Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What does the CDC have to gain by downplaying the seriousness of this disaster? Don't you remember what happened to 9/11 workers who then died of specific forms of cancer? The US government fully knew that working there was dangerous for their health due to the toxic dust. What executive working at the CDC now will still be there in 15 years? That won't be their problem...
9/11 was an unprecedented event; nobody had been exposed to that level of powdered modern-constructed building before in the US. Not in those population numbers. Vinyl chloride exposure risk, in contrast, is pretty well understood; we've been working with it for over 100 years (and crashing trainloads of it for about that long). I agree the EPA (not CDC) made errors after 9/11, but they were working with a novel thre…
You underplay this, however unwittingly. (Sorry for the long post here.)
I lived in New York suburbs and had a firefighter friend who by his commanding officers was encouraged not to go down there (reasons unknown to me) despite being willing. I was glad for him (and his family) because the risk of spending days/weeks in that strange smelling smoke were pretty obvious.
Common sense isn’t “science” but the Bayesian priors for the risk given what we knew about asbestos, asbestos in office buildings, other chemicals in plastics in office buildings, the prolonged period people were working in the smoke, the lack of leadership demanding masks due to the discomfort/heat and the great strange stench of the smoke were all pretty obvious to anyone following the news in the area.
Amidst very reasonable questioning and concern for first responder heros spending large amounts of time in the smoke (and after it was clear there were no more survivors to be found), while smoke was still abundant, the EPA literally declared it was “safe” during public questioning about it and in very strong terms, when it was clear there could be no such scientific basis to conclude a statement as strong as that. I was shocked at the time and I hold their previously respectable but politically-oriented leader Christine Todd Whitman personally responsible for the lie and injury to 1000s of people so that the capitalist system could rebuild as fast as possible at the expense of first responder suckers who trusted the elite all the while praising them for their sacrifice. (I don’t usually view the world in such terms but in this particular circumstance I completely do.)
The way people clearing the site as fast as possible were lied to was unconscionable. I am sure Ms. Whitman was pressured from above her, but I consider it one of the most obvious blatant political economically-driven hypocritical lies to come out of my government, a complete self-betrayal of the EPA in fulfilling their core mission purpose and values, and a dark disgrace upon all involved.
Looking back, I don’t think I misremembered the EPA characterization of it as “safe”. They did declare it safe per Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_...
Per Wikipedia, Ms Whitman claims the agency statement of “safe” was never about ground zero, just lower manhattan, which I will concede may be true, but ground zero was a super obvious concern at the time amidst press questioning and even if I should be charitable and not claim it was a bald face lie, it was a lie by omission, misdirection, etc. The lack of clarity on the risks to ground workers or public concern or advocacy for them by the agency with the most expertise and pertinent mission was and is a betrayal. They couldn’t have added a qualifying statement of concern with whatever degree of uncertainty they had at the time about ground zero at the time? “There are risks/unknown here but not here?” I don’t mind also blaming local political officials also for using/misusing/twisting EPA words for their agendas and on behalf of are business owners small or large, or national security officials playing psychological or political games at the requests of their leadership, but I came away with the a stench of deception.
I try to tell myself “Deception? Couldn’t it have been just ordinary incompetence, a failure of leadership, scientific uncertainty?” But the silence about the risks to first responders and cleanup teams —all the while while the entire culture was voluminously heroizing them, to me, speaks volumes. This was a completely predictable tragedy which, while perhaps not completely avoidable, would have been much more morally defensible if the risks and unknowns would have been openly acknowledged and disclosed responsibly to the people who put their lives and health on the line to accelerate economic recovery so they could make an informed decision or requested at least hazard pay before taking the risks. But no. They were deceived and lied to. All while being praised for their sacrifice. Makes me sick.