John Kerry's Katrina Speech

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

Who, exactly, is going to sue them?

anybody who is exposed. asbestosis is a nasty condition.

It seems that AHERA, the EPA regs I mentioned from the 80's, only applies to elementary and secondary schools, but any college that here in 2005 still has asbestos in their buildings certainly can't be included in the "smart" category.

As dalmations pointed out, there are many schools who have to do asbestos abatement and remediation in stages because of the cost. I'll let Doc speak to that, but I'm sure that's the case at Baylor. It really has nothing to do with whether or not they are "smart".[/quote]

The schools should look to the Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Act (ASHAA) that establ;ished an Asbestos Truust Fund that give loans to schools as well compensation to those injured by asbestos. I cannot understand how any school would not have used the federal funds available to do any abatement. It could very well be that the school (as required by AHERA) did a survey, the results found asbestos yet it was not friable, and therefore abatement was not immediately mandated and the asbestos was encapsulated (which is allowed). Now they could want to remove it and they are doing it in stages. However, there are federal dollars available to get the job completed if the local school lacks the money. it would be "smart" to get it done.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
anybody who is exposed. asbestosis is a nasty condition.

You can't sue just for being exposed any more. Chapter 90 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code now requires that you either:

• - have a physician's report stating that you have a malignancy which, to a reasonable degree of certainty, was caused by exposure to asbestos; or
  
  - have a physician's report stating that you meet very specific medical criteria establishing a functional impairment.

The schools should look to the Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Act (ASHAA) that establ;ished an Asbestos Truust Fund that give loans to schools as well compensation to those injured by asbestos. I cannot understand how any school would not have used the federal funds available to do any abatement. It could very well be that the school (as required by AHERA) did a survey, the results found asbestos yet it was not friable, and therefore abatement was not immediately mandated and the asbestos was encapsulated (which is allowed). Now they could want to remove it and they are doing it in stages. However, there are federal dollars available to get the job completed if the local school lacks the money. it would be "smart" to get it done.

You just outlined a scenario where it might not be mandated to be immediately removed, but I'll let Doc speak to what the actual situation on campus is.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

You can't sue just for being exposed any more. Chapter 90 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code now requires that you either:

• - have a physician's report stating that you have a malignancy which, to a reasonable degree of certainty, was caused by exposure to asbestos; or
  
  - have a physician's report stating that you meet very specific medical criteria establishing a functional impairment.

interesting. you know, exposure isn't immediately a condition, it may take time for an affected person to know they have a problem, especially in regard to a cancer (versus difficulty in breathing).

what (I wonder) does one do if the exposure doesn't produce any "medical criteria" for a period of time in which it proves impossible to verify where the exposure originated from?

seems that these changes will hinder a person from pursuing and validating a claim.

[kg_veteran]

If they can't get a doctor to say within a reasonable degree of medical certainty what caused their illness, they can't pursue a claim.

[mcsluggo]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Hmmmm...lets' see now...

educated

Sounds like Kerry is full of it.




Also doesn't look like the "demand" is slowing down either. Where exactly are you getting your impressions from?

This is a seriously flawed graph to infer "demand for higher ed" from.

If the percentage of the young population attending college changed drastically post wwII (which it did) and the old people who weren't "young" post wwII continously die off, then a large portion of what that graph shows is the gradual attrition of the less educated pre wwII population.

if you only had 1 masive shift from 20% going to gollege in 1930 to 70% in 1950 (with no other changes) your graph would look exactly like that, wouldn't it?