Originally posted by: Insane3D
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
220 stories of concrete come crashing down, what the hell do you expect for it to be filtered??? Bunch of nuts blaming Bush in every freakin thread and subject.
Ok, Dave. So, you think it was fine for the air quality reports to be willfully false, when an accurate one would have allowed people to take precautions? I'm not saying it was Bush's fault per se, but why the hell couldn't they just tell us the truth about the air quality? Why did ti need to be run through the National Security office first, then altered to make it say the air was just peachy? Does the public not have the right to know the actual air quality so they can take precautions? I guess us commoners couldn't handle the truth right?
I think the question is answered if anyone can't figure out that massive amounts of buildings instantly disintegrated would not be a healthy event.
Both my cousin and I lost friends in both the Fire Dept and Police Dept there. I was Fireman there for 8 years and my cousin was for ten years.
Of course their is some common sense involved here. However, I'm surprised you don't see a problem with the EPA basically telling everyone it was fine, when it was far from it. What if you thought you should be taking precautions, but the EPA report said the air quality was fine. One would assume they would have a btter idea of the air quality than most, and would take their report as fact...which is wasn't. The fact remains the EPA should just be putting out reports one what they find through scientific means, not a rose colored picture the White House prefers.
Finally, my condolences for your loss, but I fail to see it's relvance to this discussion.
Hello???
Reports, EPA, blah, blah ba blah, the relevance it has nothing to do with the big picture, buildings crumbled with people in them and under them. Who is wearing the Rose Colored Glasses?
Here's more relevance, your friend is trapped under the ruble but some EPA guy starts screaming the air is contaminated, everyone leave the island. People tried their best, would you would've wanted otherwise?
Ok, you are taking this the wrong way. Your points about common sense are valid. I also am not talking
at all about whether or not people did their best. I am speaking strictly of this report. If the air quality was as bad as expected, why couldn't the report just state their factual findings? Why did they need to be "softened" by the NSA? Let me put this simply...why couldn't the EPA just report the facts as they saw them? If the EPA had reported hazardous air quality, couldn't people in the area take precautions to protect themselves? Maybe public service announcements could have been aired urging the people who were in danger to protect themselves?
Let's look at is this way. Say a large number of the healthcare workers that had to work in the immediate area of ground zero had been made aware of the severity of the air quality, and been advised to take the needed precautions. Don't you think that might have cut down on some of the health problems that cropped up later? Wouldn't you be concerned responding to a scene that had very high levels of a cancer causing sunbtance like asbestos. Wouldn't you want some form of protection?
To put this as simply as I can. The EPA is a scientific body. They report scientifc findings that they determine through sound scientific methodology. Basically, they report factual data as they see it. Let's refer to this as the truth. Why then, is it a problem for them to just report what they find? Why must their data be reviewed by the NSA, changed, and willfully falsified instead of just reported as is? I am really surprised by your reaction to this...