Let's jump on the band wagon!! Or is it gravy train?
 

Hmmm... I'm in two minds about this one.


Mr Mephisto

I'm in one mind.

Fuck them.

I say when they do develop dangerous diseases they can sue. Until then, piss off. Unless, of course, I could get in on the ground floor of said lawsuit ;) I mean, I didn't help with clean up efforts, Hell, I've never set foot in New York City, but there was a lot of shit in the air for a while....maybe it floated down here.... I could develop a dangerous disease, FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!!!


If I see others with equipment doing what I'm doing, I'm getting some equipment. If I've been warned it could be dangerous, you can bet your ass I'm going to learn how to use it right. If nobody knows, well then, home is right over there.

They weren't warned it was dangerous, if I remember correctly.

The agencies declared the rubble safe. It wasn't until late this year that definative studies started to question that initial assertion.

Off-topic question.

Smooth, I like your .sig quotation. Never having heard of Walt Lippman, I just did a google and was very interested to read about him.

Thanks for an interesting (inspiring?) diversion. :)

Mr Mephisto

"NEW YORK -- In the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center, the White House instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to give the public misleading information, telling New Yorkers it was safe to breathe when reliable information on air quality was not available.

That finding is included in a report released Friday by the Office of the Inspector General of the EPA. It noted that some of the agency's news releases in the weeks after the attack were softened before being released to the public: Reassuring information was added, while cautionary information was deleted.

"When the EPA made a September 18 announcement that the air was 'safe' to breathe, it did not have sufficient data and analyses to make such a blanket statement," the report says. "Furthermore, the White House Council on Environmental Quality influenced . . . the information that EPA communicated to the public through its early press releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones."

On the morning of Sept. 12, according to the report, the office of then-EPA Administrator Christie Whitman issued a memo: "All statements to the media should be cleared through the NSC (National Security Council in the White House) before they are released." The 165-page report compares excerpts from EPA draft statements to the final versions, including these:

The draft statement contained a warning from EPA scientists that homes and businesses near ground zero should be cleaned by professionals. Instead, the public was told to follow instructions from New York City officials.

Another draft statement was deleted; it raised concerns about "sensitive populations" such as asthma patients, the elderly and people with underlying respiratory diseases. "

A statement about discovery of asbestos at higher than safe levels in dust samples from lower Manhattan was changed to state that "samples confirm previous reports that ambient air quality meets OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) standards and consequently is not a cause for public concern."

Language in an EPA draft stating that asbestos levels in some areas were three times higher than national standards was changed to "slightly above the 1 percent trigger for defining asbestos material."

This sentence was added to a Sept. 16 news release: "Our tests show that it is safe for New Yorkers to go back to work in New York's financial district." It replaced a statement that initial monitors failed to turn up dangerous samples.

A warning on the importance of safely handling ground zero cleanup, due to lead and asbestos exposure, was changed to say that some contaminants had been noted downtown but "the general public should be very reassured by initial sampling."

The report also notes examples when EPA officials claimed that conditions were safe when no scientific support was available."

The above article is from newsday.com via common dreams (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0823-03.htm). I don't see how such lies could result in anything other than a law suit.

Those damned facts rear their ugly head again!

I knew a guy who worked for the EPA and went down to help clean up efforts. He was there for at least a month, I lost track of him after mid-October. Anyway, he said the atmosphere was absolutly horrible. Very hard to breathe. Itchy eyes all of the time. You could see the air. You're not supposed to see the air. He also had asthma so I'm sure that hightened everything for him.

If it's true that the White House instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to give the public misleading information, then that is where the culpability lies. Not with the World Trade Center's leaseholder and the companies that helped remove debris. If it's true, then criminal charges need to brought against anyone in the White House that issued those orders to the EPA. If it's true, then this is by far, in my opinion, the biggest reason yet for giving the current administration the boot.

Bill, for some reason I thought you were a Bush supporter.

And stop all those changing freaky Willow avatars! they spook me out... :-)

Mr Mephisto

Hell no! :)

She's hotness incarnate :p

I tend to agree with this.

Where on this, or any other world, did you get that idea? :confused:

Ummmm...no. :D

No idea Bill. No idea.

:)

I think I'm OD'ing a bit on the Politics board at the moment. I'm sure people are sick of all my posts!


Mr Mephisto

Wha? :confused:

Or just to the first part....?

Ok no one got sick, but they are suing, and the draft of a report was changed.

Oh yea real Watergate stuff here guys.

People have gotten sick.
What was changed, cause I guess you missed it, was that the EPA had no idea what the air quality was like at Ground Zero, but the Admin cut that out and put in that it was safe anyway. That's called LYING. Because they did not know.

It was later confirmed that asbestos was 3 times higher in the area. Asbestos related health problems don't materialize overnight. They take years. Let me stick you in a room with 3x legal limits of asbestos for a week and see how you like it.

The govt deliberately lied to people and that lie, which kept people from using the proper respiratory precautions, I can say with certainty has doomed many people to an early death.

All the Admin had to do was allow the EPA to do it's god damned job. To tell the people living in the area and the people who were cleaning up the site that the air is potentially hazardous and you should stay away if possible and use every precaution to protect your health if you must be in the area. They wouldn't do that.

Are you that callous and in love with this Administration you can't see what is right in front of you?

Superbelt,

As I've said many times, there are plenty of things going on in government that I don't agree with.

So while I don't like the idea of someone in the administration telling the EPA to pronounce things safe when they didn't know that (or worse, when they knew they weren't, if these charges are true), I am also of the mind that I think Kerry would be worse for the country than Bush.

Have I mentioned lately that I don't like politicians in general?

Hey Bill, this is typical in a civil case and not due to money grubbing.

If the claimant doesn't put the leaseholder on the complaint, then the culpable party can point to them and argue it was the leaseholder's responsibility.

Typically, everyone is placed on the complaint and various entities have to show cause why they are not culpable. After a judge decides who is culpable and who is not, the claimant(s) won't get their case dismissed because of a legal technique arguing that "they can't prove we did it because it's possible this other group is responsible--but we won't know because they aren't in court"

Hope that made sense.

Ahh, the pre-emptive pandora's box and its tangled web of intrigue.:thumbsup: