Thursday, March 28, 2024
37.0°F

Biologist says feds not doing enough to help asbestos victims

by Terry Trent
| February 25, 2014 10:44 AM

I am a voice of dissent in the matter of Libby asbestos.

Not because I am a contrarian. Not because I enjoy it. Not even because it is simply available to me. But because I am a capable biological researcher trained to investigate issues of a biological nature and the impinging physics, genetic, geology, societal and legal aspects associated with any given issue. So, I am about to rag on pretty much everybody a recent Missoulian article (Baucus took vow to help Libby residents harmed by asbestos) covered.

From my perspective, I am here to tell you that there are some really good people out there who have not made mistakes in the matter of Libby asbestos, and you have never met even one of them.

To begin, Sen. Max Baucus did some downright good things surrounding the Libby issue. Understanding it entirely, no. Good things and sympathetic hand-wringing, yes. The best he did was to not turn away.

Bless your heart, Max.

However, providing medical care to Libby is not one of Max’s successes.

If you read CERCLA, the section of the law that covers public health emergency and clean up, you will discover that in such emergency areas, of which Libby was the first, the government “shall provide health care for the exposed.” It does not say that the victims will be provided health care if they can pay for it. It does not say we will give you a discount for having killed and sickened much of your population. It doesn’t even say we will provide healthcare if we have the money.  It says “shall provide healthcare.” Baucus has not even remotely accomplished this, or, for that matter, approached a basic following of that law.

The above should be able to be determined by even the most casual analysis by anyone, without even reading CERCLA, and with the following thought experiment: Do you think the entire Congress of the United States of America put together a law that says “In case of an emergency where a corporation or a government project or entity, or contractor, contaminates an entire town or two or three, with a substance that kills people from small, medium or high doses of exposure, that the government will immediately rush in and ask the victims to pay for saving their lives?” No. You don’t think they did that? You are absolutely correct, they did not. They said we will pay for saving your lives. Why? Because it is an emergency, which involves preventable human grief and tragedy.

That is why.

The people of Libby are being deprived of the benefits of the law that was written in 1980 to cover their exact situation and have been deprived from day one of the program. It would be very nice if Baucus was able to insert his voice from his retirement to correct this massive oversight.

(Terry Trent has a bachelor’s degree in biology from the University of California and went through the research program there in biological sciences and biochemistry. He has spent the past two decades raising awareness of the dangers of asbestos exposure.)