6 thoughts on “Erin Brockovich Debunked, Part 2”

  1. Bill, I know that. We are also talking twenty years ago with several serious violations of regulations in the setup. The most important of which was dealing with toxic chemicals in unlined wastewater ponds.

    Releasing ANYTHING to soil so that it gets into potable water is an enormous deal. The fact that at the time it was a suspected carcinogen makes it far worse. I don’t care if it was later proven harmless. That makes us all look bad.

  2. The trouble benofhouston is that the dose makes the poison. Modern instruments can tell if water had passed through a value with a necessary lead alloy in it.You comment here often and should not make more of detection than is warranted.

  3. I respectfully disagree ben.

    Pollution resulted in a $300 million award for fictitious damages that were never supported by good science. At worst it should have resulted in a remediation order to PG&E. I stand by my original conclusions.

    Erin took advantage of ignorance and fear to generate a fee, regardless of the costs to real people, including her clients.

  4. I usually try to follow the old adage that says something like, “Never attribute to malice, evil or corruption anything that be more easily attributed to stupidity and, or, incompetence.”

    With this in mind, I do not think she deliberately lied or committed fraud. She was simply stupid and incompetent, and COMPLETELY WRONG. Of course, the Slime Stream Media ate up what she spewed, and MADE it a BIG STORY.

  5. As fictitious as the harm was, at least there was pollution there to begin with and it was detected in the water system. It can at least be chalked up to good intentions, so I think fraud is far too harsh.

    We’ve all dealt with a lot worse.

  6. Well this hypothesis has been proven beyond doubt. It is indeed settled science, i.e., Erin Brockovich is a fraud.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.