world trade center

Last known living rescue dog of 9/11

dr. dolittle — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 16:54:19 +0000

Last known living rescue dog of 9/11

Image of Bretagne from www.eonline.com

On this anniversary of 9/11 we remember not only the victims but also the heroes of that fateful day including countless first responders as well as their rescue animals that searched tirelessly for victims. The last known living rescue dog from 9/11 is Bretagne, a 15-year old golden retriever who returned to the memorial site with her handler Denise Corliss. She was only 2 years old at the time of the 9/11 attacks.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

According to veterinarian Dr. Cindy Otto who took care of the search dogs at ground zero, these animals brought hope to an otherwise dismal place. Bretagne has remained busy helping with other search and rescue operations including Hurricanes Katrina and Ivan until her retirement at age 9.

Other source:

EOnline

dr. dolittle Thu, 09/11/2014 - 12:54

Tags

Life Science

9/11

anniversary

dog

It's official, 50 cancers added to eligible diseases covered by World Trade Center health program

cmonforton — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 07:39:17 +0000

It's official, 50 cancers added to eligible diseases covered by World Trade Center health program

When the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act (P.L. 111-347) was signed into law in January 2011, among its aims was providing screening and medical treatment for the fire fighters, police officers, emergency responders and certain other survivors. More than $4 billion was authorized by Congress for the program. The adverse health conditions covered by the program for eligible participants were limited primarily to respiratory and mental health disorders. The list included the conditions that the responders and survivors were already suffering due to exposures at the World Trade Center site, such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, reactive airway dysfunction syndrome, chronic cases of rhinosinusitis, nasopharyngitis and laryngitis, as well as PTSD, major depression, substance abuse and anxiety disorders. (Eligible survivors of the 9/11 attacks at the Pentagon and Shanksville, PA sites were also encouraged to participate in the screening and medical treatment program.)

The Zadroga law contained a provision to allow the director of the World Trade Center Health Program, who is also the director of CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), to add new conditions to the list. Recommendations for those new conditions came be made by a periodic review of the scientific evidence, a petition, or the director's discretion.

In September 2011, the program director received a petition from Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Charles Schumer (D-NY), and Representatives Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Peter King (R-NY), Charles Rangel (D-NY), Nita Velazquez (D-NY), Michael Grimm (R-NY), and Yvette Clark (D-NY), requesting that cancer be added to the list of covered conditions. The petition referred to a study of cancer incidence in 9,853 men employed as New York City firefighters which was published that same month in Lancet. The authors of "Early assessment of cancer outcomes in New York City firefighters after the 9/11 attacks: an observational cohort study," were cautious in the interpretation of their data which identified a modest excess cancer incidence (of any type) among the 8,927 firefighters classified as exposed when compared to the U.S. population.

The petition led the WTC Health Program director to request the expertise and recommendations of the program's Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) to

‘‘review the available information on cancer outcomes associated with the exposures resulting from the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and provide advice on whether to add cancer, or a certain type of cancer, to the List specified in the Zadroga Act.’’

In April 2012, the STAC provided its findings to the WTC program director, noting:

"The STAC has reviewed available information on cancer outcomes that may be associated with the exposures resulting from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and believes that exposures resulting from the collapse of the buildings and high-temperature fires are likely to increase the probability of developing some cancers. This conclusion is based primarily on the presence of approximately 70 known and potential carcinogens in the smoke, dust, volatile and semi-volatile contaminants identified at the World Trade Center site. Fifteen of these substances are classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as known to cause cancer in humans, and 37 are classified by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) as reasonably anticipated to cause cancer in humans; others are classified by IARC as probable and possible carcinogens. Many of these carcinogens are genotoxic and it is therefore assumed that any level of exposure carries some risk."

The expert committee continued:

"Exposure data are extremely limited. No data were collected in the first 4 days after the attacks, when the highest levels of air contaminants occured, and the variety of samples taken on or after September 16, 2001 are insufficient to provide quantitative estimates of exposure on an individual or area level. However, the committee considers that the high prevalence of acute symptoms and chronic conditions observed in large numbers of rescue, recovery, clean up and restoration workers and survivors, as well as qualitative descriptions of exposure conditions in downtown Manhattan, represent highly credible evidence that significant toxic exposures occurred. Furthermore, the salient biological reaction that underlies many currently recognized WTC health conditions—persistent inflammation—is now believed to be an important mechanism underlying cancer through generating DNA-reactive substances, increasing cell turnover, and releasing biologically active substances that promote tumor growth, invasion and metastasis. Given that cancer latencies for solid tumors average 20 years or more, it is noteworthy that the published FDNY study of fire fighters showed a statistically significant excess in all-site cancer with only 7 years of follow-up."

Based on the STAC's recommendations, and following a public comment period,WTC Health Program director published a final rule on September 10 to amend the list of covered conditions. Effective October 12, 2012, that list will include 50 types of cancer, from malignant neoplasms of the bladder, colon, liver, lung, rectum, and stomach, to leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma and mesothelioma.

cmonforton Mon, 09/17/2012 - 03:39

Tags

Another cancer on the list is soft tissue sarcoma, which is linked to dioxin exposure. The burning plastic in the WTC piles produced dioxin, which has been found to increase "all cancer" in other settings.

What made people sick? Dust and aerosols at Ground Zero

egrossman — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:41:17 +0000

What made people sick? Dust and aerosols at Ground Zero

by Elizabeth Grossman

Why some people who inhaled the airborne contaminants unleashed by the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 became sick for only a short time, why some have become chronically ill, and others terminally ill, may never be known. What is known, however, is that the dust and aerosols released in that disaster contained a potentially treacherous mix of everything that was in those enormous buildings and in those aircraft. What is also known is that, as Paul J. Lioy, professor and vice chair of the Department of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, says succinctly in his book, Dust: The Inside Story of its Role in the September 11th Aftermath, "no research had ever been done on the toxicology of such a mixture as WTC dust." Ten years later, the impacts of that mixture are all too real in the form of lung and gastrointestinal diseases for many of those who worked at or near the site on 9/11 and in the days, weeks, and months that followed.

Vividly recounted by doctors involved in the ongoing medical studies of those impacted by WTC material exposures who spoke at the September 16 NYCOSH meeting on worker and community disaster health protection and, in emotional testimony from those who are now ill, is the seriousness of these conditions. For most who've been stricken by severe chronic illness and worse, also vividly described was their lack of expecting that what they had encountered by breathing 'Ground Zero' air would or could take such a toll.

Denise and Rhonda Villamia, sisters who volunteered first "spontaneously," as they described it, and then with the Red Cross several days a week or more for about six months beginning in September 2001, said their lives are "permanently changed" as a result of Ground Zero exposures. The sisters helped maintain workers' sleeping areas as well as boot and hand washing stations and brought provisions to those working on 'the pile.' Both are now suffering debilitating chronic respiratory and gastrointestinal illnesses. Daniel Arrigo, who worked with Local 79 of the Laborers International Union of North America and spent four months clearing wreckage from the World Trade Center site, spoke while being supported by supplied oxygen. He now suffers from chronic lung diseases that include bronchitis and severe gastric reflux.

Dr. Laura Crowley, specialist in pulmonary health and assistant professor of preventive medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, reported on the treatment and monitoring of people exposed to hazards at Ground Zero. She reported that more than 30,000 people are enrolled for monitoring and more than 15,000 are receiving treatment for a list of conditions that includes upper and lower respiratory illnesses, and gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, neurological, and psychological disorders. Until the passage of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, the World Trade Center Medical Monitoring and Treatment Program provided screening and treatment to responders and community members, but the program's Congressional appropriations were never certain for more than a year at a time. Since July 1, 2011, the newly established World Trade Center Health Program has taken over the monitoring and treatment functions, and it has the advantage of being funded by mandatory spending through the end of fiscal year 2015.

Results from monitoring
Among what the program is tracking are emerging and long-term latency diseases that include cancers. One of those that appears to be occurring in excess of what might be expected, is sarcoidosis, explained both Crowley and Dr. David Prezant, Chief Medical Officer for the New York City Fire Department Office of Medical Affairs. This is a disease in which tiny clumps of abnormal tissue called granulomas (clusters of immune cells) form in certain organs. When these granulomas form in the lungs, they that can cause inflammation that impairs breathing, and possibly lead to pulmonary hypertension, among other effects. Some of these symptoms are similar to those of certain stages of silicosis and asbestosis.

While much of the environmental monitoring of World Trade Center dust focused on asbestos, Dr. Joan Reibman, director of the Health and Hospitals Corporation World Trade Center Environmental Health Center associated with Bellevue and New York University hospital, reminding the NYCOSH conference that the dust contained other materials, including silica, talc, titanium, copper, chromium, aluminum silicate, as well as other substances associated with pulverized cement. In his book, Lioy notes that the dust also contained lead, glass shards and fibers, and what came to be called slag wool, in particles that ranged from the coarse to the very fine. Among what's been found in lung tissue of people who were exposed to WTC dust are carbon nanotubes, explained Bruce Lippy, who was formerly industrial hygienist for the International Union of Operating Engineers and is now an independent consultant. Research suggests that carbon nanotubes may affect lung tissue in ways similar to asbestos fibers.

The variety of particle size, the presence of so many large particles, and the high alkalinity of much of the dust, explains Lioy, are likely contributing factors to the health effects of exposure to World Trade Center dust.

The role of aerosols
For those at or near the World Trade Center on 9/11 or immediately following before the initial dust clouds had completely settled or were damped down by rain, exposure was not only to the components of what's come to be called WTC dust, but also to aerosols - a mixture of gasses and particulates. Lioy writes:

In retrospect, during the first twenty-four to forty-eight hours post-collapse, we should have been calling the WTC dust the WTC aerosol. ... That WTC aerosol contained both the dust and gases that were the net result of the emissions for the collapse of the WTC. Unfortunately we will never know completely what was in this WTC aerosol because we did not measure the gaseous phase of the combusted material released into the atmosphere.

As for the aerosols' likely effects on people, Lioy explains, "Those gases have been known for years as being very toxic in human lungs," and would likely have contained a mix of hydrocarbons associated with fuels as well as from burning of various other petroleum-based materials.

"We have no idea how toxic it was but you couldn't have dragged me off that pile. You couldn't have dragged any of us off that pile. We have an unwritten bond, if any of us go down, we have an obligation," said Patrick Bahnken, president of Uniformed EMS, Paramedics and Fire Inspectors with the New York City Fire Department, of the time he spent at 'Ground Zero.' But he said, "Until we start talking about cancer and hold people in power accountable, we'll continue to hear the bagpipes play, and personally, I'm tired of hearing them."

What was made clear from speaker after speaker at the NYCOSH conference was continued anger and frustration at the government assurances of safety in the days immediately following 9/11. "What we were told at that time was quite remarkable," said Micki Siegel De Hernandez, health and safety director of Communications Workers of America District 1. "This has informed every decision that followed. We are still living with those decisions."

Elizabeth Grossman is the author of Chasing Molecules: Poisonous Products, Human Health, and the Promise of Green Chemistry, High Tech Trash: Digital Devices, Hidden Toxics, and Human Health, and other books. Her work has appeared in a variety of publications including Scientific American, Salon, The Washington Post, The Nation, Mother Jones, Grist, and the Huffington Post. Chasing Molecules was chosen by Booklist as one of the Top 10 Science & Technology Books of 2009 and won a 2010 Gold Nautilus Award for investigative journalism.

egrossman Wed, 09/28/2011 - 09:41

Tags

Environmental health

Occupational Health & Safety

Another little-noted impact in the aftermath of the WTC collapse was the increase in dioxin/furan exposure, especially to those on-site. EPA (in 2002) estimated a 10% increase in body burden for these workers, but calculated that this would make little difference in their long-term health. Other analyses of dust levels on buildings nearby (S. Rayne, et al., ES&T, 2005) suggest that the exposure may have been higher, but in any case the full range of health effects would not be observed yet. Stay tuned.

As far as I know, no one measured alpha emitting particles in the dust (that would have come from the thousands of smoke detectors containing amercium 231 that burned) and cause lung cancer.

Emphasis on "complexity" of exposure or agents like dioxin (which have not previously been associated with respiratory and GRDS) distracts from generalizing the health effects observed among WTC responders and the community. It was the dust! Conventional measurements were made. The scientific questions are: whether the conventional measurements are appropriate for a fire and building collapse site (wherever it is); or, is the conventional interpretation of the conventional measurements appropriate. Specifically, what are the appropriate particulate criteria for protection at the site.

In the absence of such a consensus, the next time this happens we will be back to saying that even though measurements say there's no violation, we are asking all workers to all wear respirators all the time.

Much of this could have been mitigated had First Responders
been provided with proper FFPR (respirators).

Ten years later World Trade Center dust has not yet settled: NYCOSH conference highlights persistent gaps in regulation

egrossman — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:11:32 +0000

Ten years later World Trade Center dust has not yet settled: NYCOSH conference highlights persistent gaps in regulation

by Elizabeth Grossman

It's now ten years since the streets of lower Manhattan roiled with clouds of toxic dust and debris from the horrific events of September 11, 2001, but it was clear from discussions and presentations at the September 16 conference hosted by the New York Coalition for Occupational Safety and Health (NYCOSH) that the dust has not yet settled when it comes to issues of protecting worker and community health from environmental hazards of a disaster - nor from the ongoing impacts of 9/11. In the course of the day-long meeting held on lower Broadway a few blocks from the World Trade Center site, it was at times painfully evident that despite the huge efforts made toward providing help to those injured and sickened by exposure to World Trade Center dust and improving systems for protecting those responding to and affected by such a catastrophic disaster, many gaps remain in the current regulatory framework that must be addressed to ensure that policies at any level of government do not prevent people in a disaster zone from being fully - and effectively - informed about and protected from environmental health hazards.

Looming large over the day's discussions was the declaration made on September 14, 2001 by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) that the air in New York's financial district was "not a cause for public concern" and that indoor air quality in downtown buildings would meet safety standards. "Our tests show that it is safe for New Yorkers to go back to work in New York's Financial District," said John L. Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA in a press statement. "The good news," said EPA administrator Christine Whitman in the same press release, "continues to be that the air samples have all been at levels that cause us no concern." These too-rosy reassurances from federal officials - along with the directions from the New York City Department of Health for residents to use wet mops and rags to clean World Trade Center dust, without any mention of precautionary respiratory protection - in many ways set the stage for how the response unfolded. Both are also emblematic of what many speaking during the day characterized as the "failure of the regulatory framework" that plagued worker and community health protection during the 9/11 response.

Embodied in those September 2001 statements are all the issues stemming from the 9/11 response that have played out over the past ten years: Political expediency; the challenges of assessing health hazards of chemical mixtures; the issues related to health hazard monitoring, including where and when measurements should be taken; enforcement of safety precautions; the medical implications, both short and long term, of hazard exposure, including who is considered at risk; and who's responsible for personal health safety measures and for the safety assessment and clean up of hazard-contaminated private property.

These were the themes addressed by the five panels of speakers assembled by NYCOSH, among them key medical, public and occupational health experts, labor, and community group leaders, along with senior staff from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and Representatives Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) lead sponsors of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. NYCOSH asked the speakers to address the following: How the extent of harm from 9/11 exposures has been documented; how and why this harm occurred; and what changes have been made to include the government's response to any future disasters.

Protecting responders with imperfect knowledge
In the wake of 9/11 and the BP/Deepwater Horizon disaster, the federal government has initiated various efforts aimed at addressing some of the shortcomings of the 9/11 response. Among these is NIOSH's Emergency Responder Health Monitoring and Surveillance guidance, which is designed to improve health (including psychological) and safety of all workers involved in a complex emergency response. There are extensive long-term follow-up health studies underway on the Gulf Coast, and much talk of improved communications. Yet by the end of the day it seemed clear that some of the most fundamental problems that arose during 9/11 response and their root causes have yet to be resolved.

The list of "lessons learned" NIOSH director John Howard presented pin-pointed many of these outstanding issues. Among these is "the need to know who was involved," whether as professional responders, volunteers, or as members of affected communities. Not yet fully addressed was the question of "Who is an emergency responder?" raised by Micki Siegel de Hernandez, Health and Safety Director for Communications Workers of America, District 1, whose members include cable and phone company workers. Another is the need to monitor exposure during the response. "Piecing that together after is craziness," said Howard. But as evidenced during the BP/Deepwater Horizon disaster, despite extensive efforts to compile responder rosters and to conduct meaningful environmental and personal exposure monitoring, there remain many gaps in both these areas.

When it comes to exposure assessment, said Howard, "we need to think about mixtures." Chemical safety assessments and standards are now set for one substance at a time, but in reality exposures always occur in combination, so the issue of addressing mixtures is vital. NIEHS, said deputy director Richard Woychik, has made this a research priority. But the question remains how to protect people in advance of any study results.

The need to deploy of the precautionary principle was another theme of the day - as was the tug-of-war between politics, science, and common sense. "Science, which requires evidence, will lag behind social need," said David Prezant, Chief Medical Officer of the New York City Fire Department Office of Medical Affairs and one of the responders at the World Trade Center site on 9/11. But he said, we also "need some flexibility to be able to treat while studying."

Balancing the demands of an emergency rescue situation with responder health and safety and how decisions are made to move into recovery mode when haste is no longer imperative, were also key topics. "The prolonged rescue phase hampered health and safety at the World Trade Center," said NYCOSH industrial hygienist Dave Newman.

Agency roles and jurisdictions
One particularly contentious issue is that of OSHA's role as an enforcement agency during a disaster response. As OSHA head David Michaels recounted on the 16th, during the BP/Deepwater Horizon response, when it came to exposure standards, OSHA was able to say that "meeting existing OSHA standards was not adequate." But he explained OSHA's policy of operating in compliance rather than enforcement mode during an emergency response by saying that issuing citations under such circumstances is not the most effective way to achieve immediate abatement.

Also still to be resolved is how environmental hazards are to be assessed in privately owned indoor spaces and how they are to be safely cleaned of toxic contamination. A combination of inadequate safety standards and "jurisdictional issues between EPA and OSHA" resulted in there never being any comprehensive systematic assessment of indoor contamination nor any comprehensive guidelines for clean-up or remediation - whether of residential or commercial space, explained Micki Siegel de Hernandez in an interview before the conference. "It's not just a question of looking back and saying 'You did this wrong,'" she said, "but so many things were predicated by those initial decisions and set in motion ongoing exposures." Determining the geographic extent of affected areas is also an issue to be resolved. John Howard cited the need for improved hazard mapping, while representatives of community groups highlighted the inadequacy of boundaries drawn during the 9/11 response. The upshot is the concern that indoor areas continue to be contaminated with World Trade Center dust.

Ten years later, emotions are still raw. As NIEHS Worker Education Program director Chip Hughes said, "The view from the ground is not good. All the issues you're talking about are still palpable and real." People exposed to World Trade Center dust with its treacherous mix of toxic particulates and invisible chemicals are sick, and some have died. A number of those directly affected shared personal testimony during the conference. "The health effects and sickness experienced today is a result of lies," said Congressman Jerry Nadler. "Those lies undoubtedly compounded the damage caused by 9/11," he said. "It's our moral duty to address the unfinished clean-up."

In her politically charged closing remarks, Linda Rae Murray, president of the American Public Health Association also emphasized morality. "If someone's sick, it shouldn't matter how much time they spent on the pile and what block they live on," she said. "If they're sick, if they're human beings, they deserve the best care we can give them."

"Are we ready for the next 9/11?" asked NYCOSH in its title for the day's meeting. At the end of the day Murray offered her assessment, a resounding, "No," and cited years of policymaking that have eroded support for a broad array of educational, health and social service programs needed to answer the specific questions raised by the 9/11 response and enable Americans to truly safeguard worker and community health. The challenges are enormous but as they day's speakers made clear - we know what needs to be done.

egrossman Fri, 09/23/2011 - 09:11

Tags

Environmental health

Occupational Health & Safety

How much did federal officials know about air quality at Ground Zero?

lborkowski — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 08:00:59 +0000

How much did federal officials know about air quality at Ground Zero?

As Jori Lewis notes in the case study about World Trade Center recovery workers' health and safety, those who showed up at Ground Zero on the days and weeks after 9/11 got some misleading information about the risks they faced. Most notably, the EPA issued reassuring statements about the air quality - when, according to a 2003 EPA Inspector General report, the agency had insufficient data and analyses to support calling the air there safe. More accurate information might have increased the use of respirators and delayed people's return to homes and offices in the vicinity of Ground Zero. Now, new documents obtained by the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (NYCOSH) and analyzed by ProPublica, demonstrate the back-and-forth between federal officials that turned incomplete and alarming information into misleading reassurances.

Several years ago, NYCOSH workplace safety expert David Newman wanted to know more about how the involved various agencies (including multiple federal, state, and city entities) made decisions regarding worker safety, so he started filing Freedom of Information Act requests. ProPublica analyzed the many documents NYCOSH collected, and has posted them on online for easy access by the public. A ProPublica article by Anthony DePalma, author of "City of Dust: Illness, Arrogance and 9/11," describes the findings:

In one instance, a warning that people should not report to work on a busy thoroughfare in the financial district--Water Street--was rewritten and workers instead were urged to return to their offices as soon as the financial district opened on Sept. 17. In another, federal officials declared that testing showed the area was safe when sampling of the air and dust--which ultimately found very high levels of toxic chemicals--had barely begun.
... Early on Sept. 13, a day and a half after the World Trade Center towers collapsed, [Council on Environmental Quality Associate Director of Communications Samuel] Thernstrom called OSHA's New York office to say [EPA Administrator Christine Todd] Whitman was on her way to the city to talk to reporters about the agency's air testing "since all monitoring reports have been so positive thus far," according to an OSHA email. But according to its own records, the EPA had only tested a handful of asbestos samples before Sept. 14 and didn't get the results of tests for other contaminants until Sept. 23.

A joint press release put out by the EPA and OSHA said dust samples taken from cars and buildings on Sept. 13 had asbestos levels "slightly above" the 1 percent level at which federal regulations apply. The new documents, however, specify that the samples contained 2.1 to 3.3 percent asbestos--or 200 percent to 300 percent higher than the trigger standard.

The Council on Environmental Quality is a branch of the Executive Office of the President, and is perhaps best known for editing scientific reports to downplay the role of greenhouse-gas emissions in climate change during the Bush Administration. It played a significant role in the content of the communications from the executive branch in the days and weeks after September 11, 2001, DePalma reports:

Within days of the twin towers' collapse, when the air was heaviest with asbestos and dioxin, a warning that office workers in New York's Financial District might be at risk if they returned to their workplaces was removed from public statements at the request of the Council on Environmental Quality.

... The original draft of the release that was going to be issued by the EPA and OSHA said "higher levels of asbestos" had been found in seven samples taken by OSHA on Water Street in the Financial District. The Inspector General's office examined inter-agency emails and found that after the White House reviewed the draft and suggested revisions, the information about Water Street was removed, as was this warning to office workers: "The concern raised by these samples would be for workers at the cleanup site and for those workers who might be returning to their offices on or near Water Street."

The newly released documents show that, in place of the caution about Water Street, office workers were urged to return to work on Monday, Sept. 17. "Our tests show it is safe for New Yorkers to go back to work in New York's financial district," OSHA's administrator says in the final version of the release.

There's much more in the full article -- read it here.

NYCOSH's Newman explains what the official response was, compared to what it should have been: "These documents confirm that what happened at the World Trade Center is that we proceeded with a minimalist approach in terms of caution and never really scaled it up as it became necessary, rather than assuming the worst-case scenario and scaling it back as appropriate."

I like to think that the people who decided to withhold or invent information about air quality around the World Trade Center site didn't think their decisions would cost lives. Now we know that hundreds of people have been sickened, and in some cases killed, by respiratory and other illnesses linked to exposures in the area. I hope during the next disaster of this scale (which may be either natural or human-caused), officials remember that it's better to be honest than to offer false assurances of safety.

lborkowski Mon, 09/12/2011 - 04:00

Tags

Please watch the attached youtube clip, from last year, discussing EPA's emergency response to the BP Gulf Oil Spill and EPA's 9/11 emergency response:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAb1-Heid9U

Then see if you believe that the EPA Regulators have "Learned From 9/11 Blunders"

(Hint: Follow the $ - In the 9/11 Case, the Insurance Companies, like Citigroup-Travelers, AIG, etc. saved billions of $ from the "blunders"; In the BP Oil Spill Case, Larry Fink's Blackstone, the largest shareholder of BP, saved billions of $ from the "blunders." Hmmmmm)

Published: September 9, 2011
EPA Regulators Say They've Learned From 9/11 Blunders
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/09/09/09greenwire-epa-regulators-say-…

I think OSHA was under a lot of pressure to "back off" at the WTC site, so as not to hinder rescue efforts. If they are to be responsible for safety at such a site, Congresss would have to revise the OSH Act, becuase OSHA has no jurisdiction over public employees (like fire and police). What a mess!

OSHA Expert,
It was indeed a mess. There are a couple of problems with the argument that OSHA would have hindered rescue efforts. First, after a week had passed, there was very little chance that any survivors would be found. The last person found alive at the site was rescued on September 12. Second, rescue-to-recovery work is a profession with a strong safety component. If one looks at training programs and training exercises for search-and-rescue, mine rescue, beach patrols, etc. the safety of the rescue-to-recovery teams is a core principle. It's true that federal OSHA did not/does not have jurisdiction over state/local employees in NY (because the State has an approved OSHA plan to have that responsibility itself) but many of the recovery workers were not state or local employees.

Not to excuse any blunders and coverups by the EPA or other agencies, but the distinction needs to be made between announcements about air quality AT Ground Zero and air quality in lower Manhattan NEAR Ground Zero. The EPA, OSHA, and the NYC and NYS DEP all quickly determined that the air at Ground Zero was not safe to breathe without the use of proper air filtration respirators. However, in the immediate aftermath of the attacks respirators were not available for most workers, nor was there sufficient training in the fitting and use of the respirators that were distributed. (Whether most workers would have used respirators - and used them properly - had they been available in the first few days, is unknown).

It was decided early on that New York City would be responsible for enforcing the respirator use rules. The city then decided to allow the four main cleanup contractors to supervise this enforcement for their workers. The result was enforcement that ranged from strict (some workers were fired for not wearing respirators) to nonexistent (in most photos of the cleanup site, most workers aren't wearing respirators). Once respirators were available for everyone, rarely were more than half of the workers on the pile using them. Compare that to the Pentagon attack scene, where if you didn't wear a respirator, you didn't work, period.

From the numerous accounts and studies I've read, and from speaking with Ground Zero workers, the lack of use of available respirators was primarily due to these factors, in order from most important to least:

1) Lax enforcement of existing rules.

2) A culture of disregard for personal danger, combined with a compulsion to work as much as possible on the pile, that prevailed among many workers. This was reinforced by FDNY commanders and contractor supervisors at the site who disregarded the rules, and by visiting celebrities and politicians, such as Mayor Giuliani, who appeared at Ground Zero for photo opportunities without respiratory protection.

3) Equipment that sometimes didn't fit well, was always uncomfortable to use, and that made verbal communication at the noisy site impossible except at very close range.

4) Spotty training in the fitting and proper use of respirators.

It's not just OSHA, either. It's the people who lived in Battery Park City and were told it was safe to go home, and the ones downwind in Brooklyn who were assured that the smoke and particles from the burning ruins were harmless.

Many workers and responders were told NOT to wear respirators, so as to not scare the public and keep the cover-up going.
EPA Administrator Whitman starting on Sept. 13, 2001 and continuing thru Oct. 31, 2001 and beyond continued to tell the news media, the responders, and the public that the air was safe, and experts and reporters saying anything different were fear mongering.
Mayor Giuliani was also doing the same. CBS News in their 10 year anniversary documentary aired on September 11, 2011 played a couple of those clips of Giuliani and Whitman.
8 billion lbs. of carcinogenic asbestos was released, and in the air for months. Yet even today, the Federal HHS says that there is NO evidence that the cancers of the heroic workers and responders could have been caused by the pollution.
DESPICABLE!

I wanted to ask that you include our wtc safety assessment, which gathered initial documentation on worker safety and health risks and laid the basis for the subsequent training program and ongoing worker surveillance by niehs and others. See reference url above for the historical reference. thank you.

I goofed before. Sorry. There was only 880 million lbs of asbestos released into the air at Ground Zero.

Hugh, that's silly. 880 million lbs is more than the weight of the WTC buildings.

Common sense tells us that the air at the site and down wind was toxic and dangerous, given the materials involved in the disaster. It was important that the financial markets reopened to avert collateral economic damage. It appears that the dangers were downplayed for the common good.

The health of World Trade Center rescue and recovery workers

lborkowski — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 06:00:23 +0000

The health of World Trade Center rescue and recovery workers

Among the victims of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks are workers who responded to the scene of the disaster and suffered severe - in some cases, fatal - health problems as a result. Those who showed up at the World Trade Center site for rescue, recovery, and cleanup operations were exposed to a range of toxic and mechanical hazards, as well as psychological trauma. Many of the estimated 40,000 workers have since developed respiratory, mental health, and other medical conditions.

Celeste and I asked freelance journalist Jori Lewis (whose reporting you might have heard on PRI's The World) to create an in-depth case study for us about the occupational health and safety aspects of the WTC disaster: the multitude of hazards, the thousands of workers exposed, the response of regulatory authorities to address the hazards, how the risks were communicated (or not) and both the short- and long-term effects health consequences of exposure to those hazards.

If you're concerned about the health of responders and cleanup workers at this and other disaster sites, this case study is a terrific reference. We're sure it doesn't cover everything our readers think is important about the occupational health and safety aspects of the World Trade Center response and recovery, though - so after you read the case study, feel free to leave comments below about additional information or angles you think ought to be recognized.

lborkowski Sun, 09/11/2011 - 02:00

Tags

Occupational Health & Safety

I would like to thanks the rescue and recovery team who saved thousands of lives who were saved to become the victim in world trade center disaster and pray for the good will of the rescue and recovery workers.

Thanks to them many people survived but the government should give them benefits...

Personal reflections on a September 11th 9/11 hero

terrasig — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 06:46:00 +0000

Personal reflections on a September 11th 9/11 hero

[Here is why I will always remember. This was posted here originally on 11 September 2006.]

Let me tell you about John Michael Griffin, Jr.

Griff, as he was known in high school, was a friend of mine.

Late in the first half of our lives, he stood up for me physically and philosophically, for being a science geek. John's endorsement was the first time I was ever deemed cool for wanting to be a scientist.

Griff died an engineer and hero in the collapse of one of the World Trade Center towers five [eight] years ago today.

We lost touch almost twenty years before, but his kindness and friendship formed not only one of the cornerstones of the scientific life I have today, but in the person and father I have become as well.

-----

At a northern New Jersey Catholic high school, in a predominantly Irish town, being a gangly Polish boy from two towns over was not the formula to cultivate one's popularity or self-preservation.

Throwing the curve in biology and chemistry classes didn't help either, nor did being a David Bowie fan in a place where Bruce Springsteen was as revered as St. Patrick. That's probably where the nickname, "Zowie," came from - the name of the glam rocker's first child.

Worse, I had skipped a grade in elementary school, and being a year behind physically was not compatible with self-preservation during high school gym class.

But, it was a very simple gesture, sometime in junior year, when one of the packs of scoundrels had me cornered, slamming me against the wall and throwing my books down the hallway. I believe that the offense was that our biology teacher had taken to buying me a Pepsi everytime I scored 100 on one of his exams, and I had been enjoying yet another one.

John, already well on his way to his adult height of 6' 7" or 6' 8", stepped in and said, "Hey, lay off of Zowie. He's goin' places." And with that, the beatings stopped.

I didn't play sports, at least not any of the ones offered by our school. At that time, soccer hadn't taken off in the States but I was a huge player and had met John at Giants Stadium in the NJ Meadowlands where I had season tickets (Section 113, row 7, seat 26) for the relocated New York Cosmos. At just $4 a ticket for kids 16 and under, I could afford season tickets to see some of the greatest international soccer stars of the late 20th century: Germany's Franz Beckenbauer, Italy's Giorgio Chinaglia, Yugoslavia's Vladislav Bogiçeviç, and, of course, Brazil's great Pelé.

All accounts of John as an adult include his devotion to the Giants, NY Rangers, and NY Yankees, but few recall those soccer days. John's family were long-time Giants season ticket holders and probably got their Cosmos season tickets three rows behind me as some sort of promotional giveaway. I recall that John was surprised that a science dork such as I would be cool enough to know about soccer and come to games myself, my father dropping me off outside the gates so he could go home and watch his beloved football games.

But, we Jersey boys loved soccer at a school where American football and basketball reigned supreme. Many Saturday and Sunday afternoons were spent at the massive stadium during soccer's American heyday of the late 1970s, with crowds of 50,000 - 75,000 that have yet to be matched today.

-----

Among John's gifts was the ability to make anything fun and to make anyone laugh. I recall sitting with him in a ski lodge in Amsterdam, NY, as I was recovering from frostbite during an ill-prepared class trip ski weekend. He pulled me into an imaginary board game with a napkin dispenser, where he pretended each napkin contained a message as to how to proceed during each turn. We looked at each other in horror when the waitress came unannounced and cleared our table of the napkins.

As a teenager, John was a physical caricature, handsome but a goof, self-effacing but self-confident, and had a clever and caustic wit, both of which he carried into adult professional life and fatherhood. His 15 Sept 2001 missing notice in the Bergen (NJ) Record noted that schoolkids called him, "Barney," to reflect how they flocked to his presence.

No one was safe from John's good-hearted and bombastic comedy routines. My father was nicknamed, "Groucho," by John due to the resemblance of his thick mustache to that of the 1930's comedian - John would burst spontaneously into seemingly classic Marx Brothers riffs, but with the content imitating my father carrying on about some printing press mishap.

[From Class of 1981, St. Mary's High School, Rutherford, NJ: Clockwise from John with cap in the foreground: Kevin Tormey, Joe McGuire, Matt DiTomasso, Walter Marlowe (valedictorian), Benn O'Hara]

My last remembrances of John are half a life away, from the impromptu high school graduation party he called at my house to his pride at finishing his engineering degree and managing facilities for a million-square foot building in Manhattan.

Perhaps he protected me as a kid because he knew that way deep down, he was destined to become an engineering geek himself. And a hero, a much bigger hero, in protecting the lives of others in a very real way.

-----

On the glorious fall morning of 11 Sept 2001, I was fixing coffee for my wife who had been sleeping in when the newsreader on my pager announced that a jet had struck the south tower of the World Trade Center.

I had missed my recent 20-year high school reunion and had not known that John had only months before been appointed director of operations at the WTC by Larry Silverstein's, Silverstein Properties.

I did not learn until two weeks later that John had facilitated the escape of dozens of workers, handing out wet towels so people could breathe on their way down the stairs. In the 102 Minutes book by New York Times writers Jim Lynch and Kevin Flynn, John is immortalized in the corroborated account of the elevator rescue of 72-year-old Port Authority construction inspector, Tony Savas.

When he returned to 78, Greg Trapp saw a group of three Port Authority employees at work on the doors to the elevator where Tony Savas, a seventy-two-year-old structural inspector, was trapped. Trapp peered into the small gap and saw him, a man with thinning white hair, seemingly serene. One of the workers grabbed a metal easel, wedging the legs into the opening, trying to spread the doors from the bottom, where they seemed to have the greatest leverage. But their efforts had the opposite effect at the top of the doors, which seemed to pinch tighter.

At that moment, John Griffin, who had recently started as the trade center's director of operations, came over to the elevator bank. At six feet, eight inches tall, Griffin had no problem reaching the top of the door to apply pressure as the others pushed from the bottom. The doors popped apart. Out came Savas, who seemed surprised to find Griffin, his new boss, involved in the rescue. Savas seemed exhilarated, possessed of a sudden burst of energy, rubbing his hands together, or so it seemed to Trapp.

"Okay," Savas said. "What do you need me to do?"

One of the Port Authority workers shook his head. "We just got you out-you need to leave the building."

No, Savas insisted. He wanted to help. "I've got a second wind."

John and Mr. Savas stayed behind.

John's wife, June, sweetheart of the class behind us, was quoted in John's NYT, Portraits of Grief:

"He was at the back of about 30 people they were evacuating," he wife, June Griffin, related from the accounts of survivors. "He had been in fires before -- he should have gotten out."

Mrs. Griffin speculated that her husband, instead of running for the exits, headed for the fire control center, where his training as a fire safety officer would have directed him. "He was an engineer," Mrs. Griffin said. "He must have thought, `Buildings don't just fall down.'"

John also left two daughters, both now teenagers, his parents, a younger brother and older sister, and literally hundreds of friends.

Not just any friends, either - anyone who knew John still says that when he talked with you, it was as though you were the most important person in the world.

-----

Leaving New Jersey in the mid-1980s and running on the tenure-track treadmill 1,600 miles away caused me to stop living life and lose track of a great many friends. I am deeply saddened not to have known John as an adult, a devoted husband and, by all accounts, a remarkable father.

Since John's death, we've all found a little more time in our schedules to make time for one another. As the father of a little girl conceived in the months after the terrorist attacks, I try to respect June's privacy and just send little gifts for the girls every so often. I cannot imagine how they and nearly 3,000 other families deal privately with the most public of tragedies.

I finally worked up the guts to go to Ground Zero [three years and] two months ago for the first time. Despite all the bickering about what the memorial should look like, there is a small memorial area set up in the interim. John's name sits at the top of one column of names on the placards commemorating those lost.

He'll always be at the top of my list.

terrasig Fri, 09/11/2009 - 02:46

Tags

personal

REPOST (Classic Terra Sig)

My friend's auto repair shop is around the corner from the firehouse in Waldwick where a burnt twisted I-beam stands in Griff's memory. I pass it at least once a week and raise my Budweiser to him.

A beautiful tribute, AP.

What I learned from the attacks is that there are heroes all around us. They are the people we live with, work with, walk down the street with, etc.... They don't look to be heroes, but they willingly become the heroes when the cowards decide to act.

For many of these people, only after they have taken on the role of hero do we see the pattern of giving and caring in their life. Usually, a pattern that makes sense only when they have passed. It is for this reason, 9-11-09 for me will always be about the heroes not about the cowards.

He was truly unique and is very missed.

I decided to celebrate their lives and the gifts they gave us because if we don't the evil ones will have won and I won't give them that power...John made everyone laught like no one else could in a nice way, always had a kind heart (family tradition) and a great smile :) just to name a few :) His Grandfather (who I was named after) was the kindest most awesome person you could ever want to meet and although I was young when he passed on I still remember vividly a lot of great attributes I found in John :) God Bless his family and all those who gave their life that day and all the USA military, past, present and future!!!!!

Thank you for posting this. 3,000 people dead is a statistic, but each one is a tragedy. We must all remember that.

You honor him greatly with your stories, and what else can we humans do but rekindle the legends of those whom we loved?

Thousands of less spectacular losses of course happen all around us, all year round, but those tied to massive cultural memories loom that much larger, and so perhaps there is a tiny consolation in the shared mourning of these great people who were taken before their time.