WTC 9-11 RELATED INFO.
- Thread starter 68jk09
- Start date
- Joined
- May 6, 2010
- Messages
- 16,225
Keep the memories of all alive within us & pass this on to all the new Members who may not have the weight of those who were there ......down the road when we are all gone they will be the ones to keep the memories alive & project the Respect.....NEVER FORGET ! ....NEVER FORGIVE !
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2009
- Messages
- 28,280
NEVER FORGET !, NEVER FORGIVE !
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,487
Damn right, NEVER FORGET & Never Forgive!! God rest all the souls lost that day and in subsequent years. Console their families and protect those still today suffering illness and injury from that hateful day.
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2009
- Messages
- 34
68jk09 said:
Agree 100%. Screw them.
- Joined
- May 6, 2010
- Messages
- 16,225
QUOTE...
Subject: FYI...
Impact of falsified EPA corrosivity standard on First Responders at Ground Zero
The following excerpt is from comments submitted to EPA by the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (www.PEER.org) and Dr. Cate Jenkins. This was in response to EPA?s proposed denial of the PEER/Jenkins petition to change their Corrosivity Characteristic regulation which now uses a falsified safe pH level for alkaline corrosive materials (causing chemical burns to human tissues).
The excerpt addresses EPA?s claim that even if the EPA Corrosivity Characteristic were falsified, then it would have had no impact on First Responders exposed to WTC dust. EPA claimed they were given respirators which would have protected them no matter what the pH level. PEER and Jenkins disputed this as follows:
On 2/9/02, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) leaked its own pH test data at Ground Zero to the press, since EPA was withholding it from the public. Dr. Jenkins was asked by the reporter if EPA had any standards for the pH levels of 11.8 to 12.1 found by USGS. She researched the EPA Corrosivity Characteristic safe levels, and told the reporter no. At the time, she did not know the Corrosivity Characteristic pH standard of 12.5 and above had falsified the UN World Health Organization standard. The WHO actually established that a pH of 11.5 and higher was corrosive to human flesh. Thus, the newspaper article could not contain any warning based on the EPA health standard.
Furthermore, OSHA was actively refusing to enforce respirator use at Ground Zero, although it did supply respirators, give training and put up signs. OSHA rebuffed written and verbal entreaties from a NYC health department official to enforce the OSHA respiratory protection standard. OSHA did not recognize any health hazard from the pH levels found by USGS, since the falsified EPA Corrosivity Characteristic standard was incorporated into OSHA?s emergency response standards. (Important note: As of 2012, OSHA now has its own corrosive-to-human-flesh standard of pH 11.5 and higher, in contrast to EPA?s current less protective standard of pH 12.5 and higher.)
The repeated refusals by OSHA to enforce respiratory protection is documented in the DAILY SUMMARIES of meetings between OSHA, EPA, FDNY, NYC DOH, NYPD, Construction/Demolition firms, and others at Ground Zero. The DAILY SUMMARIES also describe how they strategized countering newspaper articles that said toxics were at more dangerous levels than EPA or OSHA portrayed. These DAILY SUMMARIES are available at the links in the excerpt below.
Link to 12/7/16 PEER/Jenkins comments on EPA?s Tentative Denial: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-RCRA-2016-0040-0452
Link to 4/11/16 Tentative Denial itself as well as the other public comments and the supporting EPA Docket materials: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-RCRA-2016-0040
[Excerpt below from PEER/Jenkins comments submitted to EPA, pages 118 to 122]
Claim respirator use at Ground Zero prevented exposures, so irrelevant that the Corrosivity Characteristic was falsified
Claim that regardless of the pH level in the Corrosivity Characteristic, First Responders and others had respiratory protection at Ground Zero and were not exposed
If after 9/11 during the emergency response and cleanup of the WTC, the Corrosivity Characteristic had used the pH level of 11.5, instead of 12.5, then more of the dust and debris would have been declared hazardous by EPA and OSHA at the time. In large part, OSHA and EPA were not finding levels of other toxics in the air or dust for extended periods of time at levels exceeding the standards that would trigger more stringent controls. But if the pH level of 11.5 had been the standard for classifying WTC dust as corrosive, then more stringent controls would have been in place. Further, citizens would have recognized there was an exceedance at least for corrosivity and would have been motivated to take respiratory precautions. (There is a controversy over EPA and OSHA claims there were no excessive exceedance of asbestos, dioxin, heavy metals and other toxics, due to improper test methods. Regardless, citizens were being told there were no excessive exceedances of these types of toxics, and they were told nothing whatsoever about the pH levels of WTC dust prior to February 2002.)
The Tentative Denial provided a range of arguments to support the contention that even if the Corrosivity Characteristic trigger level for alkaline corrosives was set to the more protective level of pH 11.5, it would not have made any difference in the exposures or the health outcomes of those at Ground Zero or in surrounding neighborhoods.
See excerpts below from the Tentative Denial:
Further, the petition argues that regulation of these airborne dusts as RCRA hazardous wastes would have prompted wide-spread respirator use and prevented first responder lung injury, and can prevent such injury to demolition workers and the general public present at future building demolitions.
?
The petition also argues that classification of the 9/11 dust as RCRA hazardous may have impacted workers? respirator use at the 9/11 site. However, this argument does not appear to have support. OSHA?s regulations govern worker safety (e.g., respirator use) when workers are handling hazardous substances in emergency response (see 29 CFR 1910.120(a)).
?
While the petitioner is correct that CERCLA regulations incorporate RCRA hazardous wastes as part of the universe of ?hazardous substances,? (see petition at 8 (citing 40 CFR 302.4(b)) , the universe of substances that give rise to worker safety regulations is much broader than RCRA hazardous wastes (see 29 CFR 1910.120(a)). Petitioners provide no support for the contention that broadening the universe of waste classified as RCRA-hazardous for corrosivity would have had any impact on the level of worker safety regulation imposed at the WTC site20.
?
? And finally, the petition fails to demonstrate that the hazards posed by the WTC site dust could have been reduced or controlled through RCRA regulation.
OSHA sampling results generally showed no continuous exceedance of toxic hazards, no pH test results were provided, so respirator use was not motivated
EPA included in the docket of supporting materials for the Tentative Denial a summary of testing results at Ground Zero. Similar data was available from EPA both at Ground Zero and the surrounding neighborhoods. Very few toxics, even asbestos, exceeded OSHA limits for any extended period of time, and even if they did the elevations were sporadic and usually confined to certain areas. First Responders and others were aware of this data at the time. Importantly, the pH of any of the WTC dust or other emissions was not even mentioned in the data summaries.
__________________________________________
Reference:
OSHA. (2002). OSHA Sampling Results Summary as of 10/08/2002.
[EPA Docket # 379]
__________________________________________
This provided a strong message that there were no continuous air hazard issues (in addition to the falsely reassuring press releases from EPA). Even though workers within the perimeter of Ground Zero were being told to wear respirators, there was not much motivation if there were insignificant or occasional toxic exceedances.
Union representative at Ground Zero confirms contemporaneously while at Ground Zero they were never told about the high pH levels of WTC dust, and if they knew they would have been motivated to wear respirators
The EPA docket included a 9/27/01 summary of sampling results independently performed by the industrial hygienist Bruce Lippy on behalf of the Heavy Equipment Operators of the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) at Ground Zero. He also recommended respiratory protection, but his recommendations were based on similar data as that obtained by EPA and OSHA, with no excessive exceedances of any OSHA standard. No mention was made in Mr. Lippy?s report of any concern over the high pH corrosive properties of WTC dust.
__________________________________________
Reference:
Lippy, B. (2002). Air Sampling at the World Trade Center Site by the Operating Engineers National Hazmat Program, September 27, 2001 Update.
[EPA Docket # 213]
http://tools.niehs.nih.gov/wetp/wtc/wtc%20air%20sampling_bl_9-27.pdf
__________________________________________
However, on 2/9/02, the US Geological Survey (USGS) leaked their results of pH testing they had performed to the press. The reporter, Andrew Schneider, interviewed Mr. Lippy as part of his 2/9/02 article in the Post-Dispatch. When told the high pH levels found in WTC dust, Mr. Lippy said that if the workers had known, they would have been motivated to wear respirators.
Dr. Jenkins, a co-petitioner, was also interviewed by the reporter. She researched the RCRA Corrosivity Characteristic for the reporter and found the pH level was 12.5 and higher for classification as corrosive. Thus, she was unable to advise the reporter that Corrosivity Characteristic pH levels were being exceeded according to the USGS pH testing results. She was unaware at this time that the pH level had been falsified in the Corrosivity Characteristic. If the Corrosivity Characteristic had been set at the correct level, pH 11.5, she could have advised that the dust was considered a hazardous corrosive at the time people were actually being exposed.
This disproves the Tentative Denial?s claim there is no evidence that respirator use would have increased if people had known about the high pH of WTC dust, or if the Corrosivity Characteristic had been at the pH 11.5 level. If it had, the dust would had been classified as hazardous and people would have worn respirators.
See below excerpts from the Andrew Schneider article quoting both Bruce Lippy, CIH, CSP and Dr. Jenkins:
__________________________________________
Reference:
Andrew Schneider, Post-Dispatch, February 9, 2002, Caustic dust blankets World Trade Center area
http://landofpuregold.com/truth15.htm
http://rense.com/general20/tox.htm
https://web.archive.org/web/20030324015036/http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/PDF/StLouisDispatch-2-9-02-CausticDustBlanketsWTCarea.pdf
http://web.archive.org/web/20020407044319/http://www.rense.com/general20/tox.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20160305184617/http://landofpuregold.com/truth15.htm
__________________________________________
But an examination of all the EPA's public and press statements made since Sept. 11 found nothing that warned of the very high pH levels found by the Geological Survey scientists. Nor did the statements disclose the specific levels that the EPA's own testing found.
We've not heard of EPA or anyone else releasing information on specific pH levels in the dust, and that's information that we all should have had," said Carrie Loewenherz, an industrial hygienist for the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health, which provides assistance to more than 250 unions.
"It's the specific numbers - those precise pH levels - that we need to make the appropriate safety decisions for the workers, and they were never released," Loewenherz said. "The dust, once it's in contact with moist tissue, the throat, the mouth, nasal passages, the eyes and even sweaty skin, it becomes corrosive and can cause severe burns."
Most of the samples taken by USGS' team had a pH of 9.5 to 10.5, about the same alkalinity as ammonia. Two samples that were taken inside a high-rise apartment and in a gymnasium across from the wreckage of the World Trade Center had a pH of 11.8 to 12.1 - equivalent to what would be found in liquid drain cleaner.
The degree of acidity or alkalinity in a material is expressed as a pH measurement. Neutral pH - like water - is 7 on a 15-point scale. Lower than 7, to 0, is an indication of acid. Higher than 7, to 14, the top of the scale, is alkaline. Levels near either end of the pH scale can harm the health of people and animals.
Bruce Lippy, Loewenherz's counterpart with the operating engineers union, is responsible for the 300 workers running heavy equipment at ground zero.
"Part of the dilemma we faced was not knowing precisely what was in the dust," Lippy said. "We knew it was caustic but had no information on exactly how caustic it was. I was trying to get people to wear the respirators, but if I knew how high the pH levels were, I could have been more persuasive in convincing the workers of the dangers."
Only a handful of the 100 or so workers sorting wreckage and loading trucks on the site over three days last week were seen wearing respirators or protective masks.
? Cate Jenkins, a senior environmental scientist in the hazardous materials division at the EPA headquarters, said: "The pH levels the USGS documented were far too high for EPA to ignore. They insisted that all the information regarding health and safety was being released to the public. Well, that's not true. There's nothing, internally or in public releases, that shows the agency ever disclosed specific pH levels."
Multiple false claims that respirator use was enforced by OSHA at Ground Zero
The Tentative Denial and a plethora of other statements by EPA officials after 9/11 claim that First Responders and others at Ground Zero were required to wear respirators. EPA officials then uniformly claim that it was not EPA?s fault anyone was harmed by WTC dust, even though EPA officials now admit they ?misrepresented? (i.e., lied) about the hazards of WTC dust. These officials claim that if people at Ground Zero did not wear the respirators OSHA was telling them to wear, then it was their own unfortunate fault they became ill or died later. They claim, therefore, it was irrelevant that they misled people about the hazards, since they should have been wearing respirators in the first place which would have protected them, lies or no lies about the hazards notwithstanding.
The falsity of these claims in the Tentative Denial (which only repeat the same constant refrain from EPA officials throughout the years) can be seen by the following:
OSHA actively and knowingly chose not to enforce the use of respirators at Ground Zero, even when confronted and asked to enforce respiratory protection standards. OSHA only provided respirators, put up signs saying ?Respiratory Protection Zone,? coordinated fit testing of respirators, met with union officials to promote the use of respirators, etc. However, this is very different from OSHA actually exercising its regulatory authority to enforce respiratory protection. This is not a minor difference.
There was an ongoing controversy between OSHA and a NYC Department of Health official, Associate Commissioner Kelly McKinney, on the need for OSHA to enforce its respiratory protection standards. Mr. McKinney formally wrote to OSHA requesting they enforce their respiratory protection standard in the weeks and months after 9/11, and expressed his concerns in meetings with OSHA. (This was after the time period when Ground Zero was classified as a rescue operation at which time respiratory protection is not enforced.)
This information is documented in the OSHA Daily Summaries. During the Ground Zero recovery effort, there were joint daily meetings between OSHA, EPA, NYC, unions, contractors and other officials near Ground Zero. These OSHA Daily Summaries were obtained through a FOIA by the New York Committee for Occupational Safety & Health (NYCOSH) and make very moving reading for those interested in what actually was happening at Ground Zero.
Thus, since there were no continuous hazardous levels of any constituents in the air, including no hazardous levels of corrosives according to the RCRA Corrosivity Characteristic incorporated into the OSHA HAZWOPER standards, OSHA did not enforce any mandatory respiratory protection at Ground Zero. If the Corrosivity Characteristic had not been falsified in 1980, and then re-falsified by the EPA 1996 Scoping Study, then OSHA would have been able to assign a definitive air hazard from alkaline corrosive materials. OSHA would then have enforced the use of respirators. EPA directly contributed to the loss of life and illness from WTC exposures.
See the links below to these OSHA Daily Summaries, and the cover article which described them.
__________________________________________
Reference:
The following are the links to compendiums of the OSHA Daily Summary reports on activities at Ground Zero and hazard assessments, non-compliance with respiratory protection, debates on whether OSHA should enforce respirator use, etc.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160224212038/https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/229900/osha-foia-4-8-11-sec-1.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20160123015930/https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/229902/osha-foia-5-4-11-sec-3.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20160224213947/https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/229904/osha-foia-10-6-10-sec-4.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20160204014052/https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/229905/osha-foia-11-24-10-sec-5.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20160224214630/https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/229908/osha-foia-sec-9.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20160126020131/https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/229911/osha-foia-sec-12.pdf
The following is the cover article which does not address the in-fighting attempts to get OSHA to enforce respirator use:
Anthony DePalma, 9/8/11, New Docs Detail How Feds Downplayed Ground Zero Health Risks, jointly published in ProPublica and The Gaurdian
https://web.archive.org/web/20110910010557/http://www.propublica.org/article/new-docs-detail-how-feds-downplayed-ground-zero-health-risks
__________________________________________
[continued in the full PEER/Jenkins Comments on the 4/11/16 Tentative Denial by EPA of their corrosivity petition. See links above.]
UNQUOTE.
Subject: FYI...
Impact of falsified EPA corrosivity standard on First Responders at Ground Zero
The following excerpt is from comments submitted to EPA by the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (www.PEER.org) and Dr. Cate Jenkins. This was in response to EPA?s proposed denial of the PEER/Jenkins petition to change their Corrosivity Characteristic regulation which now uses a falsified safe pH level for alkaline corrosive materials (causing chemical burns to human tissues).
The excerpt addresses EPA?s claim that even if the EPA Corrosivity Characteristic were falsified, then it would have had no impact on First Responders exposed to WTC dust. EPA claimed they were given respirators which would have protected them no matter what the pH level. PEER and Jenkins disputed this as follows:
On 2/9/02, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) leaked its own pH test data at Ground Zero to the press, since EPA was withholding it from the public. Dr. Jenkins was asked by the reporter if EPA had any standards for the pH levels of 11.8 to 12.1 found by USGS. She researched the EPA Corrosivity Characteristic safe levels, and told the reporter no. At the time, she did not know the Corrosivity Characteristic pH standard of 12.5 and above had falsified the UN World Health Organization standard. The WHO actually established that a pH of 11.5 and higher was corrosive to human flesh. Thus, the newspaper article could not contain any warning based on the EPA health standard.
Furthermore, OSHA was actively refusing to enforce respirator use at Ground Zero, although it did supply respirators, give training and put up signs. OSHA rebuffed written and verbal entreaties from a NYC health department official to enforce the OSHA respiratory protection standard. OSHA did not recognize any health hazard from the pH levels found by USGS, since the falsified EPA Corrosivity Characteristic standard was incorporated into OSHA?s emergency response standards. (Important note: As of 2012, OSHA now has its own corrosive-to-human-flesh standard of pH 11.5 and higher, in contrast to EPA?s current less protective standard of pH 12.5 and higher.)
The repeated refusals by OSHA to enforce respiratory protection is documented in the DAILY SUMMARIES of meetings between OSHA, EPA, FDNY, NYC DOH, NYPD, Construction/Demolition firms, and others at Ground Zero. The DAILY SUMMARIES also describe how they strategized countering newspaper articles that said toxics were at more dangerous levels than EPA or OSHA portrayed. These DAILY SUMMARIES are available at the links in the excerpt below.
Link to 12/7/16 PEER/Jenkins comments on EPA?s Tentative Denial: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-RCRA-2016-0040-0452
Link to 4/11/16 Tentative Denial itself as well as the other public comments and the supporting EPA Docket materials: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-RCRA-2016-0040
[Excerpt below from PEER/Jenkins comments submitted to EPA, pages 118 to 122]
Claim respirator use at Ground Zero prevented exposures, so irrelevant that the Corrosivity Characteristic was falsified
Claim that regardless of the pH level in the Corrosivity Characteristic, First Responders and others had respiratory protection at Ground Zero and were not exposed
If after 9/11 during the emergency response and cleanup of the WTC, the Corrosivity Characteristic had used the pH level of 11.5, instead of 12.5, then more of the dust and debris would have been declared hazardous by EPA and OSHA at the time. In large part, OSHA and EPA were not finding levels of other toxics in the air or dust for extended periods of time at levels exceeding the standards that would trigger more stringent controls. But if the pH level of 11.5 had been the standard for classifying WTC dust as corrosive, then more stringent controls would have been in place. Further, citizens would have recognized there was an exceedance at least for corrosivity and would have been motivated to take respiratory precautions. (There is a controversy over EPA and OSHA claims there were no excessive exceedance of asbestos, dioxin, heavy metals and other toxics, due to improper test methods. Regardless, citizens were being told there were no excessive exceedances of these types of toxics, and they were told nothing whatsoever about the pH levels of WTC dust prior to February 2002.)
The Tentative Denial provided a range of arguments to support the contention that even if the Corrosivity Characteristic trigger level for alkaline corrosives was set to the more protective level of pH 11.5, it would not have made any difference in the exposures or the health outcomes of those at Ground Zero or in surrounding neighborhoods.
See excerpts below from the Tentative Denial:
Further, the petition argues that regulation of these airborne dusts as RCRA hazardous wastes would have prompted wide-spread respirator use and prevented first responder lung injury, and can prevent such injury to demolition workers and the general public present at future building demolitions.
?
The petition also argues that classification of the 9/11 dust as RCRA hazardous may have impacted workers? respirator use at the 9/11 site. However, this argument does not appear to have support. OSHA?s regulations govern worker safety (e.g., respirator use) when workers are handling hazardous substances in emergency response (see 29 CFR 1910.120(a)).
?
While the petitioner is correct that CERCLA regulations incorporate RCRA hazardous wastes as part of the universe of ?hazardous substances,? (see petition at 8 (citing 40 CFR 302.4(b)) , the universe of substances that give rise to worker safety regulations is much broader than RCRA hazardous wastes (see 29 CFR 1910.120(a)). Petitioners provide no support for the contention that broadening the universe of waste classified as RCRA-hazardous for corrosivity would have had any impact on the level of worker safety regulation imposed at the WTC site20.
?
? And finally, the petition fails to demonstrate that the hazards posed by the WTC site dust could have been reduced or controlled through RCRA regulation.
OSHA sampling results generally showed no continuous exceedance of toxic hazards, no pH test results were provided, so respirator use was not motivated
EPA included in the docket of supporting materials for the Tentative Denial a summary of testing results at Ground Zero. Similar data was available from EPA both at Ground Zero and the surrounding neighborhoods. Very few toxics, even asbestos, exceeded OSHA limits for any extended period of time, and even if they did the elevations were sporadic and usually confined to certain areas. First Responders and others were aware of this data at the time. Importantly, the pH of any of the WTC dust or other emissions was not even mentioned in the data summaries.
__________________________________________
Reference:
OSHA. (2002). OSHA Sampling Results Summary as of 10/08/2002.
[EPA Docket # 379]
__________________________________________
This provided a strong message that there were no continuous air hazard issues (in addition to the falsely reassuring press releases from EPA). Even though workers within the perimeter of Ground Zero were being told to wear respirators, there was not much motivation if there were insignificant or occasional toxic exceedances.
Union representative at Ground Zero confirms contemporaneously while at Ground Zero they were never told about the high pH levels of WTC dust, and if they knew they would have been motivated to wear respirators
The EPA docket included a 9/27/01 summary of sampling results independently performed by the industrial hygienist Bruce Lippy on behalf of the Heavy Equipment Operators of the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) at Ground Zero. He also recommended respiratory protection, but his recommendations were based on similar data as that obtained by EPA and OSHA, with no excessive exceedances of any OSHA standard. No mention was made in Mr. Lippy?s report of any concern over the high pH corrosive properties of WTC dust.
__________________________________________
Reference:
Lippy, B. (2002). Air Sampling at the World Trade Center Site by the Operating Engineers National Hazmat Program, September 27, 2001 Update.
[EPA Docket # 213]
http://tools.niehs.nih.gov/wetp/wtc/wtc%20air%20sampling_bl_9-27.pdf
__________________________________________
However, on 2/9/02, the US Geological Survey (USGS) leaked their results of pH testing they had performed to the press. The reporter, Andrew Schneider, interviewed Mr. Lippy as part of his 2/9/02 article in the Post-Dispatch. When told the high pH levels found in WTC dust, Mr. Lippy said that if the workers had known, they would have been motivated to wear respirators.
Dr. Jenkins, a co-petitioner, was also interviewed by the reporter. She researched the RCRA Corrosivity Characteristic for the reporter and found the pH level was 12.5 and higher for classification as corrosive. Thus, she was unable to advise the reporter that Corrosivity Characteristic pH levels were being exceeded according to the USGS pH testing results. She was unaware at this time that the pH level had been falsified in the Corrosivity Characteristic. If the Corrosivity Characteristic had been set at the correct level, pH 11.5, she could have advised that the dust was considered a hazardous corrosive at the time people were actually being exposed.
This disproves the Tentative Denial?s claim there is no evidence that respirator use would have increased if people had known about the high pH of WTC dust, or if the Corrosivity Characteristic had been at the pH 11.5 level. If it had, the dust would had been classified as hazardous and people would have worn respirators.
See below excerpts from the Andrew Schneider article quoting both Bruce Lippy, CIH, CSP and Dr. Jenkins:
__________________________________________
Reference:
Andrew Schneider, Post-Dispatch, February 9, 2002, Caustic dust blankets World Trade Center area
http://landofpuregold.com/truth15.htm
http://rense.com/general20/tox.htm
https://web.archive.org/web/20030324015036/http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/PDF/StLouisDispatch-2-9-02-CausticDustBlanketsWTCarea.pdf
http://web.archive.org/web/20020407044319/http://www.rense.com/general20/tox.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20160305184617/http://landofpuregold.com/truth15.htm
__________________________________________
But an examination of all the EPA's public and press statements made since Sept. 11 found nothing that warned of the very high pH levels found by the Geological Survey scientists. Nor did the statements disclose the specific levels that the EPA's own testing found.
We've not heard of EPA or anyone else releasing information on specific pH levels in the dust, and that's information that we all should have had," said Carrie Loewenherz, an industrial hygienist for the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health, which provides assistance to more than 250 unions.
"It's the specific numbers - those precise pH levels - that we need to make the appropriate safety decisions for the workers, and they were never released," Loewenherz said. "The dust, once it's in contact with moist tissue, the throat, the mouth, nasal passages, the eyes and even sweaty skin, it becomes corrosive and can cause severe burns."
Most of the samples taken by USGS' team had a pH of 9.5 to 10.5, about the same alkalinity as ammonia. Two samples that were taken inside a high-rise apartment and in a gymnasium across from the wreckage of the World Trade Center had a pH of 11.8 to 12.1 - equivalent to what would be found in liquid drain cleaner.
The degree of acidity or alkalinity in a material is expressed as a pH measurement. Neutral pH - like water - is 7 on a 15-point scale. Lower than 7, to 0, is an indication of acid. Higher than 7, to 14, the top of the scale, is alkaline. Levels near either end of the pH scale can harm the health of people and animals.
Bruce Lippy, Loewenherz's counterpart with the operating engineers union, is responsible for the 300 workers running heavy equipment at ground zero.
"Part of the dilemma we faced was not knowing precisely what was in the dust," Lippy said. "We knew it was caustic but had no information on exactly how caustic it was. I was trying to get people to wear the respirators, but if I knew how high the pH levels were, I could have been more persuasive in convincing the workers of the dangers."
Only a handful of the 100 or so workers sorting wreckage and loading trucks on the site over three days last week were seen wearing respirators or protective masks.
? Cate Jenkins, a senior environmental scientist in the hazardous materials division at the EPA headquarters, said: "The pH levels the USGS documented were far too high for EPA to ignore. They insisted that all the information regarding health and safety was being released to the public. Well, that's not true. There's nothing, internally or in public releases, that shows the agency ever disclosed specific pH levels."
Multiple false claims that respirator use was enforced by OSHA at Ground Zero
The Tentative Denial and a plethora of other statements by EPA officials after 9/11 claim that First Responders and others at Ground Zero were required to wear respirators. EPA officials then uniformly claim that it was not EPA?s fault anyone was harmed by WTC dust, even though EPA officials now admit they ?misrepresented? (i.e., lied) about the hazards of WTC dust. These officials claim that if people at Ground Zero did not wear the respirators OSHA was telling them to wear, then it was their own unfortunate fault they became ill or died later. They claim, therefore, it was irrelevant that they misled people about the hazards, since they should have been wearing respirators in the first place which would have protected them, lies or no lies about the hazards notwithstanding.
The falsity of these claims in the Tentative Denial (which only repeat the same constant refrain from EPA officials throughout the years) can be seen by the following:
OSHA actively and knowingly chose not to enforce the use of respirators at Ground Zero, even when confronted and asked to enforce respiratory protection standards. OSHA only provided respirators, put up signs saying ?Respiratory Protection Zone,? coordinated fit testing of respirators, met with union officials to promote the use of respirators, etc. However, this is very different from OSHA actually exercising its regulatory authority to enforce respiratory protection. This is not a minor difference.
There was an ongoing controversy between OSHA and a NYC Department of Health official, Associate Commissioner Kelly McKinney, on the need for OSHA to enforce its respiratory protection standards. Mr. McKinney formally wrote to OSHA requesting they enforce their respiratory protection standard in the weeks and months after 9/11, and expressed his concerns in meetings with OSHA. (This was after the time period when Ground Zero was classified as a rescue operation at which time respiratory protection is not enforced.)
This information is documented in the OSHA Daily Summaries. During the Ground Zero recovery effort, there were joint daily meetings between OSHA, EPA, NYC, unions, contractors and other officials near Ground Zero. These OSHA Daily Summaries were obtained through a FOIA by the New York Committee for Occupational Safety & Health (NYCOSH) and make very moving reading for those interested in what actually was happening at Ground Zero.
Thus, since there were no continuous hazardous levels of any constituents in the air, including no hazardous levels of corrosives according to the RCRA Corrosivity Characteristic incorporated into the OSHA HAZWOPER standards, OSHA did not enforce any mandatory respiratory protection at Ground Zero. If the Corrosivity Characteristic had not been falsified in 1980, and then re-falsified by the EPA 1996 Scoping Study, then OSHA would have been able to assign a definitive air hazard from alkaline corrosive materials. OSHA would then have enforced the use of respirators. EPA directly contributed to the loss of life and illness from WTC exposures.
See the links below to these OSHA Daily Summaries, and the cover article which described them.
__________________________________________
Reference:
The following are the links to compendiums of the OSHA Daily Summary reports on activities at Ground Zero and hazard assessments, non-compliance with respiratory protection, debates on whether OSHA should enforce respirator use, etc.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160224212038/https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/229900/osha-foia-4-8-11-sec-1.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20160123015930/https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/229902/osha-foia-5-4-11-sec-3.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20160224213947/https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/229904/osha-foia-10-6-10-sec-4.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20160204014052/https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/229905/osha-foia-11-24-10-sec-5.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20160224214630/https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/229908/osha-foia-sec-9.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20160126020131/https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/229911/osha-foia-sec-12.pdf
The following is the cover article which does not address the in-fighting attempts to get OSHA to enforce respirator use:
Anthony DePalma, 9/8/11, New Docs Detail How Feds Downplayed Ground Zero Health Risks, jointly published in ProPublica and The Gaurdian
https://web.archive.org/web/20110910010557/http://www.propublica.org/article/new-docs-detail-how-feds-downplayed-ground-zero-health-risks
__________________________________________
[continued in the full PEER/Jenkins Comments on the 4/11/16 Tentative Denial by EPA of their corrosivity petition. See links above.]
UNQUOTE.
Excellent Piece of Work Chief, Thank You.
The Propublica/Guardian Story is particularly compelling. The Bush Administration lied, Thousands paid The Price. The White House strong-armed the EPA, EPA strong-armed OSHA, New York/New Jersey (& more...) Responders suffer the consequences.
'Everything's O.K. here folks, No Need to Worry'.
We know that FDNY & All Others would have kept digging No Matter What the risk, but Everyone should have been told The Truth. What about all the Civilians who lived & worked down there at the time? Wouldn't many of them made different choices if given The Facts ? As well as those who cleared The Site Post-Emergency, didn't they deserve The Truth ?
The Propublica/Guardian Story is particularly compelling. The Bush Administration lied, Thousands paid The Price. The White House strong-armed the EPA, EPA strong-armed OSHA, New York/New Jersey (& more...) Responders suffer the consequences.
'Everything's O.K. here folks, No Need to Worry'.
We know that FDNY & All Others would have kept digging No Matter What the risk, but Everyone should have been told The Truth. What about all the Civilians who lived & worked down there at the time? Wouldn't many of them made different choices if given The Facts ? As well as those who cleared The Site Post-Emergency, didn't they deserve The Truth ?
- Joined
- May 6, 2010
- Messages
- 16,225
RIP CHIEF...From: fyiFDNY (FDNY)
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 11:55
To: fyiFDNY (FDNY)
Subject: fyiFDNY
fyi.png
It is with deep regret that we announce the passing of retired Elizabeth Fire Chief Lou Kelly. Chief Kelly, 70, was serving as a Union County Mutual Aid Coordinator at a fire on December 8, 2016, when he died in the Line of Duty. Chief Kelly and the members of Elizabeth Fire Department supported the FDNY post-9/11 by raising funds and providing two ladder trucks for the flag archway at almost every funeral that was held on Staten Island or Brooklyn. A wake will be held Monday, December 19th from 4 p.m. to 9 p.m. at Higgins and Bonner Echo Lake Funeral Home, 582 Springfield Avenue, Westfield NJ. Funeral services will take place on Tuesday, December 20th at 10a.m. at St. Genevieve's Church, 200 Monmouth Road, Elizabeth NJ.
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 11:55
To: fyiFDNY (FDNY)
Subject: fyiFDNY
fyi.png
It is with deep regret that we announce the passing of retired Elizabeth Fire Chief Lou Kelly. Chief Kelly, 70, was serving as a Union County Mutual Aid Coordinator at a fire on December 8, 2016, when he died in the Line of Duty. Chief Kelly and the members of Elizabeth Fire Department supported the FDNY post-9/11 by raising funds and providing two ladder trucks for the flag archway at almost every funeral that was held on Staten Island or Brooklyn. A wake will be held Monday, December 19th from 4 p.m. to 9 p.m. at Higgins and Bonner Echo Lake Funeral Home, 582 Springfield Avenue, Westfield NJ. Funeral services will take place on Tuesday, December 20th at 10a.m. at St. Genevieve's Church, 200 Monmouth Road, Elizabeth NJ.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,487
R.I.P. Chief. Thank you and all of the Elizabeth N.J. F.D. for their service.
- Joined
- May 6, 2010
- Messages
- 16,225
PASSING OF NORMA MOGLEN...Sol's wife passed away today after a long courageous battle with Cancer. For those not familiar with Sol Moglen, he is the architect and fundraiser for the Wall Of Remembrance which is located at MCU Park in Coney Island. All First responders who perished on 9/11 have their own photo etched stone on the wall. Originally it was intended for just Brooklyn Firefighters who had died but Sol's efforts saw to it that ALL first responders, from all agencies, were added. Funeral Information for Norma is below.
Funeral: Riverside Chapel
1450 Broadway
Hewlett, (LI) NY (Five Towns Area)
Wednesday 9/27/2017 1:00 PM
Funeral: Riverside Chapel
1450 Broadway
Hewlett, (LI) NY (Five Towns Area)
Wednesday 9/27/2017 1:00 PM
- Joined
- May 6, 2010
- Messages
- 16,225
SEE BELOW POST FOR LINK TO ENROLL IN RAFFLE...
QUOTE from ...NYC Fire Wire
We have tickets to the Radio City Christmas Spectacular Friday night 12/15 7:30pm with Stage door tour & meet a Rockette. We are raffling them off with money to go to The Ray Pfeifer Foundation . So, buy your tickets now! Raffle closes Thursday night 10pm...UNQUOTE... so for $10.00 a piece throw in your bid ...the money goes to the Ray Ffeifer Foundation.
QUOTE from ...NYC Fire Wire
We have tickets to the Radio City Christmas Spectacular Friday night 12/15 7:30pm with Stage door tour & meet a Rockette. We are raffling them off with money to go to The Ray Pfeifer Foundation . So, buy your tickets now! Raffle closes Thursday night 10pm...UNQUOTE... so for $10.00 a piece throw in your bid ...the money goes to the Ray Ffeifer Foundation.
- Joined
- May 6, 2010
- Messages
- 16,225
There is no way i can comprehend or approve of the salaries being paid to some to run the Memorial.....yes i agree there certainly are expenses necessary for workers to do a lot of the "involved work" but the exorbitant money paid to some in charge i will never understand.....& the entrance fee is not my point at all...IF i ever went i would consider it a drop in the bucket but to see some making those amounts i cant even begin to comment.... https://thousandpointsofright.blogspot.com/2017/12/911-memorial-still-operating-at-loss.html