Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral that was once widely used in building construction and machine parts for its insulation and heat-protection properties. Exposure to asbestos fibers has been linked to a number of diseases, including lung cancer, asbestosis and mesothelioma, a deadly form of cancer.

Workers who come into direct contact with asbestos in the workplace—such as construction workers, oil refinery workers, shipyard workers and sailors in the U.S. Navy or Merchant Marines—are at a significantly higher risk of developing mesothelioma or other asbestos diseases from exposure on the job.

In many cases, asbestos fibers may be inadvertently carried home on workers’ clothing. When family members or loved ones come into contact with these workers, or when the clothes are hand-washed by their family-members, these asbestos fibers may be inhaled, putting family members at risk of developing mesothelioma or other asbestos diseases.

Several studies have examined the increased risk of mesothelioma for family members whose loved ones work around asbestos. According to research conducted by the New York State Department of Health, women who were diagnosed with mesothelioma are ten times as likely to have had a husband or father who worked in the asbestos industry. Another study conducted in Italy found that the family members of asbestos workers were significantly more likely to die from mesothelioma.

Scientists have known about the link between take home asbestos exposure and mesothelioma since the 1960s. However, because it may take up to 50 years after exposure to asbestos before an individual develops symptoms of mesothelioma, many family members of asbestos workers are only now beginning to show signs of the disease.

Mesothelioma is a rare form of cancer caused by exclusively by exposure to asbestos, a naturally occurring mineral that was once commonly used for insulation and heat protection. Beginning in the 1930s, nearly all ships built by the U.S. Navy contained insulation or other machine parts containing asbestos.

Thousands of U.S.Navy Veterans and former Merchant Marines who served during World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and other conflicts were exposed to harmful levels of asbestos, placing them at risk of developing mesothelioma, lung cancer, asbestosis or other asbestos diseases. Shipyard workers who handled asbestos products are also at risk of developing one of these diseases.

The U.S. Navy stopped building ships with asbestos during the 1970s. Because of the long latency period of the disease, it may take up to 50 years before Veterans who were exposed to asbestos begin to develop the first symptoms of mesothelioma or other asbestos related cancers.

Many Veterans who were exposed to asbestos during their time in the military have filed lawsuits against the companies who manufactured asbestos products and the equipment that utilized these products onboard U.S. Navy and Merchant Marine ships. These Veterans’ lawsuits have alleged that they were not warned about the risks of asbestos exposure, even when the companies who manufactured these asbestos products were fully aware of the danger they posed.

The law firm of Hissey Kientz, LLP is concerned that soon to be released warnings about the risk of blood clots from the birth control pills Yaz and Yasmin may not go far enough to warn users about the potential health risks of these products.

The manufacturer of the two drugs, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, recently announced plans to add a new warning about the risk of blood clots from Yaz and Yasmin to drug labels in Europe and the United States. “While we welcome the decision to add new information about the link between Yasmin or Yaz and blood clots, we are concerned that these warnings will not go far enough to alert women of the true dangers of these drugs,” says attorney Kristin Giaquinta Schoen of Hissey Kientz.

In a press release announcing its plans to update the labels of Yaz and Yasmin, Bayer stated that the risk of blood clots for women taking these pills was “comparable” to that of other birth control pills. But according to two studies published by the British Medical Journal in July 2009, women who use Yaz and Yasmin are twice as likely to suffer blood clots as they are when taking other forms of birth control containing the synthetic hormone levonorgestrel. This increased blood clot risk can lead to other serious and potentially deadly conditions, including heart attack, stroke, pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis.

“Bayer’s claim that the risk of blood clots with Yaz and Yasmin is ‘comparable’ to other birth control pills is contradicted by the research of scientists who have investigated these drugs,” Schoen says. “Studies have shown that women taking Yaz and Yasmin are more likely to experience blood clots and other side effects than women taking other birth control pills.”

Yasmin and Yaz were approved by the FDA in 2001 and 2006, respectively. Since then, the FDA has received more than 50 reports of deaths among users of these products and hundreds of reports of blood clots or other injuries from Yaz and Yasmin.

In 2009, the FDA sent a warning letter to Bayer after the company aired a television ad campaign promoting Yaz. The agency said that the campaign understated the risk of side effects associated with Yaz while improperly promoting it to treat acne and PMS symptoms, two conditions which it was not approved to treat. As a result of these advertisements, the FDA forced Bayer to run a $20 million ad campaign to correct the “misleading” claims about Yaz and to warn users of the health risks they may face from taking it.

Approximately 1,100 lawsuits have been filed by women who were injured after using Yaz or Yasmin. Although hundreds of women have been injured after using the two drugs, both remain top-sellers for Bayer, with over $1.64 billion in combined sales during 2009. The company has not announced any plans to recall Yaz or Yasmin.

The law firm of Hissey Kientz, LLP wishes to announce the launch of its new Hormone Replacement Therapy Message Board (http://hrtboard.com/). The site will serve as a forum for hormone therapy users to share comments, read about the cases of other hormone therapy patients and answer frequently asked questions about hormone therapy.

Hormone therapy drugs are designed to relieve menopausal symptoms including hot flashes and night sweats by replacing the hormones that are lost as women enter menopause. Early hormone therapy drugs like Premarin were estrogen-only medications. When scientists discovered that unopposed estrogen had caused an endometrial cancer crisis, doctors begin prescribing synthetic progesterone called “progestin” and “MPA” to be used with estrogen to protect the endometrial lining of the uterus. The principal progestin sold was Provera. Eventually, Wyeth began selling estrogen (“E”) and progestin (“P”) in a single pill.

In 2002, the Women’s Health Initiative study (“WHI”) conducted by the National Institutes of Health was abruptly halted after researchers found that women taking E+P faced increased risk of developing breast cancer as well as heart attacks, strokes and blood clots, among other injuries.

After the WHI study, millions of women stopped taking hormone therapy. Within just a year, breast cancer rates declined dramatically. The decline was focused in postmenopausal women and involved almost exclusively hormone receptor-positive cance –the very tumors fueled by hormone therapy. Dozens of studies now confirm the relationship between E+P and breast cancer.

These revelations came too late for many women. Thousands of breast cancer victims have sued Wyeth, Upjohn and other makers of E+P drugs, alleging that these companies failed to properly warn women about the breast cancer risks associated with their products.

One such user, Donna Scroggin, was treated with hormone therapy for 11 years before being diagnosed with breast cancer. Due to the seriousness of her condition, Ms. Scroggin was forced to undergo a double mastectomy and have the lymph nodes beneath her arms removed. In 2004, Ms. Scroggin sued Wyeth and Upjohn, claiming their drugs caused her cancer. The jury agreed with Ms. Scroggin, awarding her compensatory and punitive damages.

To learn more about Donna Scroggin and other women who have developed breast cancer after using hormone therapy, or to share your own experiences with HRT, please visit the Hormone Replacement Therapy Message Board at http://hrtboard.com/.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst is crisscrossing the state to promote his plan that pays employers with state tax dollars to hire unemployed Texans.

He touts it as a way for the state to save money by getting people off unemployment and jump-starting a Texas economy that many fear could be in a long, slow recovery.

“We’ve got to grow this locomotive called the Texas economy,” Dewhurst said in February as he kicked off the $15 million program. He already is talking about extending the nascent program during next year’s legislative session, and the Texas Workforce Commission is trying to persuade federal officials to give it $50 million in stimulus money to triple the program’s size.

The program pays employers $2,000 for each unemployed person they hire and retain for at least four months. As of Friday, 682 Texans had been hired by 421 employers statewide. In many instances, however, employers say the state is paying them to do what they would be doing anyway: filling crucial vacancies, expanding only when business conditions warrant or, in the case of high-turnover industries such as call centers, filling their constant roster of openings.

“No one has said that to me,” said Dewhurst, who has made a half-dozen appearances with employers around the state promoting the program. “They’ve all said they wouldn’t have hired the employees without the program.”

The Texas Back to Work program targets low-wage workers (less than $15 an hour) who are drawing unemployment or have exhausted their jobless claims. Dewhurst said the money is intended to be “a push” for reluctant employers to hire, not a subsidy for jobs they would be filling anyway.

“If they are going to hire a person anyway,” Dewhurst said, “I don’t think their application (for the money) fits.”

That’s not how the program appears to be working in many instances.

Robert Funk, who manages two call centers for Aegis Communications in Irving, appeared with Dewhurst at a recent Dallas event promoting the program. He said he expects to hire 2,000 employees this year.

The jobs won’t be new. His business isn’t expanding. The call centers are hiring in an industry in which annual turnover runs 100 to 150 percent, Funk said.

The program, however, is changing whom Funk hires. In the past, he said, he typically hired younger workers who were switching jobs. By hiring the unemployed, Funk said, he is getting an older — and he hopes a more reliable — work force.

“I like that we get some money back for hiring folks,” Funk said.

Most employers may hire only one or two employees at a time. In many instances, they said they already were advertising the jobs through the Workforce Commission when they learned about the wage subsidy. Several said they hired the best candidate, not necessarily the one who would make them eligible for the $2,000.

Rebecca Fibella, human resources manager with IESI, a solid waste company, said the company hired two drivers in the Austin area. She said the $2,000 was “an added attraction” but that the company was hiring anyway as the economy picks up.

“We would have hired based on business need,” Fibella said. “This program just coincides with what we’re doing.”

She said IESI’s 29 locations around the state will be participating in the program.

At the Austin law firm of Hissey Kientz, operations manager Alan Thomas hired a receptionist fluent in English and Spanish. He considered 50 résumés and interviewed a dozen applicants.

Thomas said his decision was based on who was most qualified, not whether the person would match the criteria for the reimbursement.

“Two thousand dollars is not enough to make a significant difference,” he said. “I’m not sure why tax dollars need to go to an employer because they hired someone they were going to hire anyway.”

He said he’s unsure whether the law firm will request the $2,000 from the state.

Cheryl Fleming, human resources manager at Financial Corporation of America, has hired a couple of unemployed workers for call center jobs. She said the company was hiring anyway.

As for the $2,000, Fleming said, “If the money is going somewhere, it might just as well go to us.”

One Austin call center said it is hiring an additional 20 workers because of the program. Gila Corp. has a subsidiary that collects delinquent taxes for governments. CEO Bruce Cummings said the program allowed his company to get a jump on tax season.

“Had it not been for the program, we wouldn’t have added the additional staff,” Cummings said.

Karen Debbs with AlliedBarton Security Services in Austin said five officers were hired because of normal turnover. In Corpus Christi, Gordon Hightower, the owner of Willford Appliance, said he hired a receptionist because one employee quit and another is on maternity leave.

“The money was OK,” he said. But Hightower said the service the Workforce Commission provided— finding suitable applicants, checking backgrounds — was more important.

James Elkins, director of Document Shredding & Storage, was the first employer in Amarillo to sign up for Texas Back to Work when he hired a driver.

“We already had an ad with the Texas Workforce Commission,” Elkins said. “We were going to hire someone regardless.”

The Austin American-Statesman initially expressed interest in the program but never applied for reimbursement and will not do so in the future, Publisher Michael Vivio said.

Although the Legislature created the wage-subsidy program in June, the commission rolled it out slowly, taking it statewide in February.

During that interim, as the rebound tried to take root, the state economy simultaneously began adding jobs as the number of unemployed people increased.

Since June, the state economy has added 154,000 jobs, but the number of unemployed has increased by 77,489. The unemployment rate last month was 8.2 percent, compared with 7.8 percent when the Legislature approved the back-to-work program. With $15 million, the Texas Back to Work program can help 7,500 jobless Texans.

Tom Pauken, chairman of the Workforce Commission, said the program can only do so much.

“I’m under no illusion,” he said. “This is a program at the margins.”

The cratering of the national economy caused the problem in Texas, Pauken said, and it will take a national rebound to make significant improvement.

Bernard Weinstein, an economist at the Cox School of Business at Southern Methodist University, agrees.

“In the great scheme of things, it doesn’t make much difference,” he said.

Weinstein, who has studied similar subsidy programs in other states, said he doesn’t have much faith in them. “Government usually ends up subsidizing what companies would do anyway,” he said.

Texas officials conferred with John Courtney, president of the American Institute for Full Employment, before starting the program. He said wage subsidies lower employers’ costs for training new workers and encourage long-term unemployed people not to give up looking for work.

“A wage-subsidy program can be a great asset for employers, job seekers and the state,” Courtney said.

Pauken and Dewhurst say the program won’t cost taxpayers.

“If it gets people off unemployment, the savings would pay for the program,” Pauken said.

But Bill Hammond, president of the Texas Association of Business and a former work force commissioner, is lukewarm. “I’m not 100 percent sold on it,” he said.

Hammond said the final verdict depends on whether the program truly saves money.

Dewhurst insists it will.

He estimated that it costs the state $8,000 for the first 26 weeks of unemployment benefits for a worker who could be hired under Texas Back to Work.

But he admitted that the amount of the savings depends on how soon the person gets back to work.

More important, will a wage subsidy going to employers who are hiring anyway really be a savings to taxpayers?

“It’s a close call,” Hammond said. “It depends on whether there’s a net reduction to the taxpayer.”

Talmadge Heflin, a former GOP lawmaker who now is with the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a free-market advocacy organization, generally opposes government intervention in the marketplace.

“It’s a short-term deal that doesn’t address a long-term problem,” Heflin said. “We’d encourage them to let the economy grow naturally instead of incentivizing employers with taxpayers’ money.”

He said that adding more money to the pot, whether with federal stimulus dollars or more tax dollars next year, would just institutionalize the program and make it hard to eliminate later.

Dewhurst is unmoved by the criticism, saying unemployed Texans are getting jobs.

“I’m not going to get involved in second-guessing the program,” he said.