jenkins 021302 chen thurston nyu ph methods

8/8/2019 Jenkins 021302 Chen Thurston NYU pH Methods

1/21

To: [email protected]: [email protected] Subject:Fwd: Questions on your pH measurements________________________________________________

Dr. Chi,

On 2/13/02, Dr. Thurston forwarded questions to you that Ihad raised regarding your pH measurements of sizefractionated WTC dusts. From the below, you can see thatmy concern was over neutralization of the small particlesfrom either moisture in the air or wet conditions outside, dueto their high surface to mass ratio.

Because this matter directly impinges on the currenttreatment methodologies of people and their medical

exposure history, and because we do not have anypublications as yet to examine to determine the conditions ofthe size-fractionated WTC dust that was pH tested, theinformation from you would be not only useful, but timely.

If you have any questions about my request, or need furtherclarification, please do not hesitate to call me at 703/308-0453

Cate Jenkins, Ph.D. Chemist,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Hazardous Waste Identification Division, OSW

________________________________________________________________________________________________thurston@env.med.nyu.edu (George Thurston)

02/13/02 12:37 PM________________________________________________To: [email protected]: Cate Jenkins/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject: Fwd: Questions on your pH measurements________________________________________________

Lung Chi,

Can you please answer these questions regarding the pHanalyses of size=fractionated WTC dust.

George

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

Cate Jenkins

02/19/02 04:49 PM

________________________________________________

JENKINS emails challenge NYU researchers

who claim in Senate Hearing testimony that

although the aggregate bulk WTC dust was a

corrosive as drain cleaner, the more hazardo

smaller particles were allegedly neutral. To t

day (12/9/10) NYU and others responsible fo

making this claim have not provided the

analytical methods to substantiate claim the

smallest particles were not corrosive. See

Jenkins' 8/22/06, 10/25/06, 5/6/07 and 10/13/

complaints to the FBI and Congress question

these alleged results by NYU on SCRIBD.

ATTACHED St. Louis Post-Dispatch story of

2/09/02 (also 2/10/02) documenting high pH

levels of WTC dust, quoting Jenkins and EPA

response to Jenkins.

SEE OTHER POSTINGS ON SCRIBD for

Jenkins' complaints to Congress and FBI

regarding the validity of these NYU pH result

dated 8/22/06, 10/25/06, 5/6/07 and 10/13/08


2/21

George D. Thurston, Associate Professor of EnvironmentalMedicine Director,Community Outreach and EducationProgram, NYU-NIEHS Env. Hlth. Center Nelson Institute ofEnvironmental Medicine, 57 Old Forge Rd. NYU School ofMedicine Tuxedo, NY 10987 USA PH: 845-731-3564 or, if

not in service, call 212-263-7300 and ask for extension885-5309 in Sterling Forest FAX: 845-351-5472 or 845-351-3317 Faculty Web Page:HTTP://niem.med.nyu.edu/faculty/ThurstonG.htmlCommunity Outreach Environmental Problems ResourcesWeb Page: http://niem.med.nyu.edu/outreach/

________________________________________________________________________________________________Cate Jenkins

02/13/02 12:08 PM

________________________________________________To: [email protected]:Subject: Questions on your pH measurements

________________________________________________

George, I have another question for your that I am sure youcan clear up, in the never-ending battle to clarify hearsay:

You are quoted as saying at the 2/11 hearing that in yourstudies you measured the pH of WTC dusts. You

fractionated the dust into smaller, respirable-sizeparticulates, and found that the smaller particles did nothave a high pH (a high pH meaning alkaline or caustic).

Considering the high surface to mass ratio of the smallparticulates, wouldnt you be concerned that the high pHwould quickly be neutralized by the moisture in the air? Thecause of the high pH would be the presence of calciumcarbonate without any moisture content (anhydrous calciumcarbonate), created by the extremely high temperatures ofthe fires burning in the collapse of the WTC.

My questions would be as follows:

1. How long was it from the time of generation (time thedust was deposited on the ground directly after being in thedust cloud) to the time of analysis?

2. Under what conditions were the samples maintained to


3/21

preserve their anhydrous state?

3. Were WTC samples subjected to vacuum extraction andstorage with a strong dessicant prior to analysis if in factthey were collected almost instantaneously from the time of

deposition from any smoke or dust plume?

4. Were any experiments performed where the smallestparticles of WTC dusts were re-subjected to temperaturescomparable to the fires at the WTC to return them to theiralkaline state, which would be more similar to what their pHwas at the time they were in the dust cloud and inhaled byfirefighters and police officers?

5. I heard that you said that you aerosolized the finerparticulates to study them. What methods did you use?

Did you aerosolize them prior to subjecting them to pHmeasurements? What type of anhydrous conditions wereemployed during aerosolization to ensure that the moisturepresent in the air did not neutralize the alkalinity/causticnature of the small particulates? 6. Were any of the dustssubjected to pH measurement ever in a wet environmentoutside prior to collection (i.e., rain or fire hoses)?

Thanks again,

Cate

________________________________________________________________________________________________


4/21

[email protected] (George Thurston)02/12/2002 03:38 PM

To: Cate Jenkins/DC/USEPA/US@EPAcc:

Subject: Re: 2 news articles, 2/10 StLouisD-pH, 2/8 Newsday-cars

I never spoke to PS 89. Never said anything about a blender. Don't

believe everything you read in the papers. For example, the applesand oranges didn't refer to Libby Montana, but to the existingasbestos standards counts vs. including fine asbestos particles, notcounted in that standard.

The C-span testimony should be on the web. Please listen tothe whole thing, not clips by the media.George

I also heard about your comments to the PTA of PS 89 last Tuesday, andwould like to know if it is true, since this is the story nowcirculating in scientific circles: You were quoted as saying that yourlaboratory method for analyzing asbestos first involved homogenizing ina blender. Then you are quoted as saying that you had seen no fibersover 3.5 micrometers long. Is this true?--George D. Thurston, Associate Professor of Environmental MedicineDirector,Community Outreach and Education Program, NYU-NIEHS Env. Hlth. CenterNelson Institute of Environmental Medicine, 57 Old Forge Rd.NYU School of MedicineTuxedo, NY 10987 USAPH: 845-731-3564or, if not in service, call 212-263-7300and ask for extension 885-5309 in Sterling Forest

FAX: 845-351-5472 or 845-351-3317Faculty Web Page:HTTP://niem.med.nyu.edu/faculty/ThurstonG.htmlCommunity Outreach Environmental Problems Resources Web Page:

http://niem.med.nyu.edu/outreach/


5/21

[email protected] (George Thurston)02/12/2002 07:42 AM


Subject: Re: 2 news articles, 2/10 StLouisD-pH, 2/8 Newsday-cars

Did you watch the WTC hearings on C-span yesterday? I think this

would be more productive than reading newspaper articles.

George--George D. Thurston, Associate Professor of Environmental MedicineDirector,Community Outreach and Education Program, NYU-NIEHS Env. Hlth. CenterNelson Institute of Environmental Medicine, 57 Old Forge Rd.NYU School of MedicineTuxedo, NY 10987 USAPH: 845-731-3564or, if not in service, call 212-263-7300and ask for extension 885-5309 in Sterling Forest

FAX: 845-351-5472 or 845-351-3317Faculty Web Page:HTTP://niem.med.nyu.edu/faculty/ThurstonG.htmlCommunity Outreach Environmental Problems Resources Web Page:http://niem.med.nyu.edu/outreach/


6/21

Cate Jenkins01/29/2002 07:25 PM

To: [email protected] (George Thurston)cc:

Subject: Re: Sudduetsche Zietung article, 1-29-02, on World Trade Center

Thank you, George!!

Cate


7/21


To: Cate Jenkins/DC/USEPA/US@EPAcc: [email protected], [email protected],

[email protected], [email protected]: Re: Sudduetsche Zietung article, 1-29-02, on World Trade Center

Bablefish on-line translation of the German article you sent us, for

what it is worth.George

It is appropriate which in air

The World trade center set free obviouslymuch with the collapse more

asbestos, than the US environmentalprotection authority wants to admit

Of Eva of Schaper

The inhabitants of south Manhattan haveagain fear. Even ones are final the first clearing up work, some

dwelling are referred again and the numberof the dead ones seem to be nevertheless not as high as initially

feared. But the impact will possiblyrequire new victims on the World trade center still after decades.Because

now obviously it became that the asbestoscontent could be dangerously high in the dwellings and offices

Manhattans. In the worst case each tenthinhabitant at cancer of the lungs could get sick.

" we are very relieved that there is

apparent no considerable asbestos load in the air of New York towncenter", had the chief of the US environmental

protection authority EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)Christie Whitman still two days after the

terrorist attack said. A half year later shows up now however thatthis information was simply false.

" I have fear that I will be in five orten years part of a cancer statistics ", told George Tabb now the

Washington post office. He spent the timeafter 11 September in his dwelling north the World trade of center.

Independent measurements permitted as muchasbestos in its hall 555-mal found as. Thereupon the

environmental protection authority at thebeginning of of Decembers sent its own examiners into the

building. " the tests were negative ",said a EPA speaker.

Deadly dust

How it could come to this contradiction,Cate Jenkins believes to know: " the methods of the EPA are old

over 20 years ", say the woman employee ofmany years of the authority. Besides the procedures are


8/21

appropriate only to seek out minimumasbestos remainders which are still available for instance after a

complete reorganization. A further weakpoint of the EPA of proofs: " the authorities tested only outside air.

They cannot know whether the city isreally safe ", criticized for example the delegate of the house of

representatives Jerrold Nadler. Because

independent companies measured even quantities of the deadly dustincreased in the houses. Of the EPA no

statement was to received, but EPA Ombudsmann Richard Martinrequires in the meantime a thorough

examination of the used test methods and also the information policyof

its authority.

Founded guessing

Even the EPA fibers found: " only in thedirect proximity of the World there was trade of center asbestos

quantities, which were situated, calm downover our limit values " the office on its Internet page. " it gives

however with asbestos no limit value ",moniert to Rolf Packroff of the Federal Institution for industrialsafety and industrial medicine. " a unique

short high load can be enough to release around cancer. "

Since short now first risikoabschaetzungenfor south Manhattan are present. By using the measuring data of

independent institutes, Cate Jenkinsenumerated from the EPA that the fibers for at least each thousandth,

possibly even each tenth inhabitant couldbecome deadly. Jenkins however calls their calculations " very

still uncertainly ". Because they werebased only on limited data, and the risks were too highly set after

caution for the sake of EPA standards.

This estimate divides also the toxicologist Thomas Gebel of theFederal Institution for industrial safetyand industrial medicine: " that is a partly founded guessing. " Therisk

is to be quantified only with exactknowledge of the asbestos load.

Asbestos occurs in nature in finestfibers, which einnisten themselves in the lung. There they canrelease a

Vernarbung of the lung still after decadescancer of the lungs, cancer-similar Geschwulste or a deadly

Asbestose, thus. How many of these finestparticles float still in air over Manhattan, cannot be said exactly,

because the distribution is verydifferent. Besides is unclear, how much asbestos was at all blockedinto the

twin Towers and how of it much isgerieselt on the city already. " the asbestos concentrations in thedust and

in housing air were substantiallyincreased ", found a company, which created an appraisal in Octoberover

the pollution impact. It guesses/advisesto assume caution for the sake of " all types of dust are asbesthaltig


9/21

". Only experienced Asbestsanierer withspecial equipment should clean dwellings and offices.

But but it is already too late in manycases: Numerous humans returned to the misfortune to their dwellings

and offices. By the chaos, which developedafter the collapse of the twin towers, thereby much ran inclined. "

our dwelling was cleaned by threeauxiliary workers with brooms, turning sheet metals and rags, reported

about Steve Swaney of the newspaperSt.Louis post office Dispatch. " you did not have yet times protective

masks. " In Germany such a thing is "strictly forbidden ", means asbestos expert Packroff.

Partly the authorities themselves gavelethal pieces of advice: It is not necessary to carry when clearing up

protective masks spread it for example.Pure calculation, believes Swaney: " someone does not want that the

truth rauskommt. " Finally go it aroundmuch cash and many jobs. " you do not want to close Manhattan, but

I want to know, whether it is safe, here to live.

"

According to opinion of Cate Jenkins mightrather not be that the case. " the past clearing up work is useless

", means them. Because the owners of housedid not know in the first days, how they should proceed. Some

the hall by Asbestsanierer clean wouldhave let. Then however the tenants would have deseamed the dwellings

themselves - without each expertise. Inthis type can have spread asbestos remainder from a simply only

output-swept dwelling easily over the hallor the air conditioning system. Also curtains or pad references can

deliver the asbestos fibers in thecleaning easily to other textiles.

Even quite well cleaned dwelling housessave to today dangers: On the roof of such a building was, says

Jenkins, still substantial quantitiesasbestos-deaf, which can contaminate the dwellings with each gust of

wind again.

South Manhattan is to be explained as a "Superfund Site"der EPA, requires Cate Jenkins therefore. It concerns

a status, which the environmentalprotection authority assigns to on particularly contaminated areas. "the

government would have to then monitor theclearing up work. One would have security that all dwellings and

offices are cleaned for Jenkins accordingto the same methods ", so.

Contaminated as at the mine

Their demand justifies it with theexperiences with clearing up work in a mine village in the USfederation

State of Montana. In the mines of Libbyfor many years asbestos was diminished - probably even that, which

was used with the building of the World


10/21

trade of center. The city got superfind status, after the EPA in thehouses Libbys asbestos concentrations had

found, those after Jenkins calculations was partly even lowerthan in south Manhattan. The EPA had used

those fine measuring methods, to which she did not fall back inNew York in Libby.

At 11:09 AM -0500 1/29/02, [email protected] wrote:>__________________>>Attached is an article which appeared in this morning's Sudduetsche>Zietung, in German. (See attached file: suddeutsche-1-29-01.pdf)>>The article may also be found at:>>http://www.sueddeutsche.de/aktuell/sz/artikel117248.php

>>Attachment converted: GTPowerbookHD:suddeutsche-1-29-01.pdf (PDF>/CARO) (0008DC2B)

--George D. Thurston, Associate Professor of Environmental MedicineDirector,Community Outreach and Education Program, NYU-NIEHS Env. Hlth. CenterNelson Institute of Environmental Medicine, 57 Old Forge Rd.NYU School of MedicineTuxedo, NY 10987 USAPH: 845-731-3564or, if not in service, call 212-263-7300and ask for extension 885-5309 in Sterling Forest

FAX: 845-351-5472 or 845-351-3317

Faculty Web Page:HTTP://niem.med.nyu.edu/faculty/ThurstonG.htmlCommunity Outreach Environmental Problems Resources Web Page:http://niem.med.nyu.edu/outreach/


11/21

Cate Jenkins01/24/2002 10:09 AM


Subject: Re: Dioxins were over action level at EPA building in NYC in October

George, the same exposure level measured in Octoberand early November certainly would not last 30 years.

But the point is this: If it was this high that far away over

one month after the event, and if you assume an asymptotic

diminution of the concentration from the time of the event,then what would have been the concentrations at the time

of the event nearer Ground Zero?? That is the concern.That is what we need to get a handle on, so as to correlatepast exposures with present and future health effects.We don't have a clue what people were being exposed to,other than asbestos, fiberglass, and particulatesat this point.

We are working on getting better environmental testing.That, of course, is still needed for the cleanup. The

measurement of dioxins indicates a need for biologicalsamples as well.

[email protected] (George Thurston)



[email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected]


Cate,Do you think that this exposure would last 30 Years? Not at

all likely. And it is not over the 1 year exposure action level,while these exposures will not likely continue anywhere near thatlong.

This indicates to me, if anything, a need for follow-up measurements.George

At 4:10 PM -0500 1/23/02, [email protected] wrote:>__________________>>>Check out the attached document, 2nd page.>EPA found dioxins above the air action level

>for a 30 year exposure at its own building>on 290 Broadway. They tested their own building>first in this specialized test by EPA's Office>of Research and Development (ORD).>>Got this from the www.nyenvirolaw.org web site>just now. Joel Kupferman pointed it out.>>(See attached file: 2-EPA-DailySummary-Dec5-2001-dioxin.pdf)>


12/21



[email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected]


Cate,Do you think that this exposure would last 30 Years? Not at

all likely. And it is not over the 1 year exposure action level,while these exposures will not likely continue anywhere near thatlong.

This indicates to me, if anything, a need for follow-up measurements.George

At 4:10 PM -0500 1/23/02, [email protected] wrote:>__________________>>>Check out the attached document, 2nd page.>EPA found dioxins above the air action level

>for a 30 year exposure at its own building>on 290 Broadway. They tested their own building>first in this specialized test by EPA's Office>of Research and Development (ORD).>>Got this from the www.nyenvirolaw.org web site>just now. Joel Kupferman pointed it out.>>(See attached file: 2-EPA-DailySummary-Dec5-2001-dioxin.pdf)>>Attachment converted: GTPowerbookHD:2-EPA-DailySummary-Dec5-2001-di>(PDF /CARO) (0008C012)


FAX: 845-351-5472 or 845-351-3317Faculty Web Page:HTTP://niem.med.nyu.edu/faculty/ThurstonG.htmlCommunity Outreach Environmental Problems Resources Web Page:http://niem.med.nyu.edu/outreach/


13/21

Cate Jenkins12/31/2001 10:50 AM


Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: Risk assessment, asbestos, WTC

George, please circulate as widely as possible. Give the press my office number at 703/308-0453.

What I want is for people to start doing the numbers based on indoor data. People may have valid

arguments for 100 or so either way. That is fine. There is still a problem. Have been involved with oneapartment building (105 Duane) which has/had high asbestos in the ventilation system. Of course, nodata is available on residual carpet or upholstery levels, which I advocate taking. The AHERA TEM airclearance test is meaningless unless procedures have been followed to remove all contamination first. Iunderstand that the politics for using only an after-the-fact clearance test was to avoid expensive testingof surfaces, and that this surface testing should be unecessary if everything was cleaned up according toasbestos abatement procedures.

Asbestos is one of those strange things, where exposures will be higher inside after a release, somethingI had not realized. Whenever there is a train wreck of hazardous chemicals, the advice is always to goinside and close the windows. Here, the opposite applied. The New York City Department of Health (http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/doh/html/alerts/wtc3.html) said "avoid sweeping or other outdoormaintenance" and "recirculate air," just the opposite of what is indicated by the Chatfield/Kominsky

Ground Zero Task Force study. I believe that the advice was well intentioned but not adequatelyinformed.

Regarding Dr. Mott's comments on fiber size, my 12/19/01 risk assessment specifically addressed thesecurrent theories regarding lesser hazards of smaller fiber sizes for cancer (but not asbestosis) and thereasons that I did not take this into account. At this time, there is insufficient data to give a size rangedistribution for the additional fibers seen by TEM analysis. It may well be that a correction factor of 80 to90 needs to be applied to the observed s/mL to convert them to PCM-equivalent f/mL. Even if you didmake this correction, the excess risk is still over the threshold considered to be the action level forSuperfund action or action under other environmental statutes.

[email protected] (George Thurston)



Subject: Fwd: RE: Risk assessment, asbestos, WTC

Cate,Is this report public info? I mentioned it to a Wall Street

Journal reporter (sorry!) I was in contact with, and he is interestedin seeing the document. OK to give it to him? How about your nameand phone contact? That OK? As you see below, I excised all thatinfo from what I sent him so far.

Please advise.George

>Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 14:28:58 -0500>From: "Maremont, Mark" >Subject: RE: Risk assessment, asbestos, WTC>To: "'[email protected]'"


14/21

>>yes, i see why a "probably" would have helped. But as you say, to the lay>reader the qualifier doesn't mean much.>>I would be interested in seeing the information on indoor asbestos. We're>looking for follow ups. Was this some kind of official study?>Please do ask the person if we can look at it, preferably exclusively (ie

>before other media organizations).>>Mark Maremont>Deputy Bureau Chief>Wall Street Journal>10 Post Office Sq.>Boston, MA 02109 USA>Tel: 1-617-654-6786>Fax: 1-617-654-6711>>>-----Original Message----->From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]>Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 1:11 PM

>To: Maremont, Mark>Subject: Fwd: Risk assessment, asbestos, WTC>>>Mark,> Talk about coincidences! As per my last email, here is an>example i just got of the kind of thing that might yet pop up long>term, and why qualifiers are always desirable. (Although you and I>were talking about outdoor exposures only!)> I haven't included the FROM info or the file itself, as I am not>sure if this is public info or not. If you want the actual file, I>will call the person who sent me it and ask if it can be released to>the press. OK?>George

>>>>>>>>Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 11:23:23 -0500>>Subject: Risk assessment, asbestos, WTC>>To: [email protected]>>>>Dr. Thurston, attached is a preliminary risk assessment for asbestos>>from the WTC. Although testing is scanty for outdoor exposures, there>>is adequate data to estimate an increased risk from indoor>>exposures under certain conditions.> >>>*******************--George D. Thurston, Associate Professor of Environmental MedicineDirector,Community Outreach and Education Program, NYU-NIEHS Env. Hlth. CenterNelson Institute of Environmental Medicine, 57 Old Forge Rd.NYU School of MedicineTuxedo, NY 10987 USAPH: 845-731-3564or, if not in service, call 212-263-7300


15/21

and ask for extension 885-5309 in Sterling ForestFAX: 845-351-5472 or 845-351-3317Faculty Web Page:HTTP://niem.med.nyu.edu/faculty/ThurstonG.htmlCommunity Outreach Environmental Problems Resources Web Page:http://niem.med.nyu.edu/outreach/


16/21


17/21

>>or, if not in service, call 212-263-7300>> and ask for extension 885-5309 in Sterling Forest>>FAX: 845-351-5472 or 845-351-3317>>Faculty Web Page:>>HTTP://niem.med.nyu.edu/faculty/ThurstonG.html>>Community Outreach Environmental Problems Resources Web Page:>>http://niem.med.nyu.edu/outreach/

>>>--


FAX: 845-351-5472 or 845-351-3317

Faculty Web Page:HTTP://niem.med.nyu.edu/faculty/ThurstonG.htmlCommunity Outreach Environmental Problems Resources Web Page:http://niem.med.nyu.edu/outreach/


18/21

SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2002 PAGE 1

For more information on this story contact Matt Davis at Cell: (314) 974-6793 or Pager: (314) 905-1361

Continued on page 2

SPECIAL REPORT DUSTFROMGROUNDZERO

NEWYORK- Even as the dustfrom the collapsed World TradeCenter was still settling, top

government scientists weredetermining that the smoky graymixture was highly corrosiveand potentially a serious dangerto health.

The U.S. Geological Survey teamfound that some of the dust wasas caustic as liquid drain cleanerand alerted all governmentagencies involved in theemergency response. But manyof those on the front lines ofprotecting the health of the publicand workers cleaning up the sitesay theynever got the information.

"I'm supposed to be in the loop, and I've neverheard any specific numbers on how caustic thedust actually was," said Dr. Robin Herbert, co-

director of the Mount Sinai Center forOccupational and Environmental Medicine."There is a large segment of the populationhere whose physicians needed to know thatinformation that USGS submitted. Exposure todust with a high pH could impact everyone, butespecially the very young, the very old and

those with existing pulmonary disease."Census data show large concentrations ofyoung and elderly living near the World TradeCenter site.

The EPA's office in New York said it repeatedlytold the public that the dust was caustic

BY ANDREW SCHNEIDEROf the Post-Dispatch

2002, St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Hundreds of men and women are still at work, around the clock, removing debris fromwhat was the World Trade Center. Last week, few workers could be seen wearing res-pirators, which would offer some protection from toxic dust covering the area.

Government witholds dataof dangers in NYC dust

USGS scientists find dust as corrosive as drain cleaner;EPA doesn't tell workers, physicians or the public.

PHOTOS BY KEVIN MANNING/ POST-DISPATCH

http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/PDF/StLouisDispatch-2-9-02-CausticDustBlanketsWTCarea.pdfhttp://www.nycosh.org/environment_wtc/WTC_arch_Feb-July_02.html

Actually first published o n 2/9/10 SEE PAGE 3 for quote from

Jenkins, and EPA rebuttal


19/21

because of the cement that was pulverized

when the towers collapsed. But anexamination of all the EPA's public and pressstatements made since Sept. 11 found nothingthat warned of the very high pH levels foundby the Geological Survey scientists. Nor didthe statements disclose the specific levels thatthe EPA's own testing found.

"We've not heard of EPA or anyone elsereleasing information on specific pH levels inthe dust, and that's information that we all

should have had," said Carrie Loewenherz, anindustrial hygienist for the New YorkCommittee for Occupational Safety and Health,which provides assistance to more than 250unions.

"It's the specific numbers -- those precise pHlevels -- that we need to make the appropriatesafety decisions for the workers, and they werenever released," Loewenherz said. "The dust,once it's in contact with moist tissue, the

throat, the mouth, nasal passages, the eyesand even sweaty skin, it becomes corrosiveand can cause severe burns."

Most of the samples taken by USGS' team hada pH of 9.5 to 10.5, about the same alkalinityas ammonia. Two samples that were takeninside a high-rise apartment and in agymnasium across from the wreckage of theWorld Trade Center had a pH of 11.8 to 12.1 --equivalent to what would be found in liquiddrain 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-pointscale. Lower than 7, to 0, is an indication ofacid. Higher than 7, to 14, the top of the scale,is alkaline. Levels near either end of the pHscale can harm the health of people andanimals.

Bruce Lippy, Loewenherz's counterpart withthe operating engineers union, is responsiblefor the 300 workers running heavy equipment

at ground zero.

"Part of the dilemma we faced was notknowing precisely what was in the dust,"Lippy said. "We knew it was caustic but hadno information on exactly how caustic it was. Iwas trying to get people to wear therespirators, but if I knew how high the pHlevels were, I could have been more persuasivein convincing the workers of the dangers."

Only a handful of the 100 or so workerssorting wreckage and loading trucks on thesite over three days last week were seenwearing respirators or protective masks.

Scientists rush to Manhattan

Like the rest of the world, the USGS teamwatched the storm of dust roll acrossManhattan after the terrorist attack on Sept.11. With its world-class laboratories andsensors that can detect minerals on a distant

planet, the Denver-based team was alreadymaking arrangements to get NASA's infraredsensors and aircraft over ground zero as theEPA and the U.S. Public Health Servicerequested its help.

Responding to requests from the White Housescience office, the NASA te am flew over

Manhattan four times between Sept. 16 andSept. 23, while USGS scientists collectedsamples of the dust from 35 locations below.

Back in Denver, more than two dozenscientists using the world's most sophisticatedanalytical equipment ran the samples throughextensive testing.

The Geological Survey's test results wereposted Sept. 27 on a Web site restricted to

government agencies.

The USGS findings were "evaluated by ourtechnical experts and found to be consistentwith the findings of EPA's Office of Researchand Development," said Bonnie Bellow, theagency's spokeswoman in New York."The USGS data was also discussed by aninteragency group of scientists,epidemiologists and health officials," Bellowsaid.

But neither the EPA headquarters nor its NewYork office would comment on what came outof these discussions or which EPA results theywere "consistent" with.

The USGS data on pH levels were not releasedby the EPA, nor apparently were theenvironmental agency's own test results onthe dust.

Continued on page 3

PAGE 2


The Environmental Protection

Agency has strapped air

monitors on light poles on almost

every block of lower Manhattan

to measure contaminants from

the collapse of the World Trade

Center. However, the monitors

are of little or no value in deter-

mining the health hazard from

dust trapped inside buildings.


20/21

"It is extremely distressing to learn that theEPA knew how caustic samples of the dustwere and didn't publicize the informationimmediately, or make sure that OSHApublicized it," said Joel Shufro, executivedirector of the New York Committee forOccupational Safety and Health.

"If we had known at the time exactly howcaustic the dust could be, we would have beenin a better position to make informeddecisions about respiratory protection torecommend and about the urgency of ensuringthat workers and residents followed thoserecommendations," Shufro said.

"It is inexcusable for EPA to have kept silentfor so long about such a potential hazard."

Dust weakens strapping youth

John Healy Jr. is 15, big, taller than his father.He looks as strong as a bull. But when hetalks, wheezes and deep coughs punctuate hiswords. He and his father, John, live in anapartment overlooking what was the WorldTrade Center.

"Something is tearing him up, hitting hislungs hard," said his father. "He had asthma

when he was younger, but he was fine untilafter Sept. 11. If I knew the dust was thatcaustic, there's no way I would have broughthim back here."

John goes to Stuyvesant High School, a 10-story building for the brightest of the bright.It's one block from the collapsed buildings and

beside the Hudson River, where barges arebeing filled with debris destined for sorting atthe Fresh Kills landfill.

"I need to go to this school, and I need to livehere to do it, but something in that dust is justhurting me," the teen said as he looked downat the pile of pills, throat sprays and inhalersin his two large hands.

His father looked out the narrow dining room

window at the brightly lighted carnage bellow.A light film of dust coated the window.

"I can't understand why the governmentdidn't tell us what was actually in the dust,"Healy said. "Were they afraid we were goingto panic? I needed that information to decidewhat was best for my son. I needed it."

The teen's malady and other serious problemsare being seen by physicians throughout NewYork.

"What we're finding is incredible irritation tothe lungs, throat and nasal passages," saidHerbert, from Mount Sinai. "Some of thetissue is cherry red, vivid, bright, and we'venever seen anything like it before.

"There are a large number of clinicians andpublic health specialists who are struggling to

reconcile the health problems they're seeingwith the exposure data they're being given,"Herbert said. "The high pH in the dust may bea part of the answer. If the government hadthese pH readings of 11 and 12, the public andtheir physicians should have been told.

"Any credible information the government hadrelating to health issues just should have beenreleased," she said. "There is no justificationfor holding it. You don't conceal the

information from those who need it."

A dubious honor

Mark Rushing and Tori Bunch have thedebatable honor of having lived in one of thesites that USGS tested. In fact, their apartmenton the 30th floor of a building overlooking theWorld Trade Center tied for highest pH -- 12.1-- of the dozens of sites where samples were

collected.

"It's obvious to those of us living here that thegovernment -- city, state and federal -- wantedthings to return to normal as quickly aspossible. The economic losses were great,"Rushing said. "But no matter how you view it,that's no excuse for the government, anygovernment, to conceal hazards from thepeople they are charged with protecting."

Rushing and Bunch found a new apartment asfar from the World Trade Center as they couldget and still be in the city. The apartment is onthe lowest floor available.

Even within the EPA, professionals believe theagency did a disservice by not acknowledgingand releasing the Geological Survey's data.

Cate Jenkins, a senior environmental scientistin the hazardous materials division at the EPAheadquarters, said: "The pH levels the USGSdocumented were far too high for EPA toignore. They insisted that all the informationregarding health and safety was being releasedto the public. Well, that's not true. There'snothing, internally or in public releases, thatshows the agency ever disclosed specific pHlevels."

On Thursday, the EPA's Bellow told the Post-

Dispatch: "We have no specific data on pHlevels." Bellow added, "This is all theavailable information on the subject."

Late Friday, the EPA responded to the questionof why it didn't collect its own pH numbers.

"EPA had enough information about thealkalinity of the material from the WorldTrade Center without doing further analysis,"Bellow said.

Continued on page 4

PAGE 3


John Healy Jr. lives and goes to

school a block from the site of the

attacked World Trade Center. The

15-year-old plagued with severe

respiratory problems from the

toxic dust.


21/21

The question of why the EPA didn'trelease the data it had remainsunanswered.

The EPA is in a no-win situation. Nogovernment agency had been preparedfor the enormity of the terrorist attackon New York. Tight budgets -- federal,

state and city -- ruled out planning anddrills for an unfathomable event of thissize.

Even most critics say that no amount ofpreparation could have kept the workersfleeing the twin towers -- and the rescueworkers racing to save them -- fromsucking in lungfuls of toxic dust andsmoke.

But it's what the EPA and OSHA andthe New York state and city healthdepartments did after the dust settledand the smoke cleared that hasgenerated the most criticism.

On Monday, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the New YorkDemocrat who represents the people in lowerManhattan, is holding a congressional hearingto determine who dropped the ball. He isexpected to announce that legislation will be

introduced to "force EPA to do the propertesting inside offices and apartments andrelease the finding in a form that would be ofvalue to the public and their physicians."

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., hasscheduled a Senate investigation of the issue.

Less than a week after the attack, on Sept. 16,EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitmantold New Yorkers: "There's no need for the

general public to be concerned."

That was the same day that USGS and NASAflew their first sampling missions over thecity.

The EPA said its boss's comments that therewere no dangers from dioxin, benzene, PCB orasbestos -- all cancer-causing agents -- werebased on thousands of outside air samples.Last month the Post Dispatch reported that

apartments and offices. The EPA said itsregulations did not call for indoor testing.

Hundreds of firefighters, paramedics andpolice officers are sick, suffering what somephysicians call "ground zero coughs." Their

problems may have come from unprotectedexposure the first week of the attack.

But hundreds of other people -- workers,students and residents -- who fled the areaand stayed out for weeks and then came backalso are suffering major respiratory problems.

The few Christmas decorations that adornedlight poles in lower Manhattan have beenremoved. But the metal poles still bristle with

air monitors and vacuum pumps sucking inair almost around the clock, searching forasbestos fibers, chemicals and traces of heavy,toxic metals.

For the most part, the EPA and theOccupational Safety and Health Administrationsay they're finding little, if anything, for NewYorkers to worry about.

materials to enter the body.

But the EPA pays little or no attentionto indoor contamination.

Late Friday, the New York City healthdepartment issued a brief statement,with very few details, about both

indoor and outdoor testing done bythe Agency for Toxic Substances andDisease Registry. This well-respectedresearch arm for the Department ofHealth and Human Services, foundpulverized fiberglass in almost half ofthe samples it examined. However,New York health officials released nospecifics on the levels of toxicmaterial found, and no one could bereached for comment.

Attention is being paid to keeping thecontamination on the site. Truckshauling debris from ground zero passthrough an EPA drive-through showerbefore they reach the streets. City

street sweepers and washers drive aseemingly endless circle up and down thestreets of lower Manhattan.

But even blocks from the collapse, massive

windows on offices and cornices on manyapartment buildings are still caked with dust.

"We made this analytical effort because wewere concerned about the likelihood that thecomposition of the dust could be potentiallyharmful to the rescue and cleanup workers atthe site and to people living and working inlower Manhattan," said USGS team memberGeoffrey Plumlee, a geochemist whodetermined the pH levels.

"We shared our findings with EPA, FEMA, thefederal emergency response coordinator andeveryone else we felt was appropriate. Weanticipated that the results would have beenshared with the people on the ground, those atrisk, but it looks like the information nevergot to those who needed it."

Andrew Schneider:

PAGE 4

Financial

District

City Hall

WorldFinancial

Center

N.Y. Stock

Exchange

Municipal

Building

FederalBuilding

World TradeCenter

ANN ST.

JOHNST.

MAIDENLANE

WALL ST.

VESEY ST.

LIBERTY ST.

WESTST.

BROADWAY

CHURCHST.

BROADWAY

W.

BROADWAY

GREENWICHST.

LOWER

MANHATTAN

POST-DISPATCHSource: U.S. Geological Survey

pH scalepH is a value

used to represent

the acidity or

alkalinity of a

material. Water, for

example, has a

neutral pH of 7. Levels

at either extreme can be

harmful to health.

High pH levels after destruction of World Trade CenterBased on readings taken by a U.S. Geological Survey team. USGS scientists collected samples of dust

throughout lower Manhattan on Sept. 16-23.

INDOORREADINGS

COLLAPSED BUILDINGS

ACID

1413

LIQUID DRAIN CLEANER 1211

HOUSEHOLD AMMONIA 109

BAKING SODA 8WATER 7

6 5VINEGAR 4

3

210

ALKALINE

NEUTRAL

11.8-12.1

11.8-12.1

9.63

9.93

10

8.2

9.7

10

10.4 10

9.9

9.5

9.8

9.7

10.1

9.51

9.37

POST-DISPATCH

jenkins 021302 chen thurston nyu ph methods

Documents