NYC-WTC_000195741

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

not been cleaned or professionally remediated, and some that had been cleaned or professionally remediated? The second study, conducted by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), at the request of New York City Department of Health (NYC DOH) in November and December 2001, is still not completed. According to a NYC DOH press release and a web site to which the release refers, the agency did find elevated levels of hazardous materials in early results, but the full results of the tests will not be available until Spring 2002.®

However, even with respect to outdoor air, Ms. Whitman’s statement has been called into question by a number of respected environmental authorities. In a recent report. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) described the situation post 9/11, "an unprecedented environmental assault," (in terms of size and type) in which file "synergistic impacts of multiple pollutants on human health in the aftermath of an air quality emergency such as the one that began on the day of the attacks are unknown."’ Ms. Whitman's pronouncements of safety are obviously incompatible with the reality that the health effects are "unknown."

Ms. Whitman's safety assurance on outdoor air was also countered directly by a published report by University of California at Davis scientist, Thomas Cahill. “ Dr. Cahill's team, known as the DELTA group, working in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Energy, took measurements one mile north of Ground Zero on a 15-story tall building. They found that the amount of pulverized “ultra-fine particulate matter” emitted fi-om the World Trade Center (WTC) destruction, was “unprecedented.” And according to the Los Angeles Times, “.. .outdid even the worst pollution fi-om the Kuwait oil fields fires.”' These measurements were taken in early October 2001, at the very same time that the EPA was reiterating that the air was safe.

According to Cahill, the EPA did not test for this level of very fine particulate matter (.25 to .09 microns), only for larger particles with less sensitive equipment. “The EPA could have identified these particles within a couple of days if they looked for them, but they didn’t.”’^ Dr. Cahill noted in the article that EPA scientists have acknowledged that the ultra-fine particles are the “most hazardous” because they can evade the body’s

^Chatfield, Eric J. (Ph.D) and Kominshy, John R. (M.Sc., CIH, CSP, CHMM), “Summary Report: Characterization of Particulate Found in Apartments After Destruction of the World Trade Center,” requested by the ‘Ground Zero’ Elected Officials Task Force, October 12,2001. * NYC DOH Press Release, “NYC Department of Health Presents Findings from Indoor Air Sampling in Lower Manhattan,” February 8,2002. ’ Nordgren, Megan D.; Goldstein, Eric A; and Izeman, Mark A (for the Natural Resources Defense Council), "The Environmental Impacts of the World Trade Center Attacks: A Preliminary Assesment," February 2002. UC Davis News and Information Press Release, “Trade Center Air Held Unprecedented Amounts of Very Fine Particles, Silicon, Sulfates, Metals, Say UC David Scientists.” February 11,2002. See also Lau, Edie and Bowman, Chris, “N.Y. Air Hazards Found: EPA Assurances Contradicted by UCD Scientists,” The Sacramento Bee, February 12,2002. " Polakovic, Gary, “Danger Found in Trade Center Air” Los Angeles Times, February 12, 2002. See also Lau, Edie and Bowman, Chris, “N.Y. Air Harzards Found: EPA Assurances Contradicted by UCD Scientists,” The Sacramento Bee, February 12, 2002. ’’ Ibid.

4

CITY_21MC100_003076422

NYC-WTC_000195744