World Trade Center environmental data report, 2001-2002

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

few days, as many as 500 may still have persistent respiratory disabilities. “Clearly, our recovery did not end with the closing of the site,” he testified.

At the same hearing, Ohio Senator George V. Voinovich voiced his dismay that the country’s stewards of environmental health let workers and neighborhood residents down. Beyond his outrage over the health effects on firefighters, Voinovich said he was equally upset Ihat the EPA gave premature reassurances regarding health risks and exposure to the workers and the residents around the World Trade Center.

“Knowing what we know now, the statements from EPA last fall were inaccurate and ambiguous at best,” said Voinovich. “What is important today is that people exposed last year receive clear guidance from the federal government as to their long-term health risks. Their doctors need to know what to look for and what to expect...We cannot afford to allow misleading statements about air quality to be made in the future.”

Post script Journalist Juan Gonzalez writes that the government officials who made early blanket assurances of safety made a “grave mistake,” and argues that “their continued defense of those assurances in the face of widespread public skepticism” is I inexcusable.

When asked. Police Captain Terrence Revella .........................................-.■■■ ■

doesn’t feel that there was any attempt to mislead people but admits, “Saying there was no hazard to people—that was a little much.”

?Y" - So far, though, few officials are willing to publicly acknowledge some of their blunders. Photo; Paul Olivier

However, the much-publicized final report of Environmental Protection Agency's inspector general (25), in an investigation into official statements about air quality after the collapse of the World Trade Center, has now found that White House officials instructed the agency to downplay and reassure the public in the first few days after the attack. The report says the agency "did not have sufficient data and analyses" to make a "blanket statement" when it announced seven days after the attack that the air around ground zero was safe to breathe. " The report cites other competing considerations, such “reopening Wall Street” and “national security,” as reasons for the spin.

The final report by EPA’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG), released August 21, states, among other criticisms, that the White House reviewed and even changed EPA statements about public health risks to make them sound less alarming. The report charges that the White House Council on Environmental Quality influenced “the information EPA communicated to the public through its early press releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring statement and delete cautionary ones.”

93

NYC-WTC_000145011