The WTC disaster and asbestos regulations

Our plain-English summary of The WTC disaster and asbestos regulations, by J.H. Lange (Environmental Health Perspectives, 2004).

The study

• Author: J.H. Lange
• Journal: Environmental Health Perspectives
• Published: 2004;112(11):A606-7; author reply A607
• Type of article: Comment, Letter
• Cited by: 1 article, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

In plain English

This item is a letter to the editor, not a research study. The author responded to a 2004 article by Landrigan et al. on asbestos exposure from the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster, comparing it with the author's own earlier 2004 report. The author wrote that the earlier report included a single bulk sample at 40% asbestos, while Landrigan et al. suggested most samples were in the range of 1 to 3%. The author also wrote that airborne exposures stayed elevated for a considerable time. According to the author, some personal samples likely exceeded the OSHA permissible exposure limit of 0.1 fibers per cubic centimeter. For 1 January to 11 February 2002 in the west area, the arithmetic mean and an upper value of 0.500 fibers per cubic centimeter (task-length average) were above that limit. The author judged it unlikely that the asbestos itself would cause actual health effects, because it was mostly chrysotile and most workers' exposure was short. The author argued that regulatory agencies ignored their own regulations at the WTC. In a published reply, Landrigan disagreed and stated continued concern about mesothelioma risk for Ground Zero workers.

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: Letter to the editor (correspondence) commenting on a published article, with a reply from that article's author; no new study was reported
• Who was studied: No study population. The letter discusses asbestos measurements at the World Trade Center site and exposure of workers there, drawing on the author's earlier 2004 report.
• Exposure: Asbestos in bulk samples and air at the WTC site, described as mostly chrysotile, with short exposure duration for most workers
• Main results:
  • The author cited the author's own earlier report of one bulk sample at 40% asbestos, compared with Landrigan et al.'s suggestion that most samples were 1 to 3%
  • The author stated that airborne exposures were elevated for a considerable time after the event (citing the author's earlier report)
  • The author stated it is likely that some personal samples exceeded the OSHA permissible exposure limit of 0.1 fibers per cubic centimeter well after the first few days
  • For 1 January to 11 February 2002 in the west area, the arithmetic mean exposure and an upper reported value of 0.500 fibers per cubic centimeter (task-length average) were above the limit
  • The author noted that the clearance standard used has not been shown to be health based
  • In the reply, Landrigan disagreed with the author's view on health effects and agreed that mesothelioma cases will probably not be great in number, but called it misleading to say no risk exists
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that asbestos exposure at the WTC is unlikely to result in actual health effects, because the asbestos was mostly chrysotile and exposure was short for most workers. The author also argued that regulatory agencies ignored their own regulations at the WTC, creating two standards: one for agencies themselves and another for all others.

Related studies

• Health and environmental consequences of the world trade center disaster — P.J. Landrigan, P.J. Lioy, et al. (2004)
• Occupational exposures during the World Trade Center disaster response — K.M. Wallingford, E.M. Snyder (2001)
• Characterization of the dust/smoke aerosol that settled east of the World Trade Center (WTC) in lower Manhattan after the collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001 — P.J. Lioy, C.P. Weisel, et al. (2002)
• Environmental aftermath — L. Claudio (2001)
• Assessing truck driver exposure at the World Trade Center disaster site: personal and area monitoring for particulate matter and volatile organic compounds during October 2001 and April 2002 — A.S. Geyh, S. Chillrud, et al. (2005)
• Health effects of World Trade Center (WTC) Dust: An unprecedented disaster's inadequate risk management — M. Lippmann, M.D. Cohen, et al. (2015)

Browse more research in Environmental Health Perspectives, or return to medical research.