New Tar Creek Litigation

[guido911]

I see the Tar Creek whiners are looking for more money from us taxpayers:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20090404_11_A11_DznfTr675465

[Elaine]

What's wrong with this picture is that the Superfund policy went to hell in a hand basket. Thanks to George W. Bush, taxpayers pay for man-made environmental catastrophes like Tar Creek now, rather than the industries. Sure the mining companies who destroyed the Tar Creek area had to cough up millions of dollars, but that was nowhere near enough, and everyone knew it. Federal attorneys let them off for a fraction of what they should have paid.

The powers-who-be have also gone at the project donkey-backward. The first priority should have been getting the residents out of there. Their homes should have been bought at a fair price, they should have been provided with comprehensive, life-long medical care, and they should have received compensation packages for their pain and suffering. Those poor people have been living with the results of cadmium, lead, manganese, Zink, and who-knows-what-else? poisoning for generations. From the 1980s on, there was no excuse. (They even knew it was bad in the 1930s.)

The current condition of the Tar Creek situation is inexcusable. And if $56k-60k is all these people are being offered, it's not nearly enough, even if it comes out of my pocket. (If there were other forms of compensation, I couldn't find them, so my bad, if there were.)

[guido911]

What's wrong with this picture is that the Superfund policy went to hell in a hand basket. Thanks to George W. Bush, taxpayers pay for man-made environmental catastrophes like Tar Creek now, rather than the industries. Sure the mining companies who destroyed the Tar Creek area had to cough up millions of dollars, but that was nowhere near enough, and everyone knew it. Federal attorneys let them off for a fraction of what they should have paid.

The powers-who-be have also gone at the project donkey-backward. The first priority should have been getting the residents out of there. Their homes should have been bought at a fair price, they should have been provided with comprehensive, life-long medical care, and they should have received compensation packages for their pain and suffering. Those poor people have been living with the results of cadmium, lead, manganese, Zink, and who-knows-what-else? poisoning for generations. From the 1980s on, there was no excuse. (They even knew it was bad in the 1930s.)

The current condition of the Tar Creek situation is inexcusable. And if $56k-60k is all these people are being offered, it's not nearly enough, even if it comes out of my pocket. (If there were other forms of compensation, I couldn't find them, so my bad, if there were.)

You have no idea what you are talking about. 

[Hoss]

You have no idea what you are talking about. 

....says the pot to the kettle.

Harhar...

[Elaine]

My reply was completely valid. I can back up everything I said with research. I think you find fault with the opinion. Fiscally, the people should have come first, the cleanup second. Lives were altered drastically during these years of political wrangling. Children were born and raised exposed to toxic levels of metals that led to learning disabilities and other illnesses. No matter what the situation, the government, or whoever the powers may be, should always put the needs of the people first. We should never fail to err on the side of humanity. Even if it means spending our tax dollars.

[guido911]

My reply was completely valid. I can back up everything I said with research. I think you find fault with the opinion. Fiscally, the people should have come first, the cleanup second. Lives were altered drastically during these years of political wrangling. Children were born and raised exposed to toxic levels of metals that led to learning disabilities and other illnesses. No matter what the situation, the government, or whoever the powers may be, should always put the needs of the people first. We should never fail to err on the side of humanity. Even if it means spending our tax dollars.

I was eye-deep in the civil litigation for several years and would like to believe I have more information about what is happening up there than the average person doing "research". Our government, and by that I mean the taxpayers, should not be responsible for taking care of those folks at or near Tar Creek. I, and I dare say you, did not force them to move or live in that setting, so I/we should not have to bail them out.

[swake]

I was eye-deep in the civil litigation for several years and would like to believe I have more information about what is happening up there than the average person doing "research". Our government, and by that I mean the taxpayers, should not be responsible for taking care of those folks at or near Tar Creek. I, and I dare say you, did not force them to move or live in that setting, so I/we should not have to bail them out.

Who were you counsel for? The mining companies?

[rwarn17588]

Who were you counsel for? The mining companies?

That was kinda my reaction, too. Guido seems to be an awful big apologist to wide-scale pollution for hundreds of square miles, undermined land and poisoned kids.

And a fellow with a six-figure income who complains about an increase in his taxes, complains that people who weren't in the military shouldn't have free-speech rights, and says "FU, you POS" to someone who retorts one of his posts shouldn't be labeling other people as "whiners."

Unless, of course, it's a "takes one to know one" situation.

[guido911]

Who were you counsel for? The mining companies?

Nope. One of the numerous misconceptions people have (including that now-exposed ignoramous RW) about the Tar Creek litigation was that the only defendants were Gold Fields, Blue Tee and other mining-related/milling companies. The plaintiff's lawsuit spurred numerous third party claims against individual property owners, railroads and even businesses that were...wait for it...removing chat--which is what the EPA had recommended.  Still, I had to perform extensive research into the history of the mining operation and the injuries (some legitimate, some not) alleged by the plaintiffs.

As to RW, your post speaks like a typical have not with his hand out while those of us patriots (yes, according to Biden I am being patriotic) paying high taxes and who have worn the country's uniform so "Americans" like yourself can have your right to free speech, do all the heavy lifting. Keep riding the freedom gravy train that you apparently did not have the courage or fortitude to maintain.

[RecycleMichael]

+ karma to guido for using chat and gravy in the same post.

[Cats Cats Cats]

+ karma to guido for using chat and gravy in the same post.

Dude, he said Gravy Train, that has to be two points.  Ozzy would be impressed.

[cannon_fodder]

Guido:

Could you explain to the rest of us more on this.  I'm on board with the need for the companies to pay to clean up messes they made, particularly if they realized the mess was as toxic as it actually is.  But I was under the impression that the entire area is pretty well screwed because of heavy metal and governmental demand for lead pushed the boom and actively encouraged lack luster (if any) control. 

I'm ignorant in this matter.  I have not studied either position.  Why have the companies paid their fair share, why should the government not help out (are they blameless?), and why are these people not deserving of any help. 

Present your argument for me.  I really just don't know.

[guido911]

Guido:

Could you explain to the rest of us more on this.  I'm on board with the need for the companies to pay to clean up messes they made, particularly if they realized the mess was as toxic as it actually is.  But I was under the impression that the entire area is pretty well screwed because of heavy metal and governmental demand for lead pushed the boom and actively encouraged lack luster (if any) control. 

I'm ignorant in this matter.  I have not studied either position.  Why have the companies paid their fair share, why should the government not help out (are they blameless?), and why are these people not deserving of any help. 

Present your argument for me.  I really just don't know.

I'll PM you on this.

[nathanm]

even businesses that were...wait for it...removing chat--which is what the EPA had recommended.  

If they were removing it in a way that caused injury to others (making more of it blow away from the piles, transporting it in uncovered trucks, whatever), why shouldn't they be sued?