I can only assume is the lead attorney? Actually, joking aside, if they've been doing it then they deserve a good roasting.

looking at what the article says they have done everything feasible to avert any risks to human health going back to 1979 (which is way befor any one gave a dam atleast here in the uk)

in the uk the residents are unlikly to have a case especially if the health issues havn't been linked to a particular chemical

also surly the residents would need to prove that these chemicals are entering the properties and it seems that ibm will have already surveyed the area to find atrisk properties and remediate as nessisary (i.e. the grants they have given out)

not sure how it works in the us but in the uk ibm would be safe.

anyone else read the title and immediately assume that some bored superhero went to an ibm office and left his super suit there? Must be a friday...

Seems to me in cases like this there's always an element of trial by media. Before one can presume guilt or innocence, it's necessary to review all the available evidence, and hear both sides of the story. That's why we've got courts and juries.

In my experience IBM is a highly ethical and responsible company and I would be extremely surprised if they were found to have acted improperly in this case.

There is a chemical plant on the hill above my house, and I got XYZ illness, what else could it be? Statistical clustering? Pah.

I may be in the unique position of actually having worked at the endicott site before IBM sold it (in IT) and also read the Reg. While IBM may be able to show on paper that they took all precautions with those chemicals, the truth is they still made it into the ground water for the area. It doesn't matter if it was accidental or because someone wasn't following process. IBM is responsible. No other company in the area used those chemicals. To be fair, while statistically the cancer rates are a little higher, I couldn't say if it is directly related to that or not.

Some have speculated that this is the reason IBM decided to sell the site. It was the birth place of IBM. Some of the buildings are considered to be historical. The site was still turning a profit even though Gershner tried for ten years to close it by constantly cutting it's resources. Personally I thought selling was a big mistake (one of many they have made since that time) and they should have kept ownership of at least the Watson school. For those of you who used to work at other sites, the Watson school was the clock tower building image they used on the badges.

Anyway, it's an even bet that IBM will get out of the suite. They have a lot of money to work with. I also suspect part of this suite was caused by people still being angry IBM left the area.

Two things unfortunately in plentiful supply over here.

Put 'em together and prepare to pay yet more to give others their windfall in the "sue the bastards" lottery.

The name of the former CEO of IBM (at least I am assuming you are referring to the man that turned IBM from a caring and responsible corporate citizen into just another big company) is called (Lou) Gerstner.

The Toxic Avenger usually sticks to New Jersey.