The report provides a different perspective of understanding the consequences of the unfortunate September 11, 2001 attacks from an environmental and health viewpoint. Generally when most people, including myself, think about the fall of the World Trade Center as a disaster, we do not consider it an environmental disaster. However, as the report shows, the collapse of the towers had potential dangerous consequences. The report states that Lower Manhattan “was blanketed with building debris and combustible materials” and that many “residents and workers in the area would now be exposed to known hazards in the air and in the dust, such as asbestos, lead, glass fibers, and pulverized concrete” (1). The exposure to these hazards could have led to many negative health developments. For example, long term exposure to asbestos can cause fibrotic lung disease and inhaling lead can cause learning disabilities and nervous system damage for children.
The existence of these potential harmful health consequences means that the EPA had an important responsibility to address them. However, based on the report, the EPA’s program had many shortcomings including lack of public informational disclosure, adequate resources, and scope. I feel that out of its flaws, the lack of informational disclosure to the public was the most detrimental. One of the common themes we have discussed in this course is that awareness and knowledge are two important factors in encouraging people to make smart, beneficial decisions relating to their environment. For the EPA, many important pieces of information regarding its program was not explained including the limitations on its findings and the significance of these limitations.
Another concern is that the EPA, did not begin implementing its second program until late 2007, five years after the collapse of the World Trade Center. During that time, residents and workers in the area could have easily came into contact with the hazard substances and suffer some harm, unbeknownst to them. The report shows that the EPA was definitely not prepared to handle this type of situation at the time. The lack of preparedness even lead panel members to “discourage participation” in the EPA’s program which was surprising (10). If the government wants to effectively combat ecological issues, then actions such as the EPA’s can not be repeated or else many would lose more trust/faith in the government’s ability to successfully protect citizens from hazardous substances.
