Camp Lejeune

There are thousands of superfund sites in the US--there was a clean up through EPA, but the money ran out a few years ago (basically was a "tax" on companies who used these toxic materials) and was not renewed by congress. Thus there is only partial remediation or no remediation at many sites.

This type of study is done mostly on pregnant women and children looking for latent birth defects or cancers. Unfortunately it will be a very difficult study, since people in the military typically in this period changed posts every 2 or so years. They will have been exposed to toxins at other sites. For example NAS Pensacola has several superfund sites, as well as most of the associated outlying fields. Over a dozen associated with this facility alone.

In looking at the epidemiology of cancer there are so many other factors--such as radon, air pollution, industrial l exposur, cigarette smoke and even vapors from dry cleaning.

I certainly hope we don't see law suits about this type of issue.
 
Here's some of what Joe's link states

"TCE is still used at Camp Lejeune, as it is at many industrial operations across the country. PCE leaked into base drinking water from an off-base dry-cleaning establishment. Neither compound has been banned or is illegal. The contamination of Camp Lejeune's drinking water arose because the compounds were not stored or disposed of properly."

I would think that improper storage and disposal would be grounds for redress.
 
What is the proof that a person has been done harm? The point I made is that one is exposed to many elements in the environment which can be harmful.
 
Pat, you took all the fun out of it! :lol: I get some of my best lawyer jokes from my fishing buddy/attorney. I used to like computer programmer jokes, but then I retired from that nonsense.

Regards,

Steve
 
Well, actually, you know, I am a brewer who practices law to make a living - as they say, practice, practice, practice, until you get it right!

thataway":3aktp7pp said:
Precisely the reason we should do away with all lawyers!
Click to expand...
 
Well, I have to continue to disagree with you guys. Here's a recognized violation of chemical storage practices and consequent pollution of the drinking water, an admitted failure to monitor the drinking water for a 17 year period, and a US Marine sanctioned study to determine if there has been an unusual occurance of medical problems known to be caused by the admitted hazard. It seems clear enough to me that, if it's found to be so, those Marines and their families negatively affected have grounds for legal redress. I'll just leave it at that.

MartyP
 
dotnmarty":1qrvvalz said:
It seems clear enough to me that, if it's found to be so, those Marines and their families negatively affected have grounds for legal redress. I'll just leave it at that.

MartyP
Click to expand...

Real marines don't sue.

A close friend (Retired E9, ex DI, several NAM tours) was drenched in Agent Orange. "Gunny Laszko" wouldn't dream of suing his beloved marines. I just shake my head in amazement. They are (or were) truly a different breed.

Don
 
I think we are jumping way ahead of things here. I only posted this to make anyone who wished to get involved in the study aware there was a problem. Thats yet to be determined by the medical community. If the parties involved did in fact violate the law and cause physical harm to someone they should be held liable. No different if I run a red light and cause and accident I'm liable. I agree with Bob in that we are subjected to so many different chemicals on a daily basis I don't understand how they could pin point one particular thing that may have caused and illness. But I'm only and old construction worker what do I know. I did get paid while I was getting asbestosis, silcosis, radiation poisoning, damaged lungs from chlorine gas leaks and so on so I shouldn't be compensated? On the other hand I find it rediculous that smokers get restitution from tobacco damage. Incicently I've never been involved in any law suits. A friend of mine died in 1975 from lung cancer and his wife called me the other day and told me she had received a phone call from I think it was the department of energy. She answered some questions about her husbands employment on nuclear plants and 6 weeks later got a check for $150,000. I'm happy for her but how can they determine someone who died 35 years ago was a result of radiation exposure?
 
I received a letter from the I.R.S. (scary receiving that!) sharing the mentioned info in this post, stating the Marine Corps wanted to get a hold of me as I was stationed there during that time period but they (IRS) would not divulge my addres to them but offered to be an intermediary.

I wrote back and got a general form letter back from the Marines.

Thanks for the notice though Marvin.

Don, we ARE a different breed, still, and forever.

Semper Fi,
Jeff
 
Even though I had to poke fun at the Lawyer thought, there is a serious side to this post. I would be very interested to hear how the Department of Veteran's Affairs treats all of the Marines who have a potential illness due to the mishandling of these chemical compounds. I am hoping and counting on retired General Jim Jones standing up for his Marines or any other service folks in similar circumstances. I agree a lawsuit is not the way to go, but Uncle should not dodge this one!

Steve
 
To carry it on a bit, even though I take great pleasure in firing cheap shots at the marines, I don't think much at all of the way they've been treated in the last two major dustups. Many of those kids are coming back with scrambled brains from IED concussions and uniformly get tiny long term disability awards. Others come back missing limbs and across the board they're treated like second class citizens. Sorry DaveS, but firemen, cops, and even postal employees get better benefits and have way less of a chance for life changing trauma. I ain't gonna hold my breath re: anything so easily dismissed as Lejeune Syndrome.

Don
 
Back
Top