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.
  • #51
A government has the function of creating order in a society. From that perspective I can understand, but neither agree or disagree, with the motivation.

Truth is valuable but sometimes it is more opportunistic to distort it. :smile:

Just like, as is currently discussed in another topic, most people who bake a cake would not like to hear it is no good, so does the general population not like to hear really bad news about "their cherished society". Especially not after an attack on the US like on September 11.

In retrospect everybody is shocked of course, "the herd animals now all change orientation".
Typical, herd animal behavior, the collective does no want to know about bad things, unfair things, everything should be nice, equal, inclusive, helping, affirmative and above all there must be "green pastures", but then when the truth cannot hide any longer the collective reacts, it freezes in disbelief, it attempts to absorb the dissonance, it gets upset and demands a scapegoat to be offered.

Truth versus disorder and opportunism, what would you do if you were a responsible government?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top