| Title Page Previous Next Contents | Part 3. Was environmental health protected on 9/11? Whistleblowers, watchdogs and wee little people >Deeper criticisms |
Today, Thomas Cahill, co-author of the DELTA study faults
EPA for failing to realize the serious repercussions of the World Trade Center
on the urban environment.
“They did a marvelous job at first, racing in with great
bravery into the smoldering pile,” says Cahill. “But the agencies involved
should have realized that this was not a typical building collapse, especially
with the huge volume of building materials on the pile continuously burning.”
It wasn’t so much that they didn’t do things right as that
they did things too much by the book, failing to get beyond the standard
measurements under the clean air act, and failing to recognize how
extraordinary this ‘pollution event’ was.
“It’s like that line from the film Casablanca.
‘Round up the usual suspects!’ But the
usual suspects weren’t the problem, Cahill says.
In a survey done in May 2002 regarding public
health issues following September 11, residents of lower Manhattan expressed
more concern about air quality than they did about another terrorist attack.
Cahill believes that the volume of dust, the high particulate
counts, the fineness of the dust, and most importantly, the final aerosols in
the anaerobic fire under ‘the pile’ that caused the most danger to the public
in releasing unprecedented levels of carcinogens.
“Everyone knew it,” says Cahill. “It was burning
insulation, plastics, in a plume that burned above the pile but also on
numerous occasions rolled across the city.”
On the eve of the second anniversary of September 11, Dr.
Cahill released the conclusions of his study of the fine aerosols sent up into
the air during the catastrophic World Trade Center collapse and fires. In an
article in the scientific journal Aerosol Science and Technology Cahill wrote that breathing the air around
Ground Zero was much like that around a chemical factory. “The WTC plume
resembled in many ways those seen from municipal waste incinerators and high
temperatures processes in coal fired power plants,” he wrote.
Instead of the ordinary measurements they took, the
agencies should have had more imagination to realize the health threats, Cahill
says, adding, “and more common sense.”
People who moved away temporarily, he says, listening to
their inner instincts, were the smart ones, adds Cahill.
Marjorie J. Clarke, a Scientist-in-Residence at Lehman
College, and expert on waste incineration, argues that the synergistic mixtures
of pollutants also need to be considered for the next terrorist event. “The
environmental agencies at all levels need to become more expert in evaluating
the health and environmental effects of various mixtures of pollutants,” she
testified to the Senate Environment Committee. She argues that EPA should
rewrite its air quality standards to assess the impacts of various combinations
of pollutants. This way, she says, there will be standards in place “next time
to know how to protect the public health.”
While scientists debated the fine points of particulates
and their impacts on human health, New Yorkers simply registered great worries
in widely publicized polls and surveys.
In
a survey done by the Mellman Group in May 2002 regarding public health issues
following September 11, residents of lower Manhattan expressed more concern
about air quality than they did about another terrorist attack. Seventy-four
percent (74%) said air pollution was “a big problem” in their community, with
29% saying it is a "very big" problem, according to the market
research company, whose poll was based on a survey of 500 residents living
south of Canal Street in Lower Manhattan.
Indeed, in a very real sense, dust still did lurk in school
carpet, office air vents, and crevices of cars and trucks and people’s
apartments—even after many previous cleanups.
At the same time, new grassroots community organizations
formed to respond to local health concerns. But the 9/11 Environmental Action
Group, calls EPA’s recent efforts to clean apartments “a complete joke.”
Kimberly Flynn, outreach coordinator for the group, says
“First there was the buildup, which took forever, then there was the speedup,
as they rushed to finish up apartments for the few that knew about it.” As a
result, she says, less than 15 percent of eligible residences were actually
served. “There’s still concern about the long term effects and residual dust,”
adds Flynn, who still signs people up at block parties for the group’s
information.
Unfortunately, EPA’s last-ditch efforts to “assuage public
concern,” as they put it, says Flynn, have done the opposite. “If their
communications to the public had been clear and truthful from the beginning,
New Yorkers are very savvy and would have understood the need to weigh relative
risks,” says Flynn. “Can you really lie to people from one of the most
sophisticated cities on the planet?”
It’s hard to undo the negative effects of its early
pronouncements of safety, she says. “That set off a ‘domino effect.’ With that
utterance from Christie Whitman, the Administrator saying ‘all’s safe’ then DOH
was able to say ‘residents are just experiencing temporary irritation’ and FEMA
didn’t have to pay for health-related expenses, and insurance companies were
able to absolve themselves of responsibility.”
But their claim that there would be no short term or
long-term consequences has already been proved wrong, argued Marjorie Clarke.
We can already see the evidence.
Meanwhile, advocates
for rescue workers feared the worst. “ The preliminary results are frightening:
fire fighters, police officers and abatement workers are presenting with onset
of asthma, chronic cough and respiratory irritation, and even GERD (acid
reflux) as a result of the exposures they suffered after the collapse,” wrote Arthur
Scheuerman Battalion Chief FDNY Retired, Former Deputy Chief Instructor Nassau
County Fire Training Academy. “The true effects, on rescue workers, as well as
residents and workers may not become known for decades.
“What
is certain is that the toxicity of the site is far in excess of what was first
disclosed,” wrote Scheuerman, “It is yet another vision of what the Trade
Towers have become.”