WTC Pollution and the Angry Left

The Angry Left, in its zeal to cast aspersions upon the President, has, of late, seized upon the report of the EPA Ombudsman to the effect that the EPA covered up, or sugar coated, the environmental hazards at and around Ground Zero. Comes now Steve Adubato to lambaste former Governor Whitman for her role in the "cover up".

As political observers may know, I had little use for many of Governor Whitman's policies. I think she stands properly indicted of spending too much, borrowing too much, and playing too many Politically Correct games. especially her outrageous support of partial birth abortion.

But my ritual distancing concluded, many of her policies were of great comfort to conservationists like me, and should have been to so-called "environmentalists". On her watch, oceans and rivers got cleaner, more land was preserved, and the adversarial, us vs. them nature of the DEP softened. In a word, she got results.

Adubato, following the pattern of tabloid hysteria and the Angry Left's ritual vilification of anything and anyone associated with President Bush, contends:

"There has been tremendous controversy and confusion as to what the air quality really was at Ground Zero and whether rescue workers were adequately warned about the respiratory and other health risks they faced."

Controversy there has, in fact, been. The question presented is whether there should be and whether any perceived or actual deficiencies in EPA responses and actions resulted from typical bureaucratic bungling or from a deliberate, calculated desire to deceive. Adubato favors the latter conclusion, and he's dead wrong.

In the days immediately after 9/11, a tabloid headline blared out "TOXIC ZONE", calling the safety of Ground Zero into question. On November 1, the EPA replied:

"While this news (that most of the area showed little signs of serious air quality threat) may be reassuring to the public, it is important to emphasize that the risks are different for the response workers at the World Trade Center site, who are working long hours in often very smokey and dusty conditions. That is why we have repeatedly said that workers at the site should wear respirators and other protective gear. EPA and other agencies have provided thousands of respirators and other gear to response workers at the site. We have set up washing stations at which workers can wash off and change into clean clothing before going home. Signs directing workers to wear protective gear are posted at our wash stations."

Hence, from the start, workers at the site DID run some health risks, and WERE urged to use protective gear.

Adubato continues:

"Further, at the time there was no record of Christie Whitman ever discouraging rescue workers from doing what they were doing because of potential health hazards associated with air quality. In fact, on September 18, Whitman publicly stated that "the air is safe to breathe." That seems pretty clear-cut to me. In December 2002, the EPA said that people who returned to Ground Zero were "unlikely to suffer short term or adverse health effects" from contaminated air."

This is flatly contradicted by what the EPA actually SAID. On September 30, 2001, as relates to workers, was:

"Much of the monitoring data collected to date on and around the World Trade Center site indicates relatively low levels of asbestos and other potential contaminants. Nevertheless, workers should take precautions to protect themselves from any potential exposure."

"Discourage rescue workers from doing what they were doing"? You gotta be kidding. The men and women, professionals and volunteers, firefighters, cops, construction workers, and others who rushed to the site and strove mightily to find possible survivors, were not about to be stopped by the possibility that they might suffer adverse health consequences from breathing smoke. Many of these men and women rushed into the burning buildings, heedless of the risk of imminent death, to save others. They were going to let dust and smoke keep them from saving their friends? Yeah, right.

Indeed, Whitman noted precisely that reaction. As one newspaper reported, "she paraphrased some angry remarks by rescuers and volunteer firefighters: ‘'Don't you tell us what to do. Those are my brothers and sisters in there. Get out of my way.'

That sounds about right. It's exactly what one would expect from brave people engaged in critical rescue operations when confronted by a bureaucrat urging them to be mindful of risk.

In February, 2002, as a result of assertions by New York Congressmen that it had not been doing enough to protect workers and residents, DEP noted:

"of 6,172 samples collected since Sept. 11, 17 tested higher than the standard set by the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act."

The early reports issued by the EPA revealed that other chemicals, such as benzene, were "detected above the OSHA limit in the smoke plume of the debris pile, but not at a location outside the perimeter of ground zero".

Adubato writes that "it appears that Christie Whitman is trying to rewrite history". Nonsense. This history is abundantly clear. Virtually from the gitgo, EPA urged Ground Zero workers to wear respirators; the risk to most nearby residents of any significant contamination was small.

Now, it's entirely possible that the EPA reports available on line are part of a gigantic coverup or an Internet hoax. Certainly, the Angry Left is not above making such an assertion.

But reality seems rather different. Adubato contends: "It's got to be about covering her ass or trying to rewrite history." Not quite. It's the Angry Left whose ass is exposed, and they who are trying to rewrite history.

Adubato's correct in one respect: "This should never have been about politics or public relations." Just so. Let's be clear. The paper record conclusively demonstrates that the EPA WARNED rescue workers at Ground Zero about the health threat, right from the start. It further noted that there WERE localized, contaminated areas outside of Ground Zero, but that, for the most part, area residents faced little threat. AND THIS IS, FROM THE EVIDENCE, ABSOLUTELY ACCURATE. If someone's playing 9/11 for partisan political purposes, rewriting history, and walking around with their asses out, it's the Angry Left.

The idea that ANYONE would deliberately endanger the health of American citizens for political advantage is such a serious and outrageous charge that it should be made only with the clearest and most compelling evidence. No only does compelling evidence of that not exist, the charge is flatly contradicted by the contemporaneous reports and actions of the Agency. Only a reckless disregard for the truth – or deliberate lying – explains uttering such an allegation.

One can legitimately, albeit debatably, assert that the DEP didn't do enough, wasn't fully prepared, or what have you. SNAFUs are certainly common in governmental agencies. But to assert a conspiracy to endanger the health of Americans for political advantage? That's simply beyond the pale.

To the Angry Left, the truth is at best an inconvenience; usually, an irrelevance. Facts cannot be permitted to stand in the way of inventing a good scandal. I expected better from Adubato. He owes your readers an apology.