9/11 Legal Suit

[bomma]

a large amount of the rescue workers were volunteers...........so why should they be able to claim/sue? they went in voluntarily, didnt they......?

instead of getting sued the council should be PAYING them dubble the costs for a good serivce provided.

if you pulled someone out of their burning house and incurred some injury, would it be unreasonable for the rescuee to be grateful enough to fork out to cover the cost??

they may have been volunteers and accepted the risk but they still did a notably heroic deed, for which the council should have been grateful enough to reward....

cant say the same for the firefighters and cops and stuff though coz the risk associated is, in general, part of their job

[SPman]

I think one of the big issues is the amount of toxic and radioactive dust of all sorts, which, it is claimed, the City and Federal authorities were aware of at the time, but "forgot" to inform the rescue workers, or provide them with even basic protective gear. There are a lot of other issues as well. The end result is that 100's of workers are now ill and / or dying, when even some basic knowledge at an early stage could have prevented this.

cant say the same for the firefighters and cops and stuff though coz the risk associated is, in general, part of their job

Reasonable risk, yes! But, where risks are known at least you can take measures to prevent death or injury. Firemen don't rush into the flames wearing no protective gear! To know about dangers and not inform those working on the site, speaks to me of criminal negligence.

[ambler]

I believe the cause of the stink is:
-----
In the days and weeks following the attack the Environmental Protection Agency gave assurances to New Yorkers that the dust permeating Lower Manhattan and the smoke still emanating from Ground Zero did not pose a health risk. The agency issued five press releases within ten days of the attack assuring people that the air was safe to breathe, despite an absence of data to support such assurances. 3 In August of 2003, it was revealed that the EPA had been muzzled by the Bush administration. EPA Inspector General Nikki Tinsley issued a report on August 21, 2003, admitting that the reassurances were unfounded, and that the public statements of the agency were being influenced by the National Security Council, under the direction of the White House. The EPA, according to the report, had been influenced to "add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones."
-----
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/grou...vironment.html

The argument that firefighters are supposed to charge into dangerous burning buildings is a reasonable one, but consider that they do this with full knowledge of the fire they are charging into. If they also expect there to be poisonous gasses or other dangers about, then they don't go charging in without the appropriate gear.

[bomma]

I believe the cause of the stink is:
-----
In the days and weeks following the attack the Environmental Protection Agency gave assurances to New Yorkers that the dust permeating Lower Manhattan and the smoke still emanating from Ground Zero did not pose a health risk. The agency issued five press releases within ten days of the attack assuring people that the air was safe to breathe, despite an absence of data to support such assurances. 3 In August of 2003, it was revealed that the EPA had been muzzled by the Bush administration. EPA Inspector General Nikki Tinsley issued a report on August 21, 2003, admitting that the reassurances were unfounded, and that the public statements of the agency were being influenced by the National Security Council, under the direction of the White House. The EPA, according to the report, had been influenced to "add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones."

then it sounds more like the govt itself should be under the gun........i still hold that if it's part of your job, the risk of inhaling harmful substances specifically, is reasonably foreseeable if you're a bloody fire-fighter....however as they were lured there under false pretenses, this changes the whole argument!!!

they accepted the risk under the guarantee of an organisation that held under normal circumstances, would be considered a competent source. they have fuck-all right to be in such a position and mis-inform those individuals who are already risking their lives!!!

bastards