Guest guest Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 Maybe the money spent for this study should really go for the purchase of extra safety gear. No offence intended but. If being in the trenches means walking down an isle between desks at the office..... then you have no clue of what 1 st responders put up with, nor where they would tell someone to put this study It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out % mass of possible dust mixtures by the photo. Hmm concrete + about 165 ft 3. Heat of compression thru pan caking floors...Body parts...Oxides.., Its all there. Now they need to help the people that worked thru it and warn people of ( possible ) long term hazards so they can make their own decision as to what they should do. Reminds me of a statement made by a FEMA representative after Charlie hit Punta Gorda Fl. "We cannot make them whole again." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 J CARLTON: It seems as though soooo many folks are blaming asbestos as being the root cause for lung related ailments at 911. Don’t get so miopic. To put it into perspective, there were tons of airborne silica; which was orders of magnitude greater in concentration than the asbestos, or anything else present. There were combustion byproducts, chemically treated cellulose, metal corrosion materials, biologicals, and complexes and matrixes of combinations of particulates/chemicals. Needless to say, anyone at ground zero got a snoot full of a lot of stuff. Yes - asbestos was part of the mix, but it represented only a small fraction of the harmful particulates that were inhaled. Don’t bend over looking at the oil spot on the rail road tie, and get hit in the butt by the freight train! Sure there was airborne asbestos at ground zero, but to put it into perspective, there was a whole lot of other stuff too; which one, or the combination of thereof, is causing the lung-related aliments suffered by responders is anyone’s question. And I bet the scientists (who focus on minutia often in the absence of the big picture) will be doing just that for years to come. Who cares?!? Moreover, does it really matter? For what it is worth.... -- Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP President KERNTEC Industries, Inc. Bakersfield, California www.kerntecindustries.com I just read a recent report on the devastating health effects suffered by emergency responders and those that worked in the area surrounding ground zero. My mind goes back to our list contributor who told us categorically that they had taken thousands of air samples over several weeks and never found asbestos or any pathogenic materials. Anyone remember and would like to name and shame? I would if I could remember the nit wit. Regards Jeff Charlton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 Unfortuanately no one tested the pH. That in itself would have caused alarm. Re: Asbestos at 911 Oh, they found the asbestos and lots of other stuff that was very bad. Don't know about the pathogenic issues though. There are many studies and several from NIOSH, OSHA, and EPA showing levels and sampling problems of the variety that would understate true risk. The former and current EPA administrators are being sued by the NYC, State of NY, Port Authority, et al, for the problems and specifically the asbestos issues and the understating of risk. So the person that stated there was nothing wrong there and the sampling was good, is out of their mind and totally incorrect. Just search " Ground Zero " and " asbestos " and " .pdf " , you will get plenty of reports to read. Try other combinations and you will find a mountian of official reports, and I am not talking about news reports either. Dana > > I just read a recent report on the devastating health effects suffered > by emergency responders and those that worked in the area surrounding > ground zero. My mind goes back to our list contributor who told us > categorically that they had taken thousands of air samples over several > weeks and never found asbestos or any pathogenic materials. Anyone > remember and would like to name and shame? I would if I could remember > the nit wit. > Regards > Jeff Charlton > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 Geyer wrote, in part: > Don¹t get so miopic... > Don¹t bend over looking at the oil spot on the rail road tie, and > get hit in the butt by the freight train! (BTW, this is a quote, not a paraphrase). I love analogies so I couldn't resist my 2 cents. Others may disagree. For what it's worth. IMHO. etc. The total load concept is another way of illustrating this. Each individual exposure (each spot of oil on the track whether from a train, a car or a truck and what each means) may not be sufficient itself but the total (all the spots plus other data and why they are there) may be sufficient to avoid the " butt " of s's joke above. The duration can also be important even at low levels (Ashford and , 1989, Chemical Exposure: Low Level and High Risk). <this is a paraphrase, not a quote>. Another analogy: If you are driving a truck loaded with 1000 lbs of lead and a 1000 lbs of feathers and can't quite make it over a mountain pass, would you lighten the load by removing the heavy, dense lead or the light, fluffy feathers? One version of common sense says, " remove the heavy, dense lead! " Another version says, " It doesn't make any difference because 1000 lbs is a 1000 lbs. " Another says, " Too heavy a load of anything increases susceptibility to other consequences. " Finally, if the brakes begin to fail, jump ship! (Ooops. Mixed metaphor). This discussion of " Asbestos at 911 " seems to add to the lengthening list of exceptions to " THE " dose makes the poison. A more accurate statement may be " A " dose makes the poision. Who can argue with the that? Without any exposure (dose) there can be no reaction, complaint or damage. But even if there is an exposure (dose) there is no problem without susceptibility. And the more susceptible in the population are the first to sicken and the first to die. Not all the workers at ground zero have been affected. (BTW, the test data is only descriptive, not determinative). Both Dose and Susceptibility are necessary but neither are sufficient. BOTH together are necessary for sufficiency. Over reliance on the statistical commonality of susceptibility within large groups makes us blind to any phenomena other than the predetermined target, particularly for small groups or individuals. Which is why such methods don't help all the people and those left behind continue to suffer and are accused of psychological/nefarious motives. It's the lightpost analogy: If you drop your keys at night you look for them not where your dropped them, but under the nearby lightpost. They won't be there but that is the only place you COULD find them if they were there. Finally, the composition of " dose " may be singular or multiple, transforming the catch phrase into " A " dose makes " A " poison. Include the variable of " time, " both as to when and duration, and it becomes " A " dose may make " A " poison at some point in time for some people; or it may not. And because there are no absolutes, " A " dose may make a borderline poison that doesn't damage but sickens. It doesn't kill, but the highly susceptible victim wishes it would so the suffering would end. If the canary doesn't sing but isn't dead should we enter the mine shaft anyway? Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- > J CARLTON: > > It seems as though soooo many folks are blaming asbestos as being the > root cause for lung related ailments at 911. To > put it into perspective, there were tons of airborne silica; which was > orders of magnitude greater in concentration than the asbestos, or > anything else present. There were combustion byproducts, chemically > treated cellulose, metal corrosion materials, biologicals, and > complexes and matrixes of combinations of particulates/chemicals. > Needless to say, anyone at ground zero got a snoot full of a lot of > stuff. Yes - asbestos was part of the mix, but it represented only a > small fraction of the harmful particulates that were inhaled. Don¹t > bend over looking at the oil spot on the rail road tie, and get hit in > the butt by the freight train! Sure there was airborne asbestos at > ground zero, but to put it into perspective, there was a whole lot of > other stuff too; which one, or the combination of thereof, is causing > the lung-related aliments suffered by responders is anyone¹s question. > And I bet the scientists (who focus on minutia often in the absence > of the big picture) will be doing just that for years to come. Who > cares?!? Moreover, does it really matter? > > For what it is worth.... > -- > Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP > President > KERNTEC Industries, Inc. > Bakersfield, California > www.kerntecindustries.com > > > > > > > I just read a recent report on the devastating health effects > > suffered by emergency responders and those that worked in the area > > surrounding ground zero. My mind goes back to our list contributor > > who told us categorically that they had taken thousands of air > > samples over several weeks and never found asbestos or any > > pathogenic materials. Anyone remember and would like to name and > > shame? I would if I could remember the nit wit. Regards Jeff > > Charlton > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 Your point is valid but the real point is that the equipment you would purchase probably won’t offer anywhere the protection factors you think it will provide. The earliest statements from environmentalists hired by the government and posting on this site said their was no asbestos hazard at ground zero, and I remember saying this cannot be true but their persistence and lies was proven by thousands of tests. The reality is that they knew their testing protocol could not identify asbestos fibres obscured with debris. Lies and dam lies. My point about PPE is this. Last week I in Paris at an arms fare. AVON a very big manufacturer of PPE respirators for the military and emergency responders displayed a full face respirator and said it had a nominal protection factor of 2000. Yes it did but its assigned protection factor in use was only 40. Statistics again. Jeff Charlton London -----Original Message----- From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of gval102@... Sent: 21 June 2006 23:17 To: iequality Subject: Re: Asbestos at 911 Maybe the money spent for this study should really go for the purchase of extra safety gear. No offence intended but. If being in the trenches means walking down an isle between desks at the office..... then you have no clue of what 1 st responders put up with, nor where they would tell someone to put this study It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out % mass of possible dust mixtures by the photo. Hmm concrete + about 165 ft 3. Heat of compression thru pan caking floors...Body parts...Oxides.., Its all there. Now they need to help the people that worked thru it and warn people of ( possible ) long term hazards so they can make their own decision as to what they should do. Reminds me of a statement made by a FEMA representative after Charlie hit Punta Gorda Fl. " We cannot make them whole again. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 Jeff I do realize that PPE in this type of situation is truly ineffective, but I tend to throw some things out there to force a thought. This is a professional collective of people gathered here and all have my respect . I also realize very few have experienced real life situations that require the use of a 20 min air bottle , navy nozzle , or walked thru a H2O2 wash. There is always one that gets sacrificed in the name of science . There are millions that get sacrificed in the name of money. Now look at many reported tests. Hmm.. Do we close wall street , or just wait and see if problems go away? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 Yes the R.J. Lee group took lots of samples and found that the debris from the WTC towers was around 12.3. Highly caustic stuff. THeir samplind also showed HUGe amounts of asbestos but that is a much " slower risk " eventhough it is a mathematic certianty and predictible in total numbers based on PCM results, not TEM though. There was also a large amount of metals and there were huge amounts of silica. All of this material was pulverised. You can find the data by putting this in a search engine: " Lower Manhattan Developement Corp. " .pdf and " R. J. Lee " . It will bring up a powerpoint pres in .pdf format. VERY informative. IT bascally showed that most of the sampling done by EPA was biased and unbelieveable. THe EPA in Region 2 refused help from the Libby guys too from the EPA response team. THey took TEM cassettes and put them on personal pumps and ran them at low flow rates! LOts of problems on their sampling. The problem with asbestos in the towers was that the asbestos in one tower was " intentionally added ie Chrysotile asbestos. BUt in the other tower it had monocoat that had removed the Chrysotile and YES replaced it with LIbby vermiculite. That is one of the reason that in the sampling they found Tremolite! Lots of interesting stuff in this event. > > > > I just read a recent report on the devastating health effects > suffered > > by emergency responders and those that worked in the area surrounding > > ground zero. My mind goes back to our list contributor who told us > > categorically that they had taken thousands of air samples over > several > > weeks and never found asbestos or any pathogenic materials. Anyone > > remember and would like to name and shame? I would if I could > remember > > the nit wit. > > Regards > > Jeff Charlton > > > > > > > > > > > > FAIR USE NOTICE: > > This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 Mark Your observation is correct. However, the loading of the filters became so great that breathing becomes impossible in a very short time and replacement cartriges were in short supply as to the number required. Full face supplied air would be out of the question in the rubble. It is safe to assume that those trained for HAZWOPER knew the reality of the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 Jeff, Go back and look at photographs of workers at the ground zero site. What I found amazing is that almost every worker I saw was wearing a respirator around their neck but not over their face. It was as if the respirator was some macho badge of courage that signified that they really didn’t need protection from this dust. Protection is for wusses. So the real question is who was responsible for worker health and safety and why weren’t simple worker health and safety procedures followed? If these procedures would have been enforced as strictly as security procedures, it is likely that there would be less injury. It should not have surprised anyone that the dust was hazardous, regardless what EPA was saying. Mark Doughty Re: Asbestos at 911 Maybe the money spent for this study should really go for the purchase of extra safety gear. No offence intended but. If being in the trenches means walking down an isle between desks at the office..... then you have no clue of what 1 st responders put up with, nor where they would tell someone to put this study It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out % mass of possible dust mixtures by the photo. Hmm concrete + about 165 ft 3. Heat of compression thru pan caking floors...Body parts...Oxides.., Its all there. Now they need to help the people that worked thru it and warn people of ( possible ) long term hazards so they can make their own decision as to what they should do. Reminds me of a statement made by a FEMA representative after Charlie hit Punta Gorda Fl. " We cannot make them whole again. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 VERY goood Jeffery...very good! Dana > > Your point is valid but the real point is that the equipment you would > purchase probably won't offer anywhere the protection factors you think > it will provide. The earliest statements from environmentalists hired by > the government and posting on this site said their was no asbestos > hazard at ground zero, and I remember saying this cannot be true but > their persistence and lies was proven by thousands of tests. The reality > is that they knew their testing protocol could not identify asbestos > fibres obscured with debris. Lies and dam lies. My point about PPE is > this. Last week I in Paris at an arms fare. AVON a very big manufacturer > of PPE respirators for the military and emergency responders displayed a > full face respirator and said it had a nominal protection factor of > 2000. Yes it did but its assigned protection factor in use was only 40. > Statistics again. > Jeff Charlton > London > > Re: Asbestos at 911 > > > Maybe the money spent for this study should really go for the purchase > of extra safety gear. > > No offence intended but. If being in the trenches means walking down an > isle between desks at the office..... then you have no clue of what 1 > st responders put up with, nor where they would tell someone to put this > study > > It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out % mass of > possible dust mixtures by the photo. Hmm concrete + about 165 ft 3. Heat > of compression thru pan caking floors...Body parts...Oxides.., Its > all there. Now they need to help the people that worked thru it and > warn people of ( possible ) long term hazards so they can make their own > decision as to what they should do. > > Reminds me of a statement made by a FEMA representative after Charlie > hit Punta Gorda Fl. > > " We cannot make them whole again. " > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.