# News White House changes EPA reports

1. Sep 3, 2003

### Tsu

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. Sep 3, 2003

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Re: White House changes EPA reports!!

Oh what a surprise!

3. Sep 3, 2003

### 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.

EPA's Response

4. Sep 3, 2003

### Tsu

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??)

5. Sep 3, 2003

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
- P5

- P14

- p17

- P 27

- P76

- P 84

That helps clear things up.

6. Sep 4, 2003

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.

7. Sep 4, 2003

### Zero

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!

8. Sep 4, 2003

### amp

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.

9. Sep 4, 2003

### 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.

10. Sep 4, 2003

### Ivan Seeking

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

11. Sep 4, 2003

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
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
12. Sep 4, 2003

### 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.

13. Sep 4, 2003

### Tsu

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. Sep 4, 2003

### 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
15. Sep 4, 2003

### Tsu

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. Sep 5, 2003

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. Sep 5, 2003

### Dissident Dan

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. Sep 5, 2003

### drag

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

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 ! 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. Sep 5, 2003

### Dissident Dan

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. Sep 6, 2003