This was a very interesting testimony to read, because it was very different from the other readings we have done. Since it was a testimony against the EPA, the tone was harsh and the results were not manipulated to make it seem like there was more progress than there actually was. The focus of the testimony was on indoor air pollution as a result of 9/11. While I believe that the lives lost during the terrorist attack is by far the most significant impact of 9/11 and deserves the most attention, it is a big problem that the environmental pollution has been completely overlooked by most people. Before Dana told me about her paper topic, I had never thought about the environmental effects of 9/11, but now thinking about all the dust and smoke, I can understand that the pollution levels were very high. Another thing I never thought of in general was “indoor” air pollution versus outdoor “air” pollution. I never really thought that pollution could be worse indoors than outdoors, because all the cars and many of the other major sources of pollution release harmful gases outdoors. However, it makes a lot of sense that indoor pollution is such a problem. The atmosphere outdoors is more open and therefore the polluted air can spread out. Indoors, on the other, the pollution is trapped inside and may not just go away with time, as seen in this testimony of the indoor pollution since 9/11.
Based on this testimony, the whole situation of indoor air contamination following 9/11 has not been handled properly. There were many problems in the treatment of the contamination, including the program’s timing and funding. If you look at the timeline on page 4, it took about a year for the EPA’s first program to start and this program was not even effective. The EPA’s excuse for not expanding the second program was that it is too difficult to distinguish between the normal urban dust particles and the ones from 3 years after 9/11. Had they not waited so long to begin this program, they would probably have had a better chance of distinguishing the dust before they mixed. The program itself was also flawed. 80% of the samples taken were in residences that were already cleaned from the contamination, giving misleading results. Another major problem with the program was the lack of funding. They had just $7 million to work with, and that was mainly just what was leftover from the previous program. The lack of funding shows that this is not something that is considered a priority. If people or the government cared about the issue of indoor air pollution from 9/11, they would allocate more money to the cause and feel the issue is urgent enough to start right away. Like with many other issues we’ve discussed, the only way to make this a priority is to raise awareness on the issue. I think that if people knew the extent of indoor air pollution, they would actually care. People are selfish, so they don’t care about how much pollution they release into the outdoor public space. However, when it comes to people’s own personal homes, I really most people would be willing to prioritize the problem.
