Guest guest Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 Hey , You wrote: With respect to Katrina....yes, you are perfectly correct, i.e., they had the data, they were warned, and they failed to act. So was that was yesterday. The question is, what can be done today to correct the errors of yesterday? We have a new day. I am hoping that some of these gov't agencies will now be directed to be a little more individual friendly, rather that industry friendly. The pendulum swings back and forth. Somewhere in between, there is balance. Sharon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 , You wrote, "Darn you....Now you said something I totally agree with!" Sorry did not mean to throw you off kelter. You also wrote, "Those of us that tend to be practical and logical in approach and action, don’t seem to know how to whine REALLY loud and really long (in duration)." I think you are an excellent Whiner. Now do you feel better? Are we back to our old comfortable relationship? Sharon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 Dear , et.al.: I just learned today that a middle school I am working with to assess their IAQ is planning to have a school trip to Mississippi to help with the post-Katrina cleanup. Considering the potential exposures, can you, or anyone offer any suggestions for appropriate training and personal protection? Thank you, W. Bearg, PE, CIH Concord, MA -------------- Original message ---------------------- > I don�t doubt that there will be long-term suffering from the > affects/effects of Katrina; not only to residents, but responders, > remediators, and the faith-based organizations that responded in kind. Too > few were adequately protected, and some now probably wish they never went to > help. From experience, I knew what to expect and coached a few responders > on what to bring/expect, and a few others I talked-out of going because they > were ill-prepared and lacked experience. Those that went said it was worse > than I mentioned, and said that if it had not been for my comments, they > would have been in worse shape. I don�t say this to boast or to suggest I > knew what to do; I only speculated. I mention this because so many folks > wanted to help, had the capacity to help, and had resources to help, but > were inadequately prepared to help themselves. (The confined-space > scenario.) Fortunately, human-kind has a great capacity to help others in > need. However, in the Katrina-zone, there was a real lack of control, > coordination and communication � tis typical in disasters. This said, I > take exception to blaming the government, especially the Federal government, > and to suggest prior knowledge or suggest incompetence at that level is > wrong in my opinion. Moreover, the circumstances of 911 and Katrina are far > to different to say there are similarities. It just isn�t. The scale and > scope of Katrina was unprecedented in modern times. Katrina was HUGE and it > covered three states. The network news spent 90% of their air-time on New > Orleans because of an out-spoken, finger-pointing, grand-standing Mayor who > should have acted much more responsibly than he did; my opinion. Whereas, > most of the state of Mississippi was wiped out and it is still hurting, > badly too. The only Katrina similarity maybe, was hurricane Ivan (if I get > this one right) that swept through the Carolinas and emptied hundreds of > animal feed lots into the landscape � covering many square miles with toxic > gumbo. No....9/11 does not even compare to these two events. Ivan caused > the CAFO regulations to be promulgated, which the EPA is now enforcing to > mitigate much of the unrestrained biological load from a similar �toxic > gumbo� event. Katrina further demonstrated another form of destruction � on > urban infrastructure. Until the politicians and land-use planners fully > comprehend the consequences of coastal development in the face of very large > weather systems, it will not improve. There will be repeat Katrina-like > events. There are those in the know (e.g., engineers and geologists) but > these folks are not in elected positions. Because if they were, they would > restrict this type of unrestrained development in high-risk areas. > Historically, in the continental U.S., there are records of bigger > hurricanes, bigger floods, stronger winds, huge volcanic eruptions, and > shattering earthquakes. Even the Los Angeles (California) basin has a > record of at least two very large hurricanes striking the area and changing > the course of rivers. Imagine if it happens in modern times? Will it > happen again...Who knows? Probably. I hope I am prepared. Are you? > Moreover, building below sea-level, in flood zones, and/or downstream of > seemingly small water systems in normal years, is playing Russian Roulette > with Mother Nature. Katrina proves this. There are other areas of the U.S. > that are equally at risk to large-scale, purely natural events. > Furthermore, I do not believe that it is the Federal government�s > responsibility to dictate what can and cannot be built in high risk areas; > it is a local issue and it should stay a local issue. What Katrina showed > us was: the locals want the development and the tax base, the locals knew > the consequences and chose to postpone/ignore action, and the locals whined > and sniveled in the face of disaster and pointed the finger elsewhere > instead of taking responsibility and marshalling resources to limit > damage/injury. What has developed in the U.S. is a loss of personal > responsibility and an entitlement mentality, i.e., it must be someone else�s > fault. It is like a disease. If you want to point a finger, point to those > that allowed development to take shape in the risk-prone zones. To say; > �There is no excuse for this,� is to be a bit naive. There are a lot of > excuses, and the Mayor of New Orleans (and others) is full of excuses, and a > poster-child of a failure to comprehend the probable and the inevitable. > > For what it is worth.... > -- > Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP > President > KERNTEC Industries, Inc. > Bakersfield, California > www.kerntecindustries.com > > > > > > > and , > > What has happened to some of the occupants of New Orleans in the wake of > > Katrina is so sad and so unnecessary. Worse than losing their possessions, I > > fear there are going to be long term health repercussions for many years to > > come, simply from lack of proper warning. There is no excuse for this. The > > gov't had 4 years of studying the health ramifications of the 911 clean up > > workers to understand the health implications of disaster clean up in New > > Orleans. > > New Orleans is even more tragic in that private citizens, including children, > > were not duly warned of the potential long term effects of the toxic gumbo > > they were inhaling, touching and ingesting. We are all going to be paying for > > this folly for a long time to come in that some, who were productive people, > > will now become burdens on the state. > > Below is an article from Newsweek. It is an interview with Hugh Kaufman, > > Ombudsman, EPA. > > �It�s Incompetence� > > An environmental expert fears that Gulf Coast residents and volunteers exposed > > to deadly toxins could suffer health effects similar to those of 9/11 workers. > > > > Carolyn Kaster / AP > > A woman in Arabi, La., just outside New Orleans, works alone to clear wet > > and moldy items from her home on Feb. 21 > > > > WEB EXCLUSIVE > > By > > Newsweek > > Updated: 6:33 a.m. PT Aug 24, 2006 > > Aug. 24, 2006 - You�ve seen the awful pictures: rotting houses knocked off > > their foundations, walls mottled with mold, floors coated in grimy mud, piles > > of God-knows-what towering over empty streets. For Hurricane Katrina survivors > > and volunteers sent to help, the cleanup isn�t just unpleasant�it�s > > potentially sickening. > > > > Like the 9/11 workers, many of those working in the Katrina rubble are being > > exposed to deadly toxins, says Hugh Kaufman, a senior policy analyst for the > > Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Washington. With more than 35 years > > of experience in the field, he particularly worries about workers and citizens > > being exposed to harmful contaminants like asbestos > > <http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/health.pdf> and mold > > <http://www.epa.gov/mold/moldresources.html> . > > > > A year ago, Kaufman cautioned residents > > <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9370519/site/newsweek/> about returning to the > > affected areas too quickly. Now he explains to NEWSWEEK�s how > > dangerous the situation remains. Excerpts: > > > > > > > > Online Newshour > > Kaufman: �The government has waived ... rules ... to save money� > > > > > > NEWSWEEK: What�s the present environmental situation in the Gulf Coast > > regions hit hardest by Katrina? > > Hugh Kaufman: We�re dealing with the major issue of cleanup, and continuing to > > assess the magnitude of the problem. You basically still have a large amount > > of toxic material ... [and] studies have shown high levels of heavy metals in > > the sediments that have coated the areas. You�ve got a tremendous amount of > > solid waste�over 20 million tons�[in the form of] automobiles, trash, etc., > > that has to be dealt with. And you have a problem that a number of us are > > raising red flags about, which is [the lack of] protective equipment for > > people who are involved in cleanup. > > > > CONTINUED <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14497763/site/newsweek/page/2/> > > > > 1 | 2 <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14497763/site/newsweek/page/2/> | 3 > > <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14497763/site/newsweek/page/3/> | 4 > > <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14497763/site/newsweek/page/4/> | Next > > > <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14497763/site/newsweek/page/2/> > > > > > > Sharon Kramer > > > > > I don’t doubt that there will be long-term suffering from the affects/effects of Katrina; not only to residents, but responders, remediators, and the faith-based organizations that responded in kind. Too few were adequately protected, and some now probably wish they never went to help. From experience, I knew what to expect and coached a few responders on what to bring/expect, and a few others I talked-out of going because they were ill-prepared and lacked experience. Those that went said it was worse than I mentioned, and said that if it had not been for my comments, they would have been in worse shape. I don’t say this to boast or to suggest I knew what to do; I only speculated. I mention this because so many folks wanted to help, had the capacity to help, and had resources to help, but were inadequately prepared to help themselves. (The confined-space scenario.) Fortunately, human-kind has a great capacity to help others in need. However, in the Katrina-zone, there was a real lack of control, coordination and communication – tis typical in disasters. This said, I take exception to blaming the government, especially the Federal government, and to suggest prior knowledge or suggest incompetence at that level is wrong in my opinion. Moreover, the circumstances of 911 and Katrina are far to different to say there are similarities. It just isn’t. The scale and scope of Katrina was unprecedented in modern times. Katrina was HUGE and it covered three states. The network news spent 90% of their air-time on New Orleans because of an out-spoken, finger-pointing, grand-standing Mayor who should have acted much more responsibly than he did; my opinion. Whereas, most of the state of Mississippi was wiped out and it is still hurting, badly too. The only Katrina similarity maybe, was hurricane Ivan (if I get this one right) that swept through the Carolinas and emptied hundreds of animal feed lots into the landscape – covering many square miles with toxic gumbo. No....9/11 does not even compare to these two events. Ivan caused the CAFO regulations to be promulgated, which the EPA is now enforcing to mitigate much of the unrestrained biological load from a similar “toxic gumbo” event. Katrina further demonstrated another form of destruction – on urban infrastructure. Until the politicians and land-use planners fully comprehend the consequences of coastal development in the face of very large weather systems, it will not improve. There will be repeat Katrina-like events. There are those in the know (e.g., engineers and geologists) but these folks are not in elected positions. Because if they were, they would restrict this type of unrestrained development in high-risk areas. Historically, in the continental U.S., there are records of bigger hurricanes, bigger floods, stronger winds, huge volcanic eruptions, and shattering earthquakes. Even the Los Angeles (California) basin has a record of at least two very large hurricanes striking the area and changing the course of rivers. Imagine if it happens in modern times? Will it happen again...Who knows? Probably. I hope I am prepared. Are you? Moreover, building below sea-level, in flood zones, and/or downstream of seemingly small water systems in normal years, is playing Russian Roulette with Mother Nature. Katrina proves this. There are other areas of the U.S. that are equally at risk to large-scale, purely natural events. Furthermore, I do not believe that it is the Federal government’s responsibility to dictate what can and cannot be built in high risk areas; it is a local issue and it should stay a local issue. What Katrina showed us was: the locals want the development and the tax base, the locals knew the consequences and chose to postpone/ignore action, and the locals whined and sniveled in the face of disaster and pointed the finger elsewhere instead of taking responsibility and marshalling resources to limit damage/injury. What has developed in the U.S. is a loss of personal responsibility and an entitlement mentality, i.e., it must be someone else’s fault. It is like a disease. If you want to point a finger, point to those that allowed development to take shape in the risk-prone zones. To say; “There is no excuse for this,” is to be a bit naive. There are a lot of excuses, and the Mayor of New Orleans (and others) is full of excuses, and a poster-child of a failure to comprehend the probable and the inevitable. For what it is worth.... -- Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP President KERNTEC Industries, Inc. Bakersfield, California www.kerntecindustries.com On 11/6/06 8:44 AM, " snk1955aol " <snk1955aol> wrote: and , What has happened to some of the occupants of New Orleans in the wake of Katrina is so sad and so unnecessary. Worse than losing their possessions, I fear there are going to be long term health repercussions for many years to come, simply from lack of proper warning. There is no excuse for this. The gov't had 4 years of studying the health ramifications of the 911 clean up workers to understand the health implications of disaster clean up in New Orleans. New Orleans is even more tragic in that private citizens, including children, were not duly warned of the potential long term effects of the toxic gumbo they were inhaling, touching and ingesting. We are all going to be paying for this folly for a long time to come in that some, who were productive people, will now become burdens on the state. Below is an article from Newsweek. It is an interview with Hugh Kaufman, Ombudsman, EPA. ‘It’s Incompetence’ An environmental expert fears that Gulf Coast residents and volunteers exposed to deadly toxins could suffer health effects similar to those of 9/11 workers. Carolyn Kaster / AP A woman in Arabi, La., just outside New Orleans, works alone to clear wet and moldy items from her home on Feb. 21 WEB EXCLUSIVE By Newsweek Updated: 6:33 a.m. PT Aug 24, 2006 Aug. 24, 2006 - You’ve seen the awful pictures: rotting houses knocked off their foundations, walls mottled with mold, floors coated in grimy mud, piles of God-knows-what towering over empty streets. For Hurricane Katrina survivors and volunteers sent to help, the cleanup isn’t just unpleasant—it’s potentially sickening. Like the 9/11 workers, many of those working in the Katrina rubble are being exposed to deadly toxins, says Hugh Kaufman, a senior policy analyst for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Washington. With more than 35 years of experience in the field, he particularly worries about workers and citizens being exposed to harmful contaminants like asbestos <http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/health.pdf> and mold <http://www.epa.gov/mold/moldresources.html> . A year ago, Kaufman cautioned residents <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9370519/site/newsweek/> about returning to the affected areas too quickly. Now he explains to NEWSWEEK’s how dangerous the situation remains. Excerpts: Online Newshour Kaufman: ‘The government has waived ... rules ... to save money’ NEWSWEEK: What’s the present environmental situation in the Gulf Coast regions hit hardest by Katrina? Hugh Kaufman: We’re dealing with the major issue of cleanup, and continuing to assess the magnitude of the problem. You basically still have a large amount of toxic material ... [and] studies have shown high levels of heavy metals in the sediments that have coated the areas. You’ve got a tremendous amount of solid waste—over 20 million tons—[in the form of] automobiles, trash, etc., that has to be dealt with. And you have a problem that a number of us are raising red flags about, which is [the lack of] protective equipment for people who are involved in cleanup. CONTINUED <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14497763/site/newsweek/page/2/> 1 | 2 <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14497763/site/newsweek/page/2/> | 3 <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14497763/site/newsweek/page/3/> | 4 <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14497763/site/newsweek/page/4/> | Next > <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14497763/site/newsweek/page/2/> Sharon Kramer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 Sharon: Darn you....Now you said something I totally agree with! :-) Yes, the pendulum does wing back and forth, and I wish it would normalize and attain some sense of reasonableness, practicality, and balance. However, rom my perspective, those in charge seem to listen too much to the loudest whiner. Those of us that tend to be practical and logical in approach and action, don’t seem to know how to whine REALLY loud and really long (in duration). So...There goes the pendulum, swinging from one hysterical moment to the next. There needs to be balance between industry and the individual. Balance would be nice! Hey , You wrote: With respect to Katrina....yes, you are perfectly correct, i.e., they had the data, they were warned, and they failed to act. So was that was yesterday. The question is, what can be done today to correct the errors of yesterday? We have a new day. I am hoping that some of these gov't agencies will now be directed to be a little more individual friendly, rather that industry friendly. The pendulum swings back and forth. Somewhere in between, there is balance. Sharon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 : After reading your question, my first response was...Don’t go! Then I sat and thought about this for a moment. My biggest concern is for those that are performing clean-up and/or remediation. DO NOT! Leave that work for those folks with with lungs of steel and brains of birds, or personal protection and training. Maybe reconstruction efforts would be OK, once the remediation is complete AND done. For example, concrete work, framing, painting, planting and landscaping, etc. (Knowing full well that construction has its hazards too.) Maybe other, ancillary, efforts like: taking meals to seniors, helping in shelters, child care, or other support-related activities. But definitely not clean-up...though there still is a lot of clean-up to do. We are moving into the cool season and the activity of the fungi should start to decline, and this should reduce overall sporilation. For months after Katrina, the outdoor concentration of bio-aerosols was REALLY elevated. Anyone with respiratory aliments couldn’t/wouldn’t last. Anyone in the Middle School group that has respiratory issues should reconsider this trip. I have not kept up-to-date on the general ebb and flow of bio-aerosols in the gulf region, but you may want to. Some of the essential personal protective and personal hygiene measures that are a must are dust masks and hand washing. Anyone that has respiratory issues should not go. When there, anyone that gets a skin wound (abrasion, cut, scrape, puncture, etc.) should get aggressive first aid – clean, disinfect and bandage. I’m a firm believer in Tincture of Iodine, and I don’t care how much it hurts! Also, there are logistical issues that need to be addressed I could go on and on, but I won’t. The trip, while well meaning, REALLY concerns me. If these kids want to help, they should be involved in re-construction or ancillary assistance, NOT clean-up activities. There is too much potential long-term risks to these young adults in my opinion. For what it is worth... -- Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP President KERNTEC Industries, Inc. Bakersfield, California www.kerntecindustries.com Dear , et.al.: I just learned today that a middle school I am working with to assess their IAQ is planning to have a school trip to Mississippi to help with the post-Katrina cleanup. Considering the potential exposures, can you, or anyone offer any suggestions for appropriate training and personal protection? Thank you, W. Bearg, PE, CIH Concord, MA -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: Geyer <mgeyer@... <mailto:mgeyer%40atg1.com> > > I donï¿∏t doubt that there will be long-term suffering from the > affects/effects of Katrina; not only to residents, but responders, > remediators, and the faith-based organizations that responded in kind. Too > few were adequately protected, and some now probably wish they never went to > help. From experience, I knew what to expect and coached a few responders > on what to bring/expect, and a few others I talked-out of going because they > were ill-prepared and lacked experience. Those that went said it was worse > than I mentioned, and said that if it had not been for my comments, they > would have been in worse shape. I donï¿∏t say this to boast or to suggest I > knew what to do; I only speculated. I mention this because so many folks > wanted to help, had the capacity to help, and had resources to help, but > were inadequately prepared to help themselves. (The confined-space > scenario.) Fortunately, human-kind has a great capacity to help others in > need. However, in the Katrina-zone, there was a real lack of control, > coordination and communication ï¿∏ tis typical in disasters. This said, I > take exception to blaming the government, especially the Federal government, > and to suggest prior knowledge or suggest incompetence at that level is > wrong in my opinion. Moreover, the circumstances of 911 and Katrina are far > to different to say there are similarities. It just isnï¿∏t. The scale and > scope of Katrina was unprecedented in modern times. Katrina was HUGE and it > covered three states. The network news spent 90% of their air-time on New > Orleans because of an out-spoken, finger-pointing, grand-standing Mayor who > should have acted much more responsibly than he did; my opinion. Whereas, > most of the state of Mississippi was wiped out and it is still hurting, > badly too. The only Katrina similarity maybe, was hurricane Ivan (if I get > this one right) that swept through the Carolinas and emptied hundreds of > animal feed lots into the landscape ï¿∏ covering many square miles with toxic > gumbo. No....9/11 does not even compare to these two events. Ivan caused > the CAFO regulations to be promulgated, which the EPA is now enforcing to > mitigate much of the unrestrained biological load from a similar ï¿∏toxic > gumboï¿∏ event. Katrina further demonstrated another form of destruction ï¿∏ on > urban infrastructure. Until the politicians and land-use planners fully > comprehend the consequences of coastal development in the face of very large > weather systems, it will not improve. There will be repeat Katrina-like > events. There are those in the know (e.g., engineers and geologists) but > these folks are not in elected positions. Because if they were, they would > restrict this type of unrestrained development in high-risk areas. > Historically, in the continental U.S., there are records of bigger > hurricanes, bigger floods, stronger winds, huge volcanic eruptions, and > shattering earthquakes. Even the Los Angeles (California) basin has a > record of at least two very large hurricanes striking the area and changing > the course of rivers. Imagine if it happens in modern times? Will it > happen again...Who knows? Probably. I hope I am prepared. Are you? > Moreover, building below sea-level, in flood zones, and/or downstream of > seemingly small water systems in normal years, is playing Russian Roulette > with Mother Nature. Katrina proves this. There are other areas of the U.S. > that are equally at risk to large-scale, purely natural events. > Furthermore, I do not believe that it is the Federal governmentï¿∏s > responsibility to dictate what can and cannot be built in high risk areas; > it is a local issue and it should stay a local issue. What Katrina showed > us was: the locals want the development and the tax base, the locals knew > the consequences and chose to postpone/ignore action, and the locals whined > and sniveled in the face of disaster and pointed the finger elsewhere > instead of taking responsibility and marshalling resources to limit > damage/injury. What has developed in the U.S. is a loss of personal > responsibility and an entitlement mentality, i.e., it must be someone elseï¿∏s > fault. It is like a disease. If you want to point a finger, point to those > that allowed development to take shape in the risk-prone zones. To say; > ï¿∏There is no excuse for this,ï¿∏ is to be a bit naive. There are a lot of > excuses, and the Mayor of New Orleans (and others) is full of excuses, and a > poster-child of a failure to comprehend the probable and the inevitable. > > For what it is worth.... > -- > Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP > President > KERNTEC Industries, Inc. > Bakersfield, California > www.kerntecindustries.com > > > > On 11/6/06 8:44 AM, " snk1955@... <mailto:snk1955%40aol.com> " <snk1955@... <mailto:snk1955%40aol.com> > wrote: > > > and , > > What has happened to some of the occupants of New Orleans in the wake of > > Katrina is so sad and so unnecessary. Worse than losing their possessions, I > > fear there are going to be long term health repercussions for many years to > > come, simply from lack of proper warning. There is no excuse for this. The > > gov't had 4 years of studying the health ramifications of the 911 clean up > > workers to understand the health implications of disaster clean up in New > > Orleans. > > New Orleans is even more tragic in that private citizens, including children, > > were not duly warned of the potential long term effects of the toxic gumbo > > they were inhaling, touching and ingesting. We are all going to be paying for > > this folly for a long time to come in that some, who were productive people, > > will now become burdens on the state. > > Below is an article from Newsweek. It is an interview with Hugh Kaufman, > > Ombudsman, EPA. > > ï¿∏Itï¿∏s Incompetenceï¿∏ > > An environmental expert fears that Gulf Coast residents and volunteers exposed > > to deadly toxins could suffer health effects similar to those of 9/11 workers. > > > > Carolyn Kaster / AP > > A woman in Arabi, La., just outside New Orleans, works alone to clear wet > > and moldy items from her home on Feb. 21 > > > > WEB EXCLUSIVE > > By > > Newsweek > > Updated: 6:33 a.m. PT Aug 24, 2006 > > Aug. 24, 2006 - Youï¿∏ve seen the awful pictures: rotting houses knocked off > > their foundations, walls mottled with mold, floors coated in grimy mud, piles > > of God-knows-what towering over empty streets. For Hurricane Katrina survivors > > and volunteers sent to help, the cleanup isnï¿∏t just unpleasantï¿∏itï¿∏s > > potentially sickening. > > > > Like the 9/11 workers, many of those working in the Katrina rubble are being > > exposed to deadly toxins, says Hugh Kaufman, a senior policy analyst for the > > Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Washington. With more than 35 years > > of experience in the field, he particularly worries about workers and citizens > > being exposed to harmful contaminants like asbestos > > <http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/health.pdf> and mold > > <http://www.epa.gov/mold/moldresources.html> . > > > > A year ago, Kaufman cautioned residents > > <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9370519/site/newsweek/> about returning to the > > affected areas too quickly. Now he explains to NEWSWEEKï¿∏s how > > dangerous the situation remains. Excerpts: > > > > > > > > Online Newshour > > Kaufman: ï¿∏The government has waived ... rules ... to save moneyï¿∏ > > > > > > NEWSWEEK: Whatï¿∏s the present environmental situation in the Gulf Coast > > regions hit hardest by Katrina? > > Hugh Kaufman: Weï¿∏re dealing with the major issue of cleanup, and continuing to > > assess the magnitude of the problem. You basically still have a large amount > > of toxic material ... [and] studies have shown high levels of heavy metals in > > the sediments that have coated the areas. Youï¿∏ve got a tremendous amount of > > solid wasteï¿∏over 20 million tonsï¿∏[in the form of] automobiles, trash, etc., > > that has to be dealt with. And you have a problem that a number of us are > > raising red flags about, which is [the lack of] protective equipment for > > people who are involved in cleanup. > > > > CONTINUED <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14497763/site/newsweek/page/2/> > > > > 1 | 2 <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14497763/site/newsweek/page/2/> | 3 > > <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14497763/site/newsweek/page/3/> | 4 > > <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14497763/site/newsweek/page/4/> | Next > > > <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14497763/site/newsweek/page/2/> > > > > > > Sharon Kramer > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 Good question. Our church sent a group down last spring and a Student Venture group we support high school) also went. I did a short training session of the use of N95 and N100 filtering facepieces. Talked about gloves, boots, eletrical and biological hazards. WI talked about work practices as well - not pushing air out of garbage bags to get them sealed, not using dry sweeping, etc. For specific folks (who might work around waste overflows) we checked for hep vacinations [Note: I found the CDC comments interesting since I worked on the floods in St. Louis in 1994 and they recommended vacin.] We did not allow those under 16 to work in areas that a mask was prudent to use. Along those lines I did a fit test (in front of the group) a 13 year old with an N95 (small) using a TSI Portacount with an N95 adapter. He failed miserably. So beware. I recommended that inside the houses for non-destruction work to use N95s as a minimum and for destructive work N100 filter facepieces or better. For those asthmatic or sensitive to mold I recommernded a grade up (N100 and Fullface with P100). I have monitored myself during my bnsthroom rip out (Stachy) and >100K S/m3 was evident [i used a PAPR]. I also monitored a contractor in sme work in GA using a button sampler (direct and cuturable on the gelatin filters) and that wasn't too bad for mold (<10K S/m3) but horrible for particulate loading [they were in PAPRs]. I've seen sme other data during rip-out and it can be well over 100K S/m3. My thoughts. ........................................................................... " Tony " Havics, CHMM, CIH, PE pH2, LLC PO Box 34140 Indianapolis, IN 46234 cell 90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal point...any consultant can give you the other 10%℠This message is from pH2. This message and any attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information, and are intended only for the individual or entity identified above as the addressee. If you are not the addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are not authorized to read, copy, or distribute this message and any attachments, and we ask that you please delete this message and attachments (including all copies) and notify the sender by return e-mail or by phone at . Delivery of this message and any attachments to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive confidentiality or a privilege. All personal messages express views only of the sender, which are not to be attributed to pH2 and may not be copied or distributed without this statement. Re: The Katrina Disaster Dear , et.al.: I just learned today that a middle school I am working with to assess their IAQ is planning to have a school trip to Mississippi to help with the post-Katrina cleanup. Considering the potential exposures, can you, or anyone offer any suggestions for appropriate training and personal protection? Thank you, W. Bearg, PE, CIH Concord, MA -------------- Original message ---------------------- > I don�t doubt that there will be long-term suffering from the > affects/effects of Katrina; not only to residents, but responders, > remediators, and the faith-based organizations that responded in kind. > Too few were adequately protected, and some now probably wish they > never went to help. From experience, I knew what to expect and > coached a few responders on what to bring/expect, and a few others I > talked-out of going because they were ill-prepared and lacked > experience. Those that went said it was worse than I mentioned, and > said that if it had not been for my comments, they would have been in > worse shape. I don�t say this to boast or to suggest I knew what to > do; I only speculated. I mention this because so many folks wanted to > help, had the capacity to help, and had resources to help, but were > inadequately prepared to help themselves. (The confined-space > scenario.) Fortunately, human-kind has a great capacity to help others in > need. However, in the Katrina-zone, there was a real lack of control, > coordination and communication � tis typical in disasters. This said, I > take exception to blaming the government, especially the Federal government, > and to suggest prior knowledge or suggest incompetence at that level is > wrong in my opinion. Moreover, the circumstances of 911 and Katrina are far > to different to say there are similarities. It just isn�t. The scale and > scope of Katrina was unprecedented in modern times. Katrina was HUGE and it > covered three states. The network news spent 90% of their air-time on New > Orleans because of an out-spoken, finger-pointing, grand-standing Mayor who > should have acted much more responsibly than he did; my opinion. Whereas, > most of the state of Mississippi was wiped out and it is still hurting, > badly too. The only Katrina similarity maybe, was hurricane Ivan (if I get > this one right) that swept through the Carolinas and emptied hundreds of > animal feed lots into the landscape � covering many square miles with toxic > gumbo. No....9/11 does not even compare to these two events. Ivan caused > the CAFO regulations to be promulgated, which the EPA is now enforcing to > mitigate much of the unrestrained biological load from a similar �toxic > gumbo� event. Katrina further demonstrated another form of destruction � on > urban infrastructure. Until the politicians and land-use planners fully > comprehend the consequences of coastal development in the face of very large > weather systems, it will not improve. There will be repeat Katrina-like > events. There are those in the know (e.g., engineers and geologists) but > these folks are not in elected positions. Because if they were, they would > restrict this type of unrestrained development in high-risk areas. > Historically, in the continental U.S., there are records of bigger > hurricanes, bigger floods, stronger winds, huge volcanic eruptions, and > shattering earthquakes. Even the Los Angeles (California) basin has a > record of at least two very large hurricanes striking the area and changing > the course of rivers. Imagine if it happens in modern times? Will it > happen again...Who knows? Probably. I hope I am prepared. Are you? > Moreover, building below sea-level, in flood zones, and/or downstream of > seemingly small water systems in normal years, is playing Russian Roulette > with Mother Nature. Katrina proves this. There are other areas of the U.S. > that are equally at risk to large-scale, purely natural events. > Furthermore, I do not believe that it is the Federal government�s > responsibility to dictate what can and cannot be built in high risk areas; > it is a local issue and it should stay a local issue. What Katrina showed > us was: the locals want the development and the tax base, the locals knew > the consequences and chose to postpone/ignore action, and the locals whined > and sniveled in the face of disaster and pointed the finger elsewhere > instead of taking responsibility and marshalling resources to limit > damage/injury. What has developed in the U.S. is a loss of personal > responsibility and an entitlement mentality, i.e., it must be someone else�s > fault. It is like a disease. If you want to point a finger, point to those > that allowed development to take shape in the risk-prone zones. To say; > �There is no excuse for this,� is to be a bit naive. There are a lot of > excuses, and the Mayor of New Orleans (and others) is full of excuses, and a > poster-child of a failure to comprehend the probable and the inevitable. > > For what it is worth.... > -- > Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP > President > KERNTEC Industries, Inc. > Bakersfield, California > www.kerntecindustries.com > > > > > > > and , > > What has happened to some of the occupants of New Orleans in the > > wake of Katrina is so sad and so unnecessary. Worse than losing > > their possessions, I fear there are going to be long term health > > repercussions for many years to come, simply from lack of proper > > warning. There is no excuse for this. The gov't had 4 years of > > studying the health ramifications of the 911 clean up workers to > > understand the health implications of disaster clean up in New Orleans. > > New Orleans is even more tragic in that private citizens, including children, > > were not duly warned of the potential long term effects of the toxic gumbo > > they were inhaling, touching and ingesting. We are all going to be paying for > > this folly for a long time to come in that some, who were productive people, > > will now become burdens on the state. > > Below is an article from Newsweek. It is an interview with Hugh Kaufman, > > Ombudsman, EPA. > > �It�s Incompetence� > > An environmental expert fears that Gulf Coast residents and volunteers exposed > > to deadly toxins could suffer health effects similar to those of 9/11 workers. > > > > Carolyn Kaster / AP > > A woman in Arabi, La., just outside New Orleans, works alone to > > clear wet and moldy items from her home on Feb. 21 > > > > WEB EXCLUSIVE > > By > > Newsweek > > Updated: 6:33 a.m. PT Aug 24, 2006 > > Aug. 24, 2006 - You�ve seen the awful pictures: rotting houses > > knocked off their foundations, walls mottled with mold, floors > > coated in grimy mud, piles of God-knows-what towering over empty > > streets. For Hurricane Katrina survivors and volunteers sent to > > help, the cleanup isn�t just unpleasant�it�s potentially > > sickening. > > > > Like the 9/11 workers, many of those working in the Katrina rubble > > are being exposed to deadly toxins, says Hugh Kaufman, a senior > > policy analyst for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in > > Washington. With more than 35 years of experience in the field, he > > particularly worries about workers and citizens being exposed to > > harmful contaminants like asbestos > > <http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/health.pdf> and mold > > <http://www.epa.gov/mold/moldresources.html> . > > > > A year ago, Kaufman cautioned residents > > <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9370519/site/newsweek/> about > > returning to the affected areas too quickly. Now he explains to > > NEWSWEEK�s how dangerous the situation remains. > > Excerpts: > > > > > > > > Online Newshour > > Kaufman: �The government has waived ... rules ... to save > > money� > > > > > > NEWSWEEK: What�s the present environmental situation in the Gulf > > Coast regions hit hardest by Katrina? Hugh Kaufman: We�re dealing > > with the major issue of cleanup, and continuing to assess the > > magnitude of the problem. You basically still have a large amount of > > toxic material ... [and] studies have shown high levels of heavy > > metals in the sediments that have coated the areas. You�ve got a > > tremendous amount of solid waste�over 20 million tons�[in the > > form of] automobiles, trash, etc., that has to be dealt with. And > > you have a problem that a number of us are raising red flags about, > > which is [the lack of] protective equipment for people who are > > involved in cleanup. > > > > CONTINUED > > <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14497763/site/newsweek/page/2/> > > > > 1 | 2 <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14497763/site/newsweek/page/2/> > > | 3 <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14497763/site/newsweek/page/3/> | > > 4 <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14497763/site/newsweek/page/4/> | > > Next > <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14497763/site/newsweek/page/2/> > > > > > > Sharon Kramer > > > > > 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 November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 I don't remember the sources, but I've known this for quite some time and I am pretty sure that it is public knowledge, although sometimes things that are declassified, public information get re-classified inexplicably.. This has happened with a lot of stuff in the last six years.. :oI have read a lot about national security over the years.. perhaps because I have a lot of security issues of my own.. I don't know..I have a strong interest in human rights as well. BTW, I strongly feel that mold illness is very much a national security issue.. (think of it this way, if a foreign nation was poisoning millions of Americans with mycotoxins the government would - hopefully - be doing a lot to stop it.. however, we have a preventable epidemic of mold illness going on right now and because it is a subject that spikes controversy within the corporate donor base.. nary a peep... that is really wrong and it prevents an intelligent dialogue from happening on this issue in which all of the various interests could strike a workable compromise that would minimize the impact even if it could not eliminate it..) If you are really interested, and don't mind hunting it down yourself, one place that there is a lot of this kind of information (declassified policy documents from both the US and the ex-USSR) is the National Security Archive at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/Actually, running it over a bit, I am thinking that the place I read that information might have been in a book entitled " Nixon's Vietnam War " that i read a long time ago.. It was by Kimball and here is a web page on it.. http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/kimnix.htmlNow that I think about it, that book was also very interesting and unfortunately fairly relevant in that it gives an excellent description of the thinking that went into what was then called Nixon's " Madman Theory " of warfare.. .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 Oops, forgot to quote the posting i was replying to just now. I was replying to AlwaysEnv@...here is the question: AlwaysEnv@... to iequality This is why we don't see " Fallout Shelter " signs anymore.. its because they realized that in the firestorms driven by burning plastic and metal, nobody would survive.. and the toxic fallout would cover a huge area.. entire sections of the country. If the public realized this, both our foreign and domestic policy would have to change, because they would realize the cost of a nuclear war would be so incredibly high. Not only would we lose everything and everybody in our cities, the cleanup of the less contaminated areas would bankrupt the nation for generations to come. Hey Quack, Is this speculation on your part, or an expert/professional opinion? Not saying I disagree, ST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 LiveSimply wrote: > quackadillian@... writes: > > This is why we don't see " Fallout Shelter " signs anymore.. its because they realized that in the firestorms driven by burning plastic and metal, nobody would survive.. and the toxic fallout would cover a huge area.. entire sections of the country. > As a former nuclear missile launcher specialist, trained in military doctrine for the Lance tactical battlefield nuclear missile, http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/lance/welcome.html I can assure you that the theory of " limited nuclear war " is alive and well - a concept in which punishing " limited " blows dissuade the enemy from foregoing further attacks and subsequent commensurate retaliation. The military believes that a limited nuclear strike is survivable outside of the kill zone. -SP4 MOS 15D10 (ret) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 2006 Report Share Posted November 9, 2006 , If the pendulum didn’t swing we would live in a static world. How boring would that be! Thank dog for swinging pendulums and enjoy the ride! DeCarte said, “I think therefore I am.” For some reason we as a society have taken it to a new level, “I think therefore I’m right.” But, it ain’t necessarily so. Is light a wave or a particle? It depends on where you stand. Thanks for your thought provoking posts and for trying to swing the pendulum in your direction. Mark Doughty President Doughty Environmental Hygiene Associates P.O. Box 159 Stockbridge, VT 05772 deha@... Re: The Katrina Disaster Sharon: Darn you....Now you said something I totally agree with! :-) Yes, the pendulum does wing back and forth, and I wish it would normalize and attain some sense of reasonableness, practicality, and balance. However, rom my perspective, those in charge seem to listen too much to the loudest whiner. Those of us that tend to be practical and logical in approach and action, don’t seem to know how to whine REALLY loud and really long (in duration). So...There goes the pendulum, swinging from one hysterical moment to the next. There needs to be balance between industry and the individual. Balance would be nice! On 11/8/06 12:57 PM, " snk1955aol " <snk1955aol> wrote: Hey , You wrote: With respect to Katrina....yes, you are perfectly correct, i.e., they had the data, they were warned, and they failed to act. So was that was yesterday. The question is, what can be done today to correct the errors of yesterday? We have a new day. I am hoping that some of these gov't agencies will now be directed to be a little more individual friendly, rather that industry friendly. The pendulum swings back and forth. Somewhere in between, there is balance. Sharon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 2006 Report Share Posted November 9, 2006 , I can assure you that the theory of " limited nuclear war " is alive and well - a concept in which punishing " limited " blows dissuade the enemy from foregoing further attacks and subsequent commensurate retaliation. The military believes that a limited nuclear strike is survivable outside of the kill zone. It is indeed a sad statement that the US military is sooo myopic. Why does the US need a military? Canada isn't going to invade us! Mexico certainly isn't going to invade us! A landing invasion on our coasts by another country? Who could do this? SO why do we have a military? The reality is that the US military is imperialistic and protects the " interests " of corporations and wealthy americans in other countries. It has nothing to do with the " safety " of the average american. We pay taxes to support a military that supports economic exploitation of other people and their countries natural resources. Read " they people's history of the united states " by Zinn or if you are short of time " Addicted to War " (takes about 1 hour). They hate us for a reason (you just need to study history to find out why) and it is not because we are " nice guys. " Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 2006 Report Share Posted November 9, 2006 , Last Spring, I was involved in an effort to provide some training to several hundred people (mostly high-school kids) from area church groups. One of the groups invited me along on the trip, so I had the opportunity to get some first hand experience with the cleanup activities in the New Orleans area. The biggest challenge, in my opinion, was maintaining adequate respiratory protection. Gutting homes creates clouds of dusts and fibers, in addition to the much anticipated fungal fragments. ly, an N-95 is not really sufficient for the exposure, but it beats nothing at all (I saw other groups of kids, each wearing Tyvek and a hard hat, but no respiratory protection). Fit issues that are common knowledge to an expert like you, are completely foreign to these type volunteers. Retaining and implementing any advice you may offer is key. Also, other than supplies that I brought, every half-face respirator that I saw had the wrong filters (organic vapor cartridges instead of HEPA or, my preference, HEPA/VOC stacked). Another big hazard was puncture wounds. All kinds of sharp stuff buried in the muck. That and kids really like breaking things. Several people in the group I was with experienced cuts to feet and hands. Good boots (steel shank) and heavy gloves are a must. (For gloves, I really liked the North Black Task. These are a very durable, PVC coated, 14" gauntlet. More durable than leather, plus liquid proof. Flocked lining inside helps control sweat.) After the first day of home gutting, we ran out of Sudafed. Anyone that says these people aren't affected by exposures during this work is lying. It becomes a question of to what extent/degree are they affected. Let me know if you want more details. Curtis Redington Re: The Katrina Disaster Dear , et.al.:I just learned today that a middle school I am working with to assess their IAQ is planning to have a school trip to Mississippi to help with the post-Katrina cleanup.Considering the potential exposures, can you, or anyone offer any suggestions for appropriate training and personal protection?Thank you, W. Bearg, PE, CIHConcord, MA-------------- Original message ----------------------From: Geyer <mgeyeratg1>> I don�t doubt that there will be long-term suffering from the> affects/effects of Katrina; not only to residents, but responders,> remediators, and the faith-based organizations that responded in kind. Too> few were adequately protected, and some now probably wish they never went to> help. From experience, I knew what to expect and coached a few responders> on what to bring/expect, and a few others I talked-out of going because they> were ill-prepared and lacked experience. Those that went said it was worse> than I mentioned, and said that if it had not been for my comments, they> would have been in worse shape. I don�t say this to boast or to suggest I> knew what to do; I only speculated. I mention this because so many folks> wanted to help, had the capacity to help, and had resources to help, but> were inadequately prepared to help themselves. (The confined-space> scenario.) Fortunately, human-kind has a great capacity to help others in> need. However, in the Katrina-zone, there was a real lack of control,> coordination and communication � tis typical in disasters. This said, I> take exception to blaming the government, especially the Federal government,> and to suggest prior knowledge or suggest incompetence at that level is> wrong in my opinion. Moreover, the circumstances of 911 and Katrina are far> to different to say there are similarities. It just isn�t. The scale and> scope of Katrina was unprecedented in modern times. Katrina was HUGE and it> covered three states. The network news spent 90% of their air-time on New> Orleans because of an out-spoken, finger-pointing, grand-standing Mayor who> should have acted much more responsibly than he did; my opinion. Whereas,> most of the state of Mississippi was wiped out and it is still hurting,> badly too. The only Katrina similarity maybe, was hurricane Ivan (if I get> this one right) that swept through the Carolinas and emptied hundreds of> animal feed lots into the landscape � covering many square miles with toxic> gumbo. No....9/11 does not even compare to these two events. Ivan caused> the CAFO regulations to be promulgated, which the EPA is now enforcing to> mitigate much of the unrestrained biological load from a similar �toxic> gumbo� event. Katrina further demonstrated another form of destruction � on> urban infrastructure. Until the politicians and land-use planners fully> comprehend the consequences of coastal development in the face of very large> weather systems, it will not improve. There will be repeat Katrina-like> events. There are those in the know (e.g., engineers and geologists) but> these folks are not in elected positions. Because if they were, they would> restrict this type of unrestrained development in high-risk areas.> Historically, in the continental U.S., there are records of bigger> hurricanes, bigger floods, stronger winds, huge volcanic eruptions, and> shattering earthquakes. Even the Los Angeles (California) basin has a> record of at least two very large hurricanes striking the area and changing> the course of rivers. Imagine if it happens in modern times? Will it> happen again...Who knows? Probably. I hope I am prepared. Are you?> Moreover, building below sea-level, in flood zones, and/or downstream of> seemingly small water systems in normal years, is playing Russian Roulette> with Mother Nature. Katrina proves this. There are other areas of the U.S.> that are equally at risk to large-scale, purely natural events.> Furthermore, I do not believe that it is the Federal government�s> responsibility to dictate what can and cannot be built in high risk areas;> it is a local issue and it should stay a local issue. What Katrina showed> us was: the locals want the development and the tax base, the locals knew> the consequences and chose to postpone/ignore action, and the locals whined> and sniveled in the face of disaster and pointed the finger elsewhere> instead of taking responsibility and marshalling resources to limit> damage/injury. What has developed in the U.S. is a loss of personal> responsibility and an entitlement mentality, i.e., it must be someone else�s> fault. It is like a disease. If you want to point a finger, point to those> that allowed development to take shape in the risk-prone zones. To say;> �There is no excuse for this,� is to be a bit naive. There are a lot of> excuses, and the Mayor of New Orleans (and others) is full of excuses, and a> poster-child of a failure to comprehend the probable and the inevitable.> > For what it is worth....> -- > Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP> President> KERNTEC Industries, Inc.> Bakersfield, California> www.kerntecindustries.com> > > > On 11/6/06 8:44 AM, "snk1955aol" <snk1955aol> wrote:> > > and ,> > What has happened to some of the occupants of New Orleans in the wake of> > Katrina is so sad and so unnecessary. Worse than losing their possessions, I> > fear there are going to be long term health repercussions for many years to> > come, simply from lack of proper warning. There is no excuse for this. The> > gov't had 4 years of studying the health ramifications of the 911 clean up> > workers to understand the health implications of disaster clean up in New> > Orleans. > > New Orleans is even more tragic in that private citizens, including children,> > were not duly warned of the potential long term effects of the toxic gumbo> > they were inhaling, touching and ingesting. We are all going to be paying for> > this folly for a long time to come in that some, who were productive people,> > will now become burdens on the state.> > Below is an article from Newsweek. It is an interview with Hugh Kaufman,> > Ombudsman, EPA. > > �It�s Incompetence�> > An environmental expert fears that Gulf Coast residents and volunteers exposed> > to deadly toxins could suffer health effects similar to those of 9/11 workers.> > > > Carolyn Kaster / AP> > A woman in Arabi, La., just outside New Orleans, works alone to clear wet> > and moldy items from her home on Feb. 21> > > > WEB EXCLUSIVE> > By > > Newsweek> > Updated: 6:33 a.m. PT Aug 24, 2006> > Aug. 24, 2006 - You�ve seen the awful pictures: rotting houses knocked off> > their foundations, walls mottled with mold, floors coated in grimy mud, piles> > of God-knows-what towering over empty streets. For Hurricane Katrina survivors> > and volunteers sent to help, the cleanup isn�t just unpleasant�it�s> > potentially sickening.> > > > Like the 9/11 workers, many of those working in the Katrina rubble are being> > exposed to deadly toxins, says Hugh Kaufman, a senior policy analyst for the> > Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Washington. With more than 35 years> > of experience in the field, he particularly worries about workers and citizens> > being exposed to harmful contaminants like asbestos> > <http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/health.pdf> and mold> > <http://www.epa.gov/mold/moldresources.html> .> > > > A year ago, Kaufman cautioned residents> > <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9370519/site/newsweek/> about returning to the> > affected areas too quickly. Now he explains to NEWSWEEK�s how> > dangerous the situation remains. Excerpts:> > > > > > > > Online Newshour> > Kaufman: �The government has waived ... rules ... to save money�> > > > > > NEWSWEEK: What�s the present environmental situation in the Gulf Coast> > regions hit hardest by Katrina?> > Hugh Kaufman: We�re dealing with the major issue of cleanup, and continuing to> > assess the magnitude of the problem. You basically still have a large amount> > of toxic material ... [and] studies have shown high levels of heavy metals in> > the sediments that have coated the areas. You�ve got a tremendous amount of> > solid waste�over 20 million tons�[in the form of] automobiles, trash, etc.,> > that has to be dealt with. And you have a problem that a number of us are> > raising red flags about, which is [the lack of] protective equipment for> > people who are involved in cleanup.> > > > CONTINUED <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14497763/site/newsweek/page/2/>> > > > 1 | 2 <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14497763/site/newsweek/page/2/> | 3> > <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14497763/site/newsweek/page/3/> | 4> > <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14497763/site/newsweek/page/4/> | Next >> > <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14497763/site/newsweek/page/2/>> > > > > > Sharon Kramer> > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 2006 Report Share Posted November 9, 2006 Bob: You ask some very sane questions. However, it is safe to think these things BECAUSE of the U.S. Military. We are a free country because of the efforts of the U.S. Military and for those that died for your right to say so. No country in their right mind will _uck with the U.S.! And if you think the U.S. military is solely for the interests of corporations and wealthy Americans, I ask...Then what was the U.S. military doing in the Balkans during Milosivik’s rule in Kosovo/Yugoslavia? The U.S. did not have “interests” there...except, maybe to stop the ethnic cleansing and genocide. And if it were not for the U.S. military, their command and control systems, and the devastating final strike of two B-52 with cluster bombs, Milosovik would not have caved and surrendered. The deterrent that the U.S. Military provides is significant. While your questions have merit, I, for one, think highly of the U.S. military and the capabilities therein, and I don’t feel that the military solely serves the interests of industry and the wealthy. For what it is worth.... -- Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP President KERNTEC Industries, Inc. Bakersfield, California www.kerntecindustries.com , I can assure you that the theory of " limited nuclear war " is alive and well - a concept in which punishing " limited " blows dissuade the enemy from foregoing further attacks and subsequent commensurate retaliation. The military believes that a limited nuclear strike is survivable outside of the kill zone. It is indeed a sad statement that the US military is sooo myopic. Why does the US need a military? Canada isn't going to invade us! Mexico certainly isn't going to invade us! A landing invasion on our coasts by another country? Who could do this? SO why do we have a military? The reality is that the US military is imperialistic and protects the " interests " of corporations and wealthy americans in other countries. It has nothing to do with the " safety " of the average american. We pay taxes to support a military that supports economic exploitation of other people and their countries natural resources. Read " they people's history of the united states " by Zinn or if you are short of time " Addicted to War " (takes about 1 hour). They hate us for a reason (you just need to study history to find out why) and it is not because we are " nice guys. " Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 2006 Report Share Posted November 9, 2006 HEY GUYS: this is the IEQuality group, not the political/military/industrial complex group. take it outside, PLEASE. Wane > > > , > > > > I can assure you that the theory of " limited nuclear war " is alive > > > > Bob > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2006 Report Share Posted November 10, 2006 Mr. Bearg, I have watched with interest everyone's response to your concerns about the safety of those who are going to the Gulf Coast to volunteer to do clean-up. Being based in the New Orleans area, our company is on the front line, if you will, working these clean-up projects everyday and we have been doing so since the first days after the Hurricanes. As much as my heart is warmed by the outpouring of compassion and love that is shown by all of the volunteers who travel here weekly from around the world to help, I am more horrified about the danger they are in. Too many times I have seen virtually unprotected children and adults working in homes that are totally infested with mold from top to bottom, that have been coated with lead paint for 70 or more years, that have asbestos construction materials, that have other potential biological hazards from waste water contamination, and that have several other potential physical hazards to numerous to mention here. I have attempted to publicize as best I could in regional and national publications the need for more caution, protection and training. Failure to achieve this will result in a huge number of volunteers who will develop health problems that may change their lives forever. During the early days of the response effort an associate from New York, Mr. Bill Sothern of Microecologies, Inc. (in conjunction with Little Sisters of the Assumption and ), worked to develop an excellent DVD that provides guidance to area residents and volunteers. More than 3000 copies have been distributed. I was involved in the review process and feel that this should be viewed by everyone working in the capacity that your group will work. You or anyone else can obtain a copy by contacting Mr. Sothern at or at Microecologies@... . Let me also say that I appreciate all that you, and all the other volunteers in assisting this area in recovering from the devastation of that storm. Not enough people realize that there are still over 150,000 homes in the New Orleans area alone that have either been destroyed or need massive clean-up and renovation. We are far from recovered. Also if we could help you in any way when you arrive, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Danny Joyce President Technical Environmental Services, Inc. www.tesconsult.com > >> > > >>> > > and , > >>> > > What has happened to some of the occupants of New Orleans in the wake of > >>> > > Katrina is so sad and so unnecessary. Worse than losing their > >>> possessions, I > >>> > > fear there are going to be long term health repercussions for many years > to > >>> > > come, simply from lack of proper warning. There is no excuse for this. > The > >>> > > gov't had 4 years of studying the health ramifications of the 911 clean > up > >>> > > workers to understand the health implications of disaster clean up in > New > >>> > > Orleans. > >>> > > New Orleans is even more tragic in that private citizens, including > >>> children, > >>> > > were not duly warned of the potential long term effects of the toxic >>> > gumbo > >>> > > they were inhaling, touching and ingesting. We are all going to be > >>> paying for > >>> > > this folly for a long time to come in that some, who were productive > >>> people, > >>> > > will now become burdens on the state. > >>> > > Below is an article from Newsweek. It is an interview with Hugh > >>> Kaufman, > >>> > > Ombudsman, EPA. > >>> > > �It�s Incompetence� > >>> > > An environmental expert fears that Gulf Coast residents and volunteers > >>> exposed > >>> > > to deadly toxins could suffer health effects similar to those of 9/11 > >>> workers. > >>> > > > >>> > > Carolyn Kaster / AP > >>> > > A woman in Arabi, La., just outside New Orleans, works alone to clear > wet > >>> > > and moldy items from her home on Feb. 21 > >>> > > > >>> > > WEB EXCLUSIVE > >>> > > By > >>> > > Newsweek > >>> > > Updated: 6:33 a.m. PT Aug 24, 2006 > >>> > > Aug. 24, 2006 - You�ve seen the awful pictures: rotting houses knocked > off > >>> > > their foundations, walls mottled with mold, floors coated in grimy mud, > >>> piles > >>> > > of God-knows-what towering over empty streets. For Hurricane Katrina > >>> survivors > >>> > > and volunteers sent to help, the cleanup isn�t just > >>> unpleasant�it�s > >>> > > potentially sickening. > >>> > > > >>> > > Like the 9/11 workers, many of those working in the Katrina rubble are > >>> being > >>> > > exposed to deadly toxins, says Hugh Kaufman, a senior policy analyst for > the > >>> > > Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Washington. With more than 35 > >>> years > >>> > > of experience in the field, he particularly worries about workers and > >>> citizens > >>> > > being exposed to harmful contaminants like asbestos > >>> > > <http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/health.pdf> and mold > >>> > > <http://www.epa.gov/mold/moldresources.html> . > >>> > > > >>> > > A year ago, Kaufman cautioned residents > >>> > > <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9370519/site/newsweek/> about returning to > the > >>> > > affected areas too quickly. Now he explains to NEWSWEEK�s > >>> how > >>> > > dangerous the situation remains. Excerpts: > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > Online Newshour > >>> > > Kaufman: �The government has waived ... rules ... to save money� > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > NEWSWEEK: What�s the present environmental situation in the Gulf >>> > Coast > >>> > > regions hit hardest by Katrina? > >>> > > Hugh Kaufman: We�re dealing with the major issue of cleanup, and > >>> continuing to > >>> > > assess the magnitude of the problem. You basically still have a large > >>> amount > >>> > > of toxic material ... [and] studies have shown high levels of heavy > >>> metals in > >>> > > the sediments that have coated the areas. You�ve got a tremendous > >>> amount of > >>> > > solid waste�over 20 million tons�[in the form of] automobiles, > >>> trash, etc., > >>> > > that has to be dealt with. And you have a problem that a number of us > are > >>> > > raising red flags about, which is [the lack of] protective equipment for > >>> > > people who are involved in cleanup. > >>> > > > >>> > > CONTINUED <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14497763/site/newsweek/page/2/> > >>> > > > >>> > > 1 | 2 <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14497763/site/newsweek/page/2/> | 3 > >>> > > <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14497763/site/newsweek/page/3/> | 4 > >>> > > <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14497763/site/newsweek/page/4/> | Next > > >>> > > <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14497763/site/newsweek/page/2/> > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > Sharon Kramer > >>> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2006 Report Share Posted November 10, 2006 Dear ST,I replied to you on this a few days ago, but my response doesn't seem to have made it through some kind of list censorship(?) so here it is again. ---cut here----I don't remember the sources definitively, but I've known this for quite some time and I am pretty sure that it is public knowledge, although sometimes things that are declassified, public information get re-classified inexplicably.. This has happened with a lot of stuff in the last six years.. :oI have read a lot about national security over the years.. perhaps because I have a lot of security issues of my own.. I don't know..I have a strong interest in human rights as well. BTW, I strongly feel that mold illness is very much a national security issue.. (think of it this way, if a foreign nation was poisoning millions of Americans with mycotoxins the government would - hopefully - be doing a lot to stop it.. however, we have a preventable epidemic of mold illness going on right now and because it is a subject that spikes controversy within the corporate donor base.. nary a peep... that is really wrong and it prevents an intelligent dialogue from happening on this issue in which all of the various interests could strike a workable compromise that would minimize the impact even if it could not eliminate it..) If you are really interested, and don't mind hunting it down yourself, one place that there is a lot of this kind of information (declassified policy documents from both the US and the ex-USSR) is the National Security Archive at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/Actually, running it over a bit, I am thinking that the place I read that information might have been in a book entitled " Nixon's Vietnam War " that i read a long time ago.. It was by Kimball and here is a web page on it.. http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/kimnix.htmlNow that I think about it, that book was also very interesting and unfortunately fairly relevant in that it gives an excellent description of the thinking that went into what was then called Nixon's " Madman Theory " of warfare.. ....---end cut----On 11/7/06, AirwaysEnv@... <AirwaysEnv@... > wrote: In a message dated 11/7/2006 7:19:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, quackadillian@... writes: This is why we don't see " Fallout Shelter " signs anymore.. its because they realized that in the firestorms driven by burning plastic and metal, nobody would survive.. and the toxic fallout would cover a huge area.. entire sections of the country. If the public realized this, both our foreign and domestic policy would have to change, because they would realize the cost of a nuclear war would be so incredibly high. Not only would we lose everything and everybody in our cities, the cleanup of the less contaminated areas would bankrupt the nation for generations to come. Hey Quack, Is this speculation on your part, or an expert/professional opinion? Not saying I disagree, ST _ 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.