Published: September 03, 2006

Commentary
Bent A. Iversen: Growing Norwegians

Debra J. Saunders: Plame case was gossip, not a smear

Lori Sturdevant Columnist: Just 9 days from a moment few voters seem to know

Michael Beard: Hey, Xcel, clean-coal makes sense here, too

George F. Will: This Show-Me State race could be telling
H ugh Kaufman, a senior policy analyst for the federal Environmental Protection Agency, has been closely involved with the cleanup of hazardous wastes at sites like Love Canal and the World Trade Center. A year ago, after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, he was widely quoted describing the wreckage as a "toxic gumbo." In the Twin Cities last week to visit the State Fair, he contacted the Star Tribune to discuss its coverage of the Katrina anniversary. Commentary editor Eric Ringham spoke with him by phone.
Q You said your eye was caught by a photo in the Star Tribune?

A Yes. On the front page on Sunday there was a picture of a volunteer worker in the contaminated areas of one of the homes in the Gulf Coast, I believe in New Orleans. And I've seen similar pictures. The person who was trying to be helpful was wearing a dust mask. The pores in those masks are so large that they will allow mold, asbestos and toxic air contaminants, all things that are prevalent in that area, through the pores and into the lungs.

That's one of the problems we identified in response to the 9/11 case in New York, where you had volunteers going in with either no protection or dust masks, and for all intents and purposes all the toxic material in the air would go into the lungs. Now, five years later, a lot of the people are starting to die off from the health effects of inhalation of toxic materials which are very similar to the materials that are in the air in New Orleans and other areas.

Q Why didn't the government step in to stop it then, and why isn't it stepping in to stop it now?

A One thing the federal government did once Katrina hit was waive all the environmental and occupational safety rules that would require people working down there to have adequate protection to protect their health.

Q Why would the government waive those rules?

A Those rules are waived because it will make cleanup much cheaper. If in fact you follow the rules and you certify cleanup people, properly equipped, the costs for remediation would be substantially more expensive. And according to the laws, government really is on the hook for doing and paying for that type of cleanup. But the federal government has so much money going overseas that it does not want to budget more money to remediate the Gulf Coast areas properly.

On top of that, the government wanted to rely on volunteer organizations as opposed to the government following the rules and doing it themselves. ... And the people who run the volunteer organizations -- God bless 'em, their hearts are in the right place, but they're not experienced people in the field of remediation where there are toxics, asbestos, etc., involved. So waiving the rules allowed the government to save billions of dollars and expose hundreds of thousands of people to the high risk of cancer 10 and 20 years down the line.

Q I know that some of the cleanup workers are wearing what's described as a "moon suit."

A There's a requirement for certified cleaning crews to wear moon suits and actual respirators, not the N-95 dust masks, as well as goggles, hard hats, etc. And that's required wear for people who go into these homes that have asbestos, high mold and toxics. But the volunteers do not wear those, and they're not trained in how to properly protect themselves and do the type of remediation they're doing. And according to federal law, they should not be allowed in those areas. We're talking about a minimum of 20 million tons of semi-toxic material and maybe 50 million tons that has to be removed from that region of the country.

Q Say that you're a father in Minnesota, and your college-age son or daughter tells you they would like to join a group from your church and go down to New Orleans and help with the relief effort. What would your response be?

A A number of fathers have asked me the same question. And I told them not to do it, and I e-mailed them articles about the problems. I would recommend nobody volunteer to do that type of work unless they have adequate training and proper respiratory protection. You don't want to take that stuff deep into your lungs, because that's what causes the problems 10 and 20 years down the line.

Q What do you think ought to be the policy directing the cleanup now?

A I think the policy should be what it always is and always has been up until the last half a dozen years, which is compliance with the occupational safety and health and environmental regulations in doing remediation down there and other places, both after terrorist attacks and natural emergencies. I do not believe in waiving regulations. That basically is saving the federal government money at the expense of high cancer rates 10 and 20 years down the line for the general public
_________________________
Jimmy McDonald
http://www.StartRemodeling.com
Jimmy@StartRemodeling.com

http://www.ToxicMoldUSA.com
McMoldMan@ToxicMoldUSA.com

Jimmy McDonald ( RemodelingGuy) specifically assumes no legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information or process disclosed. The above further expressly advises that any use of or reliance upon the information and or opinion disclosed is at your risk .