[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
9/11 See other 9/11 Articles Title: Thousands of 9/11 First Responders are Now Sick and Dying (Whitman and Guiliani Must Answer Damning Questions) In the week after 9/11, Christie Whitman, the former head of the federal Environmental Protection Agency, assured New Yorkers that "their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink." Today, Whitman will finally face tough questions about those fateful words at a congressional hearing headed by U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-Manhattan). We now know the collapse of the twin towers and the fires which burned for months at Ground Zero triggered the worst toxic release our nation has seen: thousands of tons of asbestos, lead, chromium, benzene, PCBs, dioxins, highly-caustic cement dust and hundreds of other dangerous substances. Nearly six years later, thousands of first responders, recovery workers, residents and downtown workers are sick. Some have died. They are sick and dying in part because Whitman's agency and the Giuliani administration concealed the full extent of the toxic soup in lower Manhattan. Here are 10 questions Whitman must answer about this totally avoidable second tragedy. Question number 1: On Sept. 12, 2001, Whitman and Dr. Ed Kilbourne, an associate administrator at the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), warned government officials against any hasty attempt to reopen the buildings in lower Manhattan. "Sampling data received here in Atlanta from EPA have so far been scanty," Kilbourne wrote in a memo to Dr. Kevin Yeskey, the director of bioterrorism preparedness and response at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. His memo was responding to an urgent White House request for asbestos clean-up guidelines for downtown Manhattan. One of the first five EPA bulk samples from the WTC site contained a "substantial concentration "of asbestos, Kilbourne warned. He said it was "important to characterize how far significant levels of asbestos extend before allowing unrestricted access by unprotected individuals." Did you read a copy of Dr. Kilbourne's memo. Did anyone from EPA make you aware of his warning? Question number 2: Did any top scientist at the EPA or elsewhere in government urge similar caution before reopening lower Manhattan to the public? Question number 3: On Sept. 13, 2001, you told a New York television station: "Everything we're getting back from the sampling that we're doing is below background levels. There is not a reason for the general public to be concerned." But the earliest tests your agency did in lower Manhattan between Sept. 11-13 showed nearly 25% of dust samples had asbestos levels greater than the government's 1% action standard for dust. EPA didn't begin regular outdoor air monitoring until Sept. 14. The only air tests your agency could have had for Sept. 12 and 13, before your TV statement, were from New York City's Department of Environmental Protection. Of 10 air samples the city took during those days, initial testing showed seven with dangerous asbestos levels - above the .01 fibers per cubic centimeter standard. Given those early test results by the EPA and the city, how could you possibly tell the public on Sept. 13 that "everything" was "below background levels?" Question number 4: Since caustic dust poses an immediate danger to the respiratory system, EPA and OSHA regulations require immediate field testing during environmental emergencies for high alkaline levels in dust to protect emergecy responders. EPA did not release results for alkalinity until six months after 9/11. Did EPA follow regulations and do alkalinity testing in the first week after the attack? If so, why were those test results never publicly released? Question number 5: If not, why not? Question number 6: Like most New Yorkers, you no doubt saw news reports of workers and visitors to Ground Zero walking around without proper respiratory protection. Since your agency had legal responsibility for all environmental concerns, what did you do to enforce greater protection to workers on The Pile? Question number 7: The EPA Inspector General's report concluded in August 2003 that staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality rewrote agency press releases to downplay possible environmental health dangers in lower Manhattan. Did you tell the White House that non-health professionals were removing health advisories from your agency's public statements? Question number 8: Why did EPA let tens of thousands of people return to homes and jobs in lower Manhattan without a way to verify whether building owners had properly removed all toxic contamination from inside their buildings? Question number 9: Are you prepared to unequivocably tell the workers and residents of lower Manhattan their homes and offices are free of any 9/11 contaminated dust? Question number 10: Finally, Richard Clarke, our country's former counterterrorism czar, has claimed that on the evening of Sept. 11, President Bush told him and several other White House staff members: "I want the economy back, open for business right away, banks, the stock market, everything tomorrow." When the President was told there was too much physical damage in lower Manhattan, Clarke recalls Bush saying: "As soon as we get the rescue operations done up there, shift everything to fixing that damage so we can reopen." Did you have any discussions with the President or any of his closest White House aides about the potential public health danger of reopening the financial district too quickly, and if so, what was their response?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
Related story: Rudy and Christie cat fight. RUDY MEN IN WTC HEALTH HIT AT CHRISTIE By ANGELA MONTEFINISE NY Post June 24, 2007 -- Accusations by former Environmental Protection Agency head Christie Todd Whitman that the city is at fault for health hazards at Ground Zero are "ridiculous," according to representatives for former mayor Rudy Giuliani. "This is revisionist history," said Giuliani's former deputy mayor Joe Lhota. "She's making this stuff up." In an interview with Channel 4's News Forum set to air today, Whitman said the city - which was in charge of safety at Ground Zero - did not monitor workers properly, allowing them to work on "the pile" without respirators. "We had some disagreements with some of the things that were occurring on 'the pile' . . . like not having people wear respirators. We wanted more emphasis on that," Whitman said in the interview. Lhota said the city did everything it could to protect workers, and dismissed Whitman's claims the city ignored her warnings. Whitman - who will be on the hot seat during a congressional hearing tomorrow - also claimed the city refused to allow EPA workers to wear hazmat suits when responding to an anthrax attack. Lhota called the claims "completely untrue" and "baseless." "Every effort was made by Mayor Giuliani and his staff to ensure the safety of all workers at Ground Zero in the aftermath of this unprecedented act of terror," Lhota said. "No one from the city ever tried to block the Environmental Protection Agency." But lawyers representing 10,000 sick 9/11 first responders in a class-action suit said Giuliani and the city are absolutely to blame. "Whitman is no saint," said attorney Paul Napoli. "But when it came to responsibility for the workers, it was Giuliani . . . The responsibility falls squarely on his shoulders." David Worby - another attorney for the 9/11 workers - agreed that Giuliani was "more at fault" than Whitman for a lack of respirators and monitoring. "Really, they're both at fault," Worby said, adding the city "did not enforce anything."
The excuse will be ignorance. Nevermind that anybody with a mind could comprehend that tons of crushed and powdered concrete, steel, asbestos, plastics, silicon, metals, polyfabrics and carpets would create one hell of a toxic brew. I remember when Whitman and Guili both reassured the public there was no threat. I don't remember any knowledgeable skepticism from the press at that announcement.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|
||