Hats were made of rabbit fur. Australia had millions of bunny rabbits, which were killed and skinned. The fur was scraped off and shipped to Danbury.
Coning the hats was difficult because the fur was stiff. Company moguls hired a chemist who experimented and found that mercury softened the material and made the process easy.
But there was a heavy price to be paid. Hatters were directly exposed and contaminated by the vats of a mercury mixture. Insidiously, their neurological system commenced to suffer. They could no longer work because they developed what came to be known as "Hatters' Shake." The expression "Mad as a Hatter" was one description for the debilitating condition.
Time passed, love passed, life passed but the hatting legacy remains in the form of mercury poisoning that does not pass.
The city of Danbury acquired a plot of land that was permeated with mercury from a former hat factory. Grant money was secured to pay for an experiment.
Genetically altered cottonwood saplings were planted. Their roots would suck the mercury from the soil, a process that's called phyto-remediation. Months later, they would be replaced by new trees.
Now a legal immigrant family of woodchucks is living there underground among the sucking roots. Will the mercury poisoning legacy strike again? Will a famous Danbury animal activist stage a rescue before the little furry paws start a neurological quivering and shaking? Will the $55,000 EPA research grant cover liability and ancillary ramifications?
This should be considered one of the best letters to the editor of the year...the not-so old timers know EXACTLY what this person is talking about and why EVERYONE should attend EIC and Planning and Zoning meetings.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
