News Did the White House Alter EPA Statements on Ground Zero Safety?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tsu
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on allegations that the White House altered EPA reports regarding air quality safety at Ground Zero following the 9/11 attacks. An Inspector General's report revealed that the White House Council on Environmental Quality influenced the EPA's public communications, leading to the inclusion of reassuring statements while omitting cautionary information. This manipulation was reportedly driven by a desire to reopen Wall Street and address national security concerns. Critics argue that these changes compromised public safety, as the EPA's early statements about air quality lacked sufficient data and failed to adequately inform the public about potential health risks from pollutants like asbestos and PCBs. The conversation reflects deep concerns about government transparency and accountability, with participants expressing anger over perceived lies that prioritized economic recovery over citizen health. Some defend the administration's actions as necessary for economic stability, while others emphasize the ethical implications of misleading the public about environmental safety. The thread highlights a clash between public health advocacy and economic pragmatism in the aftermath of a national crisis.
Tsu
Gold Member
Messages
420
Reaction score
63
White House changes EPA reports!

From MSNBC.com

"Inspector general says
White House changed EPA statements about
safety at Ground Zero"

http://msnbc.com/news/961134.asp?0cv=CA01
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You may be interested to read the actual report from the office of the inspectors general, as opposed to be told what it says.

http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/ereading_room/WTC_report_20030821.pdf
 
Originally posted by kat
You may be interested to read the actual report from the office of the inspectors general, as opposed to be told what it says.

http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/ereading_room/WTC_report_20030821.pdf

Quoted from EPA's Response (kat's link):
"Furthermore, the White House Council on Environmental Quality influenced, through the collaboration process, the information that EPA communicated to the public through it's early press releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones."

Hmm...sound a tad bit UNETHICAL to me.

The reason:
[Inspector General Nikki] "Tinsley said, “We were told that a desire to reopen Wall Street and national security concerns were the reasons for changing the press releases.”"

Not a good enough reason, IMHO.

(and WHAT national security concerns??)
 
Originally posted by kat
You may be interested to read the actual report from the office of the inspectors general, as opposed to be told what it says.

http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/ereading_room/WTC_report_20030821.pdf

EPA’s early public statements following the collapse of the WTC towers reassured the public regarding the safety of the air outside the Ground Zero area. However, when EPA made a September 18 announcement that the air was “safe” to breathe, it did not have sufficient data and analyses to make such a blanket statement. At that time, air monitoring data was lacking for several pollutants of
concern, including particulate matter and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Furthermore, The White House Council on Environmental Quality influenced, through the collaboration process, the information that EPA communicated to the public through its early press releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones.
- P5

As a result of the White House CEQ’s influence, guidance for cleaning indoor spaces and information about the potential health effects from WTC debris were not included in EPA’s issued press releases.
- P14


EPA’s early statements reassured the public regarding the safety of the air outside the Ground Zero perimeter area. However, when EPA made a September 18 announcement that the air was “safe” to breathe, the Agency did not have
sufficient data and analyses to make the statement. The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) influenced, through the collaboration process, the information that EPA communicated to the public through its early press releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones. Conclusions from an EPA draft risk evaluation completed over a year after the
attacks have tended to support EPA’s statements about long-term health effects when all necessary qualifications are considered. However, EPA’s statements about air quality did not contain these qualifications. (Details on indoor air are in Chapter 3.)
- p17


We were unable to identify any EPA official who claimed ownership of EPA’s WTC press releases issued in September and early October 2001. When we asked the EPA Chief of Staff whether she could claim ownership of EPA’s early WTC press releases, she replied that she was not able to do so “because the ownership was joint ownership between EPA and the White House,” and that “final approval came from the White House.” She also told us that other considerations, such as
the desire to reopen Wall Street and national security concerns, were considered when preparing EPA’s early press releases. The OCEMR Associate Administrator said of the September 16 release: “I did not feel like it was my press release.”
- P 27


As discussed previously in this report, EPA officials were not the sole determiners of the information that was included in its press releases, nor the information that was excluded. This was demonstrated by the EPA OCEMR Associate Administrator’s statement that residential cleaning instructions were deleted from
a draft press release by the CEQ contact official. The extent of outside influence was further illustrated by the statement from the EPA Administrator’s Chief of Staff that she could not claim ownership of EPA’s early WTC press releases because “the ownership was joint ownership between EPA and the White House.” Efficient.
- P76


Limitations: Our review of the process and the support for information in EPA press releases on air quality was limited since CEQ officials declined to meet with us to discuss their role in the preparation of press releases. Our written request for an interview was declined by a White House legal counselor, who noted there were “institutional concerns about interviewing White House employees.” Further, there was a lack of documentation in general regarding preparation of press releases.
- P 84

That helps clear things up.
 
this is one of those things that's shocking but not surprising. What ticks me off is that it was the white house that dictated the EPA's lie, according to NBC news. So people who lived around the towers will die sooner than they would've, in return for the city rebuilding quickly.
"Mr. Bush has a record" said President Clinton. He's right, about both Bushes. Jr. relaxed environmental rules in Texas in return for campaign contributions from oil & power companies. The result was obvious - dead poor people and drunk rich people.
 
The government, and this administration especially, has a tendency to see everything in political terms, including scientific reports. If a report doesn't match its policy goals, a report is edited or ignored. The truth about condom use and abortion is obscured because fundamentalists are against it. The truth about the environment and pollution is disregarded because it might cut into corporate profits.
Hell, look how much money the government wastes on researching 'alternative' medical quacks, and that started under Clinton!
 
Ya know this admins record...

clearly reveals a near total disregard for public safety (ie:National Security-isnt't that synonymous with public safety) bordering on disdain for for the peoples of the US. Quietly, secretly where possible the GWB admin has either relaxed or eliminated laws, regulations and/or policies designed and put in place to protect the US public from the corporate polluters and enviornmental desecrators.
How can allowing land contaminated with PCBs or other dangerous chemicals to be sold for development be in the public interest? And adding insult to injury not even bothering to at least attempt to clean/decontaminate it.
 
Ivan, Thanks for posting the quotes, I was afraid that people wouldn't read the link but didn't quite have the patience to do that myself.
 
  • #10
Originally posted by kat
Ivan, Thanks for posting the quotes, I was afraid that people wouldn't read the link but didn't quite have the patience to do that myself.

Hey if I have a good excuse to goof off instead of work, I'll take it every time.
 
  • #11


Originally posted by amp
disdain for for the peoples of the US.

That pretty much sums up what I am convinced is true of the Bush's attitude towards the American people; and the world for that matter. I have always believed George Sr. to be a heartless and pure politician; and now his much less intelligent son just follows the leader. I can't even begin to express how much anger I feel towards this family. The damages that they have caused this country I think are virtually unparalleled in US history.

The sad thing is, I think the Bush's truly see themselves as loyal Americans in the deepest sense. Also, many people obviously feel that the Bush’s care about them and this country. I say the devil always comes dressed as a gentleman.

This is my opinion. I make my reasons why known one at a time as in this thread.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Science is always a whipping boy for both sides equally for the simple reason that people aren't scientifically literate enough to understand the issues. My biggest pet peve on this is the downfall of nuclear power simply because its a political hot potato and regardless of the real scientific issues (which heavily support nuclear power).

That being said, the dangers in the area around ground zero (not including AT ground zero itself) soon after the attack appear to have been somewhere between light and nonexistant. Getting the country back up and running quickly WAS in the best interest of the country.

I expect that someone will do a study 20 years from now on cancer rates around ground zero and find (like at TMI) that there was no statistically significant change.
 
  • #13
Originally posted by russ_watters
Science is always a whipping boy for both sides equally for the simple reason that people aren't scientifically literate enough to understand the issues. My biggest pet peve on this is the downfall of nuclear power simply because its a political hot potato and regardless of the real scientific issues (which heavily support nuclear power).

That being said, the dangers in the area around ground zero (not including AT ground zero itself) soon after the attack appear to have been somewhere between light and nonexistant. Getting the country back up and running quickly WAS in the best interest of the country.

I expect that someone will do a study 20 years from now on cancer rates around ground zero and find (like at TMI) that there was no statistically significant change.

russ - did you not read THIS?:
In an exclusive interview, Inspector General Tinsley, the EPA’s top watchdog, tells NBC News the agency simply did not have sufficient data to justify such a reassurance.
In fact, a new report by Tinsley’s office says, at the time, more than 25 percent of dust samples collected before Sept. 18 showed unsafe levels of asbestos. And the EPA had no test results at all on PCBs, dioxins or particulates in the air that can cause respiratory problems.
Tinsley said, “The EPA did not give the people of New York complete information. It had put together press releases that were more informative than those that it ultimately released.”

So, WHAT!? We're going to save Iraq ('s OIL!), but to hell with the people and children in NY? Sweet!
 
  • #14
Originally posted by Tsunami
russ - did you not read THIS?:
No offense, but you prove my point. "Insufficient data" does not mean there is a real problem, it means there COULD be a problem. And high levels of asbestos (and many other things) are not harmful unless you are exposed long term.

After 9/11 the US economy ground to a halt. That quickly leads to economic collapse. So when you weigh a possibility against a certainty its better to address the certainty.

Asbestos is one of the scientific whipping boy's I'm talking about. Asbestos is harmful if inhaled. That means its harmful to the people who install it and the people who remove it but not people who are in a building that has asbestos in it. Its a good idea to stop using it, but removing it puts MORE asbestos into the air than if it were just left in place.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Originally posted by russ_watters
[B Asbestos is harmful if inhaled. That means its harmful to the people who install it and the people who remove it but not people who are in a building that has asbestos in it. Its a good idea to stop using it, but removing it puts MORE asbestos into the air than if it were just left in place. [/B]

No offense, but YOU prove MY point. So, you don't think two jumbo jets crashing into and collapsing two skyscrapers, taking out numerous buildings surrounding them, filling the air with particulate matter for MANY weeks after the event (including asbestos, and other unhealthful particulates)...

"In fact, a new report by Tinsley’s office says, at the time, more than 25 percent of dust samples collected before Sept. 18 showed unsafe levels of asbestos. And the EPA had no test results at all on PCBs, dioxins or particulates in the air that can cause respiratory problems."

...constitutes a healthy atmosphere?

Yeah, getting Wall Street going was a LOT more important than waiting for test results on the above mentioned "PCB's, dioxins or particulates in the air that can cause respiratory problems." But they DID have test results on asbestos that showed unsafe levels. Would you have sent YOUR family back in there with that information? I sure as heck wouldn't! If your president can hide in a jet for hours after the event and 'run the country', why couldn't Wall Street have operated elsewhere? Because your president doesn't give a rats a$$ about the people of NYC - he wants his rich buddies getting richer on Wall Street and poop on the average American. (That would be you be YOU and ME!) The man and his administration are SCUMBUCKETS. (Actually, MUCH better words come to mind, but...) Wait! These are allowed: SLIMY, LYING, THEIVING, YELLOW-BELLIED...(I think you get my drift.)
 
  • #16
On the Spt 3 2003 NBC News the report said that the white-house changed the EPA report specifically. The EPA initial report showed a significant level of pollutants in both the air and water, the white-house version states that pollution (asbestos, specifically) levels are below OSHA standards.
OSHA standards are obviously much higher than EPA baseline standards, so the white-house definitely lied.
 
  • #17
They lied when they gave assurances that they had no evidence to back up. People expect that when the EPA tells them that everything is OK, the EPA has conducted sufficient tests to determine this. However, they didn't, and the White House's muscle forced them to make everything sound rosy, anyway.
 
  • #18
Greetings !

I can't say I quite understand the problem here or
the attitude. It is quite reasonable for the government
to speed things up in this case. Paralyzing a major
part of Manhatan and keeping people out of their
homes and workplaces in such a location for a prolonged
period of time would be catastrophic financialy for the
entire country, would require major government sponsored
programs and be a further blow to the nation's moral
after an event that already made it drop so much.

Hell, it doesn't take an expert, like those in the report,
to realize there's nothing really dangerous about being
near the area after a week ! :wink: I bet the average level
of air polution in Manhatan is much higher than even
the most pessimistic estimates about air polution at ground
zero after a week.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #19
Originally posted by drag
I can't say I quite understand the problem here or
the attitude. It is quite reasonable for the government
to speed things up in this case.


You can't understand that we have a problem with the government lying?

There were very real health risks, as that case of the woman diagnosed with bronchitis illustrates.
 
  • #20
I would've cost a little more for plastic suits and dust masks, but arent human lives worth it? Sheesh.
I bet the average level of air polution in Manhatan is much higher than even the most pessimistic estimates about air polution at ground zero after a week.
No, or else the EPA documents would not have been changed by the white-house.
 
  • #21
"... residential cleaning instructions were deleted from a draft press release by the CEQ contact official." - PG 27

Why in the world would the White House CEQ [Council on Environmental Quality] DO something like that?

"Our written request for an interview was declined by a White House legal counselor, who noted there were “institutional concerns about interviewing White House employees.” - PG 76

INSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS? What? Like an employee might slip up and tell the truth?
 
  • #22
Originally posted by Tsunami
Yeah, getting Wall Street going was a LOT more important than waiting for test results ...
It was.

Tsunami, reactions like yours are exactly why this kind of report is suppressed. You see the word "risk" and think it means something that it does not. The level of risk talked about in the provided papers was extremely low.
There were very real health risks, as that case of the woman diagnosed with bronchitis illustrates.
Dan, I don't think I need to tell you that one case of bronchitis is not scientific evidence of anything. You cannot assume cause and effect. A real statistical analysis will need to be done.
 
  • #23
Originally posted by russ_watters
Tsunami, reactions like yours are exactly why this kind of report is suppressed. You see the word "risk" and think it means something that it does not. The level of risk talked about in the provided papers was extremely low.

Your obvious support of this lie is very telling. So, it's OK with you that your government suppresses "this kind of report", is it? Then, what's next, russ? What other kind of information is it OK to suppress? It's too bad that the only thing you can resort to in your arguments are dissing your opponents. But, here's the rub. This is MY government, too. I pay (LOTS of) taxes, and help to keep this country going just like everyone else. And it is NOT OK for my government to lie to me and put my health and that of my family and friends in jeopardy. I DO NOT give them permission to do that. If you think it is so safe, why don't you offer to go take the place of one of those residents at ground zero and live their lives, and breath their air for 20 years and be your president’s guinea pig? That would be such an admirable choice. But none of these people were given a choice. Their choice was taken away from them by your president. They (probably foolishly) believed that their government had too much integrity to really lie to them and send them into an area of potential danger. At least when we send troops into war they have the knowledge of potential dangers. We train them and supply them with enough equipment to protect them. With these people, your president basically just said, “You folks just go on back home, now. Don’t worry about all the asbestos-filled dust and debris and crap lying around. It won’t hurt you.”

Have you ever seen anyone die a miserable death from complications of asbestosis? Or from lung cancer secondary to exposures to other known carcinogens like PCBs? I have. Hundreds of people. They cough up copious amounts of blood and globs of mucous of various colors – yellow, green , brown, black… They gasp for breath even as they BEG you to let them die. So until you have dealt with that kind of thing, you have no right to talk about 'exposure levels being extremely low'. The EPA surely didn't think they were low, or they wouldn't have recommended what they did. These are the same recommendations your president decided that they didn't need to know.

And you didn't answer my question - would you have sent YOUR family back in there if you had known what the EPA was recommending? Remember, EPA stands for Environmental PROTECTION Agency. They are there to protect us with their knowledge of science and medicine and help reduce risks to our health - which they tried very hard to do in their report. But, your president changed that information and lied to them. But that's OK with you because it's not YOUR health that your president has put in jeopardy. Right?

Have a nice day, russ. Breathe easy.
 
  • #24
Ha ! Ha !
Some of you people are really are really funny. :wink:
Hell, people leave near active volcanoes with
constant high levels of dust in the air and
desert populations always endure a large amount of
sand storms. So what ?! So they shouldn't live there ?
So it's a lot worse than tens of phousands of vehicles
releasing their exhaust gases amongst skyscrapers ? :wink:
What the hell is so God damn dangerous about two
large collapsed buildings after a WEEK that it would
be worth costing the nation billions per day and keep
people out of their homes ?! It doesn't take a
god damn NASA style huge science report to realize there's
nothing so horrible here, aspecialy when you also need
to reassure people after an attack like that - in a addition
to the above reasons. Jesus, you'd think it's an exposed
fused nuclear reactor we're talking about ! Haven't
you ever dusted ?

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #25
Originally posted by drag
Some of you people are really are really funny. :wink:
Dunno drag, maybe some people have never seen a building implosion before.

And it is NOT OK for my government to lie to me and put my health and that of my family and friends in jeopardy.
Sorry Tsunami, but you simply cannot handle the truth. It appears to be half that you don't understand it and half that you simply overreact to it (granted that could be considered two sides to the same coin). That's par for the course among the general public and that's exactly why you and the rest of the public (me included) shouldn't be told these things.

Jeez, have you ever read the label on a bottle of amonia or a bathroom cleaser? They must scare the hell out of you.
And you didn't answer my question - would you have sent YOUR family back in there if you had known what the EPA was recommending?
I most certainly would have.
 
Last edited:
  • #26
Originally posted by russ_watters
Sorry Tsunami, but you simply cannot handle the truth.
No, russ. I handle the truth very well. But first I need to be given the truth to make an informed decision. What I can't handle are lying sacks of sh*t in the white house endangering the general public for the sake of the almighty buck.

Jeez, have you ever read the label on a bottle of amonia or a bathroom cleaser? They must scare the hell out of you.
Not at all. I know how to use them. Just, please, use what little intelligence you seem to have and don't mix the two. Let me tell you what your president and his administration won't... (I know that you prefer not to know this, but I feel a sense of responsibility here - unlike many 'others') it's DANGEROUS - with definate risk to your health.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
I have a problem with the government lying. It's as simple as that.

Arguing amongst ourselves about what the real level of danger was is irrelevant. The government acted like it knew what it was talking about when it didn't have any data. That is the problem.
 
  • #28
beside the idea that the EPA should be a separate institution from the white-house, the public ought to have factual data - that's what we all pay for when we pay our taxes.
I most certainly would have.
Come on, we're not talking about inlaws here.
 
  • #29
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Come on, we're not talking about inlaws here.
And I'd buy a house next to TMI if I had a job near there too.

Just out of curiosity, any smokers in here?
 
  • #30
I most definitely have never smoked.

I don't know what you're referring to by "TMI", but if you want to live in an area that poses health risks, that's your perogative. However, if someone doesn't, and it lied to, that is another thing.
 
  • #32
Yeah, but the pollution at ground zero could have been WORSE than the conditions at TMI, but nobody would ever know because the white-house told the EPA to LIE! The construction workers who cleaned up ground zero in most cases wore protective masks and suits, but what about those people who lived near it? They could've been told of the danger by the EPA. Nothing would change except those guys would live longer. What it looks like is - the white-house didn't want to have to deal with telling people some bad news, so it made up some stories that sounded good at the time. Certainly it was important to clean up ground zero quickly, but why not inform the public about the danger?
 
  • #33
If you remember the visuals, there was dust and smoke everywhere on 9/11. If you think that that just all mysteriously disappeared, then you are incorrect. In fact, I saw on the news people claiming that like a week afterward, you could still smell and taste the ash in the air.
 
  • #34
Originally posted by Dissident Dan
In fact, I saw on the news people claiming that like a week afterward, you could still smell and taste the ash in the air.
Which is fine because no one except rescue workers were allowed within about a mile of it for like a week afterward.
Yeah, but the pollution at ground zero could have been WORSE than the conditions at TMI
What do you think was in that dust? About only thing worse than uranium in toxicity is plutonium. I don't think there was any plutonium stored in the WTC.

You people really have never been on a construction site, have you?
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Originally posted by russ_watters

You people really have never been on a construction site, have you?

There is always construction going on in Florida. They are building a walgreens and something else right across the street from me. Sometimes they put some pretty nasty crap into the air.
 
  • #36
Imagine this headline.

Ground Zero Aftermath Deadly to New York Citizens Says EPA!

Now think about the possible effects of say a little asbestos on the few people working around the site (and most of them wore appropriate gear) as compared to the assured devastationg effect of a mass exodus of 14 million people from the city into the neighboring countryside and the looting, lawlessness, violent crime, economic havoc, and damage to local and national morale that such an exodus would entail.

NY (and the rest of the US) were pretty freaked out already. I don't think such information would have helped more than it hurt.

If you can justify that it was a real mistake (like a rocketing number of related life-threatening health problems) then perhaps its worth looking into. Otherwise I would have to admit that I am glad the current administration is in charge and not you guys.

One of these days someone will realize that you can measure an administration by its accomplishments and mistakes, not by hearsay, complaining, and disillusionment that they don't do things according to your misinformed and shortsighted ideals.
 
  • #37
Originally posted by Ganshauk
If you can justify that it was a real mistake (like a rocketing number of related life-threatening health problems) then perhaps its worth looking into.
One thing I'll grant them is that that's not easy to do. Unfortunately it gives people a lot to complain about without providing evidence to back up the complaints.

A study such as what you suggest was just released about TMI, 20 years after it happened. Thats a long time for people to speculate based on nothing more than knee-jerk fear.

And that fear has done very real harm to this country. Fear of nuclear power based in part on TMI is partially responsible for most of our energy related problems right now: electric generation capacity, air pollution, energy costs (including current gas prices), etc.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
Originally posted by Ganshauk
Imagine this headline.

Ground Zero Aftermath Deadly to New York Citizens Says EPA!

Now think about the possible effects of say a little asbestos on the few people working around the site (and most of them wore appropriate gear) as compared to the assured devastationg effect of a mass exodus of 14 million people from the city into the neighboring countryside and the looting, lawlessness, violent crime, economic havoc, and damage to local and national morale that such an exodus would entail.

I've seen some pretty sensational stuff, but to suggest that such a headline and resultant "exodus" would happen because the government decided to not lie is something that I don't buy. It's that view of two polar opposities as the only choices/possibilities that is a huge problem in this society and others. Something along the lines of "EPA Cautions New Yorkers about Ground Zero Air Quality" would be more likely.

Once again, you have surpassed me in not giving credit to most people. Even if such a headline did make print, to think that people would en masse leave the entire city (not just Ground Zero or a few neighboring blocks) is completely unfathomable to me. People have all breathed dirty car exhaust. Older people know that they've been in asbestos-filled buildings. People would not just get up and leave their jobs for a week or so to wait for the dust to settle.

In case you haven't noticed, I'm complaining that th CEQ took deliberate steps to paint a happy picture, rather than let the EPA do its job in an objective report. The real kicker is that the CEQ changes are not just softening of language, but actually lies, as they gave an assessment of the situation as if they had conducted adequate tests, which they did not.
 
  • #39
What gets me is the total pattern of lies from an administration that claimed it was a great departure from the 'lies' of the former administration(mostly made up by the liars in THIS administration , coincidentally)
 
  • #40
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #41
Okay, we go from an EPA report that it's safe for people to resume living and working in the vicinity of "Ground Zero" to reports of health problems among the 30-40k people who spent weeks to months rummaging around in the debris without adequate respiratory protection. Just for laughs, hit the remainder tables at your local bookstores for A Nation Challenged, the New York Times photo collection of 9-11 and the clean-up. Compare the gear of the people in the pit to that of the forensic teams raking debris at the landfill to get an idea of the various levels of appreciation of hazards exhibited.

Cutting torches and abrasive cut-off saws in an unventilated pit full of "mixed scrap?" For months? Through the third day looking for survivors? Yeah, dig like crazy and worry about consequences later. After that point, no one but a complete idiot goes near a mess like that without a full suit, such as shown at the landfill.

Three days of that dust and fume mix? Horrible cough, helluva headache, and dizziness, nausea, and fatigue for a couple weeks to a month. Weeks and months unprotected? That's OSHA, Port Authority, Unions, and a whole lot of people who know better "John Wayning it" for the cameras and their 15 minutes of fame.

It's criminal that there wasn't better supervision of the clean-up: day in the pit to four days off; "You will wear your mask gloves and hard hat beyond this point;" and "You will decontaminate your gear and clothing before leaving the area." However, that ain't EPA.
 
  • #42
Umm…do you remember this?

W. House Guts Global Warming Study

WASHINGTON, June 19, 2003

(CBS/AP) Angry environmentalists are denouncing the Bush administration for censoring the scientific evidence on global warming, reports CBS News Chief White House Correspondent John Roberts.

At issue is next week's huge government report on the state of the environment. Under heavy editing pressure from the White House, a lengthy chapter on climate change has been gutted…
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/24/politics/main564873.shtml

It’s not like it’s the first time the Bush administration has altered reports (or the first time the Bush administration has lied to the American people, or the first time the Bush administration has broken the law, or…)

People—be appalled that you are being deceived by your government—just frigging be appalled for once, and stop excusing and enabling them like parents of a bad child.
 
Last edited:
  • #43
SOS, having reread all these posts including the one I made as AMP, I am appalled. I'm appalled that there appears to be members here who are either on Rove's payroll or who don't get it or who are depressongly apathetic. I worked down there close to Ground Zero. The smell was in the air as posted. there was a smog coming from the still smoldering debris. It has been barely five years and people are dying and getting debilitating illnesses. I am certain and you can be sure that the true number of individuals affected isn't being reported. As in this link:

http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news...olitic/n_9384/

from Tsu. There are likely more that are going unreported.

I hope I don't come down with something now or later. I was breathing the air for the weeks that taint was in it. It didn't matter that people were not allowed near the site. The police could not rope off and restrain the air or smoke. Unfortunately the very thing Russ, Ganshauk tried to downplay is now happening, people are suffering or dying who were exposed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #44
Amp, I will pray that you will be spared any of these insidious illnesses. I'm sad that no one paid attention, cared, or gave a second thought to it when it was first discovered. So many, including some of the heros of 911, are now paying the price of this administrations 'problems'.
 
  • #45
russ_watters said:
You people really have never been on a construction site, have you?

If anyone were to be on a construction site they wouldn't be seeing any asbestos. it was banned in 1984. When an older building is being remodeled most states require extensive and expensive asbestos abatemant procedures ie protective clothing and negative air pressure to keep the airborn asbestos confined until it is filtered. All of it is then put in 50 gallon drums, sealed and taken to a toxic wate dump.

As far as dust in general it is PM10 that is hazardous. The particles are so small that when inhaled they stay in the lungs permanently.

PCB's were banned in 1979 and require the same HazMat handling as asbestos. If an older transformer leaks PCB's onto the ground the soil must be removed sealed in drums and taken to a toxic waste dump.

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration has ended a 25-year-old ban on the sale of land polluted with PCBs. The ban was intended to prevent hundreds of polluted sites from being redeveloped in ways that spread the toxin or raise public health risks.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-01-epa-usat_x.htm
 
Last edited:
  • #46
Thank you for your concern Tsu.

quote by Edward:
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration has ended a 25-year-old ban on the sale of land polluted with PCBs. The ban was intended to prevent hundreds of polluted sites from being redeveloped in ways that spread the toxin or raise public health risks.

Now this (^^^) is premeditated (fill in the blank, hint: starts with M) _________, there is ample evidence of the toxic effects of PCBs, the reason for the ban in the first place and the guy still ends the ban! Its crimminal!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #47
According to the information below the EPA has bugun it's own spin
cycle. Good God will the lies ever end?

Spin doctors are not scientists, but at EPA spin doctors are supervising scientists and setting research priorities,” stated PEER Program Director Rebecca Roose. “The problems at EPA run much deeper than a failure to communicate.”

This public relations effort is being financed out of funds that could otherwise be used for public health and environmental research. Last week PEER filed a complaint with EPA’s Office of Inspector General to review the legality and the propriety of using tax dollars on “corporate image” enhancement. In a letter dated July 22, 2005, the Office of Inspector General announced that it had begun a review.
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=555
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #48
This was on PBS March 29, 2001:

BUSH AND THE ENVIRONMENT

GWEN IFILL: After barely more than 60 days in office, President Bush has placed a distinctive mark on U.S. environmental policy, rolling back campaign promises on clean air, reversing Clinton administration initiatives on drinking water, and promoting new oil exploration in previously protected regions…

…The president is also moving to roll back rules that ban development on 60 million acres of national forest, lift new limits on the amounts of arsenic allowed in drinking water, and undo new cleanup regulations for federal surface mines. Environmentalists are also worried that Bush administration officials will revoke actions that designated large areas of land as protected national monuments.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-june01/bushenv_3-29.html

And then more recent (published June 8, 2004) for example:

Bush Versus the Environment
by Robert S. Devine

This book reviews:

1) a firsthand report on the rural poor of Pennsylvania's coal country, whose high incidence of asthma, lupus and renal cancer is related to emissions from the kind of coal-fired plant not required (through Bush's rollback of Clinton's policies) to install pollutant-reducing equipment.
2) a detailed study of the "bean counters" at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), who selectively used statistics to often underplay the adverse impact of weakened environmental protections. Along with an array of scientific advisory panels with proindustry, antiregulatory appointments, etc.
3) familiar areas of concern and conflict such as suppression of data on global warming.

Devine refers to Bush's behavior as an unblinking vision of "profit before protection."

I don’t agree with everything environmentalists cry about, and I do see reasons why the U.S. should not sign the Koyoto Protocol at this time, however there is no question that the Bush Presidency has been the most anti-environmental in the modern era.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #50
the EPA obviously should not have published deliberately misleading information, even if people didn't get hurt. it puts the credibility of the organization at risk by doing so. how can a small community trust the EPA to publish an unbiased report regarding environmental pollution violations of a mine that could result in the closure of the mine if unrelated political groups amend these reports in response to their interest? it totally undermines the purpose of the organization

if they wanted people to get back to work ASAP they should have contacted engineers who would know a thing or two about the materials in the building that might become health hazards and offer some kind of protection against those things while claiming "these are the tests we've done and this is what we can conclude so far and this is what might be in the air. under these conditions we are offering all the necessary protection to people living in this area."

it might well be the best thing for America if everyone was under the impression the EPA was factual but as far as the people effected are concern, i expect they wouldn't care if its best for America if being uninformed put them at risk of cancer. the EPA's function is not to offer a service to the public relations department of an administration. EPA's function is not to try to minimize economic damage of terrorist attacks. the function of EPA is to 'research and set national standards for a variety of environmental programs and delegates to states responsibility for issuing permits, and monitoring and enforcing compliance'
 

Similar threads

News White House Blocking reputable News agencies
Replies
22
Views
3K
News White House Trying to Block Congressional Report on 9/11
Replies
18
Views
4K
News Osama Bin Laden killed by US in Pakistan
8
Replies
384
Views
41K
News Does 'pack journalism' shape the science news we read?
Replies
15
Views
3K
News Did the White House Ignore Critical Advice on Iraq in 2003?
2
Replies
61
Views
9K
News Watchdog seeks bin Laden photo, says White House 'not above the law'
Replies
33
Views
6K
News Was the White House Involvement in the Sestak Senate Race Legal or Bribery?
Replies
19
Views
4K
News In the meantime, what about climate change?
Replies
20
Views
5K
News Obama Misspeaks on Egypt Relationship Or does he ?
2
Replies
55
Views
8K
News Is the US Congress Hostage Crisis Over FAA Funding Justified?
2
Replies
50
Views
7K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top