BUSINESS WEEK
SEPTEMBER 20, 2001
NEWS ANALYSIS
Link
to article
By Michelle Conlin in New York
Edited by Beth Belton
What's Lurking in That Smoke?
Some public-health experts fear the World Trade Center's fireball
and collapse released a toxic stew of potentially harmful particles.
For many New Yorkers, it couldn't be avoided -- the hideous,
throat-scorching smoke pouring out of ground zero that made parts of
Manhattan and Brooklyn feel like a circle in Dante's hell. Some
strapped on masks to keep from gagging on the fumes. Others, hit
for days by the
gray ash that blew over the boroughs, couldn't help but suck the
mysterious flakes in. For them, the question has been nagging:
Is there a secondary, environmental danger lurking from Terrible
Tuesday?
With the search-and-rescue mission still under way, the
public-health concerns are not at the forefront -- yet. But as that
effort gives way to demolition and cleanup, experts say that
could soon change. Within a matter of minutes on Sept. 11, one of
the most valuable swaths of real estate in the world was
erupting into a potential environmental disaster.
For years, Europeans have banned the toxic, carcinogenic building
and office products that fill most American workplaces. The twin
towers were loaded with millions of items -- office furniture,
computer circuit boards, plastic garbage cans, copy machines -- that
were never meant to be burned. The resulting volcano of hazardous
waste spewed carcinogenic chemicals, vaporized organic
compounds, and highly dangerous combustible gases (see table).
LAX STANDARDS? The federal Environmental Protection Agency
began testing the area around the World Trade Center and
Brooklyn the day of the attack to determine the extent of asbestos
contamination, an early concern. The agency found some samples taken
near ground zero that exceeded asbestos levels deemed safe, one of
which was 4.5 times the agency's acceptable
standard. But mostly, its testing shows asbestos, as well as PCBs
(polychlorinated biphenyl), PAHs (polyaromatic hydrocarbons), and
heavy metals, to be at levels considered safe. In fact, the EPA,
along with New York City officials, rushed to downplay the
public-health threat
emanating from the disaster scene.
Yet many scientists and public-health experts in New York, across
the country, and in Europe counter that dust and toxic materials,
not asbestos, may be the biggest threat and that the EPA's testing
is, at best, inconclusive. "This is very concerning as a
public-health issue,"
says Peter L. deFur, a professor at Virginia Commonwealth
University's Center for Environmental Studies who also serves
on an EPA advisory committee. DeFur figures that the smoke and dust
contain dangers not yet being measured. He believes
longer-lasting effects from some of the chemicals released could
show up in testing down the road, posing an
"increased risk for those living in the plume," he
says.
Experts also argue that the EPA's standards, which are often heavily
influenced by industry, are much too high, especially in an
event of such unprecedented magnitude that flooded the environment
with so many contaminants simultaneously. "This could
already qualify as a Superfund site," says Richard Clapp, a
professor at Boston University's School of Public Health. Indeed,
EPA officials are using Superfund money for the relief effort.
"DAMAGE LATER ON." Many doctors say everyone who was
in the explosions' vicinity could have potentially suffered acute
exposure from the dust and smoke and could be at risk for everything
from near-term respiratory ailments to, over decades, cancer.
"Even at low or barely detectable levels, that's a lot of
asbestos fibers and other dangerous particles
going into people's lungs," says Clapp. "If those
get lodged, they could do damage later on." Asbestos exposure
can cause asbestosis, a scarring of the lungs that leads to
breathing problems and heart failure, according to the American Lung
Assn. It could also lead to lung cancer and mesothelioma, a rare
cancer of the chest or abdomen lining.
Rescue workers who weren't wearing protective gear, those returning
to work in the area, and people who smoke are also at risk in
the near and long term. "We just don't know what's there,"
says Dr. Robin Herbert, co-director of Mount Sinai's clinic for
Occupational Health. The invisible dust particles -- which paper
masks don't protect against -- are the most insidious. "This
could be the secondary crisis that we won't see for a long
time," says Lois Gibbs, the agitator behind the cleanup at Love
Canal (a Superfund site in Niagara Falls, N.Y.) who now heads
the Center for Environmental Health & Justice.
Another complication: The debris-loaded trucks barreling out of the
city to the disposal site at the Fresh Kills landfill in Staten
Island. Potentially toxic debris is "probably all over lower
Manhattan," says Temple University civil engineering professor
William Miller. "We may see some future debates about
'not in my backyard' regarding this disposal."
AWAITING ANSWERS. Environmental consultants are also worried
about the small-business owners and residents who have
reentered the area, mopping up and vacuuming the dust themselves.
"Some of these buildings should be professionally
remediated so the hazardous materials can be removed," says
Robert Fox, the architect who designed the Conde Nast building in
Times Square.
What exactly happens when toxin-filled office towers explode has
never been studied. "The federal agencies need to do
comprehensive testing to develop a safety plan," says Wayne
Tusa, head of New York City-based Environmental Risk & Loss
Control Inc.
Distrustful of government testing, many folks are waiting on results
from independent scientists. Some, like the world-renowned
German eco-toxicologist Michael Brownguard, flew to New York the
week after the tragedy to undertake exhaustive testing of his
own, the results of which he'll make available to the public.
Others, like scientists from the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences in North Carolina's Research Triangle Park, were
able to race to New York immediately. They got fresh samples
from ground zero the day after the attack.
For those who fear the environmental aftermath, the results can't
come soon enough.
STILL DANGEROUS The destruction of the World Trade Center
towers unleashed a host of health risks:
Asbestos: While the EPA says most test samples near the site contain
less than 1% asbestos, scientists warn even that amount is too high.
Toxic chemicals: Thousands of dangerous by-products resulted from
all the materials that burned. These include known
cancer-causing chemicals like PCBs, dioxins, and furans, which
result when electrical equipment and plastics (PVCs) are burned
Dust particles: Lodged in the lungs, these substances can result in
everything from respiratory diseases to cancer
Data: Wayne Tusa of New York Environmental Risk & Loss Control
Inc. |
| ... |
|
Help elect me as your public
advocate. I will continue to fight for the way life should be
in New York City because I am the only candidate who knows and cares
about how good it can be! |
|
. |
 |
If you would like to send your
comments click on Email.
If you would like to volunteer for my grass roots campaign to
help get our city back to the people click on Volunteer.
Please provide your name address and telephone number when
replying, otherwise emails received without that information will be
deleted. Emails with attachments are not accepted and are
blocked due to possible virus infections within the attachment. |
|
Home
Page |
|
|
. |
Click on the link for the
list of candidates and read about my personal experiences with them!
Paid for by Bill
Murawski for Public Advocate
Graphic Design and Layout by Webmistress Linda
Copyright 2001 Bill Murawski
|
