Erin Brockovich

Last night, re-watched the 2000 movie 'Erin Brokovich' starring Julia Roberts and Albert Finney which is based on the real-life story of Erin Brockovich-Ellis' water polution research in the southern California town of Hinkley that resulted in a $300+ million settlement with PG&E.

Out of curiosity, I googled Erin Brockovich to learn a bit more about her and found some interesting items:

About the film

Questioning the Story

Why does Erin Brockovich now go by the name Erin Brockovich-Ellis?
Erin married actor Eric Ellis in 1999. This is not the biker George, played by actor Aaron Eckhart in the film, although the biker was in fact based on a real person. Erin's 1999 marriage was her third trip to the alter. She was first married in 1982 to a restaurant manager named Shawn Brown, with whom she had two children, Matthew and Katie. Erin and Shawn divorced in 1987. After becoming a secretary at a Reno brokerage, it was there that she met her third husband, stockbroker Steven Brockovich. The two married in 1989 and had one child, her youngest daughter, Elizabeth. Erin and Steven divorced in 1990. Currently, Erin Brockovich-Ellis lives with her husband and children in Agoura Hills, California. -masryvititoe.com

What happened with Erin's biker boyfriend George in real life?
Erin's biker boyfriend George (Aaron Eckhart) from the film is in fact a real person. In real life things didn't work out between Erin and George. However, he did come back into her life shortly after the film's release, but it wasn't under pleasant circumstances. George, Erin's ex-husband, and an attorney contacted Ed Masry and demanded that the three of them be paid $310,000 or else they were going to tell the press that Erin was an unfit mother and that she and Ed once had a relationship. Erin and Ed did not give in to the threats that they deem are false. Instead, they told the three individuals to go ahead and carry out their actions. A district attorney soon stepped in, and a sting operation was set up. All three individuals were arrested for extortion, including the biker, George. Both Erin's ex-husband and George were quickly released. However, the attorney was still serving time in a California jail as of August 2001. -NPR

Did Erin Brockovich really memorize all 634 plaintiffs and their cases?
Yes. In a Q&A session, Erin said that because she suffers from dyslexia, she is unable to read and comprehend in a normal manner. In order to cope with her illness, she said that she has learned mostly everything in her life through memorization. This is how she remembered all of the Hinkley residents' cases. In addition to dyslexia, Erin also claims that she has struggled through anorexia and that she has panic disorder. -CommonWealthClub.org

Did Erin Brockovich purposely use her cleavage to obtain documents like in the film?
At a National Press Club Luncheon, Erin answered this by saying, "I don't know that I had in my mindset, I'm going to come in here and show my cleavage to get these documents. I really don't think I was operating at that level. My dress code is not designed to offend anybody. It's just simply the way I dress, and if my cleavage was showing and the guy let me in the door, I mean, I was happy to get in and I never really paid any more attention to it. So, however you dress, it's your own personal style. I don't mean to offend anybody. That's just who I am, and I don't deliberately utilize it as a tool to get what I'm looking for. -NPR

The scene where Julia Roberts told one of the defense attorneys, "We had that water brought in special for you folks," did that really happen?
Yes. In a Q&A session, Erin Brockovich said that this happened but in a different context. Instead of an office meeting room, it happened in a court of law. -CommonWealthClub.org

Are the publicized concerns about the validity of the film true?
Respected writer Michael Fumento, who is a journalist and also an attorney specializing in science and health issues, has spearheaded these concerns. His articles regarding the film's misrepresentations appeared in various publications, including The Wall Street Journal. Fumento's concerns are primarily with the chemical Chromium-6. Fumento argues that there is no significant evidence to prove that Chromium-6 was the cause of the variety of the ailments suffered by the people of Hinkley, California. Erin Brockovich then responded to his article by trying to support the claims of the lawyers, saying that Chromium-6 kills. You can read both Fumento's article and Brockovich's response (here). In all of my research for this page, I have not seen well-documented evidence supporting Brockovich's claims, nor have I found any significant evidence saying that Chromium-6 is completely harmless either. It is in fact recognized as a carcinogen. -Fumento.com

What are the known dangers surrounding the chemical Chromium-6, which Brockovich and the lawyers cite as the cause of the victims' ailments?
Chromium-6, also known as hexavalent chromium, is a known carcinogen, as classified by the U.S. EPA (Time.com). It is also referred to as industrial chromium because it is used in various industrial processes, including the hardening of steel and in the production of many steel alloys (ETC.org). In the case of Hinkley, Calif., it was being used as a rust inhibitor by Pacific Gas and Electric Company, which they carelessly dumped and let seep into the groundwater used by the residents of Hinkley (Time.com). If it is inhaled regularly over a long period of time, it can cause lung cancer and cancer of the septum (Time.com). For example, studies have shown that the risk of developing respiratory cancer is twenty times greater for chromate plant workers than for the general population (ETC.org). But what about the ingestion (not inhalation) of Chromium-6 as in the case of Hinkley?

In 1998, an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report on Chromium-6 stated, "No data were located in the available literature that suggested that it is carcinogenic by the oral route of exposure." The reason for this, as explained by Joe Schwarcz, director of McGill University's Office for Chemistry and Society, "is that ingested chromium-6 encounters hydrochloric acid in the stomach's gastric juices, and is converted to chromium-3, which is innocuous." Chromium-3 is a trace mineral and is found in such foods as broccoli, cheese, meats, cereal, brewer's yeast, whole grains, and mushrooms (ETC.org). Chromium-3 is considered essential in man and animals for efficient lipid, glucose, and protein metabolism (GreatDreams.com). Schwarcz also pointed out, "no single toxin causes the wide array of conditions that afflict Hinkley residents."

So, is it possible that in significant enough amounts, the stomach's gastric juices would be unable to break down all of the Chromium-6, thus only limiting the carcinogenicity of ingested chromium-6, but not eliminating it altogether? This is a likely possibility (www.dhs.cahwnet.gov). Chromium-6 breakdown in the stomach may not even apply in cases where contaminated water could blend with mucus and lie in the back of the throat for some time, possibly causing cancer of the throat, as in the case of plaintiff Carol Smith, whose husband has had 17 tumors removed from his throat (Salon.com). The final question becomes just how much Chromium-6 was in the Hinkley drinking water? Masry's firm's findings often appeared greater than those of the water authority and other sources. Maybe his firm was rounding up while others were rounding down. Years have gone by, and it is possible that the correct amount that had been present may never be known for certain.

How much were the lawyers rewarded as a result of the settlement with Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)?
In 1996 PG&E settled the case for $333 million. This was the largest settlement ever awarded in a direct-action lawsuit in the history of the United States. The lawyers received forty percent, which was a little over $133 million. As in the film, attorney Ed Masry rewarded Erin Brockovich with a $2 million bonus. The more than 600 Hinkley plaintiffs, many of whom had become seriously ill, were in the end left with $196 million to be divided between them. On average, each victim received $300,000. -Salon.com

Were the victims happy with the money that they were rewarded?
Not all of the victims were happy with the amount of money that they were given. After being billed an extra $10 million for undetailed expenses and having to wait nearly six months after the $333 million had been deposited by PG&E, many of the victims were unhappy with the sum of money that they had been rewarded. The lawyers determined this sum confidentially by various factors, including the severity of their ailments. On average, this came to $300,000 per victim, as stated previously. Some did receive several million. Others received less. For example, Dorothea Montoya received $60,000; Christine Mace got $50,000; Lynn Tindell $50,000; Tiffany Oliver got $60,000. Plaintiff Carol Smith argued, "It didn't make sense why my husband, who's had 17 tumors removed from his throat, got only $80,000." After the residents, including Smith, were told that their awards would be based on their medical records, some claimed that their medical records were never looked at, "...no one ever looked at my medical records," said Carol Smith. "I'm sure of that because my doctors told me so after I asked." As a result, some of the plaintiffs appealed their settlements, seeking sums that they felt were more justified. -Salon.com

Had Erin Brockovich really been Miss Wichita?
In responding to a question regarding the movie's accuracy, Erin answered by saying the following, "It's about 98 to 99 percent accurate. They took very, very few liberties. One of the liberties was, I was not Miss Wichita, I was actually Miss Pacific Coast, right here in California. Steven Soderbergh thought it would be cute since I was from Kansas to throw that in there." -CommonWealthClub.org

How does Erin Brockovich feel about Julia Roberts playing her in the film?
During a Q&A session, Erin (pictured below, right, at
the Erin Brockovich premiere) responded by saying:
This is a true story: Ed Masry loves to tease me. He wakes up everyday and thinks, "What can I do to Brockovich today?" We used to be driving back from Kettleman, Hinkley, whatever case we were on, two or three years before this movie ever came out. And he'd ask, "Who do you want to play you?" I said, "I don't know Ed. I don't sit around and think about it." And I really didn't. He goes, "I don't care either, so long as it's not Julia Roberts." I said, "Really, you don't like her?" He goes, "No. She can't play you. Roseanne Barr can." That is true and that is what he said, so I had fun with him the day Universal called and said Julia Roberts is going to play the part. He goes, "You're kidding me; she can't play that part." I thought her performance was fantastic. -CommonWealthClub.org

Did the real Erin Brockovich appear in the film?
Yes. The real Erin Brockovich appeared as a waitress in the film. -IMDB

Does the real Erin Brockovich, who lives in California, have PG&E as her power provider?
No. Fortunately for Erin, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, who paid $333 million partially as a result of Erin's research, is not her current power provider. "As for my utility service," Erin said. "I have Southern Cal Edison, and just thank God it's not PG&E, because I'd live in the dark." -CommonWealthClub.org
SOURCE: http://www.chasingthefrog.com/reelfaces/brockovich.php


What Erin is doing today

Erin Brockovich Investigating Midland Chromium Contamination

December 25th, 2009

High profile environmental activist Erin Brockovich is investigating a chromium contamination affecting hundreds of midland county residents. Tuesday night she was in the tall city meeting with citizens and answering questions. Erin Brockovich is in Midland on behalf of residents suffering chromium contamination – a subject she is famous for investigating.

“It really hit home for me today to be here, be on the ground, actually meet these people, see the wells, see the water. Their children have skin rashes, they’re having unusual hair loss and I’m thinking, gosh I’ve heard that before.”

On her team – California based company Integrated Resource management is naming a suspect for the contamination. “The largest chrome six user directly to the north is dowell Schlumberger,” said Bob Bowcock with Integrated Resource Management. Its information that infuriates residents.

“They literally are murderers,” said Midland Whispering Pine Kennels owner Cindy King. King displayed pictures of high pedigree dogs she says died of chromium exposure. “Field trial champions, to see them die after tumor after tumor.” Cancer has also spread to her husband – King says she is even suffering severe symptoms. “We’ve lost our livelihood with our kennel, we quite possibly might lose our lives,” she said.

Saving lives is Brockovich’s proclaimed goal in this case; she says that’s why she’s here. “It isn’t about a lawsuit, we’re here to get them organized and united,” said Brockovich. Brockovich’s team is working on getting legislators to ask for federal funding to bring city water to the affected area. They say in the meantime, the water isn’t safe even if water wells have a filter.
SOURCE: http://www.cashflowsolutionsblog.com/lawsuit-funding-companies/erin-brockovich-investigating-midland-chromium-contamination


What is going on with California firms and federal stimulus funds

Some firms beset by probes get stimulus funds

Will Evans, California Watch
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Comments

Large corporations working in California have reaped tens of millions of dollars in new federal stimulus funds despite previous pollution violations, criminal probes and allegations of fraud, a California Watch investigation has found.

A major apartment owner based in Denver stands to benefit from $13 million in stimulus tax credits to rehabilitate its housing complex in Los Angeles. This federal assistance comes after the company, AIMCO, paid $3 million in 2004 to settle a lawsuit with the city of San Francisco over complaints that it operated mold- and rodent-infested buildings that posed serious safety hazards to residents of the city's Bayview-Hunters Point neighborhood. Residents continue to complain about AIMCO's management.

Granite Construction of Watsonville received $6.4 million in stimulus contracts to work on airport runways in Salinas and Monterey, and to repair roads in San Bernardino, Riverside and Butte counties. Yet the company faces three federal probes, including a criminal investigation into whether it fraudulently overcharged the city of San Diego in the wake of the devastating 2007 wildfires.

And residents in Ventura County say they are dismayed that airplane and defense giant Boeing received a $15.9 million stimulus contract for environmental monitoring at the same site near Simi Valley where the company was fined for polluting a creek with chromium, dioxin, lead and mercury. A local resident and opponent, Dawn Kowalski, called the new contract "the fox guarding the hen house."

To government watchdogs, these contracts and others raise concerns about the way the massive federal stimulus program is being administered. Although most major companies in America face lawsuits and regulatory action, these government reformers say a contractor's history should be considered before doling out more money to the same firms.

"It is very upsetting that the government doesn't do more due diligence before it hands money out," said Laura Chick, California's inspector general for stimulus funds. "We've gotten very used to handing out taxpayer dollars and not so good at overseeing to whom are we giving them and how they are being spent."

Apartment owners sued
The federal government has directed stimulus funds, in the form of tax credits, to create low-income housing across the state. AIMCO - in a joint venture with the nonprofit Foundation for Affordable Housing - was offered $13 million in tax credits to help fix up its senior housing apartment complex in Los Angeles. An AIMCO spokeswoman said the company has yet to accept the stimulus tax credit and contends the project "represents the company's continued commitment to meeting the critical need for affordable housing."

But in the Bayview-Hunters Point neighborhood in San Francisco, residents have complained for years of slumlord conditions and bad management at the AIMCO apartment complexes. "We trust them as far as we can throw them - that's the general rule when it comes to AIMCO," said Sara Shortt, director of the Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco, a nonprofit tenants-rights organization.

The city of San Francisco sued AIMCO, saying that the company ignored more than two dozen orders to fix scores of health and safety hazards, including stairways and landings collapsing from dry rot as well as moldy, water-damaged ceilings and walls. Inspectors cited a blocked fire escape and lack of smoke detectors. They also found broken windows and doors and faulty plumbing. AIMCO settled the suit for $3 million in 2004.

Resident Dorothy Peterson said she was considering protesting the stimulus assistance to AIMCO. "If they really wanted to make sure that low-income housing was built properly and for residents that were going to be treated like human beings, then they would not give it to an AIMCO," she said.

But AIMCO's partner on the Los Angeles project vouches for the company. "They're huge," said Deborrah Willard, president of the Foundation for Affordable Housing, based in Southern California. "When you're huge and you own this many units, you're bound to make somebody unhappy somewhere along the line."

Under investigation
Granite Construction picked up several stimulus contracts - which were distributed through Caltrans and various local agencies - despite being at the center of a fraud scandal in San Diego, where many residents feel the company took advantage of the city in a time of crisis.

"As a taxpayer, I would be more than a little frustrated with that, given the track record here in this city," said Jan Rasmussen, a San Diego resident and outreach coordinator of Rancho Bernardo United, a community group that helps victims of the 2007 wildfires.

The city of San Diego sued Granite Construction and another company, A.J. Diani, in 2008 for separately allegedly overbilling for their debris removal services after the disaster. The city claimed both companies billed with "falsified records" that overestimated the amount of debris they had cleared, and inflated their costs. The lawsuit is on hold pending a criminal probe by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Granite also faces two U.S. Department of Justice investigations. One targets an Oregon construction project where storm runoff dumped dirt into various creeks, possibly harming the fish population. The other investigation focuses on allegations that a joint venture run by Granite in Minnesota failed to hire enough minority businesses as subcontractors and misrepresented those efforts.

A Granite spokeswoman, Jacque Fourchy, said the company is open about its legal problems in corporate filings and disputes wrongdoing in San Diego. "It's unfortunate," Fourchy said, "that this investigation continues to plague us because we really feel like we didn't do anything wrong."

Boeing contract under fire
One stimulus contract through the Department of Energy is causing consternation in the rugged foothills above Simi Valley in Ventura County.

The toxic contamination at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory has been a painfully sore subject to locals for decades. Since the 1940s, the lab was operated by divisions of North American Aviation, which eventually became Rockwell International. It was the site of rocket engine testing and nuclear power development that led to toxins leaching into the dirt and groundwater and a partial nuclear meltdown in 1959.

Boeing acquired the aerospace divisions of Rockwell International in 1996, but community activists said Boeing has been fighting its responsibility for pollution that occurred before and after the purchase. A group of local residents sued Boeing, contending that the company caused cancer. The company settled for $30 million in 2005.

The regional water quality board fined Boeing $471,000 in 2007 for 79 pollution violations that let wastewater and storm runoff from the site ooze toxins into various creeks flowing downstream to the Los Angeles River.

Boeing had discharged 118.5 million gallons of water laced with pollutants including chromium, lead and mercury, according to the water board. At one point, the company exceeded the allowable concentration of cancer-causing dioxin by 6,900 times. The water board said the chronic violations created a risk to public health and, given Boeing's resources and sophistication, were "exceedingly serious."

Dan Hirsch, president of a California nuclear watchdog group, doesn't believe Boeing should have been rewarded with federal stimulus money for environmental monitoring there. The contract for Boeing, which made $2.7 billion in profits in 2008, was not bid competitively. "How can one have federal taxpayer money going to a company that is responsible for the contamination and is resisting the cleanup?" Hirsch said.

Boeing said it has made significant progress on the cleanup. "Boeing is fully committed to cleaning up the site in a manner that fully protects public health and the environment," wrote spokeswoman Kamara Sams in an e-mail to California Watch. She said Boeing, NASA and the Department of Energy are responsible for cleaning up portions of the property.

Jen Stutsman, an Energy Department spokeswoman, responded by e-mail that Boeing has the expertise to perform the work and a good track record of working with the agency. "Changing contractors would only cost the taxpayer additional money as a new contractor arrived and took over the work for Boeing," she wrote. The project was reported to have created 11 jobs.

At the same time, Boeing is trying to overturn a California toxic cleanup law. On Nov. 13, Boeing sued in federal court to invalidate SB990, which holds the Ventura County cleanup to especially strict standards. Boeing claims the California-mandated standards are unnecessary and the excavation required would further destroy the "ecological habitat."

State Assemblywoman Julia Brownley, D-Santa Monica, who represents nearby residents, said she's concerned that Boeing is getting stimulus money and "almost in the same breath" is suing against California cleanup standards. "Something just seems not right in that picture," she said.

Online: To search a database of $18.5 billion in stimulus funds awarded in California, go to http://www.californiawatch.org/.

California Watch is a project of the Center for Investigative Reporting with offices in the Bay Area and Sacramento.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/10/MN4V1BF1B4.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0ctuYW5SU
SOURCE:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/10/MN4V1BF1B4.DTL&tsp=1


So the pollution is STILL going which is very troubling but sadly not surprising.

Erin Brockovich-Ellis