Search

pece_annotation_1474821755

josh.correira
Annotation of
In response to

The main point of this article is to argue how the EPA falsely stated that the air quality around the site of the tower collapses in the day following 9/11 was safe. They argue this by stating that the building was constructed of 2,000 tons of asbestos and 424,000 tons of concrete which generated millions of tons of dust around the site of the collapse, per EPA estimates. They also argue that the EPA is at fault for making false statements of security and should be mandated to fund the cleanup process.

pece_annotation_1474821388

josh.correira
Annotation of
In response to

“Mrs. Whitman and the agency put out press releases saying that the air near ground zero was relatively safe and that there were "no significant levels" of asbestos dust in the air. They gave a green light for residents to return to their homes near the trade center site”

“By these actions," Judge Batts wrote, Mrs. Whitman "increased, and may have in fact created, the danger" to people living and working near the trade center.”

pece_annotation_1474822599

josh.correira
Annotation of
In response to

I followed up on the outcome of the lawsuit filed against the EPA, the cleanup efforts (i.e. how long it took to cleanup, who participated), and why the EPA allowed residents to move back into their homes in the days following the tower collapses.

pece_annotation_1474822146

josh.correira
Annotation of
In response to

The article addresses the inequities in public health by showing how millions of tons of dust from concrete and asbestos were kicked up into the air after the tower collapses of 9/11 and was then determined to be safe per the EPA. A lawsuit was filed against the EPA on behalf of schoolchildren required to attend school in buildings near the site of the collapse and forced to breathe in so-called safe air. Emergency response is not directly addressed however plans of mandating that the EPA pay for the cleanup process are mentioned.