ChemRisk

=mo fo
<div>=</div><div><a href="https://www.desmog.com/2022/10/07/slapp-lawsuits-exxon-chemrisk-dapl-climate-change-raskin/">
</a></div><div><a href="https://www.desmog.com/2022/10/07/slapp-lawsuits-exxon-chemrisk-dapl-climate-change-raskin/">https://www.desmog.com/2022/10/07/slapp-lawsuits-exxon-chemrisk-dapl-climate-change-raskin/</a></div><div>
</div><div> Emily SandersIn 2018, Krystal Two Bulls received notice that she was being sued for criminal conspiracy.Two Bulls, who is Oglala Lakota and North Cheyenne, has been organizing for environmental justice for much of her life. She was raised on the North Cheyenne Indian Reservation of Lame Deer, Montana, part of a community that had resisted coal developments for nearly 40 years. In 2016, she helped defeat Arch Coal’s plans to build a massive strip mining operation on the reservation’s border. The project would’ve been one of the largest coal mines in the United States. Later that same year, Two Bulls received an urgent call for assistance from land and water protectors at Standing Rock, North Dakota, who were working to oppose the construction of the <a href="https://www.desmog.com/energy-transfer-partners-bakken-oil-pipeline-through-iowa/" data-wpel-link="internal" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">Dakota Access pipeline</a>, which transports crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois.When Two Bulls arrived, the conflict between protestors and local police was escalating. Her auntie, Dr. Sara Jumping Eagle, had <a href="https://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/18/standing_rock_sioux_pediatrician_threat_from" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">recently been arrested</a> after standing in the path of a bulldozer set to dig up human remains at an ancestral burial site. Two Bulls spent three-and-a-half months supporting and sustaining the camp — handling basic logistics like providing protestors with food, warm clothing, and other necessities — all in the face of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/29/standing-rock-protest-north-dakota-shutdown-evacuation" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">violence</a> by state police. She then helped to launch the <a href="https://nodaplsolidarity.org/" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">No DAPL Solidarity Campaign</a>, a global movement to back the Indigenous opposition to the pipeline. It wasn’t until a year after camp was shut down that Two Bulls, who came to North Dakota on her own dime and left in debt, found out she was being sued for millions of dollars by the pipeline developer, Energy Transfer Partners. The charges were brought under the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Practices (RICO) Act, a law originally designed to prosecute the mafia. The company claimed that through her “calls to action,” including a statement on Greenpeace’s website asking “all people from around the world to take action” and “come stand with us” against the Dakota Access pipeline, Two Bulls and others had conspired to interfere with Energy Transfer’s business operations and engaged in organized crime. The individuals and groups’ opposition, the company claimed, was defamatory and cost key investments in its pipeline.In 2017, The Intercept reported on documents leaked from former personnel at an international security firm, TigerSwan, revealing that Energy Transfer had <a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/11/15/dakota-access-pipeline-dapl-tigerswan-energy-transfer-partners-rico-lawsuit/" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">paid the firm</a> to use military-style surveillance and infiltration tactics to gather information that could be deployed in a RICO lawsuit against the anti-pipeline activists. Two Bulls is just one of many victims of the fossil fuel industry’s use of SLAPPs — strategic lawsuits against public participation — to silence and intimidate its critics. <a href="https://earthrights.org/publication/the-fossil-fuel-industrys-use-of-slapps-and-judicial-harassment-in-the-united-states/" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">A report</a> released last month by legal advocacy nonprofit EarthRights International identified 152 instances of <a href="https://exxonknews.substack.com/p/steven-donziger-on-freedom-under" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">legal and judicial harassment</a> by fossil fuel corporations to suppress dissent in the United States over the past 10 years, including 93 SLAPP lawsuits. Just this week, a California oil industry trade association <a href="https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/california-oil-group-pays-fees-to-advocacy-groups-it-harassed-but-dodges-multimillion-dollar-judgment-2022-10-03/#.YzyAqGbeG24.twitter" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">paid nearly $650,000 in fees</a> to the city of Los Angeles and several environmental advocacy groups the company <a href="https://www.desmog.com/2017/04/03/youth-color-lawsuit-los-angeles-drilling-discrimination-oil-industry/" data-wpel-link="internal" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">had targeted in court for years</a> following the city’s implementation of new environmental safety requirements for drilling applicants. After declaring bankruptcy, the California Independent Petroleum Association was allowed to pay only a fraction of a judgment initially awarded to the city and groups by a trial court that ruled the lawsuit was a SLAPP.“With the strengthening of our movements, the revelation of how long the fossil fuel industry has been aware of how their practices impact and contribute to climate change, and the rise of legal cases against oil and gas corporations, these companies are becoming more desperate to silence the voices of their critics,” said Deepa Padmanabha, deputy general counsel at Greenpeace USA.  A wide range of concerned groups, from community organizers to members of Congress, are taking up the fight against SLAPPs. Last month, the House Oversight Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties <a href="https://oversight.house.gov/legislation/hearings/free-speech-under-attack-part-iii-the-legal-assault-on-environmental-activists" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">held a hearing</a> to expose the fossil fuel industry’s use of SLAPPs and its backing of <a href="https://www.desmog.com/2017/12/11/alec-model-bill-pipeline-protesters/" data-wpel-link="internal" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">bills to criminalize protest</a>. The committee’s witnesses, including Padmanabha and others, explained that corporations were using these tactics to suppress activists’ ability to freely voice dissent.The day after the hearing, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the subcommittee chairman, introduced the <a href="https://raskin.house.gov/cache/files/f/b/fbb6b8d1-fa69-4c17-adbb-6445ff63b8a0/291D1533375A72AC20E4EB67F9244109.bill-text---slapp-protection-act.pdf" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">SLAPP Protection Act of 2022</a> — the first federal legislation that would “establish a procedure to dismiss, punish, and deter strategic lawsuits against public participation.” Advocates say the bill could create a sorely needed protection for individuals and community groups who speak out against fossil fuel infrastructure, and an important safeguard for free speech at large.According to EarthRights International, the proposed legislation <a href="https://earthrights.org/an-in-depth-look-at-raskin-federal-anti-slapp-legislation/" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">would provide</a> a federal mechanism for SLAPP suits to be quickly identified and dismissed while balancing the rights of plaintiffs and defendants. The bill would also force those bringing SLAPP suits to pay their opponents’ legal fees if the lawsuit is proven to have abusive intent. Advocacy organizations are also tackling the issue. EarthRights is a member of the <a href="https://protecttheprotest.org/" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">Protect the Protest</a> coalition, an initiative created in response to the rise of SLAPP suits. “If a corporation can sue a nonprofit organization out of business for criticizing its activities, then that’s extremely dangerous,” Kirk Herbertson, senior policy advisor at EarthRights International, said. About a year after Energy Transfer filed its lawsuit against Two Bulls and others, a district court judge in North Dakota <a href="https://www.desmog.com/2019/02/14/energy-transfer-racketeering-claims-greenpeace-dakota-access-pipeline-dismissed/" data-wpel-link="internal" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">dismissed the case</a>, denying the RICO claims with prejudice — meaning the company could not refile those claims. RICO claims, which can triple the amount of damages sought in a SLAPP suit, can be financially devastating — even for a larger, well-resourced organization like Greenpeace USA, which was named in the original suit. While Energy Transfer’s RICO claims against the organization have been dismissed, the pipeline company filed a second lawsuit in North Dakota state court, which is scheduled for trial in June 2023. In its current case, which also names Two Bulls as a defendant, Energy Transfer argues that Greenpeace USA conspired with others to defame, trespass, and interfere with business relationships, among many other charges. Energy Transfer did not respond to a request for comment.<figure class="wp-block-pullquote" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 3em 0px; text-align: center; overflow-wrap: break-word; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div style="text-align: left;">“Companies are becoming more desperate to silence</div><div style="text-align: left;">the voices of their critics”</div><cite style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative;" /><div style="text-align: left;">– Deepa Padmanabha</div></blockquote></figure>Fighting these lawsuits not only takes vast amounts of money, but also time and energy. Padmanabha said that since mid-2016, her career has been almost entirely dedicated to advocating against corporate lawfare — corporations’ use of the legal system to attack opponents — preventing her from engaging more in the dire work needed to prevent climate catastrophe. “The next decade is so critical in our fight against climate change. And if we didn’t have to deal with these lawsuits, we would really be putting every penny and every minute we have into fighting the existential threat of climate change,” Padmanabha said, adding that they are also intended to intimidate and deter individuals and lesser-resourced, smaller groups from speaking out.Karen Savage was working in Massachusetts as a middle-school math teacher when she got hit with a SLAPP suit. In 2013, she and another environmental activist, Cherri Foytlin, wrote an <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/chemrisk-bp-and-purple-st_b_4095131" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102); box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">unpaid article</a> for the Huffington Post about a so-called independent study from scientific consulting firm ChemRisk. The study had claimed that there was no connection between chemicals released during the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the serious health problems reported by cleanup workers and coastal residents in its aftermath. As their reporting revealed, ChemRisk — a company with a long history of working with polluters, including defendant PG&E in the infamous Erin Brockovich case — produced “science” on behalf of BP that the oil major could use to defend itself from liability in court.After the article was published, the Huffington Post <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/12/business/energy-environment/years-after-criticism-of-its-practices-science-consultant-pushes-back.html" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">received</a> an immediate request from the company to retract it, which they forwarded on to Cherri Foytlin. (In a note on her Facebook page, Foytlin told ChemRisk to “kiss my derriere.”)Foytlin’s Facebook post, along with many other social media posts from the two writers, appeared in a defamation suit filed against them by ChemRisk in New York state. The company claimed their article contained falsehoods — though, according to Savage, ChemRisk couldn’t explain what those falsehoods were — and that as long as it was kept online, the article would “continue to do substantial harm to ChemRisk’s reputation.” “Basically what they wanted to do was shut us up,” Savage told me. “It was an intimidation tactic.” With pro-bono representation, Savage and Foytlin were able to get the suit dismissed in New York. Within two weeks, the company refiled in Massachusetts, where Savage lived. At one point, she said, the company’s lawyers even attempted to serve her in her classroom while she was teaching.Cardno ChemRisk, the parent company of ChemRisk, did not respond to a request for comment.The case was eventually dismissed under the state’s anti-SLAPP laws, and ChemRisk was forced to pay Savage and Foytlin’s attorney’s fees. Savage said she believes that ChemRisk never sued them in Louisiana, where Foytlin lived, because of the three states, Louisiana’s anti-SLAPP laws were the strongest, and the suit would’ve been dismissed faster and with greater consequences for the company. That tactic of searching for the most favorable court, called forum shopping, is something Raskin’s anti-SLAPP statute would address by creating a standard applicable across the United States. At present, <a href="https://anti-slapp.org/your-states-free-speech-protection" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">32 states</a> and the District of Columbia have anti-SLAPP laws, yet they have varying degrees of efficacy. And while the fate of a federal bill could depend on the outcome of midterm elections, most state anti-SLAPP laws have passed with bipartisan support.Savage — who has since become a journalist and has<a href="https://www.desmog.com/2021/10/12/karen-savage-journalist-louisiana-trespassing-bayou-bridge/" data-wpel-link="internal" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;"> written for DeSmog</a> about being arrested by pipeline security while reporting — said she hopes Raskin’s bill would help put an end to this tactic. “If you know the truth, and you’ve got factual backup, and someone comes at you, you can’t back down on that,” Savage said. “The whole reason they’re coming at you is because they also know that you have the truth.”While the fossil fuel industry works to stamp out the speech of environmental advocates on the one hand, it is now arguing that its climate denial is protected speech on the other. At the same time that Raskin held his hearing into the fossil fuel industry’s assault on the First Amendment, the House Natural Resources Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee held a separate hearing to examine how public relations firms market climate disinformation and delay action on behalf of Big Oil. In that hearing, chaired by Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA), Republicans and their witness argued that the committee was attacking the corporations’ right to free speech. “Taken together, the two [hearings] are a perfect illustration of the industry’s First Amendment strategy: expand free speech for corporations, curb it for citizens,” Amy Westervelt recently <a href="https://theintercept.com/2022/09/16/fossil-fuel-industry-climate-free-speech/" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">wrote</a> in The Intercept. The fossil fuel industry, she explained, has been developing the argument that its public statements on climate policy are protected speech since the late 1960s, all while working to expand the right of corporations to buy influence over politics behind the scenes.In a paradoxical twist, fossil fuel companies are even attempting to wield existing anti-SLAPP laws to shield themselves from legal accountability. After a Massachusetts court ruled that Attorney General Maura Healey’s climate fraud lawsuit against Exxon could proceed in state court, the oil giant told the state’s supreme court that the case was actually a conspiracy to silence Exxon’s views on climate policy in violation of the state’s anti-SLAPP statute. But so far, the idea that Exxon’s fraud is protected free speech <a href="https://exxonknews.substack.com/p/exxons-free-speech-defense-just-got?s=w" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">has not gone over well with judges</a>. “We have seen that the industry is trying to build up this argument around a conspiracy against them, and it’s coming up in things like anti-SLAPP motions in courts. But they have continued to fail in that effort so far,” Herbertson of EarthRights International said. Raskin’s newly proposed federal legislation, he said, is clearly and explicitly designed to be used by real people and organizations that have been victim to SLAPP suits, and will be harder for corporations to use in their own defense.But if you ask Padmanabha of Greenpeace, the industry’s tactics are on thin ice. “There is this recognition and an increasing awareness that speech should not be bought,” she said. “And I think that the [Oversight Civil Rights and Civil Liberties] hearing and the bill that followed it are really just emblematic examples of how these attempts to control the narrative are crumbling.”Emily Sanders writes <a href="http://exxonknews.org/" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">ExxonKnews</a>, a newsletter covering climate accountability and the oil and gas industry. She is editorial lead at the Center for Climate Integrity, and is based in New York City. This piece was co-published by <a href="https://www.desmog.com/" target="blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" data-wpel-link="internal" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">DeSmog</a> and <a href="http://exxonknews.org/" target="blank" rel="noreferrer noopener external" data-wpel-link="external" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">ExxonKnews</a>, a project of the <a href="https://climateintegrity.org/" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">Center for Climate Integrity</a>.</div><div></div>

 abc white house reporter geoff morrell qwent to dod to be spokes for brobt gates (pal of bob barnett) offered leadership gig and H&K, run by Dan Bartlett (also job offer from Podesta tony gp) ended up at BP in time for oil spill; recruited by purple strat guy dick kiel (WH rept bloomberg)alex cast cnn this town 253
=huffpoAttorney Stephen O'Rourke, representing the US Department of Justice (DOJ) called it "cherry picking," when asserting that BP has relied upon isolated data to<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/bp-trial-focus-shifts-oil-spilled-20494709?singlePage=true" target="hplink" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: 0px; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; overflow: visible;"> suggest a minimal amount of oil escaped</a> during the 2010 deep water drilling disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.As the second phase of the BP trial wraps up another week, a scientific battle is waging over how much crude actually spilled into the gulf during the 87 day gusher. The determination of these findings by the court will define exactly how much the oil giant owes in Clean Water Act fines, which can range from $1,100 to $4,300 per barrel.Attorneys for BP say their scientists estimate 2.45 million barrels spilled out of their broken well-head, while the DOJ, relying on a combination of four experts, estimates 4.2 million barrels of crude spewed into the warm Gulf waters during and after the deadly blowout. That's a whopping discrepancy of roughly 1.7 million barrels, or as much as $7.31 billion.As O'Rourke alluded, BP does not exactly have a reputation for coming clean on the facts surrounding the disaster. Early on, the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/31/bp-oil-spill-flow-estimates_n_1558993.html" target="hplink" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: 0px; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; overflow: visible;">oil giant told the public</a> that the leak was an estimated 5,000 barrels per day, yet according the company's own internal emails BP knew that up to 100,000 barrels per day were flowing unchecked into the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem.BP has consistently used their "science" to <a href="http://blog.nwf.org/2013/08/fudging-the-numbers-bps-history-of-lying-about-the-spill/" target="hplink" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: 0px; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; overflow: visible;">low-ball the amount of the spill</a> and minimize its impacts on Gulf Coast residents and ecosystems.Additionally, contracted clean-up workers who continue to struggle daily with <a href="http://www.whistleblower.org/program-areas/public-health/corexit" target="hplink" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: 0px; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; overflow: visible;">serious health concerns</a> brought on by their exposure to BP's toxic crude and the oil dispersant Corexit, have often hit a wall of BP's "independent" data.For more than three years they, along with many coastal residents sickened by the disaster, have desperately sought the independent, unbiased science that could answer their questions regarding what they were exposed to and to provide for effective treatment. In response to their pleas, BP contracted highly paid public relations firms touting industry-friendly scientists to cloud the truth.In September of 2011, ChemRisk, the for-profit scientific consulting firm now part of <a href="http://www.cardnochemrisk.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52&Itemid=247" target="hplink" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: 0px; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; overflow: visible;">Cardno Chemrisk</a>, released an "independent" study concluding that off-shore workers who cleaned up BP's oil between April and October 2010 were not exposed to harmful levels of certain airborne chemical compounds. These volatile organic compounds, which included cancer causing benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene or xylene, are collectively referred to as BTEX.The study, published in the July 28, 2011 issue of Environmental Science and Technology, was announced on September 2 with a carefully worded press release misleadingly titled,<a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/study-by-leading-scientific-consulting-firm-finds-no-evidence-of-health-dangers-for-gulf-coast-cleanup-workers-129139328.html" target="hplink" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: 0px; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; overflow: visible;">Study by Leading Scientific Consulting Firm Finds No Evidence of Health Dangers for Gulf Coast Cleanup Workers.</a>Yet, according to Dr. Wilma Subra, a prominent gulf coast chemist and 1999 MacArthur "Genius Award" Fellow, ChemRisk's analysis of exposure levels is most notable for what it does not include."They took a very narrow look at the data," she explains. "If they had broadened their look, it's very likely they would have found that semi-volatiles were present in the air."Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), which were not analyzed in this study, are very different from BTEX chemicals, as they include polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and a host of other chemicals that are also present in crude oil.Subra suspects SVOCs and PAHs are responsible for many of the significant health effects experienced by gulf coast residents and clean-up workers.Equally concerning in this study is the murky use of the term "independent." Although previously <a href="http://fuelfix.com/blog/2011/09/02/study-offshore-crews-not-exposed-to-harmful-air-during-gulf-cleanup/" target="hplink" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: 0px; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; overflow: visible;">published media reports</a> clearly state that ChemRisk was not paid by BP, the samples for the study were collected and <a href="http://usresponse.bp.com/go/doc/2911/963787/Health-monitoring" target="hplink" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: 0px; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; overflow: visible;">provided by BP</a>, leaving Subra to question just how "independent" the findings can be."This is a typical thing they put out on behalf of industry," she states.As it turns out, ChemRisk has a long, and on at least one occasion fraudulent, history of defending big polluters, using questionable ethics to help their clients avoid legal responsibility for their actions.One well-known example is the <a href="http://www.familiesagainstcancer.org/?id=319" target="hplink" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: 0px; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; overflow: visible;">case</a> that became the basis for the movie Erin Brockovich, where the polluter and defendant Pacific Gas and Electric (PG & E) was found to have paid ChemRisk to discredit research done by Chinese scientist Dr. Jian Dong Zhang.In an earlier study, Zhang had found strong links between chromium-6, which was found in Hinkley, California's drinking water, and cancer. ChemRisk obtained Dr. Zhang's data, and without his knowledge, intentionally manipulated the findings to contradict his own earlier studies.The erroneous data was then submitted to the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (JOEM) as though it had been re-worked by Dr. Zhang personally.Led to believe it was legitimate, the JOEM initially published the findings, but was later forced to issue <a href="http://www.ewg.org/news/news-releases/2006/06/02/joem-retracts-fradulent-chromium-article" target="hplink" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: 0px; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; overflow: visible;">a retraction</a>, because at the time of submission no disclosure was made regarding ChemRisk's contribution of intellectual work and finances to the study, (click<a href="https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:UShwtZHGNDQJ:water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/upload/Chromium6inDrinkingWater.pdf+chromium+6+cancer+epa&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh9UB10mzrpcCsQY4fTLaMY8m9vIZoRCsMMwnyReuS0x-JdlxQ5bKpozxLbSLlPzeNnQS60iFLLjXAlQn4NBliilW_l2_p8NSKi49KRfKwKpygwZqa7xQ6K1pEYH15rLIJotpG9&sig=AHIEtbQu0oQbjjyNvjCJwDm_q2BvV90sYQ&pli=1" target="hplink" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: 0px; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; overflow: visible;">here</a> for more information on what is now known about the very harmful effects of chromium-6.)While conducting research for this article, we contacted ChemRisk for an interview with one of the authors of the study on clean-up workers' health after the BP disaster. The interview was allowed to proceed only in the presence of another individual who was presented as an additional Chemrisk scientist.The individual, who identified himself as "Dick Keil, with Chemrisk," steered the conversation, including the introducing of the Chemrisk scientist, followed by a refusal to allow the discussion to be recorded.During the interview, it became clear that Keil was keeping a tight reign on both our line of interview questions, as well as the scientist's responses.Problem: Dick Keil is not a scientist.As our research has uncovered, Dick (Richard) Keil is a former Bloomberg writer who was a member of the traveling White House press pool during George W. Bush's presidency. He has also worked with the office of Former US Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Paul Brinkley, who until last year headed the US Defense Department's Task Force for <a href="http://www.metalsnews.com/Metals+News/MetalsNews/Al+Alper/MNNEWS326310/Afghanistans+mineral+wealth+to+be+revealed+jointly+by+AGS+USGS+and+TFBSO+at+PDAC+2011.htm" target="hplink" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: 0px; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; overflow: visible;">Business Stability Operations in Afghanistan</a>.Additionally, and at the time of the interview, Keil was employed by Purple Strategies, a Washington DC based <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/03/for-new-ad-campaign-bp-looks-outside-madison-avenue/" target="hplink" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: 0px; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; overflow: visible;">public relations firm hired by BP</a> in June of 2010Keil, an experienced and extraordinarily well-connected media veteran, was paid by Purple Strategies on behalf of BP to ensure that the only information reported to the public was that which would minimize BP's financial responsibility.Further<a href="http://www.purplestrategies.com/" target="hplink" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: 0px; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; overflow: visible;"> research</a> linked Purple Strategies to the distribution of the press release announcing the results of the "independent" study.A ChemRisk representative has denied that Purple Strategies has ever worked for ChemRisk itself, a call to Purple Strategies was not returned, and BP has refused to comment on this information.Although Dick Keil has since moved on to a position as Senior Media Relations Advisor with Exxon Mobil in Dallas, <a href="http://www.politico.com/playbook/0713/playbook11110.html%20BP's%20data-for-profit" target="hplink" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: 0px; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; overflow: visible;">"science" and "truth-for-hire"</a> public relations firms have continued to work non-stop to maneuver BP into the best possible light and legal position in order to protect it's bottom line.Meanwhile, and while the BP trial continues in New Orleans, Gulf Coast residents are left wondering if BP will ever be held responsible for the damage done to their fisheries, ecosystems and livelihoods, wait to see if their bodies will ever recover from an assault of BP's oil and dispersants, and wonder if anyone will ever - in the <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/06/bp-turns-to-political-shop-for-50-million-ad-buy-to-convince-you-the-company-will-get-this-done-and/" target="_hplink" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: 0px; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; overflow: visible;">words of Purple Strategies' spin writers</a>, found in the mouth of former BP President Tony Hayward - "make it right."Karen Savage contributed to this article.<div style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; overflow: visible; line-height: 21px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div style="list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; overflow: visible;">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cherri-foytlin/chemrisk-bp-and-purple-st_b_4095131.html?view=printFollow Cherri Foytlin
</div></div>