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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Rat dog micro-cap picks... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BW who wrote (9048)	8/26/2002 6:44:37 PM
From: Bucky Katt	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 48461

Carbit has a big old time black water tower over part of their building if memory serves. They are more industrial and not retail, which is most likely why they are doing well. Better to deal with professionals than the retail trade, which it way too crowded in the coating biz....Good for the family!!! carbit.com I just got back from Bristol, what a sweet race and great time it was.......... I had some buds that left for Brisol on Tuesday, so I was a little late to the party but that is ok, getting sauced for 5 days in a row is not something that interests me anymore.. Looks like the markets didn't do too much today, but I am up in the 100% range on a bottom fish on UAL....SWEET>> Message 17889438 As always, look to where things are their worst, then figure out the old Latin, Cui Bono, which is >Whom does it benefit.....< Think about it, I did, as a month or so ago I thought they (UAL) was toast, but as it drifited into 2 bucks, I realized there was money, big money to be made here in quick time... Human nature will never change..

To: BW who wrote (9048)	9/6/2002 9:16:58 AM
From: Bucky Katt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 48461

Boyd, no Carbit Corp. mentioned in this story, which is a good thing, read all the way to the bottom, I threw a tid-bit in there> City sues for lead paint costs Manufacturers target of action By Sabrina L. Miller Tribune staff reporter Published September 6, 2002 Saying that taxpayers should no longer bear sole responsibility for treating children suffering from lead poisoning, the City of Chicago filed a lawsuit Thursday against major manufacturers of lead-based paint. "Chicago taxpayers have borne the costs of treating lead poisoning in children for too long," said Corporation Counsel Mara Georges at a news conference at the Uptown Health Center. "The industry should be forced to contribute its fair share." Lead-based paint was banned for residential use in Chicago 30 years ago and banned for sale by the federal government in 1978. Yet Chicago maintains the highest rate of lead poisoning among children in the nation. More than 12,000 children tested positive for lead poisoning in Chicago last year, and the city spends millions annually on treatment, services and abatement, said Anne Evens, director of the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program at the city's Department of Public Health. Black and Hispanic children are disproportionately affected in Chicago, and the highest rates of lead poisoning in the city are found in West and South Side neighborhoods like Austin, North Lawndale and Englewood as well as pockets of Rogers Park and Uptown, Evens said. Lead poisoning leads to irreversible health problems in children, including speech impediments, learning disabilities and abnormal behavior. Evens said that all children between the ages of 6 months and 6 years old are vulnerable to lead paint exposure because of the older housing in Chicago and should be tested annually. The suit names as defendants American Cyanamid Co., Atlantic Richfield Co., BP Corp. North America Inc., BP America Inc., E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co., The Glidden Co., Millennium Chemicals Inc., Millennium Inorganic Chemicals Inc., NL Industries Inc., The O'Brien Corp., Sherwin-Williams Co. and Chicago Paint and Coatings Association. The suit makes no specific claims for damages, but Georges said the companies should be required to contribute to an abatement fund as well as pay costs to the city as a result of the "public nuisance" created by lead paint. "It is a tremendous problem," she said. "It is a problem that is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars to solve." But the city is facing an uphill battle. The majority of lawsuits filed in the last 14 years against companies that sold lead-based paint have been dismissed for lack of merit. Rhode Island has a case that recently started against the companies on the question of whether lead paint creates a public nuisance. But to date, no plaintiffs have bested the companies in court or received a court-ordered settlement, said Bonnie Campbell, a lawyer from the Washington, D.C.-based firm Arent Fox who is advising several of the companies being sued by Rhode Island and the City of Chicago. "We regret that the city has taken this unwarranted step," Campbell said. "Litigation is not the answer." Georges said the city brings about 1,200 Housing Court cases per year against landlords requiring them to eliminate lead hazards. But neither city-sponsored efforts nor cracking down on property owners can completely solve the problem, she said. "We cannot hope to keep housing in Chicago affordable to low-income residents if landlords, property owners and tenants are required to bear the entire cost of the abatement," Georges said. chicagotribune.com This from a city that ""solved"" it's graffiti problem by banning the sale of spray paint. I am not making this up!!!!!!!