August 19, 2003
From the desk of Jane Galt:Whistleblower or Panicmonger?
Salon has an article today on the issue of toxic materials floating around the air after 9-11, and whether or not the EPA has lied to us about them. Are all those in the vicinity going to die from horrible poisons we unknowingly breathed?
Long time readers of the blog know that I have a more-than-passing interest in this because I spent over a year at the site, breathing in whatever nasties might have been there. So I was certainly dismayed by the implication in the article that the EPA's all-clear on asbestos was the result of not checking for smaller-than-normal fibers pulverized by the collapse. And high levels of heavy metals floating around are never good news.
Nonetheless, I'm not too worried. If the author had spent some time looking for disconfirming evidence, he wouldn't be so alarmed either.
For starters, one doesn't know -- and he doesn't say -- whether highly pulverized asbestos is as dangerous as the standard form. And while I certainly don't want to be around the stuff any more than is necessary, the bulk of the danger from asbestos is to those who smoke; smoking and asbestos seem to heterodyne to produce many more cancers than either could produce by itself. And the longer you are exposed to high levels of asbestos, the worse the damage; it is unlikely, though of course possible, that I will suffer any permanent damage from one year of (non-smoking) work down near the site.
The evidence on heavy metals is even weaker. How do I know? Because I -- and everyone else who worked on or around the site as part of the disaster recovery effort -- was tested for heavy metals in my blood multiple times. The result? My levels were not just within the safety margin, but normal. There seem to have been some people who suffered transient elevated levels, but nothing to suggest massive poisoning. And that's for those of us who were grotting around in the dirt on the site for a year. Folks living five blocks away are unlikely to wake up tomorrow to find that lead poisoning has turned them into a modern-day Caligula. Those of us who worked at the site are all being monitored as part of an ongoing study at Mount Sinai. Believe you me, if people start turning up with mercury poisoning, you'll hear about it. The author of the article makes ominous sounds about years of low level exposure to heavy metals. But we'll have those anyway, especially if we eat fish, move to Michigan, or go camping without our Brita water filters along. As any chemist will tell you, the dose makes the poison. The article itself says that background levels of heavy metals in the air, where we are most likely to come into intimate contact with them, are within normal range.
There are the respiratory problems, of course. I believe that the site may have caused ongoing respiratory problems. That's because I'm an asthmatic, and I know that spending prolonged time near any sort of construction that throws a lot of dust into the air is not good for your breathing. Being an asthmatic, I also know that the kind of low-grade cough most people are reporting is annoying, but treatable, not a human tragedy waiting to happen. Don't get me wrong -- I'm sympathetic. How could I not be? But I'm not particularly afraid. Almost a year after I left the site, my asthma seems to be no better or worse than it was before 9/11.
Ah, but that's anecdotal, you say. Indeed it is, and so is most of this article. Quite a lot of it centers around one woman who has mysterious cuts that don't heal and gets a lot of colds since 9/11.
I don't mean to minimize the plight of those who have suffered health problems from being in close proximity to Ground Zero, since I'm one of them. Nor pretend that everything is hunky dory. But I don't think it's quite time to put a deposit on a gravesite either.
Posted by Jane Galt at August 19, 2003 7:26 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksFolks living five blocks away are unlikely to wake up tomorrow to find that lead poisoning has turned them into a modern-day Caligula.
They'll sue anyway.
Just FYI, pulverized asbestos is most dangerous than the "standard" kind. Only if the particles are
Smoking and asbestos potentiate cancer risk - if you're exposed to asbestos, the risk of cancer increases 50x than if you just smoked (the theory is that the irritation to the lung lining increases cell division).
I thought "heterodyne" meant "to cause interference." Have I been misinformed?
go camping without our Brita water filters along
Uhm, don't. At least, not without some sort of purifying filter, as nearly any water source can potentially cary the Giardia amoeba. (Rule of thumb was that sources above timberline -- presumably because larger animals don't go up there -- were safe, but even this is no longer true.) Once ingested, the nasty little critter takes residence in the intestines and produces the symptoms of intestinal flu for several weeks.
Michael -
I think the word "Jane" wanted was potentiate. But she was probably thinking of the way the signals of radio stations on adjoining frequencies can heterodyne and create unintelligible feedback. You'd hear it as a squealy whine in the AM radio. Two things working together to create something that's more than an additive sum. (I do hope this post itself is not an example of unintelligible feedback!)
Aren't you missing the larger point- that false statements were issued, and the EPA's assesment was edited, removing negative or even potentially negative information regarding the safety of inhaling that soup of cement, glass, asbestos...? Doesn't this damage the credibility of information coming out of the EPA, especially in the event of a future crisis?
One point worth making about the nature of what was in the air- it was a highly alkaline mixture, largely due to the pulverized cement. This means that it will be more reactive upon contact with moisture in the lung. Other contaminants present have access to already irritated and thus more vulnerable tissue. Glass is largely Silica, a known bad actor in industry, for which tight controls have been established. Silicosis is the disease resulting from over-exposure to said contaminant. Silicosis also occurs from the decomposition, in the lung, of the mineral Asbestos, also a silicate. In breaking down, it produces silactic acid, which damages (scars) the lung tissue.
Different people have different sensitivities to Silica, as well as most other compounds considered irritants or toxins. Prior lung damage from diseases such as pneumonia or TB will also affect susceptability.
So the question is: Is it OK for the NSC to control what the EPA tells us regarding the risks at hand? If so, and hundreds or thousands were harmed who may otherwise have been able to depart the area until it was cleaned up, does the Government bear any responsibility for those injured by staying put and returning to work?
Comments are Closed.