Re: Bush forced to cover World Trade Center health claims

[Guest guest]

Here's another recent article about the WTC workers:

http://www.accesshollywood.com/movies/3007825/detail.html

Cruise Raises $1.2M For WTC Workers

" An organization co-founded by actor Tom Cruise has raised $1.2

million to expand a treatment program for rescue workers exposed to

potentially hazardous materials after the collapse of the World

Trade Center.

The New York Rescue Workers Detoxification Project said it has

treated more than 200 workers who say they were suffering effects

from breathing the air filled with smoke, dust and debris after the

Sept. 11, 2001, destruction of the trade center.

The money raised by Cruise and others would expand the project to

treat twice as many people, said , the project's

director. The treatment is provided at no cost.

Cruise said during a fund-raiser for the project last week that

seeing images of the plume of smoke billowing from the trade center

rubble on Sept. 11 prompted him to act.

" Shortly thereafter I visited ground zero and knew immediately that

not only would people be getting ill, very ill, but that it would be

sooner rather than later, " he said, according to a statement

released Wednesday by the project.

The project's program consists of a medically monitored regimen of

exercise, sauna sweat-out, vitamins and minerals to help rescue

workers cleanse their bodies of toxic residues. It was developed by

L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the Church of Scientology, of which

Cruise is a member. "

> http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_6781.shtml

>

> Bush forced to cover World Trade Center health claims

> By Clare Hurley

> Apr 24, 2004, 23:21

>

> Email this article

> Printer friendly page

>

>

>

> Already struggling to contain the damage caused by recent

revelations concerning its failure to take any action to prevent the

2001 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, the Bush

administration moved quickly last week to avert another potentially

embarrassing 9/11 scandal.

>

> Last month, acting through the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA), the administration attempted to weasel out of its pledge to

pay health claims for injuries incurred by workers engaged in the

rescue and recovery operations at the World Trade Center site. It

was one more example of the hypocrisy of the administration, which

invokes September 11 to justify all of its policies while exhibiting

contempt for those who have suffered serious health problems as a

result of responding to the terrorist attacks

>

> According to the Mount Sinai Medical Health Screening Program for

WTC-Site Responders, of the 9,000 people monitored, more than half,

or at least 4,000, are sick, primarily with respiratory or mental

health symptoms, or both. So far, 2,357 claims have been filed

against the New York City government. If FEMA had gotten its way,

the city would have been liable for up to $350 million of these

health costs before the federal program took effect. The impact upon

the city's already strained budget would have been devastating.

>

> Faced with an unprecedented health crisis of both an immediate and

protracted nature, the Bush administration tried to shirk its

responsibility-in this case financial-for the 9/11 attacks by

resorting to narrow legalistic interpretations. FEMA argued that

claims related to work carried out between September 11 and

September 29, 2001-the most intensive and dangerous period in the

immediate aftermath of the attacks-were not technically " clean-up "

related, but rather were rescue efforts and therefore not covered by

a $1 billion federal fund established to pay such claims.

>

> The fund itself was not created out of concern for the health of

the workers on the site. Rather, it was enacted by Congress to

protect the New York City government and the four contracting

companies engaged in the clean-up-Tully, AMEC, Bovis and -

because no commercial insurance companies would agree to provide

liability coverage for the dangerous site.

>

> The potential costs in health claims were recognized at the time,

quite rightly, as an untenable financial risk, given the scope and

scale of the clean-up and the largely unknown health implications of

exposure to a variety of contaminants, in addition to physical and

psychological injuries. The city and the construction companies

faced huge losses if they were uninsured. The fund was therefore

carved out of the overall aid package of $21.5 billion pledged by

the Bush administration to New York City immediately after the

attacks so that the clean-up work could go forward.

>

> It is not surprising that the Bush administration tried to stiff

the workers and the city when the bills came due. The administration

was merely treating these workers and New York City the same way it

treats all workers, as well as municipal and state governments

across the country, many of which have been bankrupted by the loss

of federal funds for social services. But in this case, a number of

overriding political considerations made this unviable.

>

> Given the Republican Party's choice of New York City as the site

of its 2004 nominating convention, an embarrassing squabble with the

city government over who is responsible for paying medical claims

for injured WTC-site workers had to be avoided. Thus, when New York

City Mayor Bloomberg and members of the New York

congressional delegation vociferously disputed FEMA's

interpretation, the administration backed down within a week.

>

> A public confrontation between the city and the federal government

over the insurance funds would have proved embarrassing from several

standpoints. Firstly, a further exposure of the administration's

failure not only to prevent but to adequately respond to the

attacks, including taking measures to provide for the health needs

of those engaged in rescue and clean-up operations, would quickly

become as politically charged as the recent revelations made before

the 9/11 Commission.

>

> The $350 million in health claims presently under dispute

represents only a fraction of the full cost of medical screening and

treatment that will be required over the long term for those who

worked at " ground zero. " Cancer resulting from exposure to asbestos,

for example, does not develop for 10 to 15 years. And while the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the direct orders of

the National Security Council headed by Condoleezza Rice,

consistently denied the presence of dangerous levels of asbestos in

the air around the WTC site, it has since admitted that more than 25

percent of the bulk dust samples collected before September 18,

2001, showed the presence of asbestos above the 1 percent benchmark.

The EPA also claims it is unable to predict the effects of exposure

to PCBs, particulate matter (e.g., pulverized cement), dioxin and

other contaminants released by the WTC collapse.

>

> The EPA has also been forced to admit, in a report released in

August 2003, that all its press releases in the aftermath of 9/11

had to go through the White House's Council on Environmental Quality

and the National Security Council, and that as a result all

information about damaging health effects had been edited out.

>

> So it would come as no surprise if buried somewhere in the EPA's

files there was a memo from September 2001 entitled " WTC Air Unsafe

to Breathe. " If such a document were to emerge, the White House

would no doubt claim that it contained only " historical " information.

>

> More importantly, because President Bush has consistently sought

to pitch his bid for re-election based on his purported image as a

steady leader through the crisis of 9/11, the mounting evidence of

his administration's utter disregard for those people who directly

responded to this crisis and are now suffering the consequences has

potentially devastating political consequences.

>

> When the Bush-Cheney campaign ran $41 million worth of ads in

March displaying images of the destroyed World Trade Towers and a

flag-draped coffin, it outraged New York City firefighters and

victims' families who felt their grief and heroism were being

crassly co-opted for political purposes.

>

> And now the choice of New York City for the Republican national

convention site is being questioned within the party itself. The New

York Times quoted longtime Republican political operative and Bush

supporter Stone as saying, " The premise for coming to New York

is no longer valid. Karl Rove's masterstroke idea may turn out to be

an unmitigated disaster. It has the potential to highlight an issue

that may be negative by the time he [bush] gets to the convention. "

>

> This will certainly be the case, as the Bush Administration proves

increasingly unable to suppress the full toll taken by its criminal

policies, including upon the workers who sacrificed their health to

conduct the rescue and recovery efforts at the World Trade Center

site.

>

> http://wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/wtch-a23.shtml

[Guest guest]

Here's another recent article about the WTC workers:

http://www.accesshollywood.com/movies/3007825/detail.html

Cruise Raises $1.2M For WTC Workers

" An organization co-founded by actor Tom Cruise has raised $1.2

million to expand a treatment program for rescue workers exposed to

potentially hazardous materials after the collapse of the World

Trade Center.

The New York Rescue Workers Detoxification Project said it has

treated more than 200 workers who say they were suffering effects

from breathing the air filled with smoke, dust and debris after the

Sept. 11, 2001, destruction of the trade center.

The money raised by Cruise and others would expand the project to

treat twice as many people, said , the project's

director. The treatment is provided at no cost.

Cruise said during a fund-raiser for the project last week that

seeing images of the plume of smoke billowing from the trade center

rubble on Sept. 11 prompted him to act.

" Shortly thereafter I visited ground zero and knew immediately that

not only would people be getting ill, very ill, but that it would be

sooner rather than later, " he said, according to a statement

released Wednesday by the project.

The project's program consists of a medically monitored regimen of

exercise, sauna sweat-out, vitamins and minerals to help rescue

workers cleanse their bodies of toxic residues. It was developed by

L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the Church of Scientology, of which

Cruise is a member. "

> http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_6781.shtml

>

> Bush forced to cover World Trade Center health claims

> By Clare Hurley

> Apr 24, 2004, 23:21

>

> Email this article

> Printer friendly page

>

>

>

> Already struggling to contain the damage caused by recent

revelations concerning its failure to take any action to prevent the

2001 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, the Bush

administration moved quickly last week to avert another potentially

embarrassing 9/11 scandal.

>

> Last month, acting through the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA), the administration attempted to weasel out of its pledge to

pay health claims for injuries incurred by workers engaged in the

rescue and recovery operations at the World Trade Center site. It

was one more example of the hypocrisy of the administration, which

invokes September 11 to justify all of its policies while exhibiting

contempt for those who have suffered serious health problems as a

result of responding to the terrorist attacks

>

> According to the Mount Sinai Medical Health Screening Program for

WTC-Site Responders, of the 9,000 people monitored, more than half,

or at least 4,000, are sick, primarily with respiratory or mental

health symptoms, or both. So far, 2,357 claims have been filed

against the New York City government. If FEMA had gotten its way,

the city would have been liable for up to $350 million of these

health costs before the federal program took effect. The impact upon

the city's already strained budget would have been devastating.

>

> Faced with an unprecedented health crisis of both an immediate and

protracted nature, the Bush administration tried to shirk its

responsibility-in this case financial-for the 9/11 attacks by

resorting to narrow legalistic interpretations. FEMA argued that

claims related to work carried out between September 11 and

September 29, 2001-the most intensive and dangerous period in the

immediate aftermath of the attacks-were not technically " clean-up "

related, but rather were rescue efforts and therefore not covered by

a $1 billion federal fund established to pay such claims.

>

> The fund itself was not created out of concern for the health of

the workers on the site. Rather, it was enacted by Congress to

protect the New York City government and the four contracting

companies engaged in the clean-up-Tully, AMEC, Bovis and -

because no commercial insurance companies would agree to provide

liability coverage for the dangerous site.

>

> The potential costs in health claims were recognized at the time,

quite rightly, as an untenable financial risk, given the scope and

scale of the clean-up and the largely unknown health implications of

exposure to a variety of contaminants, in addition to physical and

psychological injuries. The city and the construction companies

faced huge losses if they were uninsured. The fund was therefore

carved out of the overall aid package of $21.5 billion pledged by

the Bush administration to New York City immediately after the

attacks so that the clean-up work could go forward.

>

> It is not surprising that the Bush administration tried to stiff

the workers and the city when the bills came due. The administration

was merely treating these workers and New York City the same way it

treats all workers, as well as municipal and state governments

across the country, many of which have been bankrupted by the loss

of federal funds for social services. But in this case, a number of

overriding political considerations made this unviable.

>

> Given the Republican Party's choice of New York City as the site

of its 2004 nominating convention, an embarrassing squabble with the

city government over who is responsible for paying medical claims

for injured WTC-site workers had to be avoided. Thus, when New York

City Mayor Bloomberg and members of the New York

congressional delegation vociferously disputed FEMA's

interpretation, the administration backed down within a week.

>

> A public confrontation between the city and the federal government

over the insurance funds would have proved embarrassing from several

standpoints. Firstly, a further exposure of the administration's

failure not only to prevent but to adequately respond to the

attacks, including taking measures to provide for the health needs

of those engaged in rescue and clean-up operations, would quickly

become as politically charged as the recent revelations made before

the 9/11 Commission.

>

> The $350 million in health claims presently under dispute

represents only a fraction of the full cost of medical screening and

treatment that will be required over the long term for those who

worked at " ground zero. " Cancer resulting from exposure to asbestos,

for example, does not develop for 10 to 15 years. And while the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the direct orders of

the National Security Council headed by Condoleezza Rice,

consistently denied the presence of dangerous levels of asbestos in

the air around the WTC site, it has since admitted that more than 25

percent of the bulk dust samples collected before September 18,

2001, showed the presence of asbestos above the 1 percent benchmark.

The EPA also claims it is unable to predict the effects of exposure

to PCBs, particulate matter (e.g., pulverized cement), dioxin and

other contaminants released by the WTC collapse.

>

> The EPA has also been forced to admit, in a report released in

August 2003, that all its press releases in the aftermath of 9/11

had to go through the White House's Council on Environmental Quality

and the National Security Council, and that as a result all

information about damaging health effects had been edited out.

>

> So it would come as no surprise if buried somewhere in the EPA's

files there was a memo from September 2001 entitled " WTC Air Unsafe

to Breathe. " If such a document were to emerge, the White House

would no doubt claim that it contained only " historical " information.

>

> More importantly, because President Bush has consistently sought

to pitch his bid for re-election based on his purported image as a

steady leader through the crisis of 9/11, the mounting evidence of

his administration's utter disregard for those people who directly

responded to this crisis and are now suffering the consequences has

potentially devastating political consequences.

>

> When the Bush-Cheney campaign ran $41 million worth of ads in

March displaying images of the destroyed World Trade Towers and a

flag-draped coffin, it outraged New York City firefighters and

victims' families who felt their grief and heroism were being

crassly co-opted for political purposes.

>

> And now the choice of New York City for the Republican national

convention site is being questioned within the party itself. The New

York Times quoted longtime Republican political operative and Bush

supporter Stone as saying, " The premise for coming to New York

is no longer valid. Karl Rove's masterstroke idea may turn out to be

an unmitigated disaster. It has the potential to highlight an issue

that may be negative by the time he [bush] gets to the convention. "

>

> This will certainly be the case, as the Bush Administration proves

increasingly unable to suppress the full toll taken by its criminal

policies, including upon the workers who sacrificed their health to

conduct the rescue and recovery efforts at the World Trade Center

site.

>

> http://wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/wtch-a23.shtml