Just got the following message on FB from a friend who's wife died at 59 in January...
"I retired at the end of 2010 to take care of Linda, just 9 weeks before she died. She had kidney cancer, and was sick for a long time. I think it was the toxic waste dump that we lived on in Oakdale that killed her."
In the 70's this couple lived in Oakdale, MN with their two kids. They were asked by the press how it feels to know that their well is contaminated with toxic waste, which they were shocked to learn. 55 gallon barrels dug up nearby were stamped with a huge company name, which I will not name, but has a huge plant nearby. The company quickly scheduled a meeting with them at their headquarters. They sat in a huge conference room in their 70's garb with a number of men in suits who offered to pay for their house. They told me back then that they accepted their offer without hesitation so they could get their kids away ASAP. They were young and did not think of consulting a lawyer. Linda was an RN and a wonderful person.
wow, as a 25 year environmental professional I see such thinking often. There is nothing that can be said to such things.
Might be helpful if you said what the exposures were, instead of "toxic waste". Most people have gallons of waste in their house that is classified as toxic, if an industry has it. No state or federal laws on waste classifications, or disposal restrictions apply to the general population. Just the way it is, our own houses have as much or more exposure to toxics than we get from external sources. If there are exposures the company should buy out the exposure...you said it like it was an bad thing ?
Since the contamination of the wells is a matter of record, as are the levels, and exact contaminants. You can easily check to see whether they may cause liver cancer. Easy, but it does take trying. And if so, and the length of exposure is known (you say it is), you can still file for damages. The house buyout has no bearing on the exposure.
"The 3M - Oakdale Disposal Site (sometimes called the 3M Oakdale/Granada Dump) is located along Hwy 5 in Oakdale, just west of Interstate 694, and is listed as a Superfund site on EPA's National Priority List (see Additional information below for map). It consists of three old chemical waste dump sites (Abresch, Brockman, and Eberle sites) that were used during the late 1940s-1950s for waste burial, drum reclamation, and open burning of combustible materials. 3M has indicated that perfluorochemical (PFC) waste was disposed at this site. Ground and surface water near the area is contaminated with a wide variety of organic chemicals.The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) first investigated the 3M - Oakdale Disposal Site in 1980. A variety of hazardous substances, particularly volatile organic compounds (VOCs), were found at the site. Some nearby shallow residential wells showed levels of VOCs in the past, but these homes are now on city water.
59 is too young to die. From what I've heard, kidney cancer is a long horrible death. Obviously 3M is the company you are referring to. Corp headquarters buying their house reminds of movie Erin Brockovich in which PG&E only payed the hospital bills of their toxic waste victims, until Brockovich took them to task.
how does buying homes remind you of paying hospital bills ? I find the buyout of affected homes (where no health issues were alleged) a good thing, paying for medical bills because of the actute effects of contaminated groundwater without admiting involvement an entirely different situation.
And as I told the poster...if any data supports the liver cancer scenario, you can still file.
Friend at work recently died of liver cancer...terrible indeed.
By the way, I thinkj Erin did a great thing.....then....and has turned into a toxic tort hack since those days. You can easlity contact her "consutling" firm on this case, she loves the money and attention. Just saying, seen her in action on other toxic media cases through the years. She knows how to play the anti corporation versus common man game quite well. PG&E was truely negligent.