elevation of noise levels due to construction at the wellhead site. Florio notes that some of the potential for leaks is low but that the impact could be catastrophic and long-lasting.

Approximately three-quarters of the impacted property owners have signed agreements permitting the company to store gas beneath their properties in exchange for initial $500 bonuses and future annual lease payments. While some community organizers applauded Florio’s opposition statement, company representatives note that two other proposed rulings from the PUC have advocated in favor of approval, suggesting the project is safe and necessary for the region. One filing from PUC Administrative Law Judge Richard Smith concluded that the benefits of the project, including economic and social results, justify approving the proposal despite unavoidable environmental impacts. PUC Commissioner Timothy Alan Simon also wrote in support of the project but did call for additional conditions including requiring the company to purchase a general liability policy that would cost $4 million and provide a minimum of $100 million in coverage. Simon also called for the company to purchase a surety bond that would cover potential costs such as remedying negative impacts of groundwater.

Gregory Brod is an experienced Sacramento utility accident attorney. The team at The Brod Law Firm urges the PUC and officials in Sacramento to make safety a priority as they consider the natural gas storage proposal. We are prepared to represent victims of natural gas and oil industry accidents but know that prevention is always the best option.

See Related Blog Posts:
Safety in the Wake of the 2010 San Bruno Pipeline Explosion
California Residents Must Protect Legal Rights Following Refinery Injuries

As your San Francisco dangerous chemicals law firm, the team at The Brod Law Firm believes that it is vital for both companies and regulatory officials to prioritize consumer safety. We are prepared to help victims of chemical exposure file San Francisco products liability lawsuits and other related claims to help residents recover when dangerous chemicals cause illness or injury. We fundamentally believe, however, that preventing the community from being exposed to harmful chemicals upfront is always preferable to dealing with illness and injury in the aftermath of exposure.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported this week on a positive move towards safety in California’s agricultural arena. Manufacturers of methyl iodide, a pesticide used in growing strawberries, have announced that the product will be pulled from the market in California and throughout the United States. Arysta LifeScience Corporation, a Japanese company, has cited economic factors in the decision to discontinue sales. The company has also voluntarily cancelled its registration permitting the sale of methyl iodide in California.

Although the company did not cite safety concerns in their statements, environmental groups have been lobbying against the product since it was first approved for use in our state. In 2007, federal authorities approved the use of methyl iodide as a temporary bridge between methyl bromide, a product known to contribute to the depletion of the ozone layer, and to-be-developed environmentally friendly options. In 2010, the pesticide was specifically approved by the state for use by California farms. Opponents to the product, including many in the public health arena, believe that the company is a possible carcinogen and that use of methyl iodide exposes residents who live or work near treated fields to fumes that might raise their cancer risk. Use of the pesticide has been limited, likely due to a high-profile campaign against the chemical

The decision to halt methyl iodide sales is not without controversy. Some groups representing farmers, including the California Farm Bureau Federation, believe that the pesticide is still needed because the envisioned greener alternative will not be available in a timely fashion. The groups say that the decision to halt sales will hamper the ability of farmers in the state to produce the high-quality, high-volume products needed to compete with foreign growers.

We understand that it is important to give area businesses the tools necessary to compete in an increasingly global market. We support efforts to help local growers and encourage campaigns to get Californians to eat locally grown produce. These efforts, however, cannot be blind to safety. Farms should be the epitome of health, not a source of exposure to dangerous chemicals.

If you have suffered harm due to dangerous chemicals in Northern California, please contact our San Francisco injury lawyer. We can help you recover compensation for your illness and send the message that unsafe products will not be tolerated.

See Related Blog Posts:
Local Authorities Move to Limit Dangerous Rodent Poisons
California Consumers Should Be Wary About Poisons and Pesticides in the Home

When a man-made disaster impacts our state, our California class action attorney is prepared to help. In cases involving toxic torts, such as a California oil refinery accident, The Brod Law Firm is prepared to use the tool of either a federal or state class action to ease the burden on individual plaintiffs and allow an entire group of victims to prove their case collectively.

The most likely reason to bring a class action suit in federal court, instead of state court, is the diversity doctrine. This means that the suit involves at least one plaintiff who is a citizen of a different state than one or more of the defendants. For these purposes, companies are citizens of the state where they have their principle place of business. In order to file as a federal class, the plaintiffs must show four things: 1) Commonality (one or more issues is common to the whole class and, often, these common issues dominate over individual matters); 2) Adequacy (the selected representative can effectively protect the interests of all members of the class); 3) Numerosity (the class is large enough that individual lawsuits are not practical, making a class action a better method for resolving the matters); and 4) Typicality (the claim of the representative stems from a wrong to the class and is typical of the claims of the class members). These requirements aim to make sure that a class action is the best method for resolving a dispute and that a proper lead plaintiff is selected to represent the class in court.

Class actions can also be brought under state law. A few examples of the types of claims that might give rise to a class action in California are employment law violations, defective products claims, and consumer protection litigation. The rules governing class actions in California are a mix of guidance from statutes passed by the legislature and interpretations developed by state courts. Some of the basic requirements for a state class action mirror the requirements under federal law. California courts will also be more likely to grant certification of a class if doing so will serve a benefit to the class or to the citizens of the state as a whole and if the claims would be unlikely to be heard individually.

The selection of a lead plaintiff is an important part of any class action. Often the lead plaintiff is the person who reached out and got counsel involved in the matter but this is not always the case. The lead plaintiff must be deemed adequate by the court because the individual will work with the attorney to represent the interests of the entire class. The lead plaintiff should be someone whose claims are similar to that of the group as a whole and who is prepared to act on behalf of the entire class.

Class actions are complicated but they can be a useful tool when many individuals are impacted by the same wrongful act. The Brod Law Firm is prepared to act as class counsel in cases of San Francisco workplace accidents or when other incidents lead a group of victims with similar claims. If you believe you have suffered an injury that might give rise to a class action at either the state or federal level, please contact us for a free consultation. We will work closely with members of the class to ensure justice is achieved for all members of your class.

See Related Blog Posts:
The Importance of Healthy Workplaces: The Asbestos Example
U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes will affect the certification of many class-action lawsuits

Medication saves lives. Our Oakland pharmaceutical lawyer knows we are lucky to live in an age where so many health ailments can be managed or cured through the use of medication. However, we also know that medications can be dangerous, especially when unused medicines are not properly disposed.

As your Oakland dangerous drugs law firm, The Brod Firm has been following developments in Alameda County regarding drug disposal. According to The Oakland Tribune, Alameda County supervisors have elected to delay passage of an ordinance that would have required pharmaceutical companies to take back unused products. The ordinance, which was expected to be approved, would have made the county the first local government to require such steps. The delay means the provision will not come to a vote until June, at the earliest.
Currently, there are 128 drop-off sites in the Bay Area at which residents can dispose of unwanted medications. In 2009, area residents used the sites to dispose of 60,000 pounds of pharmaceuticals. The Alameda proposal would have mandated that drug manufacturers create detailed plans to collect both prescription and over-the-counter medicines. The estimated cost of complying with the proposal is $200,000. Business representatives from pharmaceutical companies and trade associations argued that the proposal was premature and would have been ineffective. They suggested the proposal would increase costs and would also cause companies to halt business in the county.

When not properly disposed of, unused medications can be a hazard to children and pets. In recent years, there has also been increasing concern about medications finding their way into our community water supply. A 2008 study by the Associated Press found that medications were detected in drinking water supplies that serve twenty-four major metropolitan communities. The pharmaceuticals identified included antidepressants, anti-seizure medicines, antibiotics and hormonal medications. The concentrations of medications were generally quite small and, in levels measures by the part per billion or trillion, are far lower than the dose used by patients. However, it is unclear what impact exposure to even the small levels might impact those who use the drinking water for an extended period of time. Some of the chemicals are introduced into the water reserves due to improper disposal. Additional drugs can enter water supplies when trace amounts are excreted in the urine of people who have taken the medications. Water treatment processes do not always eliminate all of the residual chemicals. Federal water standards do not generally require testing for these substances.

The danger to the water supply means that residents should not flush leftover medications down the toilet. Patients should use care if disposing of medications in the trash to avoid having children or pets accidentally consume the products. Experts suggest that, if you decide to throw out medication in the trash, you combine it with used coffee grounds or other substances that would make the medicine unappealing. It is, however, best to dispose of medications at designated disposal sites. You can find a listing of such sites at the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery website.

Improperly discarded drugs are just one example of potentially dangerous chemicals in San Francisco water. If your health, or that of a loved one, has been impacted by these health threats, our skilled Northern California chemical exposure lawyer can help. We can work with both individuals and groups to identify negligent parties and help victims recover needed compensation.

See Related Blog Posts:
Toxic Tort Attorney Addresses Water Contamination Caused By Fracking
San Francisco-Oakland Injury Attorney Comments on Severe Reactions to Over the Counter Drugs

America is a land of opportunity where hard work should earn you a good life. Unfortunately, or San Francisco workplace injury lawyer knows that too many of our residents are subject to dangerous working conditions. These conditions include hazardous chemicals that can cause a myriad of health problems, some of which don’t appear until many years later.

One of the most publicized substances that has led to countless work-related sicknesses is asbestos. There are six major types of asbestos and the substance was widely used for many years because of its commercially beneficial properties. Asbestos fibers are resistant to heat and many chemicals, leading to use in a range of construction elements as well as textiles, cement, and protective coatings. Historians believe asbestos was used as far back as the first century A.D. and asbestos was a popular building material as recently as the 1970s and 1980s.

Many people have become ill as a result of asbestos exposure, including illnesses due to inhaling asbestos fibers at the workplace. Three major health problems associated with asbestos exposure are:

1. Lung cancer – The largest share of asbestos deaths are due to lung cancer. Asbestos-related lung cancer has been seen in several occupational areas including milling, mining, and the direct manufacture of asbestos products.
2. Asbestosis – This is a serious, long-term disease for which there is no effective treatment. Asbestosis results from the inhalation of asbestos fibers which irritate the lung tissue and lead to scarring, which makes it hard for the lungs to deliver oxygen to the blood.
3. Mesothelioma – A rare form of lung cancer, mesothelioma attacks the thin membranes that line the lung, chest, heart and abdomen. Almost all cases of the disease are due to asbestos exposure.

Asbestos claims represent the longest and most expensive instance of mass tort litigation in U.S. history. The RAND Corporation (a leading non-profit think tank headquartered in Santa Monica) reports that, as of 2002, asbestos-related litigation included over 730,000 claimants and 8,400 defendants. In 1999 alone, over 200,000 asbestos cases were pending in the federal system. The process of allocating compensation has been complicated by the long gestation period of the related illnesses, the sheer number of claims, and the fact that many defendant companies have had to file bankruptcy.

Individuals who believe they have suffered harm due to exposure to harmful substance at work should know they have legal rights. As with many other workplace health threats, many asbestos cases have been filed on behalf of groups of plaintiffs rather than individuals. Our Northern California class action lawyer knows that bringing claims as a class can alleviate some of the stresses of litigation on individual plaintiffs. Bringing claims as a group can allow individuals with similar circumstances to work together in proving that a shared workplace was dangerous and led to illnesses of even death.

If you or a loved one has been the victim of a work-related illness in San Francisco or the surrounding region, please reach out to The Brod Law Firm team for help in obtaining the compensation you deserve.

See Related Blog Posts:
U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes will affect the certification of many class-action lawsuits
Hazardous Chemical Reaction at Monterey Hotel- Hazmat Situations in Everyday Circumstances

Our Oakland product liability lawyer believes consumers should be protected from dangerous products in Northern California. We especially applaud efforts by our communities to protect children, a group that is particularly vulnerable to dangerous household goods.

The Oakland Tribune reported this week that Richmond is joining several area communities in attempting to protect our children and pets from dangerous rodent poisons. The Richmond City Council approved a measure, similar to those already in place in Albany and San Francisco, asking retailers to voluntarily stop sales of certain pest control products. Similar products have already been banned by the federal Environmental Protection Agency. The ban covers particularly toxic formulas as well as loose pellet poisons. In 2008, EPA officials requested that manufacturers re-tool their products so that the poisonous bait is in stations that are inaccessible to children and household pets. Manufacturers were asked to comply by June 2011 but not all makers have done so and the EPA is taking steps to remove the offending products. This process, however, takes time to accomplish and moves like that in Richmond attempt to control the ongoing problem.

The Tribune cites the American Association of Poison Control Centers, noting that between 12,000 and 15,000 cases of children being exposed to rodent poison are reported annually. Unreported cases make the actual number of children impacted significantly higher. The fact that rodent poisons are often placed on the floor makes young children especially vulnerable. Pets also frequently ingest the products, with one group noting that nearly half of all animals test positive for exposure to rodent poisons.

There are safer alternatives on the market that can help control pest problems with less risk to children and domestic animals. The EPA’s website provides guidance on safer alternatives. The agency notes that households with young children and animals need to be particularly cautious when selecting a pest control products. Further, the agency mandates approval of bait station formats, limits on the amount of bait permitted in a residential product, and forbids certain active ingredients from being marketed directly to residential customers. Traps may also be an option for some homeowners and both live and lethal traps are on the market.

If, despite exercising precautions, a child is exposed to a rodent poison, immediately call Poison Control or your local hospital for directions. The number for the national poisoning hotline is 1-800-222-1222. Have the product name available when you call and, if possible, the EPA registration number. Additional questions about rodent poisons can also be directed to the National Pesticide Information Center at at 1-800-858-7378.

As an Oakland dangerous product law firm, The Brod Firm recognizes that certain products are inherently dangerous. The law does, however, provide recourse if a product poses unnecessary dangers. If your child has suffered harm due to a dangerous product in Oakland, please contact our team to discuss whether a legal remedy may be appropriate in your unique circumstances.

See Related Blog Posts:California Consumers Should Be Wary About Poisons and Pesticides in the Home
San Francisco Product Liability Attorney Comments on Harmful Canned Foods

As guests at a Monterey hotel found out, hazardous material incidents are not limited to refineries, dry cleaners, or factories. Hotel officials and the Monterey Fire Department completely evacuated hotel guests as a result of a dangerous chemical reaction that occurred in the laundry room at the Portola Hotel.

According to KTVU news, a hotel employee accidentally mixed acid and bleach, which led to a release of chlorine gas. The Monterey Herald reported that sixteen employees and one guest were taken to various hospitals complaining primarily of respiratory problems, while KTVU reported that thirty people were taken to the hospital. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lists the side effects of inhaling chlorine gas as headaches, burning sensation of the eyes and nose, difficulty breathing, and possible vomiting. Inhaling chlorine may also exacerbate pre-existing asthma or bronchitis. Asthmatic persons are at a higher risk for side effects from contact with chlorine.

Bleach is a commonly used in laundering, and many other common cleaners contain acid. Mixing of the two chemicals releases chlorine gas into the air and the mix of bleach and ammonia releases chloramines. Both chemical reactions cause similar symptoms in those exposed. Industries of all types should have procedures for handling and storing chemicals and other hazardous materials. Hotels and other businesses should train employees on safety procedures for the use of hazardous substances and provide examples of potentially dangerous chemical reactions.

The U.S. Fire Administration (part of FEMA), states that, by law, hazardous materials must be stored in their original containers. The law serves to prevent dangerous chemicals and other materials from being stored in either unlabeled or mislabeled containers. Chemicals that are known to be reactive when mixed should not be stored next to each other. Safety locks on cabinets prevent kids and pets from accessing hazardous materials and from spills during natural disasters, such as earthquakes. Additionally, protective clothing is a good idea when handling corrosive agents.

Continue reading "Hazardous Chemical Reaction at Monterey Hotel- Hazmat Situations in Everyday Circumstances" »

In the United States, we have a serious energy crisis, and natural gas is an important resource, and the cleanest of the fossil fuels. In recent years, exploration methods have enabled natural gas to be released from shale, a sedimentary rock. David Brooks wrote an article for the New York Times, entitled "The Shale Revolution”, reporting that natural gas from shale comprised of approximately 1% of all natural gas supply in the United States in the year 2000. By 2011, the amount of natural gas from shale in our country had reached 30% (though the Association of California Water Agencies suggests the number is 15%). “Fracking”, which I have wrote about in previous blog entries, is a method used to release natural gas from the shale by pumping water and chemicals into the subsurface, in an attempt to release the gas.

There has been no universal determination that the process of fracking is inherently dangerous, however there are instances where contamination can occur, particularly with regards to drinking water supply. The need to obtain precious natural resources must be balanced with the strongest concern for public safety. If your town, municipality, district or city is in a reasonable proximity from where fracking is taking place, and you have experienced water contamination, please do not hesitate to call us. Our attorneys fight for people who have been affected by toxic torts, including water contamination, and the initial consultation is always free.

Spiders, cockroaches, ants, rats, and moths: invasions by household pests induce cringing and exclamatory yelps. Many people want to prevent unwanted encounters with such pests and the destruction they may cause by putting out pesticides meant to deter or kill rodents and bugs. Consumers are driven by costs, effectiveness, and a concern for safety when choosing a pest-control product. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emphasizes the safe use and regulation of poisons and pesticides used in the home.

The Environmental Protection Agency requires all manufacturers of household pesticides to have an EPA registration number on the label. If a product does not have the registration on the label it may be an illegally imported product. Consumers should also be aware that some products are only meant for use by licensed commercial entities. Two illegal products that concern many poison control agencies are the so-called “Miraculous Chalk”, a pesticide originating in China, and “Tres Pasitos” a rat poison originating from Latin America. The insecticide chalk is troublesome because it is a cheap remedy that looks identical to the chalk used on blackboards, yet it is poisonous and poorly labeled. “Tres pasitos” is a made of aldicarb, an extremely toxic pesticide that has deleterious effects on humans through ingestion and even if absorbed through the skin. If handled improperly the products cause symptoms such as stomach pains, vomiting, and convulsions. Business are subject to penalties for each sale of an illegal pesticide.

Consumers should also follow directions on approved products very carefully. For instance, the use of mothballs, usually made of naphthalene, can be dangerous if the not utilized correctly. The National Pesticide Information Center at Oregon State University advises that mothballs should be sealed with clothing in an airtight container. Mothballs left out in the open let off toxic fumes that are potentially dangerous to humans. Moreover, mothballs may appear to be food to children or pets. Ingestion of moth balls by a small child will lead to a scary trip to the emergency room. Furthermore, some mothballs are distributed illegally because the production and labeling of the mothballs were not overseen by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The EPA and its Californian counterparts stress that it is illegal to use pesticides in a way other than specifically directed on the product label. This is especially of concern if a business is hired to apply insecticides to exterminate bugs. Commercial exterminators in California must be licensed by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR). Consumers who are concerned with the methods or licensing of a commercial applicator of pesticides may file a complaint with the CDPR. The CDPR will investigate and work with a violating business to improve their procedures or, if necessary, take enforcement action against the business.

Continue reading "California Consumers Should Be Wary About Poisons and Pesticides in the Home" »

The product Brazilian Blowout has gained popularity in salons as a smoothing hair treatment. However, in August 2011, the Federal Drug Administration issued a warning letter to Mike Brady, CEO of Brazilian Blowout for having excessive amounts of formaldehyde in the Brazilian Blowout hair treatment. Furthermore, the warning letter admonishes Brazilian Blowout for misbranding its product label by declaring the hair product as “Formaldehyde Free”. The Federal Drug Administration found unsafe levels of formaldehyde when it tested samples of Brazilian Blowout. The tests of Brazilian Blowout confirmed the presence of methylene glycol, the liquid form of formaldehyde, at levels ranging from 8.7 to 10.4%.

The FDA warning letter prompted the Federal Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) to conduct its own investigation into formaldehyde exposure from the hair treatment. It took samples of formaldehyde levels at multiple salons while the hair treatment was being used and found that they exceeded safe levels, which OSHA defines for a fifteen minute time period as less than 2.0 parts of formaldehyde per million parts of air (ppm). In one test, the level of formaldehyde was 4.ppm and in another it was 10.12 ppm. In addition, at the state level Cal OSHA is conducting local investigations into complaints by salon workers who suffered injury as a result of using misbranded hair smoothing treatments. California regulations prohibit formaldehyde levels to exceed an average .75 ppm over an eight hour period. OSHA has released multiple hazard alerts for Brazilian Blowout, most recently of December 8, 2011.

Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen that can irritate skin, cause respiratory problems, blurry vision, and headaches, among other symptoms. Salon workers are most at risk and may inhale formaldehyde when it is released into the air during the application of heat to the product. Physical contact with the product itself can also lead to exposure. OSHA recommends that salon workers wear gloves while handling the product. It also advises that air ventilators be installed in salons that provide hair smoothing treatments as many contain various forms of formaldehyde.

The California Attorney General’s Office filed a lawsuit against Brazilian Blowout on November 5, 2010 for violating Proposition 65 which requires that products which contain ingredients known to cause cancer to be labeled accordingly. The Attorney General also alleges that Brazilian Blowout engages in deceptive advertising practices by labeling its product as “Formaldehyde Free”. The lawsuit is ongoing.

Continue reading "Formaldehyde Exposure from Brazilian Blowout Hair Treatment Prompts Toxic Tort Lawsuits" »

“Fracking” is a process used in the exploration of natural gas where water and chemicals are hydraulically pumped into rocks deep beneath the ground surface. Claims have been made that water supplies can become contaminated by fracking, and water can even become flammable, as natural gas and toxic chemicals are released from the shale rock underground. In 2005, the Bush Administration's Energy Bill exempted companies from disclosing the chemicals they use in the “fracking” process, and exempted natural gas drilling from the Safe Water Drinking Act, which was established in 1974. In 2009, the FRAC Act (Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness to Chemical Act) was introduced by the U.S. House of Representatives in an attempt to require companies to disclose the chemicals used in fracking. The FRAC Act essentially repealed the exemption from restrictions on hydraulic fracking of fluids near drinking water sources previously granted to oil and gas exploration, and required oil and gas companies to disclose the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing operations. While this is a start in environmental protection of clean water, it did not address the people and communities whose water supply may have become contaminated by this process.

Continue reading "Fracking in California and Causes of Water Contamination " »