DailyTech - Toxic Waste Suit Filed Against IBM

Submit News

Science Toxic Waste Suit Filed Against IBM
Jason Mick (Blog) - January 11, 2008 10:21 AM

27 comment(s) - last by omnicronx.. on Jan 12 at 2:16 PM

IBM is ripped for its alleged toxic discharges

Last year there was a bevy of high profile toxin scandals and environmental suits. Greenpeace sued Apple for its "toxic iPhone", workers sued AMD for toxin-linked birth defects, and Chinese imports were found to contain lead, the date rape drug GHB, dangerous edges, hazardous magnets, and much more.

Now the New Year is upon us and with it a new high profile law suit in the environmental sector. International Business Machines (IBM) has been sued by 90 residents of Endicott, N.Y., the city of the company's founding.

The suit, filed in Binghamton, N.Y. state court, alleges that the hardware giant knowingly discharged toxic materials which caused birth defects and other health problems for the citizens of Endicott. Industrial grade solvents were allegedly release into the air, soil, and ground water for years, causing serious harm to the citizens.

IBM takes issue to these claims. An IBM spokesman, Michael Maloney states the accusations, "have no basis in science or law and IBM will defend itself vigorously."

Despite IBM's verbal insistence that it has committed no environmental damage, the company has made historical efforts that appear to be a blatant acknowledgement that the site is severely contaminated.

Endicott was once a major production site for IBM for circuit boards, printers and other products. The ground water was noticeably contaminated by 1979, at which time IBM launched a major cleanup effort. Further, IBM also acknowledged the air pollution eventually, when it started a program in 2002 to filter the harmful chemicals out of the air. IBM also slowly financed the installation of ventilation systems free-of-charge in buildings on 440 properties in the town. IBM even went as far as to pay property owners in Endicott $2.2 million for loss of values in their property, due to the rampant pollution.

Stephen Schwarz says most of his clients refused to settle for such pittances. He also says that the few of his clients who did settle are only seeking enough money to keep up with their massive medical expenses. He said, "We have a lot of people who have illnesses."

IBM was in negotiations with Mr. Schwarz and his clients until 2004, but a settlement deal fell, through, leaving the victims little choice but full legal action.

Among the diseases that appear to be resultant from the contamination are lymphoma, kidney cancer, and other ailments. Children born in the town have been prone to severe heart defects.

The 90 plantiffs and Mr. Schwarz have teamed with Masry & Vititoe, the Westlake Village, Calif., the legal team who won the $333 million settlement portrayed in the movie Erin Brokovich.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Sad

By stash on 1/11/2008 12:05:14 PM , Rating: 2

I grew up in Binghamton, and this has been going on for a very long time now. It's really sad, since IBM was founded in Endicott, but there are only a handful of IBM employees left.

Sadder still is the massive cancer rates among those that live on the plume in Endicott.

RE: Sad

By darkpaw on 1/11/2008 12:25:29 PM , Rating: 2

It's getting to the point where there's only a handful of IBM employees left anywhere in the US. Two of my family members were let go the week before xmas to move their jobs over to India.

They really should just rename the company Indian Business Machines.

Parent

RE: Sad

By FITCamaro on 1/11/2008 1:03:38 PM , Rating: 2

Gotta love their insistence to save a buck.

That's one of the reasons I really don't want to work for one of the huge international corporations. They often care more about their bottom line than their employees. Nevermind that their employees have been loyal, productive, and successful, its far more important to save a $1000 a year than reward your employees with something as simple as letting them keep their job.

I'm definitely in favor of taxing companies who outsource. A level playing field needs to be brought back. I don't think American's should be overpaid either (UAW auto workers) though.

Parent

RE: Sad

By TomZ on 1/11/2008 1:12:56 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
more important to save a $1000 a year

The savings are a heck of a lot more than that.

For example, a software engineer in the US can expect to earn between $50-100K/year depending on experience, industry, etc. (plus benefits). In India, a similary qualified software engineer might earn $10-20K/year.

Now multiply that by the number of jobs that a large company can move to overseas, and you see how the incentive can quickly add up.

Parent

RE: Sad

By FITCamaro on 1/11/2008 1:25:54 PM , Rating: 2

Hence my reason for wanting to tax companies who move jobs overseas. Make the difference far less.

Parent

RE: Sad

By Lifted on 1/11/2008 11:59:58 PM , Rating: 2

Would you rather the companies go out of business because they can't compete?

Parent

RE: Sad

By omnicronx on 1/12/2008 2:16:00 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
For example, a software engineer in the US can expect to earn between $50-100K/year depending on experience, industry, etc. (plus benefits). In India, a similary qualified software engineer might earn $10-20K/year.

And unlike in the great United States/Canada, people in India do not take their great job/money for granted. From my experiance, IT workers are the laziest workers in the business. It would not surprise me if the efficiency of an Indian worker compared to a North American worker is higher by two fold. That coupled with being able to pay them 1/3 of the salary, I just can not blame these companies for outsourcing. I would like to note I am not talking about Call center jobs, they are a totally different story.

Don't get me wrong, before you start bashing, I am not saying outsourcing like this is a good thing. I can just see why companies are doing so.

Parent

RE: Sad

By masher2

(blog) on 1/11/2008 1:23:35 PM , Rating: 3

> "I'm definitely in favor of taxing companies who outsource"

Tax a company too much, and they don't just outsource a few jobs, they "outsource" everything by moving overseas, lock, stock, and barrel.

Then your only recourse is to tax the hell out of the imported goods themselves, which not only raises prices for consumers, but it causes other nations to relatiate and tax *your* exports. Meaning the companies who remain here find it even harder to sell their goods overseas. They raise prices, lay off workers, and may leave themselves. That makes it even harder for them to compete with those large, efficient overseas firms, so you have to raise import tariffs even more.

Soon, you wind up with an economy like Cuba's. Free markets are better, honestly.

Parent

RE: Sad

By LordanSS on 1/11/2008 3:16:23 PM , Rating: 3

Import tax here in Brazil is just astoundingly high... beyond belief.

To "protect" our national industry, our (lame) government puts a hefty tax on pretty much everything we import, including what we don't produce in here.

Computer hardware, for example, as 99% of the parts are not produced here (except a couple odds and ends, like monitors). A processor costs, here, at the very least double of what it would cost in the US, if you go to a shop to buy. If I decide to import directly from an overseas shop, I have to pay about 80% of the item's value in taxes plus shipping and handling. UPS tried to charge me 80 dollars once, to ship me a box of EverQuest Shadows of Luclin expansion. No thanks.

A Playstation 3 here... don't expect to pay anything less than $1500 USD for the 80GB model. A Wii costs over $850 USD!

On the other hand, food, clothing and rent is pretty darn cheap here. Living costs are much, much lower, but you'll have to do without your computer or huge plasma/LCD TV. =P

Parent

RE: Sad

By NT78stonewobble on 1/11/2008 9:43:20 PM , Rating: 2

" Free markets are better, honestly. "

For some things...

Parent

RE: Sad

By masher2

(blog) on 1/11/2008 1:08:29 PM , Rating: 4

> "Sadder still is the massive cancer rates among those that live on the plume in Endicott"

Where do people get this nonsense? Let me quote from the latest state health survey on the Endicott area:

quote:
There were a total of 347 reports of cancer occurring among residents in the two study areas between 1980 and 2001 while approximately 356 cases would have been expected in the study areas during this time based on statewide rates...

In other words, counting all types of cancer, people in the Endicott got LESS than the state average. Simplistic (and wrong) conclusion: living in Endicott lowers your chances of getting cancer.

Now, if one breaks down "all cancers" into the dozens of various subtypes, what did the researchers find? They found two types (testicular cancer for men, kidney cancer for women) which had a very small number of cases, but were "statistically significant" at a 95% CI. What does that mean? That there's a 95% chance there's some statistical connection between the two.

Which, of course, means nothing whatsoever. Pick ANY spot in the country, analyze all the various diseases and ailments people can get, and natural statistical variance will give you several hits at the 95% level. It's no different than rolling a die a thousand times and finding that somewhere in there you had eight heads in a row.

Furthermore, even had they found a much higher statistical correlation (which they didn't) that in itself doesn't imply a causal connection either. For instance, industrial areas tend to be surrounded by lower-income districts. People in those districts tend to have less healthy lifestyles, visit their doctors less often, fewer physicals and tests, etc. Not surprisingly, most industrial areas see higher rates of various ailments. Does that mean something in the water is causing it? No of course not...no more than than does the chlorinated drinking water in most cities causes the higher rate of AIDS in those cities.

http://www.health.state.ny.us/environmental/invest...

Parent

RE: Sad

By ReDx on 1/11/2008 6:26:37 PM , Rating: 2

Okay, first of all, if you're going to start using statistics, you should know better than anyone else that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Conclusion: you can't make one without more information. There just happens to be a certain cancer rate in a certain area. Living in that area doesn't necessarily increase or decrease your chances of getting cancer.

However, in this case, if you bothered to read the entire report and not twist around the statistics, you'll notice that the conclusion states there are increased levels of VOC (volatile organic compound) in the area as evidenced by soil samples. The next question is does VOC lead to cancer? The study claimed there is limited research on the link between cancer and VOC. I don't know enough but would it surprise you if it did? Industrial strength chemicals in my area? No thanks. Maybe you can be comforted with your own statistics. Maybe IBM can move to your backyard and wave to you as they pour VOCs into your environment.

Lastly, there are limitations to the study. If they had been more thorough, gathered more information (they didn't probably because it would be a lot more expensive), then a different conclusion might have been reached.

"Limitations in the current study included limited information about the levels of VOCs in individual homes, the duration of the exposure, the amount of time residents spent in the home each day and the multiple exposures and exposure pathways that likely existed among long term residents of the Endicott area. In addition, personal information such as medical history; dietary and lifestyle choices such as smoking and drinking; and occupational exposures to chemicals were not examined."

Parent

whacky

By GlassHouse69 on 1/11/2008 11:08:57 AM , Rating: 2

who would think that living next to an industrial factory of plastics and electronics would be hazaradous and also reduces property value!

things to amaze and astound!

RE: whacky

By stirfry213 on 1/11/2008 11:22:59 AM , Rating: 4

Harsh! I would guess that the people of this town have been there much longer than IBM. So its a situation of "IBM polluting thier land" and not "They moved to polluted land".

I'm all about pointing out the stupidity of people, but I'd say this is clearly IBM's fault, if indeed the pollution was due to them.

Parent

RE: whacky

By Strunf on 1/11/2008 11:33:01 AM , Rating: 2

So if a industrial factory opens up next to your place, you pack it up and leave while it's still time?

Sure we could argue on whom was there first but in case of pollution being quite far from the fab may not be enough to be safe from it.

Parent

RE: whacky

By GlassHouse69 on 1/11/08, Rating: 0

RE: whacky

By clovell on 1/11/2008 12:32:46 PM , Rating: 4

It doesn't matter - the guy doing the punching is still getting arrested and booked with assualt no matter what the victim does.

Parent

RE: whacky

By GlassHouse69 on 1/12/2008 1:22:26 AM , Rating: 2

not if they have cash

plus, those people were most likely working or had family members working for IBM.

I live in Nyack ny, not that far from it (visible from my balcony, incredibly high up balcony hehe)

now this area awaits AMD to come in.

Parent

RE: whacky

By BansheeX on 1/11/2008 1:01:41 PM , Rating: 2

The sensible reaction is besides the point. Why should a company have the ability to indirectly dictate a person's living situation with neighborhood pollution? The problem would become much worse if that were the precedent by which all companies could operate with impunity.

Parent

Chemists and EEs

By clovell on 1/11/2008 11:52:04 AM , Rating: 3

Before we all play armchair quarterback and cast our personal knee-jerk reaction, I'd be interested to see what any Chemists or Electrical Engineers think about this.

IBM obviously knew there was a problem with pollution. It obviously acknowledged that it was at fault for that problem. The question that remains is whether that pollution has caused the decline in the health of the community and, if so, to what extent. It sounds like an issue best left to experts on the matter, which I think few of us happen to be.

RE: Chemists and EEs

By Master Kenobi

(blog) on 1/11/2008 2:38:11 PM , Rating: 2

See Masher's post above. There is no statistical evidence to back up the claim that the pollution has caused them excess medical problems. Looks like a case of WAMBULANCE Chasers to me.

Parent

RE: Chemists and EEs

By masher2

(blog) on 1/11/2008 3:10:43 PM , Rating: 2

There's "a little" evidence. The data on cancer is pretty much meaningless, but the stats on infant birth defects are a little more meaningful.

It's still a long mile from anything one would call "proof"-- the number of cases was very small, and easily explainable by a dozen other factors, including a slightly higher rate of alchohol use among area mothers....but at least it passes a superficial giggle test.

Parent

Erin Brockovich

By monitorjbl on 1/11/2008 11:59:58 AM , Rating: 4

I'd consider most Julia Roberts movies toxic discharges, but that's just me.

residents

By raphd on 1/11/2008 12:03:23 PM , Rating: 3

how many residents that suffer from this actually work at the plant?

Red Herring

By munim on 1/11/2008 11:49:38 AM , Rating: 2

I don't give a crap who what where first. Mis-handling of toxic chemicals should have one brought to the gallows ;)

Not so easy

By crystal clear on 1/12/2008 12:30:36 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
alleges that the hardware giant knowingly discharged toxic materials which caused birth defects and other health problems for the citizens of Endicott.

Now this is a serious accusation-not so easy to prove without solid evidence to back it up.
No company of the level/standing of IBM would do such a thing knowingly-lets be practical & realistic.

quote:
Despite IBM's verbal insistence that it has committed no environmental damage, the company has made historical efforts that appear to be a blatant acknowledgement that the site is severely contaminated.

The very fact IBM the company has made historical efforts that appear to show IBM is a responsible company that is willing to contribute its share & efforts to a better envoirnement.

Yes they deserve compensaion if there is enough evidence that proves IBM is responsible for the damage done.

But you have to take into consideration that IBM has contributed its money/time/eforts as mentioned in the article to compensate for all the damaages done to the envoirnement & the residents of the area.
Irrespective of who is responsible.

An out of court settlement is better than a court judgement for both the parties concerned.

Don't drink the water

By 457R4LDR34DKN07 on 1/11/2008 6:06:02 PM , Rating: 1

Just another city's population harmed by industry. Kinda reminds me of how Kodak is to us here in Rochester, must be common in upstate NY. It does seem to me that the citizens of Endicott are looking for a free handout though.