Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (9036)	9/13/2001 9:39:01 PM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

CB - ...The money's going to go somewhere. ... It's also got to come from somewhere, even if it's out of the air at Treasury. It will either replace other spending, or reduce savings, or be new borrowings, or be new fiat paper. Regards, Don

To: Ilaine who wrote (9036)	9/14/2001 9:48:40 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Whatever it costs to clean up the World Trade Center, it appears very possible that the EPA will pay it due to the asbestosis. First, asbestosis is a disease. EPA doesn't cleanup diseases. Second, asbestos has been removed from most major buildings in the 80s and 90s. I did a brief, non-exhaustive internet search for the WTC but did not find anything. I've seen statements that the WTC did in fact undergo asbestos removal, so perhaps asbestos is not a problem. There was litigation involving the WTC resulting in a $60 million verdict. Track the litigation and you might find out more. Third, EPA designates PRPs ("potentially responsible parties"), then tries to make them or their insurers pay. Often wrong, never in doubt.