- P5EPA’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.
- P14As 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.
- p17EPA’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.)
- P 27We 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.”
- P76As 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.
- P 84Limitations: 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.
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.
Originally posted by amp
disdain for for the peoples of the US.
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.
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.Originally posted by Tsunami
russ - did you not read THIS?:
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]
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.
No, or else the EPA documents would not have been changed by the white-house.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.
It was.Originally posted by Tsunami
Yeah, getting Wall Street going was a LOT more important than waiting for test results ...
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.There were very real health risks, as that case of the woman diagnosed with bronchitis illustrates.
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.
Dunno drag, maybe some people have never seen a building implosion before.Originally posted by drag
Some of you people are really are really funny.
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.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 most certainly would have.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?