NY Times Manhattan Res. Misled about safety after 911

[Guest guest]

Report Says U.S. Misled City on Dust From Ground Zero

* _Sign In to E-Mail or Save This_

(http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/21/nyregio\

n/21dust.html)

* _Print_

(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/21/nyregion/21dust.html?_r=1 & oref=slogin & ref=hea\

lth & pagewanted=print)

(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/21/nyregion/21dust.html?_r=1 & oref=slogin & ref=hea\

lth & pagewanted=all)

* _Reprints_

(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/21/nyregion/21dust.html?_r=1 & ref=health & oref=slo\

gin#)

* _Share_

(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/21/nyregion/21dust.html?_r=1 & ref=health & oref=slo\

gin#)

* _Digg_ (javascript:articleShare('digg')

* _Facebook_ (javascript:articleShare('facebook')

* _Newsvine_ (javascript:articleShare('newsvine')

* _Permalink_ (javascript:articleShare('permalink')

(http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto & page=www.nytimes.com/yr\

/mo/day/nyregion & pos=Frame4A & camp=foxsearch2007-emailtools01c-nyt5-511276 & a

d=jos_88x31.gif & goto=http://www.foxsearchlight.com/joshua)

By ANTHONY DePALMA

Published: June 21, 2007

WASHINGTON, June 20 — Federal environmental officials misled Lower Manhattan

residents about the extent of contamination in their condominiums and

apartments after the collapse of the World Trade Center, according to a

preliminary

report released on Wednesday by the _Government Accountability Office_

(http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/g/government_\

acco

untability_office/index.html?inline=nyt-org) .

According to the report, made public during a Senate subcommittee hearing,

the _Environmental Protection Agency_

(http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/e/environment\

al_protection_agency/index.html?inline=

nyt-org) did not accurately report the results of a residential cleanup

program in 2002 and 2003. More than 4,000 apartments in Lower Manhattan were

professionally decontaminated in that program, and the agency reported that

only

a “very small†number of air samples taken in those residences showed

unsafe levels of asbestos.

But the agency failed to explain that 80 percent of the air samples were

taken after the apartments had already been cleaned.

“That was misleading,†said B. son, director of the natural

resources and environment division of the Government Accountability Office, an

investigative arm of Congress. He spoke after testifying at a hearing of the

Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health of the Senate Committee on

Environment and Public Works, which is reviewing the government’s response to

environmental and health issues at ground zero.

The report concluded that the misleading information had left residents with

an erroneous impression about risk. As a result, only 295 residents and

apartment building owners asked to take part in a new residential cleanup

program

before enrollment ended in March. That number represented just a small

portion of the 20,000 apartments eligible to participate.

“Residents are understandably reluctant to participate in what they consider

to be a waste of time,†said Senator _Hillary Rodham Clinton_

(http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/hillary_rodham_cli\

nton/index.ht

ml?inline=nyt-per) , who led the subcommittee hearing. Senator Clinton, who

has been sharply critical of the federal response to 9/11-related health

issues, said the data in the report offered “a very different picture from

what

the White House would like us to believe.â€

P. Bodine, assistant administrator of the environmental agency’s Office

of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, declined to comment on the report. “I

would have to go back and check the numbers,†she said in an interview.

Wednesday’s hearing was the first to look into the administration’s

environmental response to the trade center disaster since Democrats took control

of

Congress. _Christie Whitman_

(http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/christine_todd_whi\

tman/index.html?inline=nyt-per) , the agency’s

administrator in 2001, is expected to testify at a committee hearing in the

House on Monday about her handling of the disaster and the way she

communicated the level of risk to the public.

Also at Wednesday’s hearing, Senator Clinton announced that a Senate

appropriations subcommittee had included $55 million in the 2008 budget proposal

for

screening and treatment of people exposed to ground zero dust.

The money would, for the first time, cover residents of Lower Manhattan. The

measure would also require the _Department of Health and Human Services_

(http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/h/health_and_\

hu

man_services_department/index.html?inline=nyt-org) to develop a long-term

screening and treatment plan.

************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

[Guest guest]

Few Americans realize that the effect of any nuclear or even conventional

weapons in war would look like Ground Zero except on a MUCH larger scale.

Plastic burns. (Even most modern metals burn) Modern buildings hold a huge

amount of plastic. So therefore, any form of war would create huge

firestorms from which almost nobody would survive in urbanized areas. They

would leave lots of toxic materials which would cost a huge amount to clean

up. So much that all but the most valuable urbanized areas would probably

end up being abandoned because the expense to clean up, then rebuild them

would be so high.

If more people did understand this, how very much we would lose, and how

many people could end up dying, and the heavy, multi-generational cost to

the survivors, politicians could not act the way they do and people would

not want to spend the amounts of money we do on military hardware - they

would probably prefer to spend that money on human, health, education, etc.

services and needs instead.

Which are nowhere near as profitable for the big donors. They don't like

that idea.