Hundreds of 9/11 first responders die of cancer...

Hundreds of 9/11 first responders die of cancer...

www.russiatoday.com

New York's emergency services were among the first on the scene of the 9/11 disaster but put their personal safety in jeopardy. Those involved in the rescue and clean-up operation quickly became national heroes.

But now 85 per cent of them are suffering from lung diseases which they say were caused by the huge clouds of dust. Those people are now calling on the state for medical support.

(visit the link for the full news article)

The people that will die from illnesses will surpass the number of people that were killed on 9/11. I am talking about thousands, tens of thousands of people that will come down with cancers

That is truly appalling, one can only imagine the amount of contaminates in this...

... so fail to see why first responders and rescue workers are being denied the health care they deserve.

www.russiatoday.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Neo-V™

Those people are now calling on the state for medical support.

...and the State replies, as ever, "What?! Huh? We can't hear you!"

I was always amazed at the lack of protective clothing or masks at ground zero, the buildings where known to be full of asbestos and it doesnt take a genius to think that there would be any number of cancergens in the cloud. Even weeks later guys working on the site wore nothing to protect there airways I think this is only the tip of the iceberg and the total death toll of 9/11 could be ten time as much as it is now. Is a real shame as the people acted like heroes and deserve the best of care now.

That 85% seem kinda high. With it being from what looks like a Russian source and seeing how it says how the US government has refused to help, I can't help but wonder if a lot of this is propaganda.

I am not saying people didn't get sick because of the dust or aren't dying from the contamination. I just believe that there may be other diseases or illnesses that could have also contributed to their death or factored in on their illnesses.

One thing I think we can both agree on is that the government should not ignore these people and better take adequate care of them. These folks deserve a lot after what they have been through.

The study by the Mount Sinai Medical Center’s medical monitoring program examined more than 3,000 responders between 2004 and 2007, repeating exams conducted between the middle of 2002 and 2004.

Slightly more than 24 percent of the patients had abnormal lung function, the study found. In the earlier examinations, about 28 percent of the patients had similar results.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Flag for raising awareness

www.wsws.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Of course, Giuliani and Bush lied about the poisonous smoke
They said it was not at all a risk when they knew it very much was.

It's amazing how the american msm will report on foreign corruption but barely scratch the surface on domestic corruption.

Unbelievable!

I didnt know that thermite was a cancerous agent.

But I guess the proof is in the pudding. or the pie.

The government always lies about the fact, we are all expendable,

and certainly under Obamas new healthcare plan.....these people

won't be first in line for the care they need and deserve...imo

Certainly the asbestos was a problem, a bad one, and not just for emergency responders, but for those in the area and downwind as well. However, asbestosis would most likely manifest itself -- at least in adult lungs, several years later, like 20 years later. Asbestos fibers in the 50-100 micron label tend to split linearly, and act sort of as a fishhook in the alveoli. They are respirated and get lodged, and the lung forms scar tissue around them.

Certainly mesothelioma -- a calcification of the lung lining, can be quicker in the way it affects people. Also, some cancers are thought to be associated with prolonged, severe exposure to friable asbestos.

I wonder, though, what carcinogens were so prevalent at that time? Urea formaldehydes from burning foam/cushions/furniture? That's a possibility.

I tend to distrust the source of the OP, and I tend to doubt the high figure cited. Remember the stories that came out at first about 95% of rescue dogs dying? Yes, I do to. I know personally some of the handlers of those crews, and that made me madder than hell when I first heard it.

I always fretted when I saw responders picking through the rubble wearing only dust masks. Oh, sure, 3M can call the N95 a respirator, but it can't be fit tested. It is just a less permeable dust mask. Others were wearing half-face respirators with the magenta cartridge -- dusts, mists, radionucleides and radon daughters. That was the appropriate filter, but I always wondered -- why not full faced respirators with a PAPR? (powered-air purifying). ... They are cooler on the face and dang good protection.

bottom line....... for me at least ... any responder that has any associated medical problems deserves the VERY best of care, throughout the rest of their lives, and cost shouldn't even begin to be an issue. These men and women risked their lives to save others.

I know there was background air sampling within a day or two of the fall of the buildings. I don't know what the readings showed, and I have no idea if they were analyzing with PCM (phase-contrast microscopy) which measures ALL fibers, or TEM (transmission electron microscopy) which is far more precise. There are a myriad of other qualative testing that could have been done. If anyone has a source for the testing, I'd be very interested. I doubt we can see it.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


It was the head of the Environmental Proctection Agency that declared the air at ground zero to be "safe" just ONE WEEK after 9/11. Christine Todd Whitman is the responsible party for these worker's illnesses. Who's got some rope?

I think it's time for apologies to come out from politicians
The truth needs to be acknowledged

Instead.....

The Obama White House is behind a cynical, coldly calculated political effort to erase the meaning of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks from the American psyche and convert Sept. 11 into a day of leftist celebration and statist idolatry.
www.salon.com.../politics/war_room/2009/08/24/911/

Wow!

reply to post by Asktheanimals

It was the head of the Environmental Proctection Agency that declared the air at ground zero to be "safe" just ONE WEEK after 9/11. Christine Todd Whitman is the responsible party for these worker's illnesses. Who's got some rope?

You have sampling data to support your pitchfork and torch mob that wants to hang her?

Again, we'd need to see the air sampling methodologies and test results. Let's suppose that (let me pick a number, as if I were the CIH on the scene) 250 sampling pumps were running two days after 9-11. I would want the majority at the site, some a block or two away, a few at buildings with elevation in the area, and several within buildings in the area, particularly in the air plenum. Remember that it's a city center, and you have clutch and brake linings that are contributing to the background-ambient asbestos readings. At that time the PEL (permissable exposure level) was 0.2 fibers/cc.

Now, I would want to run Draeger tubes for various suspected compounds, as well as a series of atomic absorption tests for ALL unknowns. The majority of tests would be on a time-weighted average to test for friable fibers and compare those results with the (then) applicable PELs. I would've done radioactive/radionucleide testing as well.

Now, let's suppose that me, as key CIH on the scene, with all the world watching, ran these tests and found that the TEM AND PCM tests showed .04 fibers/cc and atomic absorbtion tests resulted in nothing different than ambient air? Would I elect to hold everyone back? Certainly, I'd want to make DAMNED certain that it was safe before allowing anyone into the cordoned-off area. But what of the fibers and compounds release when the pawing through the rubble began? No help for that, other than additional testing on-site, and read via PCM on-site.

You have a breeze or wind, and not much is going to be measured. The samples taken inside adjacent buildings have real and measurable merit, because if contaminants are present, many of them will pass through the HVAC filters and circulate, so IF nothing above ambient is detected, then you have a situation where a professional KNOWS there is a danger, but unable to generate testing to prove it.

I've worked with OSHA, EPA, NIOSH, NESHAPS, etc....... for many years. One thing I'll say about the EPA folks I've worked alongside on various crisis sites........... they do NOT fake nor soft-pedal testing. Often, except on governmental/federal sites, they are one of the first responders. These people believe it what they are doing. I've been there, on the site. They will challenge results, require additional testing, and good for them. I have nothing but respect for people who choose to error on the side of safety. If, in fact, there was an EPA CIH that proclaimed the area "safe for occupancy", then I believe they probably spent at least $1 million on testing, and most likely caused several independent firms to respond and take their own sampling strategy.

I know, I know......... for some of you I sound like a government shill. But listen....... I was a Certified Industrial Hygenist, on contract to the U.S. government for several years. Our primary mandate? Discover those contaminants that are going to be hot issues, and mitigate/remove them before they are legislated.

The EPA was tough, and I appreciated and respected them, because they made us WORK to do the right thing. One of my proudest moments was when the western region director called me and congratulated me on an oil spill response. He said something like, "I felt confident of a good outcome when I read that you were on the site."

yes, EPA is government. My experience is that most of them really care, really give a crap, and aren't overly receptive toward an oppressive governmental power TELLING them what to report. ALL my opinion, but an informed one.

[edit on 24/8/09 by argentus]

while im sure some of this is actaully going on, im not gonna take waht a russian newspaper has to say aobut 9/11 too seriosuly.

Originally posted by lunchmanstan
I didnt know that thermite was a cancerous agent.

But I guess the proof is in the pudding. or the pie.

I didn't know that thermite was either, and asbestos generally takes years to cause major illnesses, often up to 20 years later. I can't see how even asbestos laden dust could be so dangerous. Unless...

One theory I've heard, involves the use of a 4th gen directable nuclear device (not a traditional atomic bomb, obviously) which could have been used in the demolition. This could explain various properties of the "collapse" and also explain the apparently heightened tritium (left over from fusion reaction) levels in the area. This would not have many detectable gamma rays as it doesn't use radioactive plutonium or uranium, but would have left other less detectable, shorter life span sources of radioactive particles. This would mean any first responders who breathed in the contaminated dust, could have been exposed to cancer causing radiation, that is shortlived and mostly undetectable.

I'm not saying I fully endorse this theory, but I think it warrants investigation without ridicule from those who think they already know what happened.

reply to post by Curious and Concerned


Grow up, a nuke didn't take down these towers and saying so is embarrassing to the realistic theories floating around, like thermite.

If I have to think of an explaination, I think the jet fuel in the smoke added to the health problems, along with any plastic and asbestos in the air.

reply to post by argentus


Wow that's good info!

But one thing I wonder about, is that let's say for the sake of argument the EPA tested the air, found it to be relatively low in airborne contaminants a week later, and concluded "the air is safe".

I think this is a different observation, than saying that workers at the site, who were shuffling around in the dust at the site and stirring things up, didn't have exposure risk to contaminants at that point, because of what they were stirring up in the area immediately local to their activity.

So I think both statements could be true, the air could have been safe when people weren't stirring up dust and debris, but that the people stirring up dust and debris were definitely being exposed and relied heavily on the adequacy (or lack thereof) of their masks to keep them from breathing in contaminants.

I think they could have worn better protection.

A little more prevention in the form of full masks would have been a whole lot cheaper than a whole lot of health care later on if their masks were inadequate.

reply to post by argentus


The N95 most absolutley is fit tested and is first line defense against airborne TB. So you're wrong on that point. It's far from a simple "dust mask". Either that are your'e right 3M is lying to everyone. But I don't think a lie like that would last too long with people coming down with the exact thing the mask was supposed to protect them from.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Yes, I absolutely agree, and it's the case often in HazMat sites, wherein the sampling strategy doesn't monitor the difference between ambient and that of the worker/responder. I'd say that's true primarily with airborne contaminants. Usually, the situation is smaller and ideally under containment with negative air machines doing air changes within containment, filtering the exhaust air with HEPA filters. In this case, no way to create a containment.

If there were chemical or radiological contaminants, much of that is (or at least was) monitorable on a person themselves. I agree, better lung and eye protection should've been used.

I was a responder in San Francisco area when the Cypress Freeway upper level collapse during the Loma Prieta earthquake. There were people and dogs in between those two sandwitched area that had no respirators at all. For one thing, the space was very limited; another, very difficult to see, but there were all manner of fumes from the crushed cars and concrete dusts. It was awful. First responders and those that do SAR afterward, will sometimes wear what they are required by regulation to wear, until that point where it inhibits their ability to do their job.

edit to add: really, there was no way that more dust could NOT have been stirred up, particulary when removing the materials from the site. I mean, they were loaded with heavy equipment sometimes. It was an untenable situation. I don't know if things were wetting down with amended water, for example. Agree that an assumption of the worst case possible should've been used and the PPE adjusted to suit that -- say wearing SCBA or at least PAPRs. Easy for me though, to second guess those that were actually on-site. There were probably conflicting goals and I'm not certain it does much good to place the blame on anyone's shoulders. It IS important to provide the best of care for those with resultant medical problems.

[edit on 25/8/09 by argentus]

reply to post by Zosynspiracy

The N95 most absolutley is fit tested and is first line defense against airborne TB. So you're wrong on that point. It's far from a simple "dust mask". Either that are your'e right 3M is lying to everyone. But I don't think a lie like that would last too long with people coming down with the exact thing the mask was supposed to protect them from.

I've run into cases fairly recently where CIHs who should know better make the same claim -- that the N95 can be fit tested. Perhaps it's a question of you and I using different definitions for the same terminology.

A respirator fit test is a precise order of operations and is outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations. I don't have my library with me anymore, but I think it is CFR.1910.100.134. It is NOT POSSIBLE to conduct an accurate fit test on a dust mask, regardless of it's number or manufacturer claims. A proper fit test will qualify the air flow passing through the filter as well as demonstrate that there is a perfect seal between the respirator and the person's face when they exhaust.

There is a thing called The Rainbow Passage, where the person wearing the respirator speaks it (it is designed to cause a person to make a lot of facial changes). If they smell bannana oil being realeased (way back when it was irritant smoke, and couldn't be faked), then they have a poor fit. None of these functions can be positively ascertained with the N95, even if you had someone helping you hold it tight to your face.

These operations are designed to insure that there is no breech in the seal between a person's face and their mask. The N95 has a very dense and small-pore material that is able to capture and filter small (less than 100 micron) particles, but it is not able to absolutely seal.

Not every respirator fits everyone's face. For me, it was a North large silicon that worked the best. Others liked Surviveair or 3M or others.

The N95 is used a lot today for people involved in mold mitigation. They are able to do this primarily (IMO) because there is yet any current CFR, law or regulation regarding mold mitigation, other than disposal of the bagged stuff. There are practices, proceedures, but mold in itself, while potentially dangerous, is not classified as a hazardous material. Of course OSHA still applies, but the requirement for respirators are specific in protecting against various contaminents.

Edit to add: The N95 is expressedly excluded for use in asbestos-containing atmospheres. link I don't doubt at all that you are correct in your claim that the N95 is acceptible for biological protection. I'll have to look that up if I can.

cheers


[edit on 25/8/09 by argentus]

reply to post by Zosynspiracy


This document substantiates your claim that the CDC reccomends the NIOSH-approved 3M N95 for respiratory protection against Mycobacterium Tuberculosis. 3M pdf link

So, that should ease both our fears that 3M is being untruthful about its use in the medical field. The document even has a brief recommendation for "Fitting Instructions", which is different than a Fit Test, albeit somewhat related. The N95 is still excluded from areas with dusts, mist, asbestos, radionucliedes, etc.

So it was as I suspected -- you and I were using different definitions for the same term.

cheers