Orlando Personal Injury Lawyer - Toxic Substances

Dermatologists Agree With Tanning Bed Declaration

Diego Madrigal — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:49:20 GMT

In a move that seemed common-sensical to many of us, the World Health Organization recently moved tanning beds into the severe cancer risk category. In a study released this week, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a part of the World Health Organization, said that tanning booths and beds are as cancer causing in humans as tobacco smoke and mustard gas.

This came as no suprise to many dermatologists who have argued that the harmful UV rays in the sun are also present in tanning beds and can cause harm to the person tanning.

"We, the members of the American Academy of Dermatology, have been fighting this battle for a number of years," Fenske said. "We've known for quite some time, through the literature and our own personal observations, that patients who have received abundant amounts of light via tanning beds have developed extraordinary numbers of skin cancers that belie their age."

The doctors do, however, state that if done in moderation tanning beds could be safer. Nevertheless, the tanning industry seems to encourage overuse- often by young, college-aged females. Self proclaimed "tanorexics" line college campuses throughout the country. Hopefully with this elevated warning, people will realize the dangers that exist and try to care for their skin more by perhaps turning to other options such as spray tans. It will be interesting to see what happens with the tanning industry's business model, if anything.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Diego Madrigal

Court Rules that Exporters Cannot Test for Mad Cow

Diego Madrigal — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 12:30:18 GMT

In a 2-1 decisions, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has held that only the United States Government can test for mad cow disease. This is predicted to have a harmful effect on private beef exporters because foreign consumers are often skeptical of buying American beef for fear of mad cow. In this case that was just decided, an exporter named Creekstone tried to buy and use a kit that tests for mad cow. However, federal regulation only allows the USDA to have and use such kits.

USDA regulation of testing kits falls under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act, which Congress enacted in 1913. The law gives the USDA control over the sale of products intended for the “treatment” of domestic animals.

The case is not over, however, since the appeals court sent the case back down to the lower court to decide whether the USDA's refusal to allow the exporter to test its own cattle is arbitrary and capricious.

I can see both sides of the argument for allowing or not allowing these kits to be used by private companies. On the one hand, as the court noted, since the incubation period for mad cow is between two and eight years, but most meat comes from cows under 2 years of age, so a test would not reveal any useful information and could give false assurances. On the other hand, I also see the benefit to exporters giving some level of assurance to foreigners that our meat is safe. This would also seem to help our trade deficit. Read the decision here, and make up your own mind

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Diego Madrigal

Smokers Split $600 Million

Diego Madrigal — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:51:00 GMT

Thousands of smokers and the familes of deceased smokers will be splitting $600 million from a fund which was financed by tobacco companies as part of the tobacco settlement. The money will be divided evenly by those who became ill before November 21, 1996. Approximately 10,000 to 50,000 stand to split the money. Interested parties have until June 16 to register with the Engle Trust Fund. Registration can be done by mail or at the fund's website.

Controversy has arisen regarding whether it is fair that all parties will split the money equally as opposed to most of the money going to the original group that filed a class action lawsuit. Although the award in that class action lawsuit was thrown out, the court's finding that tobacco was a dangerous product was upheld. Another controversy is about the amount of attorney's fees in the case. The lawyers who handled the case will take home over $200 million, which may seem exorbitant. However, it is important to remember that the lawyers basically abandoned their practice and handled this case exclusively. They also funded the litigation by paying the costs of the litigation as the process went on.
Anyone who feels that they are eligible for some disbursement should submit some proof of cigarette related illness like cancer, emphysema and heart disease. Visit the Engle trust website for more information.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Diego Madrigal