Does anyone have any information about how many of these workers that are now seriously ill were or were not wearing the recommended respirators? Or about the availability of respirators at the time? I'm also looking for information about how the need for respirators was disseminated during the rescue and recovery. All of this would provide a better picture of responsibility.

There was an article on 60 Minutes last nite, which went over some of these things. CBS's website may have more information.

thanks

for anyone else who'd interested here's a quote from the 60 minutes piece.

"the city required respirators and posted signs at the site, safety reports show only half of the workers wore them."

with this is mind who should be responsible? Government for not strictly enforcing the use of respirators or the individuals for not using their own common sense in protecting their own live while trying to save others?

@Lakelady, I think it's fair to say that sometimes, extraordinary circumstances and extraordinary desire to save the lives of others overwhelms common sense. Also, those basic supplies were not available to all the first responders out there, least of all the volunteers -- distribution was extremely difficult. The last people we should be finding fault with are the men and women who simply tried to help, and are now paying with their own bodies and lives.

Please remember that the administration sent EPA Administrator Christine Whitman out to repeatedly state that the air had been tested, and was perfectly safe.

Respirators are a pain to use, especially when doing manual labor. Workers would only use them if they absolutely had to, and after hearing the government's highest authority say they didn't need them, why would they?

In pre-9/11 days, we used to believe our government when they said stuff like that.

Ladylake, you're a heartless bastard. Did you even look at the pictures before trotting out the latest talking points of "well, those rescuers should have worn protection, so it's their own fault"?

One was of the James family who made the irresponsible decision to live 6 blocks away from the WTC. They and their children are now suffering from multiple respiratory problems.

I suppose it's their own damn fault though, and they should have to die for it?

If we had a better healthcare system here in the states - as in healthcare for everyone as opposed to healthcare for only those who can afford it - this wouldn't even be an issue. Focus should be on extending the lives of Americans as opposed to placing blame on whose fault it is for them being sick.

If these workers had used their common sense, they wouldn't have gone in at all, or trusted anything their government told them. That's what's so admirable about them: they were risking their well-being for the sake of others'.

Anyway, I don't care if they stuck their noses in piles of asbestos and snorted it. They were on the scene doing a nasty job--give them any and all help they need, dammit.

But it should come as no surprise to anyone that they are not receiving the health care they need. Unless you're a millionaire, you probably aren't, either. Vote for health care reform!

When I first read this I thought you were talking about how people aren't allowed to bring their medication onto planes any more...

You never know that old lady in 2C might be packing 200kg of c4 in her heart pills and cough medicine.

I know I feel safer.

Like Anonymous #5, I remember announcements coming out quite early that the site had been tested and the air was safe, even though everything was coated with a gritty superfine layer of dust that smelled like burning plastic bags..

It wasn't just the on-site workers who made judgements based on those announcements. People who lived or worked in the immediately surrounding area went in to pick up stuff, turn off equipment they'd left on, rescue their pets, et cetera, with no respirators and no notion that they were in any danger.

also, there is a fairly well known writer and punk George Tabb who is seriously ill and lived not far from Ground Zero. He has been writing extensively about how he is sick and how the Government will not admit it is from 9-11.

There's an investigative science story in DISCOVER magazine called "The 9/11 Cover Up," that alleges up to 300,000 New Yorkers could face long term health problems because of the attacks.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/oct/the-9-11-cover-up

I don't thinking "taking a physical" every year necessarily means all these people were in the peak of health before 9/11. There are so many ways occupational physicals can be gotten around, and they don't deal with that many medical problems anyway.

Before 9/11 - the EPA could not force companies to clean up toxic sites for Dioxin because there was no "safe" level to clean up to. So - Because it can't be cleaned to a safe level, dioxin was allowed to sit.

Because of 9/11, the EPA had to pull a number (Out of a hat?), and NYC and all other "Superfund" sites are now cleaned up to the level set at the WTC site.

So, the safe level for NYC is the same level set for the headwaters of the Mississippi River (see http://www.killingcasslake.com ) and is the same level for your back yard. (See the EPA site for the sites around your backyard. "Superfund sites where you live" http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/index.htm )