| Title Page Previous Next Contents | Part 3. Was environmental health protected on 9/11? Whistleblowers, watchdogs and wee little people >Local mistrust |
Months before, many had decided to move out, some on the
advice of doctors. A former resident of Battery Park, Steve Swaney, for example,
moved because of his wife’s respiratory ailments and his own anxieties. “You
can’t tell me or people in this neighborhood that there’s nothing in the air,”
he said at the time. “Anybody with a kid still living down here is nuts.” So
few children were left in the complex that the day care center was on the verge
of closing.
Congressman Nadler charged that EPA had
“created a full-scale crisis of public confidence.”
Another New Yorker, Diane Miller, who up until recently lived in a co-op
apartment two blocks away from the disaster site, delayed returning to her home
in the financial district. She considered herself one of the fortunate, having
friends who could loan her places to stay while the dust settled. An
asthmatic and mother of an infant boy, she said, “I don’t need to have an
official designation of whether it’s safe or not. If I’m in a place with bad
air and I’m coughing all the time, I leave,” said Miller.
Yet many thousands returned to their homes and offices,
because the official word was that the environment was totally safe.
Four months after the disaster, noted the Congressional
Research Service, in a report entitled Federal Disaster Policies after
Terrorist Strikes, “residents and workers in the area continued to report
respiratory difficulties and related problems,” begging the question of whether
public agencies failed to protect the health of the general public and first
responders. (14)
Some critics charge that the EPA failed to protect the
public and first responders “by issuing inconsistent and misleading statements
about the safety of air quality in the vicinity of the WTC,” the CRS report
notes. Indeed, some information on hazards was delayed for weeks, making it
less useful to people concerned.
Among the most outspoken critics was Rep. Jerrold Nadler
(D-N.Y.), who charged that EPA and other agencies had failed in their public
health mission.
“It has
now been exactly five months since the terrorist attacks and, unfortunately,
the people in Lower Manhattan still do not know whether or not it is safe to
live and work in the area,” Nadler testified before the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works/ Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, and Climate
Change on February 11, 2002, in hearings covering the “ Impact of the September
11th Attack on Air Quality and Public Health in Lower Manhattan.” (15)
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has failed in its
mission to "protect human health and to safeguard the natural
environment," the congressman charged, “by not exercising its full
authority to test and clean all indoor spaces where people live and work.” In a
“white paper” on the issue, the congressman said that the agency had “created a
full-scale crisis of public confidence. (16)
But don’t people in a community have a right to be
protected, or told if they may be potentially adversely affected by release of
hazardous chemicals? Don’t emergency personnel need immediate information so
they can protect themselves from short or long-term health impacts? And doesn’t
the general public need health risk information so that they can make choices
about personal protection, or leave the area if need be?
Even those who head into danger, mindful of
occupational hazards, in time want access to timely and accurate information about
health and safety.
According to the CRS report, the answers to all these
questions are yes. “Because information about health risks can be
provided only by environmental and public health experts, government officials
with expertise arguably have a responsibility to make such information
available to the affected public.”
That’s the case for emergency responders too. Even those
head into danger, mindful of occupational hazards, in time want access to
timely and accurate information about health and safety. Studies show that lack of knowledge about
the hazards at the World Trade Center contributed to the rescue workers’
stresses.(1)
“Responders respond and they go to work right away, with or
without information,” a panelist at a conference on protecting emergency
responders told conferees. “What kills rescue responders is the unknown.”
Hundreds of firefighters, police and other first responders were lost at the
World Trade Center because they weren’t made aware of deadly hazards. Another
law-enforcement panelist remarked, “With cops, it’s a real simple mantra: ‘If
you don’t give me information, I will give you a rumor.’ And rumors will spread
faster than information.” (2)