Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News White House changes EPA reports

  1. Sep 3, 2003 #1

    Tsu

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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: Sep 3, 2003
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 3, 2003 #2

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: White House changes EPA reports!!

    Oh what a surprise!
     
  4. Sep 3, 2003 #3

    kat

    User Avatar

    You may be interested to read the actual report from the office of the inspectors general, as opposed to be told what it says.

    EPA's Response
     
  5. Sep 3, 2003 #4

    Tsu

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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??)
     
  6. Sep 3, 2003 #5

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    - P5

    - P14


    - p17


    - P 27


    - P76


    - P 84

    That helps clear things up.
     
  7. Sep 4, 2003 #6
    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.
     
  8. Sep 4, 2003 #7
    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!
     
  9. Sep 4, 2003 #8

    amp

    User Avatar

    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.
     
  10. Sep 4, 2003 #9

    kat

    User Avatar

    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.
     
  11. Sep 4, 2003 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Hey if I have a good excuse to goof off instead of work, I'll take it every time.
     
  12. Sep 4, 2003 #11

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Ya know this admins record...

    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: Sep 4, 2003
  13. Sep 4, 2003 #12

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  14. Sep 4, 2003 #13

    Tsu

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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!!!!
     
  15. Sep 4, 2003 #14

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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: Sep 4, 2003
  16. Sep 4, 2003 #15

    Tsu

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.)
     
  17. Sep 5, 2003 #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.
     
  18. Sep 5, 2003 #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.
     
  19. Sep 5, 2003 #18

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.
     
  20. Sep 5, 2003 #19


    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.
     
  21. Sep 6, 2003 #20
    I would've cost a little more for plastic suits and dust masks, but arent human lives worth it? Sheesh.
    No, or else the EPA documents would not have been changed by the white-house.
     
  22. Sep 6, 2003 #21

    Tsu

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    "... 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?
     
  23. Sep 6, 2003 #22

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
    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.
     
  24. Sep 6, 2003 #23

    Tsu

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  25. Sep 7, 2003 #24

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.
     
  26. Sep 7, 2003 #25

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Dunno drag, maybe some people have never seen a building implosion before.

    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 thats 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.
    I most certainly would have.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2003
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook