Dust and deception

Last week a quietly scathing report by the inspector general of the Environmental Protection Agency EPA confirmed what some have long susp...

Last week a quietly scathing report by the inspector general of the Environmental Protection Agency EPA confirmed what some have long suspected: In the aftermath of the WTC8217;s collapse, the agency systematically misled New Yorkers about the risks the resulting air pollution posed to their health. And it did so under pressure from the White House.

The Bush administration has misled the public on many issues, from the budget outlook to the Iraqi threat. But this particular deception seems, at first sight, not just callous but gratuitous. In January, an EPA report conceded that 9/11 had led to huge emissions of pollutants. In particular, releases of dioxins 8212; which are carcinogens and can also damage the nervous system and cause birth defects 8212; created 8216;8216;likely the highest ambient concentrations that have ever been reported,8217;8217; up to 1,500 times normal levels. But the report concluded that because the outdoor air cleared after a couple of months, little harm had been done.

In fact, the main danger comes from toxic dust seeped into buildings and remains in carpets, furniture and air ducts. According to a report in Salon, businesses that did environmental assessments of their own premises found alarming levels not just of dioxins but also of asbestos and other dangerous pollutants.

So the most shocking revelation from the new report is that under White House direction, the EPA suppressed warnings about indoor pollution. As a result, hundreds of cleaning workers and thousands of residents may be suffering chronic health problems.

Why was crucial information withheld from the public? The report mentions 8216;8216;the desire to reopen Wall Street and national security concerns.8217;8217; Maybe 8212; though the national security benefits of failing to remove toxic dust escape me. I suspect there was another reason: budget politics.

Immediately after 9/11 there was a great national outpouring of sympathy for New York. President Bush promised 20 billion, and everyone expected the federal government to assume the burden of additional security.

By February 2002, only a fraction of the promised funds had been allocated 8212; and Mitch Daniels, the White House budget director, accused New York8217;s lawmakers of playing 8216;8216;money-grubbing games.8217;8217;

Story continues below this ad

Even after 9/11, hard-line conservatives opposed any spending. In the end, New York seems to have gotten its 20 billion 8212; barely. As for the additional help everyone expected: Don8217;t get me started. There wasn8217;t a penny of federal aid.

All in all, the people running Washington, while eager to invoke 9/11 on behalf of whatever they feel like doing, have treated the city that bore the brunt of the actual attack very shabbily. In September 2004 the Republicans will hold their nominating convention in New York. Will New Yorkers take the occasion to remind them about how the city was lied to and shortchanged?

The New York Times