The impact of Bisphenol A in indoor air and dust on children’s health in schools near plastic factories

Indoor Air Cartoon Journal, January 2023, Volume 6, #138

[Cite as: Fadeyi MO (2023). The impact of Bisphenol A in indoor air and dust on children’s health in schools near plastic factories. Indoor Air Cartoon Journal, January 2023, Volume 6, #138.]


The unethical practices of a company whose priority was to maximise money it made from its business activities to the detriment of indoor air quality (IAQ) and the health of people near the company’s factories went unnoticed for many years. The company was ready to silence anyone that challenged its unethical practices. The selflessness of a woman in ensuring the company’s contributions to poor IAQ and human health problems ceased, and seeking justice for her parents is the subject of this short fiction story.


Frank Sydney, an environmental sustainability enthusiast with a computer science background, was married to Monica Sydney, a mathematics professor, and they had a daughter, Sophia Sydney. Frank and Monica had a happy, loving, and peaceful marriage, and Sophia was a dutiful daughter and excelled in her studies. Frank and Monica loved their daughter so much, and Sophia loved her parents so much too. The family lived in Tamerous. Tamerous was a state in a country called Maosum.

Frank had recently joined a multinational plastic production company called Plasma Plastics as a principal data analyst for the company’s newly formed environmental impact monitoring (EIM) department. Marcus Bruno headed the department. The CEO and Chairman of the company specially chose Marcus, his right-hand man. Don Terry was the CEO and Chairman.

The decision to form the department was due to information the company got from a sympathetic source in the state general hospital. The once poorly funded and dilapidated state general hospital was now a highly funded and well-equipped hospital due to the generous funding from Plasma Plastics. Plasma Plastics also funded many hospitals in the state. Such a philanthropy act made the company very popular in the country, especially in Tamerous, where the company’s headquarters and factories were located. Don also had political power due to the philanthropy act of his company.

The source told Plasma Plastics that many children studying in schools near the company’s factories were being hospitalised for unknown sicknesses. The source said a high concentration of Bisphenol A, with the main source known to be plastic production, was found in the blood of all the admitted children. It was also revealed that staff in these schools had the same fate. Plasma Plastics, which had not invested any resources to monitor the potential impact of its operations on the environment and people in the vicinity of the company, wanted to have relevant data to inform necessary cover-up actions.

The EIM department was tasked to regularly conduct indoor air quality (IAQ) in schools in the state where the company’s factories were situated. With the support of the state general hospital, Plasma Plastics also conducted regular medical check-ups for the students and staff of the schools free of charge. Thus, the medical check-up was very popular and well-received even among the children’s parents. The medical check-up also included taking urine samples from students and staff with the promise of helping to improve their health or preventing health problems.

Data were not collected for residential buildings in the vicinity as it would be difficult to get permission from the building owners or occupants to conduct regular IAQ audits in their buildings. In addition to the provision of free regular medical check-ups, Plasma Plastics could get the support of the schools’ principals because the instruction to participate in the IAQ audits came from the state ministry of education. Plasma Plastics regularly supported the state ministry of education activities.

As part of the plan to have control over the activities in the state and be able to build more factories in the state with little or no pushback from people in the state, Plasma Plastics had funded many of the state ministry of education’s projects, which included the renovation and refurbishment of dilapidated schools in the state. They also supported other state government agencies. The power and favouritism Plasma Plastics had gained in the city made it easier for them to collect the needed data without anyone knowing and with no pushback.

Frank, who thought they were collecting the data for a good reason, analysed all the collected data diligently. The analysed data suggested that the current and future health of students and staff in schools in the vicinity of the company’s factories were in serious jeopardy, and it would continue to be so if no action was taken to limit the exposure to pollutants, especially Bisphenol A, generated from the company’s factories. The factories had polluted air and dust in the classrooms of schools near them.

Frank raised his findings with his boss, Marcus, several times with the hope that he would take the issue to Don Terry to facilitate necessary intervention to reduce the risk of health problems Bisphenol A could cause, especially to children in the studied schools. Frank went to meet Don to discuss his findings with him when he realised Marcus was not interested in doing anything or raising the issue to the level of the CEO. Frank could not understand why Marcus was not interested in taking proactive action to solve the highlighted problems from his analysis.

After many attempts, Don granted Frank and invited Marcus and other senior management personnel to participate in the meeting. The meeting was held in the morning, around 8.30 am. Frank laid down all the facts, naively believing Don, who was not really paying attention, would take him seriously and give directives for intervention to start immediately.

Very soon in the meeting, with Marcus and other personnel at the meeting smiling by the side, it became clear to Frank that the decision to cover up the data and findings from their environmental impact investigations and not to take any intervention was directly from Don. The creation of the EIM department and its activities were just a smoke. The department’s creation and other philanthropy efforts were in case of any legal issues that may arise from their pollution of the environment. Plasma Plastics was ready to do anything to protect its multi-billion dollars business.

Frank, who was very emotional, and could not control his feeling about the impact the company’s factories were having on people in the vicinity, suddenly told Don, in the presence of people at the meeting, that he would be submitting his resignation letter the same day after all his morality admonition to Don and others fell on deaf ears. I cannot be part of this unethical practice,” Frank said angrily. “No problem. Please proceed,” Don said with a smiley face.

Are you sure about this decision you are making, Frank?” Don asked. “Yes! I am very sure. I can’t live with this anymore. In fact, I am using this opportunity to advise the company to take ethical intervention as soon as possible before people outside the company know about the unethical practice going on in this company. I have to save people from this company,” Frank said emotionally without any control.

Don took this statement from Frank as a direct threat to his multi-billion-dollar company. “Let me give you a departing advice, Frank. It seems you lack one. Be careful of what you say and do,” Don advised. People at the meeting were surprised about Frank’s emotional outburst. A moment later, Frank left the meeting room and went to his office to write his resignation letter and pack his things. Other senior management at the meeting also left, except Marcus, who Don told to wait.

“Marcus, ensure Frank submits all company physical and intellectual properties in his possession before he leaves this building today,” Don instructed Marcus. “Yes, boss!” Marcus replied like a dutiful servant. Don then signalled to Marcus to come closer and whispered something in his ear. “Yes, boss! I will set the action in motion immediately,” Marcus said affirmatively to what Don was whispering into his ear while nodding his head in agreement.

Frank prepared and submitted his resignation letter to the head of human resources and left the company without saying bye to his boss, Marcus. When Frank got home, he met his parents, who had come for a 2-week holiday visit and were returning home to their country many miles away from Maosum. Frank was a citizen of Maosum. He was a citizen of Westland, while his wife, Monica, was a citizen of Maosum.

Frank’s parents were travelling home with their granddaughter, Sophia, a citizen of Westland. Sophia was going to Westland to start her undergraduate studies in environmental chemistry at the University of Belmont, Westland. The University of Belmont was consistently in the top 10 university ranking then.

Frank and Monica sent Frank’s parents and Sophia to the airport. At the airport, Frank gave a thumb drive to his father to keep for him. When his father asked him what was inside the thumb drive, Frank told his father the information in the thumb drive was work-related and would tell him more about it when he visited Westland in three months. Frank did not tell his parent he had resigned from his place of work.

Frank and Monica returned home from the airport around 9 pm. Frank told his wife, Monica, what happened at the office after they finished their dinner. Monica was not very surprised as she knew the background story. Frank told his wife he would start looking for a new job the next day. Frank, who also had a Ph.D. degree like his wife, decided to return to university. Frank, who was very idealistic in his approach, was a computer science professor before he decided to leave academia for the industry.

At around 10.30 pm, when Frank and Monica were preparing to go to bed, they had a big bang on their living room door. Before Frank and his wife got to the living room, the door was forcefully opened by a gang whose mission was to kill. Marcus had sent the gang under the order of Don, the CEO and Chairman of Plasma Plastics, as he felt Frank threatened his multi-billion-dollar company.

The gang told Frank we are here to keep your mouth shut forever. Both Frank and Monica were severely beaten before they were shot to death. Before killing them, the gang leader told Frank that his stubbornness to cooperate with the company would make him and his wife lose their life. Frank begged that his wife should be spared. However, the gang had been instructed to kill Frank and any witnesses. Sophia could have also been killed if it was not for her travel with her grandparents to Westland. Before leaving Frank’s house, the gang made the crime scene look like a robbery scene.

Frank’s parents learned about Frank and Monica’s death a few hours after they arrived home after their long journey from Maosum to Westland. They got to know when Sophia screamed very loudly from her room. Sophia got a call from one of her friends who told her what had happened. Monica’s parents had been trying to get in touch with them to no avail.

Frank’s parents, who were already in their seventies, broke down but had to pick themselves up quickly for the sake of Sophia, who was really traumatised. They booked a flight and travelled back to Tamerous, Maosum with Sophia, to know what really happened and discuss with Monica’s parents, who were also in their seventies, the burier arrangements of Frank and Monica.

Police told Frank and Monica’s families that it was a bribery got wrong, and they were already investigating to catch the perpetrators. Unfortunately, as Don had a strong influence on the corrupt police and authorities in the state at that time, nothing came out of the so-called investigation. There was nothing the parents of Frank and Monica could do. They just accepted their fates, especially when they received death threats. They were told they would be next if they did not let things rest. At that time, it became very clear to Frank and Monica’s parents that the police could not be trusted, and if they liked their lives, they had to move on and live for the sake of Sophia.

On the anniversary of the death of Frank and his wife, while thinking of Frank, Frank’s father suddenly remembered that Frank gave him a thumb drive to keep the same day Frank and his wife were murdered. “How come I never remember the thumb drive Frank gave me until today? What could be in that thumb drive? Where did I put it?” Frank’s father thought to himself.

Frank’s father called his wife and Sophia to help look for the thumb drive together. After several minutes of searching, they eventually found it, to their relief. In the thumb drive was a video of Frank talking about his experience with the impact Plasma Plastics is having on the indoor air of buildings, including schools, and the health of people in the vicinity of their factories. Frank also talked about the effort he had made to convince Don, Marcus, and other leaders in the company to take corrective intervention to reduce the harm Plasma Plastics is causing, but no actions were taken.

There were also audio recordings he had secretly recorded when he had meetings with Marcus and the meeting he had with Don in the presence of Marcus and other senior management in the company. In one of the video recordings, Frank said he made the video and recordings in case of any legal case against the company that could implicate him. Also in the thumb drive were raw and analysed data and reports documenting how the company has been polluting the indoor air quality of schools and compromising people’s health with Bisphenol A.

There was even a video of Monica explaining some mathematical concepts to Frank that could help him better analyse his data to predict the risk of classrooms’ indoor air and dust being polluted with Bisphenol A, known to be dangerous to human health. Watching Frank and Monica was very emotional for Frank’s parents and Sophia. They cried and laughed at the same time. Frank’s parents and Sophia chose not to hand over the information to authorities in Tamerous, Maosum, for the sake of their lives and the need for peace of mind. There was also no direct evidence linking Plasma Plastics to the death of Frank and his wife.

Furthermore, knowing how corrupt the police and authority in Tamerous were, handling the information will cause more harm than good. There decided to live on with their peaceful life. They watched the video and listened to the audio anytime they wanted to hear the voice of Frank and Monica. Sophia also used the videos and voice recordings to motivate herself throughout her life, especially during her undergraduate days when the murder of her parents was still very fresh on her mind.

Sophia graduated with First class honours in Environmental Chemistry. Sophia went on to do a Ph.D. and became a professor at a university like her parents. The video recordings of her mother explaining a mathematical concept to her father motivated her to specialise in applied environmental chemistry. In her research, she would use her strong mathematical skills to theorise phenomena and later use experiments or field studies to prove her theories and solve practical problems.

Sophia spent a lot of time during her undergraduate days sharpening her mathematical skills after watching his father’s video recording showing her mother in action displaying her mathematical skills. In essence, her parents were still guiding her even after their death.

At a point in her glorious career, Sophia got a prestigious research grant from the United Nations Environmental Development Programme (UNEDP), as the Lead principal investigator to conduct research on indoor air quality in schools in several countries across the globe. Sophia collaborated with researchers in countries where the studies were conducted. One of the chosen countries was Maosum. Several schools in several states, including Tamerous state, in Maosum, were studied.

To the surprise of all researchers involved, except Sophia, very troubling observations were made in all schools in the vicinity of factories belonging to Plasma Plastics. Sophia observed that the situation was significantly worse than when her dad worked at Plasma Plastics. Sophia did not share his father’s data with anyone.

The findings from Sophia’s funded research quickly made their way to the media when a research paper from the study was published in a prestigious scientific research journal. The findings from Sophia and her research team became breaking news televised across the country and beyond. The breaking news went like this ….

“The decline in children’s health in schools near plastic factories in the district has been attributed to their exposure to Bisphenol A (BPA for short) emitted during the production of plastics containing BPA synthetic polymers in the factories. The emitted BPA in the factories found its way into the schools’ classrooms.”

“The researchers … found a high concentration of BPA in the students’ urine samples. They found that an increase in the concentration of BPA in the children’s urine samples correlates with the increase in its concentration in the schools’ indoor air and dust.”

“The high concentration of BPA in the urine samples indicated its high concentration in the children’s blood, which increases the children’s risk of suffering from developmental disorders, metabolic disorders, mental diseases, cancer, compromised liver, kidney, and immune functions, and compromised reproductive systems. BPA’s multi-system toxicity effect is due to BPA binding with human receptors, interfering with enzyme function, and inducing DNA strand break and other DNA physiological functions.”

The news caused a major uproar across the country. Many parents that had children in the schools were very worried that the health of their children had been compromised and their children’s health could further deteriorate. Parents who did not have children in the schools but were considering enrolling them in the school started looking for alternative arrangements.

Such parents were Mr. and Mrs. Williams. “OMG! Darling! That is the state we intend to buy our first property and move in with our kids to live and find schools for them. Oh, darling! We must stop the idea of buying our property in that place to reduce our kids’ risk of experiencing a similar fate,” said Mr. Williams.

“I can’t believe this! Why did the authority allow this to happen to kids? It seems to them that the benefits of plastic production exceed the risk of harm the production would cause kids. What am I even saying? Was the risk level of having schools near plastic factories even analysed and monitored to inform necessary intervention, or was the focus just on making money….?” said Mrs. Williams.

A group of concerned parents filed a lawsuit against Plasma Plastics. Mrs. Williams, who was a lawyer, was chosen to be the lawyer. Mrs. Williams was a lawyer who specialised in environmental law. The parents got to know about Mrs. Williams through Sophia. Mrs. Williams (known by her first name, Isabella) was Sophia’s childhood friend from high school, and they still maintained contact.

For several days, lawyers for the plaintiff and defendant presented evidence and questioned witnesses and subject experts from both sides. Sophia shared with the plaintiff’s lawyer, Mrs. William, the video and audio recordings and documents made by her father.

Sophia also used her mathematical skills to prove how emissions from the factories owned by Plasma Plastics worsened the health of students and staff in the schools near the factories from when her father analysed the data collected by plastic Plasma to the present moment of her studies. She also predicted how the affected people’s health could worsen if Plasma Plastics were not taken to task for their unethical practices.

The mathematical analysis done by Sophia, a Professor of Environmental Chemistry, was verified to be accurate by several subject experts whom professional services the plaintiff’s lawyer, Mrs. Williams, sought. Mrs. Williams used this information to prove to the court the unethical practices Plasma Plastics had been practicing for several years.

Mrs. Williams said instead of Plasma Plastic making interventions, when they were aware of the impact of their factories’ production on people in the vicinity, they decided to cover the problem and forced the person, Frank Sydney, that cared about making interventions, to resign.

Mrs. Williams said it would be of interest to the court that Frank Sydney and his wife, Professor Monica Sydney, were killed in their house the night of the day he resigned from Plasma Plastics. Upon hearing, the lawyer defending Plasma Plastic stood up and said, “objection!” The defendant’s lawyer said the point made by Mrs. Williams on the death of Mr. Frank Sydney and his wife was irrelevant to the case at hand. “What was the plaintiff’s lawyer trying to insinuate?” The defendant’s lawyer asked rhetorically.

Mrs. Williams, “interjected by saying I am making a point on the extent of cover-up Plasma Plastic went through so that they would not have to make interventions that could have improved the health and wellbeing of people living, working, and studying in the vicinity of the factories. The presiding judge cautioned Mrs. William to go straight to the point and make her case very fast on the statement she brought up. The presiding judge then said overrule to the defendant’s lawyer.

Mrs. Williams said to the court if it pleased you the court, I would like to call Mrs. Johnson to the stand. Mrs. Johnson was the wife of one of the gang members that claimed his gang killed Frank and his wife. Unfortunately, her husband was already dead before the court proceedings.

Mrs. Johnson only learnt about her husband’s criminal activities, including the claimed killing of Frank and Monica, when he was on his deathbed after the gang had an accident on their way back from one of their criminal activities claimed to be on behalf of Don. Mrs. Johnson held Don responsible for the death of her husband and had been looking for an opportunity to get back at him.

Mrs. Johnson provided evidence of how Don, now the company’s chairman, and Marcus, his right-hand man, now the CEO, orchestrated the killings. Mr. Johnson told his wife, Mrs. Johnson, where he kept all the incriminating evidence before he gave up the ghost but told her to be careful and not go after Don, as he was a very dangerous man with political power.

The defendant’s lawyer told the court that this was not a murder trial and that no one from Plasma Plastic had ever been charged with any murder or cover-up. He said the court proceedings should focus on the civil case at hand. The defendant’s lawyer argued that Plasma Plastics had better the lives of many people in the state and beyond. He provided evidence of the company’s effort to improve IAQ in the classrooms and the company’s other philanthropic efforts.

To counter the argument made by the defendant’s lawyer, Mrs. Williams argued that Plasma Plastics distributed very cheap and very inefficient air cleaners as part of their cover-up effort to blindside people of how they were damaging their health. To further buttress her case, Mrs. Williams invited a risk management subject expert, Professor Adam Teo, to explain how Plasma Plastics significantly increased the risk level of poor health occurrence, especially in children studying in schools in the vicinity.

Mrs. Williams wanted to prove that the company’s factories contributed to the increase in the probability of the classrooms’ indoor air being harmful. She also wanted to prove students’ and staff’s vulnerability level and how it affected the impact of harm on them to establish the risk level. The following statements were extracted from Professor Teo’s testimony.


Mathematically, risk can be expressed as the multiplication of the probability of a hazard causing harm with the level of vulnerability determining the speed at which harm and the impact of the harm (damage caused) can occur. “For simplicity’s sake, risk = hazard x vulnerability,” Harm is the compromise to the properties or the structure that make something or someone valuable. The outcome, i.e., the impact of the harm, is the extent to which the value of that something or someone has been diminished. What or who is experiencing the harm and the impact of the harm is considered vulnerable.

The manner a risk statement is constructed matters a lot. The way the wording of a risk to be assessed is constructed will determine what or who the hazard is and who or whose vulnerability needs to be analysed. Suppose a risk statement is constructed as the risk involved in the classrooms’ occupants experiencing health problems caused by the classroom’s indoor air. In that case, the indoor air will be a potential hazard, and the potential vulnerability of the occupants needs to be analysed.

As many people in the court are not risk assessment experts, to help them understand, I will provide an example anyone can easily understand. Someone throwing a punch and the punch thrown is a hazard. When the punch hits someone, the compromise the punch does to the structure of a jaw is the harm that has occurred because of the hazard. The impact of the harm will be the extent to which the broken jaw cannot render the value expected of it.

The probability of a thrown punch causing harm will be a function of the person’s (Hazard) knowledge, understanding, strength, speed, skill capability, and motivation. The person receiving the punch on the jaw is the vulnerable one. The person’s vulnerability is due to exposure to the person throwing the punch and the thrown punch. If the person is not exposed to the person and the thrown punch or dodged the punch entirely, harm and the impact of the harm will not occur.

Vulnerability of the person could also be due to the relatively weak jaw that cannot withstand the thrown punch, thereby making harm occur and increasing the extent to which the jaw will not be of value again, i.e., the impact of the harm. Vulnerability of the person can also be due to the inability of the person to protect his or her jaw from getting in contact with the punch.

Basically, vulnerability is lacking something that can provide protection from the harm the hazard can probably cause or lacking something that can aid avoidance of the hazard. Vulnerability can also be characterised by needing or wanting something that consequentially facilitates something or someone to be exposed to a hazard and could potentially experience harm and the impact of the harm. The higher the extent of the lack, deficiency, need, or want, the higher the vulnerability level.

A risk level is broadly categorised into negligible, tolerable, and unacceptable risk. An increase in the probability of harm occurring from a hazard and/or an increase in vulnerability level will the risk level from negligible risk towards the direction of unacceptable risk. Risk assessment is done to gain awareness of whether an action to be taken is worth taking. If the benefits of engaging in such a task outweigh the risk level, it is worth pursuing it. It is important to note that what is considered a benefit can be subjective.

To further increase the extent to which the benefit outweighed the risk level involved, a risk assessment should be done to determine what problems to solve to reduce the risk level. This will involve solving problems to reduce the probability of harm from the hazard. It will also involve solving problems to reduce the vulnerability level. What is considered a problem? A problem is a gap in performance.

To determine a gap in performance, an expected performance to be adhered to or achieved, i.e., the goal, and the current performance being achieved should be known. The difference is the gap to be bridged. In a risk assessment, the overall purpose of the risk assessment should be known. A purpose statement is a statement of a defined problem to be solved to achieve a goal.

With this basic understanding, let me contextualise the risk to the issue in this court. Indoor air and dust containing BPA are hazards. The modification of human systems is the harm caused by indoor air and dust containing BPA. Health problem resulting from the modification of human systems is the impact.

The probability of harm occurring from the classroom’s indoor air and dust, potential hazards, could be rated to be rare, unlikely, possible, likely, or almost certain to occur. The higher the quantity of toxic BPA chemical pollutants that finds their way into the per unit volume of the classroom’s indoor air and dust, the higher the rating of the probability of harm occurring to move from rare to almost certain to occur.

The higher the vulnerability of the occupants, the higher would be the harm and the impact of the harm. That is, a higher vulnerability could move the impact from negligible to minor to moderate to severe to catastrophic consequence. Death is an example of a catastrophic situation in this context.

The contributing factors that introduce pollutants into indoor air at a rate faster than it is removed from the indoor air will increase the probability of indoor air and dust being a hazard. The factors could be of outdoor and/or indoor origin. As evidence provided in this court suggests, outdoor sources, i.e., Plasma Plastics factories, are the sources of BPA that made the classrooms’ indoor air and dust a hazard.

In this context of the outdoors being the main source of the BPA and associated pollutants, appropriate engineering practices, e.g., appropriate ventilation rate, filtration, and air cleaners, should be adopted to provide protection that reduces vulnerability. These engineering practices are supposed to make the rate at which BPA and other associated pollutants were removed from indoor air faster than the rate at which they were introduced into it. If the engineering solutions were effective, the contamination of indoor air dust would be effectively minimised.

Unfortunately, the engineering practices adopted in the schools near the company’s factory were not effective. This could be partly due to the schools not knowing the “pollutants” they were exposed to and could not make an informed decision to adopt appropriate mitigating strategies. Thus, students and staff’s vulnerability due to exposure increased due to the lack of or deficiency in the required engineering practices.

The lack of or deficiency in protection from exposure to BPA and associated pollutants will potentially increase the amount of harm (modification of bodily systems), thereby increasing the impact and shifting the impact rating from negligible in the direction of catastrophic. Deficiency in the immune system of occupants will further increase the speed at which the impact rating shift from negligible to catastrophic.

The need or want to improve IAQ urgently may force occupants to use IAQ solutions that introduce more BPA into indoor air and dust, i.e., resulting in increased vulnerability due to exposure when students and staff were present in the class. For example, opening windows to facilitate ventilation for improving indoor air quality in the case of the schools near Plasma Plastics factories will introduce BPA into the classrooms’ indoor air at a rate faster than the ventilation can remove BPA air pollutants.

Another example was using cheap and ineffective air-cleaning solutions that plasma plastic regularly gave to the schools in the community as part of the company’s philanthropism. While doing a very poor job of removing BPA from the indoor air, such ineffective IAQ solutions may have introduced pollutants other than BPA that compromised the immune system of the occupants in the classrooms and increased the impact made by BPA present in the indoor air and dust.

As I mentioned earlier, being clear about the purpose is very important. Suppose the purpose is defined solely in the context of making money, and the adverse impacts on the environment and humans are relegated to unimportant. In that case, the risk assessment exercise will focus mainly on how to avert the occurrence of low revenue for the company, even if it is to the detriment of the environment and humans.

The company’s standard of practice (SOP) made available to the court showed the risk of the company infringing on the healthiness of the environment and people were not given the due diligence they deserved, and making more money was the only priority.

Such unethical practice suggests Plasma Plastic defined problems to suit efforts to increase money only. Such practice can make a company like Plasma Plastics consider an investment in reducing the risk of environmental and human damage to their pursuit of economic benefits.


The testimony of Prof. Teo did great damage to the case of Plasma Plastics. In giving her closing statement to the court. Mrs. Williams emphasised the importance of setting their priority right. She said it was evident from the evidence her team has provided and testimonies from the witnesses and subject experts that the health of the children and staff of the schools was never a priority for Plasma Plastics, and it was never going to be. She said Plasma Plasma deliberately damaged the health of children and staff, believing they were above the law.

At the end of all proceedings, the court found Plasma Plastics guilty. Plasma Plastics was ordered to pay multi-billion dollars to compensate the affected schools’ children and staff, create a trust fund to fund measures that will provide effective protection from BPA exposures, and contribute to the payment of medical bills of the affected students and staff.

The objective data collected by the research team led by Sophia and her father’s video and audio recordings and research data she provided to the plaintiff’s lawyer and the court was significantly instrumental in convicting Plasma Plastics.

Plasma Plastics was also prevented from filing for bankruptcy until all the financial penalties ordered by the court were made. The penalties ordered by the court and the negative publicity bankrupted Plasma Plastics, and the company ceased to exist in no time.

In another court proceeding, Don and Marcus were sent to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Don and Marcus died in prison due to natural causes within 5 to 10 years of starting their prison sentences.

Sophia was not only able to find justice for students and staff of affected schools, but her selflessness also helped bring her parents’ killers to justice. Sophia’s selflessness was to the delight of her paternal and maternal grandparents, who lived long enough to know their children’s killers and see them punished for the crime. Sophia’s selflessness also made Mrs. Williams a highly sought-after lawyer in the country. The End.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s