Sunday, June 10, 2012

A Pattern of DENIAL

Majia here: The EPA declared the air safe after the 9-11 collapse of the WTC. 

Consequently, emergency and volunteer responders have had to fight for recognition of the diseases they contracted as a result of their rescue efforts.

Finally, 11 years later, certain forms of cancer will be covered by a fund set up for those afflicted by the disaster.

Sept. 11 Health Fund Given Clearance to Cover Cancer By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS
Published: June 8, 2012

[Excerpted] "A federal health official’s ruling has cleared the way for 50 different types of cancer to be added to the list of sicknesses covered by a $4.3 billion fund set up to compensate and treat people exposed to the toxic smoke, dust and fumes in the months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The decision, released on Friday, came as a vindication for hundreds and perhaps thousands of people who have claimed — often in the face of resistance from public health officials — that their cancers were caused by their exposure to the dust cloud and debris thrown up by the attacks.

...The advisory committee had said that 70 known or potential carcinogens, including asbestos, arsenic and formaldehyde, had been found in the smoke, dust and fumes from the disaster, that 15 of those were known to cause cancer in humans, and that 37 were “reasonably anticipated” to cause cancer...." 

MAJIA HERE: Let's go back in time a bit. At the time of the disaster, Hugh Kaufman, a whistleblower at the EPA, warned the air was not safe, in direct contradiction of his agency's assurances.

[Excerpted] "The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) chief investigator has accused the EPA and other government agencies of deliberately not testing the air quality in the World Trade Center area properly and possibly covering up the reasons why.

"I believe EPA did not do that because they knew it would come up not safe and so they are involved in providing knowingly false information to the public about safety," said Hugh Kaufman, chief investigator for the EPA's Ombudsman Office, at a public hearing Saturday with scientists, residents, and small business owners.... 

[end quote] AND 

Democracy Now White House Pressured EPA Not To Warn Public About Health Effects of 9/11

New yet-to-be-released report from the EPA’s inspector criticizes the White House for ordering the deletion of information warning downtown New York residents about possible health effects and preventing the release on information on how the public should clean contaminated apartments. [Includes Transcript] 

MAJIA HERE: DENIAL IS A PATTERN for Government agencies and corporations unwilling to acknowledge risks to human health when industry profits are at stake.

We saw this denial in the FDA's claims that Gulf seafood was (and is) safe after the BP oil spill in 2010. 

FDA: Gulf seafood safe despite oil spill concerns 

FDA: Gulf Seafood Safety: A Conversation with Don Kraemer
A Conversation with Don Kraemer, Acting Deputy Director of the FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, on gulf seafood safety post the 2010 Gulf Oil Spill.
 Question 1: A year after the Deep Water Horizon oil spill, is Gulf seafood safe?  

"We’re very confident that the steps that we have put in place to assure the safety of seafood have worked. We put in an extensive program of sampling, at that time and since then, and the results have consistently been 100 to 1,000 times below our levels of concern. So, we’re quite confident that the seafood that’s in commercial channels is safe.

MAJIA HERE: Really? I just cannot believe that people would eat gulf shrimp but they do because they think it is safe since their government says so. 

Health Effects of the Gulf Oil Spill Gina M. Solomon, MD, MPH; Sarah Janssen, MD, PhD, MPH  JAMA. Published online August 16, 2010. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1254
[excerpt] "The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico poses direct threats to human health from inhalation or dermal contact with the oil and dispersant chemicals, and indirect threats to seafood safety and mental health. Physicians should be familiar with health effects from oil spills to appropriately advise, diagnose, and treat patients who live and work along the Gulf Coast or wherever a major oil spill occurs."

Majia here: Despite knowledge about the risks posed by consuming contaminated seafood, the US FDA failed to require adequate testing of chemicals in fish and shellfish:

STUDY:  Seafood Contamination after the BP Gulf Oil Spill and Risks to Vulnerable Populations: A Critique of the FDA Risk Assessment

[excerpted] Background: The BP oil spill of 2010 resulted in contamination of one of the most productive fisheries in the United States by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). PAHs, which can accumulate in seafood, are known carcinogens and developmental toxicants. In response to the oil spill, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) developed risk criteria and established thresholds for allowable levels [levels of concern (LOCs)] of PAH contaminants in Gulf Coast seafood.
•Objectives: We evaluated the degree to which the FDA’s risk criteria adequately protect vulnerable Gulf Coast populations from cancer risk associated with PAHs in seafood.
•Discussion: The FDA LOCs significantly underestimate risk from seafood contaminants among sensitive Gulf Coast populations by failing to a) account for the increased vulnerability of the developing fetus and child; b) use appropriate seafood consumption rates; c) include all relevant health end points; and d) incorporate health-protective estimates of exposure duration and acceptable risk. For benzo[a]pyrene and naphthalene, revised LOCs are between two and four orders of magnitude below the level set by the FDA. Comparison of measured levels of PAHs in Gulf seafood with the revised LOCs revealed that up to 53% of Gulf shrimp samples were above LOCs for pregnant women who are high-end seafood consumers.

see more

MAJIA HERE: Do you see a pattern here?

And then we have Fukushima

Elizabeth, Landau “West Coast Officials, Obama: Don't Worry about Radiation Risk n U.S.,” CNN (2011, March 17):

Majia Here: Why do people continue to believe the lies?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.