Public Meeting who'se who on Inishowen Rivers? Or is there more to it?

February 20, 2017

by James Quigley

A public meeting is coming up entitled 'Who's Who on Inishowen Rivers' on Wednesday 22nd February, 6pm at An Grianán Hotel, Burt, Co Donegal.

The heading on the poster states 'Inishowen Rivers Trust', however, it is unclear which of the organisations mentioned are responsible for the event and indeed what it is all about.

I will take the poster at face value and believe that it is about a 'Who's Who? and all will be revealed on the night.

My interest in the event is not solely environmental but also on the political and commercial relationship around say community organisations and elected public bodies dealing with our ecosystem and communities. Have the parties involved a genuine interest or have they some form of agenda? Do they hold or are they pushing a status quo line?

When I read about Government bodies and Government funded organisations, whether community or not, my internal critical radar starts to blip. I immediately have toask how are these organisations funded and then how did they act around past and present controversies on water and environmental issues in Inishowen?

My own answer is that I can't recall any of the stated organisations giving constructive support or encouragement to any recent or past controversial environmental or political issues. Rather it is my experience that they either say nothing or have actively criticised any who spoke out or asked awkward questions.

As for bureaucratic officialdom, e.g. County Councils, it has been my experience that they misinform, obstruct, are rude, doctrinaire and paternalistic and even worse. It is in the Government's interest, good PR, to support clean ups, tree planting, nice community events etc. They will support financially and practically any organisations pushing it's agenda and in so doing control them. But try asking officialdom awkward questions like what are they putting into our drinking water or sewage into the sea and rivers, allowing fish farms willy-nilly along our shores and the lists goes on. Never mind the big one charging and privatising our water. Then you will see their real side. I wonder will we hear anything like this at the meeting in the Grianán on Wednesday night?

Maybe I should have an open mind and wait to hear the presentations, sip tea with in the establishment, however, it is difficult to dampen my prejudices.

Lough Foyle Carcinogens quietly forgotton

February 14, 2017

In light of a recent $670 million Dupont settlement in America we unearthed some information on pollution and chemical spills in and around Lough Foyle including a 1990 Irish Times' article, on carcinogenic chemicals found in Lough Foyle salmon, an 1992 Independent article on an unreported chemical spill from DuPont (UK) Ltd. Both are followed by an Irish Government debate at the time, such as it was. Finally we include a 2016 Derry Now article on a suppressed 2014 study on effects of pollution on Derry residents.

Du Pont (UK) Ltd jetty at Maydown on Lough Foyle. **Coolkeeragh power station - centre**

Oireachtas Debate December 1991 on BIM report

This is the only Irish Government debate on the above report that we managed to get. It is interesting to see the difference in emphasis between the BIM report and the response from the Irish Minister for the Marine Mr Wilson.

Oireachtas Debate October 1992 on above toxic discharge.

Minister of State Dept of Marine Mr. P. Gallagher"What disappoints me is that there was a structure in relation to the Foyle and there was no reason why the company could not have informed their Department of the Environment, who in turn could have informed Donegal County Council and the North-Western Health Board. "

2014 Pollution Report Suppressed

DuPont to pay $670 million to settle C8 lawsuits

February 14, 2017

Lawrence Moody said he is satisfied that he and 3,550 other people are finally getting justice.

"You just can't do that to people," the Washington County man said after DuPont and its spinoff company Chemours agreed to pay nearly $671 million to Mid-Ohio Valley people affected by a chemical used to make Teflon that causes cancer and a host of other health problems.

The settlement was announced Monday during the trial of Moody's lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Columbus. Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus Jr. sent the jury home without a verdict.

Moody's lawyers argued that DuPont covered up that the chemical C8, also known as perfluorooctanoic acid, was toxic. The chemical spewed into the air and Ohio River from DuPont's Washington Works plant south of Parkersburg, West Virginia, since the 1950s. The lawyers said the company knew since 1980 that it caused cancer in rats.

"It took away having the option to protect my family, not knowing, 'Should you drink the water or not?' " said Moody, 57, who has testicular cancer.

A study found that, in general, area residents who drank water from wells near the plant had a median level of 38 parts per billion of C8 in their blood — 7.6 times more than the average American. In 2012, a science panel concluded a "probable link" existed between C8 and six diseases: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, pregnancy-induced hypertension and high cholesterol.

The 200 or so plaintiffs with cancer are expected to receive at least $1 million. At the lower end, those with high cholesterol could receive awards in the five figures.

"This agreement provides a sound resolution for area residents, Chemours, and the public," said David C. Shelton, general counsel for Chemours. "It settles all indemnification obligations between Chemours and DuPont for all of the approximately 3,500 claims in the Ohio multi-district litigation and allows us to move forward with a renewed focus on our customers, product innovation and application development."

DuPont spun off Chemours last year to take over the production of Teflon and other "performance chemicals" products at the Washington Works plant. Defense attorneys said it was an attempt to load its lawsuit debt on Chemours and erase its own liability.

Observers said a planned merger with Dow Chemical — as well as the increasing jury awards in C8 cases — motivated DuPont to step up settlement talks.

Also, Sargus had recruited other federal judges to begin tackling the more expensive cancer cases in May at the rate of 40 over 10 months each year.

DuPont lost the previous three suits tried in Columbus. The last jury said the chemical giant owed $2 million in general damages and, in January, $10.5 million in punitive damages to another Ohio man with testicular cancer.

DuPont has argued that it reacted to the problem using the best science of the time, and spent $594 million to address the problem.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs countered that the company has a "staggering" $18.8 billion that can be converted to cash, including $4.5 billion in cash and other sources. The $2 million it paid a claimant in general damages, the company makes in 42 minutes, they said.

Prosecutors in the Netherlands have begun a criminal investigation into possible C8 contamination from a DuPont plant there.

Source: The Columbus Dispatch Feb 13 2017
See also: Jury awards $10.5 million in punitive damages in DuPont cancer case