Stoking Ground Zero health worries

Our plain-English summary of Stoking Ground Zero health worries, by R. Harris (Current Biology, 2002).

The study

• Author: R. Harris
• Journal: Current Biology
• Published: 2002;12(4):R122
• Cited by: 3 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This is not a research study. It is a short opinion column in the "Mediawatch" section of Current Biology by a science correspondent at National Public Radio. It reported no new measurements or health data. The author criticized news coverage of air pollution in lower Manhattan after the September 11th World Trade Center attack. In the author's view, a New York Daily News story about toxic substances such as PCBs, dioxin and benzene left out that the worst readings came from probes inside the smoldering rubble pile or were brief readings among many reassuring results. The author faulted a Washington Post report on asbestos in an apartment building air vent for blaming the EPA for poor cleanups when the EPA had no legal role. The author also said a St. Louis Post Dispatch article quoted an unsupported cancer-risk estimate. The author agreed some issues were real: concrete dust irritated people, especially those with asthma; some cleanup workers were hired without checks for asbestos; and rescue workers lacked respiratory protection. The author concluded that the press fell short in sorting fact from speculation.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Opinion/commentary column on news media coverage (Mediawatch); not a research study
• Exposure: Air pollutants in lower Manhattan after the World Trade Center collapse, as described in news reports: PCBs, dioxin, benzene, asbestos dust and concrete dust
• Main results:
  • The author argued that a New York Daily News story glossed over the fact that the worst measurements came from probes inside the smoldering rubble pile or were brief transient readings among many reassuring results.
  • The Washington Post reported that a for-profit inspector found asbestos at 555 times the "suggested acceptable level" in an apartment building air vent. The author criticized the report for blaming bad cleanups on the EPA, which the author said had no legal role.
  • The St. Louis Post Dispatch quoted a government scientist estimating extra cancer risk from around one in a thousand to as high as one in 10 for people living or working where asbestos dust remained. The author called this unsupported and said the upper figure appeared to be pulled from the air.
  • The author said the New York Times reported the political stir but did not treat the claims themselves as worthy of coverage.
  • The author acknowledged real air-quality issues: lingering concrete dust was an irritant, especially for people with asthma; some landlords hired cleanup workers without first checking for asbestos and making sure the workers were protected; and rescue workers, particularly in the first few days, worked without needed respiratory protection.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that the news media, with stories that chronicled public anxieties, fell short in sorting fact from speculation.

Related studies

• Safety and health of heavy equipment operators at Ground Zero — B.E. Lippy (2002)
• Environmental aftermath — L. Claudio (2001)
• Some limitations of aggregate exposure metrics — L.A. Cox, D.A. Popken (2007)
• Health effects of World Trade Center (WTC) Dust: An unprecedented disaster's inadequate risk management — M. Lippmann, M.D. Cohen, et al. (2015)
• The WTC disaster and asbestos regulations — J.H. Lange (2004)
• Asbestos is not just asbestos: an unrecognised health hazard — F. Baumann, J.P. Ambrosi, et al. (2013)

Browse return to medical research.