William V Custer

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This stub is a work-in-progress by the ScienceCorruption.com journalists's group. We are indexing the millions of documents stored at the San Francisco Uni's Legacy Tobacco Archive [1] With some entries you'll need to go to this site and type into the Search panel a (multi-digit) Bates number. You can search on names for other documents also.     Send any corrections or additions to editor@sciencecorruption.com


This article is part of the Tobacco portal on Sourcewatch funded from 2006 - 2009 by the American Legacy Foundation.

In 2000 the lawyers William V Custer and Elizabeth T Kertscher at Goldstein Frazer & Murphy were still advising their Atlanta corporate clients on how to avoid law suits over Sick Building Syndrome.

They tell their clients (and send a copy to the tobacco industry) saying that:

In April 1991 the EPA defined Sick Building Syndrome as a situation "in which building occupants experience acute health and comfort effects that appear to be linked to time spent in a building, but no specific illness or cause can be identified."

SBS-related complaints include eye, nose and throat irritation, cough, headache, nausea, skin irritation, fatigue,depression, upper respiratory difficulties and taste and smell difficulties. These complaints may stem from a virtually endless number of potential causation agents.

These include biological agents, volatile organic compounds, lighting, and particulates, as well as psychological factors. These agents can be introduced by virtually any activity including new building products, cleaning agents, pest control, renovation, and the like. Many times a particular cause is never identified.

Certainly, chemicals and environmental contaminants can, in sufficient doses, cause injury or illness . However, in evaluating a potential SBS claim, it is important to realize that, in certain circumstances, psychological components may play an important role in an SBS claimant's experience of physical symptoms. [2]

These two Dixie lawyers managed to write a 23 page outline of the scientific and legal details of SBS without once mentioning the term "tobacco smoke" or ETS.