Words: 3223
Coops Mica is a company concerned with the extraction mainly of zinc and lead from the mining concentrates, but also of other existing metals, such as cadmium, bismuth, antimony, copper, gold and silver. [pick] Coops Mica area stretches for a lengthwise of about 30 km from E to W and for a breadth of about 15 km on the N – S direction. Because is situated through the length of Tartans Mare River the transportation of pollutants in the area is favored by the existing air currents. In order to determine the pollution degree of this area, soil samples have been collected from some localities situated along the Tartans Mare
River, upstream and downstream from Coops Mica industrial area. Ere level of pollution in Coops Mica is one of the major environmental problem and risk for the health of the population in Romania. It is well known that in some concentrations, most of the metals are essential to life, but in excess, those same metals could be dangerous. Similarly the prolonged exposure to high concentrations of heavy metals can affect people’s health and can have severe effects in the long term. The heavy metals that pose greatest risk to health are lead (BP), arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd) and mercury (Hag).
Heavy metals were largely used in industry starting the Sixth century, thus being present in the environment nowadays. Sources of heavy metals include: emissions from industries that use solid fuels, especially charcoals, smelters and other industries (BP, Cd and As), incinerators (Hag and Cd), mining lucrative facilities, pesticides industries and wood preservatives (As and Cry), fertilizers for soils (Cd for example can be found in phosphate based fertilizers), old house water supply systems (BP) and old house paintings (BP). Ere heavy metals can appear in the environment because of natural processes.
As an example, in some parts of the USA, natural sediment of As suffered geological processes and as a result, the underground water layer was contaminated with the potential risk for contaminating also the drinking water supply [12]. Once released in the environment, the heavy metals have the potential to remain in the environment for decades or even centuries thus elevating the risk for human exposure. People are potentially at risk for intoxication throughout contact with contaminated soils and industrial discards or contaminated food.
Food sources such as vegetables,cereals, ruts, fish and shell-fish could be contaminated with heavy metals from soil and Neater. The present paper deals with Just a small part of an much larger study conducted by the Environmental Health Center in Coops Mica with the specified goal of evaluating the risk of exposure to high heavy metals concentrations. This paper is summary of the aspects linked to the heavy metals concentration in the dump area inside Somerset Coops Mica factory, the lab method used for the evaluation of the distribution of those heavy metals and some health related data in a selected 2.
METHODS Soil samples were taken from the 30 CM depth of the dump inside the “SC SOMERSET and from drilling inside the perimeter of the same factory in April-May 2004 time interval. The [samples were collected in polyethylene bags, free of metals. The samples were labeled, sealed and transported to the lab were they were processed for X ray fluorescence technique (K-X-ray Fluorescence 720 SSL, made by Into in 2002). The data entry was done using Microsoft Excel 5. 0. Database was then imported in Stats 5. 0 using Stats-Transfer module. The statistical analysis was performed using Stats 5. . Summary descriptive statistics and more advanced quenches were performed. Central tendency measurements (mean and median, frequency), measures of the variability of the data (interval, minim, maxim values, percentiles, standard deviation, variance, Keenness and Kurtosis coefficients). A sample of 43 children age between 4 and 6 exposed to lead was studied. Exposure bombardiers (blood lead level) and effect markers (weight height status) were measured. Blood lead level was measured using anode stripped volt metric techniques using Lead Care System.
The difference between the two locations in terms of concentrations of heavy metals in soil is not statistically significant related to any on the metals, nevertheless in case of manganese and molybdenum the difference of concentration between the Nasty dump and the premises (their concentration being higher in the waste dump – 5794. 39 pimp compared to 1950. 24 pimp in the premises in case of manganese and especially 30. 82 pimp compared to 1. 7 pimp in the premises in case of molybdenum) being statistically significant (in case of manganese p=O. 057 and in case of molybdenum p=O. OHO). 3.
The comparative statistical analysis using the t statistic test of average values of concentrations of metals in soil collected from the premises from different depths indicate the fact that generally the concentrations of metals in soil decrease with the increase of depth excepting copper, chrome, mercury, selenium and manganese. 4. Ere comparative statistical analysis using the t statistic test of average values of incinerations of metals in soil and sediment in the premises indicate the fact that metals are in concentrations statistically significant higher in soil than in the sediment excepting manganese (2109. 2 in sediment compared to 1950. 24 in soil) but the difference is not statistically significant. 5. The more important contribution was emphasized for lead (statistically significant) for the digestive contribution from dust from the hands. 5. The factors to be taken into consideration regarding evaluation of predictable effects in public health are the following: distribution of exposure of population ropes at risk), relationship exposure-response (variation of response, susceptible groups), risk accumulation (geographic accumulation of risk factors). T is required to research more on the relations between the environment and diseases and this can only be done by working in teams. It is a continuum process that must be improved at the national level with the main goal of more precise understanding of the measures and policies that need to be implemented in the vast domain of the environmental health. There are three aspects that need to be considered: – Integration of the environment and health fields into macroeconomic policies – Cost infinite analysis Primary care for the environmental health. Robbers related to the inclusion of the environmental health field in the investment decisions and programs and their implementation. One aspect requires an attentive and correct aberration: the identification and the evaluation of the risk areas for health and the environment that exist in Romania, followed by the proposal of adequate programs for reducing and controlling the risk sources. Ere ongoing environmental disaster of 9/1 1 (pick] Ere attacks of September the 1 lath, 2001, on the World Trade Centre in New York have had global implications.
The impact of the attacks has manifested itself as the ongoing ‘war against terrorism’. The Global impact of 9/1 1 though, has, to some extent, hidden the very real local impact of the attacks. Today many people will be offering up reflections on the tragedy of September 1 1, 2001. This act of violence, Inch shook Americans to their very core and cast doubt on a Presidential administration, one that would eventually prove to be less than capable at handling national tragedies, sent shock waves through our world.
Today many people will write about the way that 9/1 1 affected human rights and the reveille of privacy, created an unjustified war that we are still trying to find our way out of, and cost the lives of countless rescue personnel who will always be remembered as heroes. Few will choose to focus on the negative impact of these terrorist attacks on the environment, because it is not nearly as visible an effect. When the Twin Towers Newer so viciously and unexpectedly attacked on September 1 1 the, all of lower Manhattan was enveloped in toxic dust clouds rising almost 1000 feet into the air. Hanks to drifting winds at the time of the attack, these dust clouds slowly moved out, choking the inhabitants Brooklyn and Staten Island, slowly depositing an unknown cocktail of gases and airborne particulates all over everything. In the days and weeks following the attack the Environmental Protection Agency gave assurances to New Yorkers that the dust permeating Lower Manhattan and the smoke still emanating from Ground Zero did not pose a health risk. The agency issued five press releases within ten days of the attack assuring people that the air Nas safe to breathe, despite an absence of data to support such assurances.
In August of 2003, it was revealed that the EPA had been muzzled by the Bush administration. EPA Inspector General Nikkei Tinsels issued a report on August 21, 2003, admitting that the reassurances were unfounded, and that the public statements of the agency were being influenced by the National Security Council, under the direction of the White House. The EPA, according to the report, had been influenced to ‘add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones” (from 31 1 research. Watch. Net). Months and even years after the attacks confirmed lingering levels of asbestos as Nell as unknown toxic substances. In his attempt to remain the triumphant leader of the city, then Mayor Rudy Giuliani seized control of the cleanup of Ground Zero, taking control away from established federal agencies, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, according to a May 14, 2007 New York Times article, titled “Ground Zero Illness Clouding Giuliani Legacy. Now,try for a moment to convert those crumbling towers into their constituent parts – hundreds of tons of asbestos were pulverize and released into the air; tens of thousands of fluorescent lightships were smashed, each containing mercury; 50,000 amputees ,each of which contained four to twelve pounds of lead, were destroyed; as were smoke detectors containing americium 241. In addition, there were record levels of dioxin, Pubs [Polycarbonate Phenyl], and other contaminants released as the rubble of the WET continued to burn, over several months. DRP.
Marjorie Clarke, an environmental scientist from Hunter College at the City University of New York, reported to a NY City Council hearing that the destruction of a total of seven buildings in the attacks “produced uncontrolled emissions equivalent to dozens of asbestos factories, incinerators and crematoria – as well as a volcano”. A visual clue to the environmental disaster is provided by the accompanying photo, taken by NASA from a height of 250 miles – the dark plume shown in the photo represent more than the destruction of the buildings, but also a real and ongoing threat to the health of citizens of New York.
In the days following the attack a number of reassuring press statements were released by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the federal body responsible for monitoring air and water quality, including the September 18th statement by EPA Administrator Christie Whitman in which she said: “Given the scope f the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Instigation, D. C. That their air is safe to breath and their water is safe to drink”.
Two Hears later, in August 2003, the Pea’s Inspector General produced a report that confirmed what many people had suspected – that information coming from the EPA had first been given a reassuring spin in conjunction with the ‘white house council on environmental quality, and that these reassurances were not based on scientific fact. Ere desire to get Wall Street and financial markets reopened quickly played a part in downplaying public health risks.
Jean Origin, of the World Trade Center Environmental Organization, and one of twelve current plaintiffs in a potential class action law suit against the EPA, lives in Brooklyn, and was suspicious from the start about the reassuring statements. “The air smelled awful. The fires burned or smoldered for over three months, the different temperatures resulting in the release of different toxic substances. For a while the air had the alkalinity of drain cleaner. I didn’t trust the official story and didn’t want my son going back to school in impossible to find data with which to make a case to my son and ex-husband. The
New York Environmental Law and Justice Project as well as some scientists and members of the public told the truth at City Council or State Assembly hearings, but because the government officials insisted on testifying first, the more truthful testimony didn’t come out until after the press had left”. It took a full three months before Origin had amassed enough data, as a private citizen, to convince both her son and ex-husband that the former should stay away from his school. Three months during which the fires continued to burn, releasing different toxins into the air. The air that ordinary citizens, like her son, were breathing.
Several weeks after the disaster – Origin continues – a mile north of Ground Zero, DRP. Thomas Cahill of the University of California at Davis found very- and ultra-fine particulates that were the highest he’d ever seen in the course of taking 7000 samples around the world, including at the burning Kuwaiti oil fields. The EPA itself found record levels of dioxin several months after the disaster”. [pick] Ere World Trade Center Environmental Organization, of which Origin is a member, are not alone in campaigning for a more comprehensive response to the environmental threats posed by 9/1 1 .
A number of groups such as the world trade center residents’ coalition, 9/1 1 environmental action and the New York committee on occupational safety and health have been working tirelessly (in many cases without recompense) to highlight the issue, and to force the Government to address the problems caused by the attacks. Immediately after the August 2003 Inspector General’s report, Maintain was quoted as saying “when people are really upset, you can’t win. You’ve got to say something, and what we communicated was what we knew.
There may be long-term health implications we never could have conceived of, but we couldn’t stop ND stay, ‘We can’t tell you for 10 years. ‘ That absolutely wouldn’t work”. Origin is scathing in her response: “It is not that when people are really upset, you can’t win. It’s that when people lie, you can’t win. From day one, EPA has hidden behind the faux innocent mask of, What do you expect us to do? This was unprecedented’. This Nas not the first environmental disaster they ever had to cope with.
They are in the business of coping with environmental disasters and have procedures and precedents for doing so, all of which they violated in their response to 9/1 1 . The residents would have entailed expense so they reinvented the wheel as a triangle. But even taking Ms. Whitman quote at face value: If they ‘couldn’t tell us for ten Hears’ then they should have said that. Instead they took it upon themselves to assure people it was safe”. As testing went ahead in the days after 9/1 1 EPA scientists themselves were amongst those surprised by Whitman statements.
Robert Martin, the EPA ombudsman, who would later have his office closed by Whitman, recalled in an interview with Journalist Laura Flanders that “it was not safe. You can’t have good science without good facts”. DRP Cat Jenkins, a hazardous waste expert at the EPA, criticized the statements made by Whitman office about asbestos levels, which claimed that the levels found were slightly above the 1% trigger, though for every fiber of asbestos EPA found, using outdated testing equipment, independent testers found nine.
Now, four years later, there is still argument within the scientific community about the environmental impact of the WET attacks on public health. New York University, have suggested that, broadly speaking, the Pea’s assurances have been borne out. Thornton in an interview with Chemical and Engineering News in 2003, was quoted as saying that by October 2001 at “sites five blocks away from Ground Zero, the air was really like other parts of the city. It was, thankfully, abbreviated exposures that people got to this plume [of debris from the WET] -when they did get it”.
Thornton did point out though, in a statement to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the US Senate, that “it is impossible to know what potential interactive effects might have occurred among the various pollutants, even at these low levels”. Other scientists, such as DRP Marjorie Clark, have argued desirously against the Pea’s findings, and suggest that the bungled clean up operation still poses a significant public health threat. [pick] As well as finding fault in the premature reassurances issued by the EPA, Jean Origin and various citizens groups are highly critical of the actual clean up operation post-WI 1 .
Amongst the key complaints are that it covered a far too limited and arbitrarily determined area (for example, Brooklyn, where Origin lives, and where air borne debris drifted has not had adequate testing measures, let alone clean up), and accused primarily on asbestos despite the fact that independent testing had shown the presence of a variety of other contaminants. At the same time, the execution of the tests used by the EPA was, according to Origin, substandard (some residents observed that EPA failed to turn on a fan, for instance, though required, or that they placed it facing the wrong direction).
Ventilation systems were largely overlooked, though independent testing had suggested that these systems posed a significant risk. By precedent the EPA should have warned people that soft furnishings such as repeat and sofas could never be adequately cleaned and should thus be thrown out – in the case of the 9/1 1 clean up this information was not given. The most important criticism though was the terms in which the clean up was described, says Origin: ‘They couched the cleanup in terms of, ‘If you’re concerned, we’ll come clean your apartment out of the goodness of our hearts’.
However since their flier explicitly told people that EPA did NOT expect long term health consequences from whatever might still be in their apartments, about 80% of the people to whom the testing program Nas offered decided not to bother”. The EPA commissioned a report, The Lessons Learned in the Aftermath of September 1 1, 2001, but to citizens like Origin the report means little: “What they’ve really learned is the art of lying and sacrificing their own citizens when it’s to their advantage.
To be more specific: prior to 9/1 1, when the EPA cleaned up a disaster in a populated area, they aimed for a 1/1,000,000 extra cancer risk per contaminant. In the case of Lower Manhattan, they decided we could be exposed to a hundred times that cancer risk per contaminant, and unlike most environmental disasters, this one had hundreds of contaminants whose synergistic effect could be explosive.
So what the Federal Government has learned is that when an area is economically important, the bottom line trumps public health”. One could be forgiven for thinking that these problems are a thing of the past. In reality, no-one knows yet what effect the fallout from 9/1 1 will have on public health. At the same time, the clean up is far from finished. Several contaminated buildings in Manhattan are scheduled for demolition currently, while, as Origin points out, the precedent of