P. 1
Jenkins 101308 FBI New WTC pH Lies 2nd Complaint

Jenkins 101308 FBI New WTC pH Lies 2nd Complaint

|Views: 162|Likes:
Published by EnviroCat
Cate Jenkins, Ph.D., 10/13/08, 2nd FBI Complaint: “Supplemental Evidence: ... Corrosivity Data (pH tests) in the Aftermath of the World Trade Center Disaster” EPA and EPA-funded research, fraud. alkaline, corrosive, caustic, high pH, pH, pH tests, World Trade Center dust, WTC dust, coverup, cover-up, cover up, falsification, WTC First Responders, asthma, respiratory, calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, lime, quicklime, cement. George Thurston, Lung Chen, Lung Chi Chen, New York University, Paul Lioy, Paul J. Lioy, Rutgers University, “DUST: The Inside Story of Its Role in the September 11th Aftermath” Cover-up, misrepresent, whistleblowing, whistleblower, World Trade Center (WTC), toxic aftermath, WTC dust, WTC toxics, 9/11, 9/11/01, September 11, 2001, FBI complaint, 18 U.S.C. § 1512, US Code - Section 1512: Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant, Congressional complaint, congressional petition, Lloyd-LaFollette Act (5 U.S.C. § 7211), right to petition Congress, violation of 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(12), merit system principles identified in 5 U.S.C. § 2301, MSPB,
Cate Jenkins, Ph.D., 10/13/08, 2nd FBI Complaint: “Supplemental Evidence: ... Corrosivity Data (pH tests) in the Aftermath of the World Trade Center Disaster” EPA and EPA-funded research, fraud. alkaline, corrosive, caustic, high pH, pH, pH tests, World Trade Center dust, WTC dust, coverup, cover-up, cover up, falsification, WTC First Responders, asthma, respiratory, calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, lime, quicklime, cement. George Thurston, Lung Chen, Lung Chi Chen, New York University, Paul Lioy, Paul J. Lioy, Rutgers University, “DUST: The Inside Story of Its Role in the September 11th Aftermath” Cover-up, misrepresent, whistleblowing, whistleblower, World Trade Center (WTC), toxic aftermath, WTC dust, WTC toxics, 9/11, 9/11/01, September 11, 2001, FBI complaint, 18 U.S.C. § 1512, US Code - Section 1512: Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant, Congressional complaint, congressional petition, Lloyd-LaFollette Act (5 U.S.C. § 7211), right to petition Congress, violation of 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(12), merit system principles identified in 5 U.S.C. § 2301, MSPB,

More info:

Categories:Types, Letters
Published by: EnviroCat on Dec 13, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/10/2013

pdf

text

original

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

DATE: FROM:

October 13, 2008 Cate Jenkins, Ph.D. Hazardous Waste Identification Division, OSW jenkins.cate@epa.gov Jane Mason, Special Agent, Environmental Crimes Unit, Federal Bureau of Investigation 26 Federal Plaza, 23rd Floor, New York, NY 10278-0004
*

TO:

SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE: FRAUD IN THE CONDUCT AND DISSEMENATION OF HUMAN TISSUE CORROSIVITY DATA (pH tests) IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER DISASTER Attached please find a report which supplements my 5/6/07 request for an FBI investigation into fraudulent corrosivity testing of dust from the WTC collapse. My prior complaint (also submitted to a Congressional delegation on 5/6/07) may be found posted on the internet at: www.fealgoodfoundation.com/index2008/Jenkins.pdf The alteration of pH test values (doctoring the numbers), pre-neutralization prior to pH testing, extreme dilution with water (nearly 600:1 ratio) prior to pH testing, etc. in addition to the withholding of pH information from First Responders at Ground Zero and the public constitutes a pattern of fraud. This pattern was not limited to 9/11 exposures, continuing today for other caustic concrete and lime related materials. This pattern of pH fraud began at least by 1980 when EPA falsified the pH levels (altered the numbers) that the United Nations’ World Health Organization found presumptive for causing irreversible tissue destruction (chemical burns) from alkaline corrosive materials. EPA changed the UN WHO level from a pH 11.5 to a pH 12.5, which is a factor of 10. EPA thus “raised the bar” sufficiently to exempt most concrete and lime related materials from hazardous waste disposal regulations as well as the Superfund criteria for HAZMAT responses to releases after disasters such as the WTC collapse. This report includes the following sections:
1. 2. 3. RICO PROSECUTION FOR MAIMING: Falsification of Corrosivity of WTC Dust and Concrete-related Materials HISTORY OF MAIMING BY LIME: Stone Ages, Ancient Egypt, Papal State, Nazis, El Salvador, Uzbekistan CHRONOLOGY: U.S. Aids and Abets Maiming by Forced Inhalation of Lime and Concrete-related Materials

This submission is pursuant to Executive Order 12731 (10/17/90) "Principles of Ethical Conduct for Government Officers and Employees" requiring disclosure of fraud and corruption to appropriate authorities. This report was prepared at the staff level and does not constitute an official position of the U.S. EPA. Mention of any product or trade name does not constitute endorsement by the author or EPA.

*

Section 1 – RICO PROSECUTION FOR MAIMING: Falsification of Corrosivity Data of WTC Dust and Other Concrete-related Materials
The maiming statute under Title 18 of the U.S. Code and similar state statutes are directly applicable to the aftermath of the World Trade Center (WTC) collapse. These maiming statutes specifically name assault with corrosive, caustic materials, while being silent with respect to exposures to other toxic substances. Government agencies and funded researchers as well as private parties intentionally falsified the corrosivity data of WTC dust, or withheld this information from those being exposed. They changed the results of pH tests (altered the numbers), they intentionally preneutralized samples before pH testing or used extreme dilution (nearly 600-to-1 dilution with water). Or, they failed to test the pH altogether, even though pH testing is required by regulations. In 1980, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) falsified the pH level that would result in corrosive human tissue destruction (chemical burns), and these same falsified EPA regulations were incorporated into the far-reaching emergency response standards under the National Contingency Plan, used by local Hazardous Materials First Responders to assess hazards after disasters. The above named maiming offenses are not addressed by administrative law. On 10/11/07 the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued guidance for prosecution of crimes under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act. DOJ included maiming as a covered violent crime under RICO. This section summarizes federal and state maiming statutes applicable to corrosive caustic materials. It also reviews one instance of a DOJ RICO prosecution of environmental crimes. The earlier 3/14/03 aberrant opinion of DOJ’s John C. Yoo regarding the applicability of the maiming statute to certain body parts, an opinion later reversed by DOJ, is also discussed, as his opinion would preclude any finding of maiming by the forced inhalation caustics.

Maiming statutes under federal, state and 19th century British law
The federal maiming statute and analogous state laws that have their origins back in common law and probably the 1837 British law that includes the crime: “[to] apply to any person any corrosive or noxious liquid or substance.” US Code Title 18, assault by maiming with corrosives or caustic substances Title 18 of the U.S. Code includes the following description of maiming with corrosive and caustic substances. (Boldface underlined typeface in the excerpted material in this report is emphasis added.)
US CODE, TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I – CRIMES, CHAPTER 7 – ASSAULT ... http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C7.txt

–2–

http://uscode.house.gov/pdf/2005/2005usc18.pdf … Sec. 114. Maiming within maritime and territorial jurisdiction Whoever, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and with intent to torture (as defined in section 2340), maim, or disfigure, cuts, bites, or slits the nose, ear, or lip, or cuts out or disables the tongue, or puts out or destroys an eye, or cuts off or disables a limb or any member of another person; or Whoever, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and with like intent, throws or pours upon another person, any scalding water, corrosive acid, or caustic substance— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

1837 British maiming statute As shown below, Britain had a similar statute against maiming covering any “corrosive or noxious liquid or substance” by at least 1837:
Cap. LXXXV, AN ACT to amend the Laws relating to Offences against the Person. (17 July 1837.) ... Punishment for cutting and maiming with intent to disfigure. ... By this ACT, After reciting that it is expedient to amend so much of 9 Geo. 4. c. 31, and also so much of 10 Geo. 4. c. 34, as relates to any person who shall unlawfully and maliciously administer or attempt to administer to any person, or who shall cause to be taken by any person, any poison or other destructive thing, or who shall unlawfully and maliciously attempt drown, suffocate, or strangle any person, or who shall counsel, aid, or abet therein ; and so much of the same Acts or either of them as relates to any person who shall unlawfully and maliciously shoot at any person, or who shall, by drawing a trigger or in any other manner, attempt to discharge any kind of loaded arms at any person, or who shall unlawfully and maliciously stab, cut, or wound any person, or who shall unlawfully and maliciously throw or cast at or upon or otherwise apply to any person any corrosive or noxious liquid or substance, with any of the intent in the same Acts mentioned, or who shall counsel, aid, or abet therein ... Supplement to The Law Journal Reports for 1837. A Compendious Abstract of the PUBLIC GENERAL ACTS OF THE UNITED KINGDOME OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND: 7 William IV. – 1837. From The Law Journal, Vol. XV. London, Published by E. B. Ince. Page 159. http://books.google.com
th

Virginia maiming statute The Commonwealth of Virginia's criminal code includes similar language against maiming with caustic and corrosive substances:
§ 18.2-52. Malicious bodily injury by means of any caustic substance or agent or use of any explosive or fire. If any person maliciously causes any other person bodily injury by means of any acid, lye or other caustic substance or agent or use of any explosive or fire, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in a state correctional facility for a period of not less than five years nor more than thirty years. If such act is done unlawfully but not maliciously, the offender shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. Code of Virginia Title 18.2 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES GENERALLY. Chapter 4 - Crimes Against the Person http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+TOC18020000004000000000000

New York State assault statute covering “disfiguring” and “serious physical injury” The New York State statutes against assault do not use the word maiming, but instead use the word disfiguring and serious physical injury:
§ 120.10 Assault in the first degree. A person is guilty of assault in the first degree when: 1. With intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument; or 2. With intent to disfigure another person seriously and permanently, or to destroy, amputate or disable permanently a member or organ of his body, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person; or ... Assault in the first degree is a class B felony. § 120.05 Assault in the second degree. A person is guilty of assault in the second degree when: 1. With intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person; or 2. With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument; or 3. With intent to prevent a peace officer, police officer, a fireman, including a fireman acting as a paramedic or emergency medical technician administering first aid in the course of performance of duty as such fireman, an emergency medical service paramedic or emergency medical service technician, or medical or related personnel in a hospital emergency department, from performing a lawful duty ... he causes physical injury to such peace officer, police officer, fireman, paramedic, technician or medical or related personnel in a hospital emergency department; or

–3–

4. He recklessly causes serious physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument; or 5. For a purpose other than lawful medical or therapeutic treatment, he intentionally causes stupor, unconsciousness or other physical impairment or injury to another person by administering to him, without his consent, a drug, substance or preparation capable of producing the same; or 6. In the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempted commission of a felony, other than a felony defined in article one hundred thirty which requires corroboration for conviction, or of immediate flight therefrom, he, or another participant if there be any, causes physical injury to a person other than one of the participants; ... ... Assault in the second degree is a class D felony. § 120.00 Assault in the third degree. A person is guilty of assault in the third degree when: 1. With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person; or 2. He recklessly causes physical injury to another person … Assault in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor. ... New York State Legislature, Search: Laws of New York, PEN – Penal, Article 120 - ASSAULT AND RELATED OFFENSES http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi

Model Penal Code coverage of maiming In 2007, DOJ discussed the relationship of the Model Penal Code to the federal and state maiming statutes, noting that the Model Penal covered such offenses under the classification of “serious bodily injury”:
The Model Penal Code did not propose an offense specifically limited to “mayhem” or “maiming”. Rather, Model Penal Code § 211.1 provides for several gradations of “assault” offenses ... MPC § 210.00 (3) provides that: “Serious bodily injury” means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ. The MPC drafters stated that MPC § 211.1 “effects a consolidation of the common-law crimes of mayhem, battery, and assault and also consolidates into a single offense what the antecedent statutes in this country normally treated as a series of aggravated assaults or batteries.” ... (“This definition encompasses the drastic harms covered under the common-law felony of mayhem and adds a residual category of harm creating substantial risk of death.”). Thus, in effect, the Model Penal Code integrates the offense of “mayhem” or “maiming” into “Aggravated Assault.” The Model Penal Code approach for assault reflects the modern practice among the states. Most states have adopted assault offenses resulting in “serious” or “great bodily” harm that encompass unlawful conduct that would constitute “mayhem” or “maiming.” US Dept. of Justice (October 1997) Criminal Resource Manual 109 http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00109.htm

Federal RICO (racketeering) prosecution precedents for environmental crimes
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act could be utilized for the historical and ongoing falsification of data and willful exposures to corrosive caustic high pH concrete and lime dust, including but not limited to the exposures of First Responders and other citizens exposed to caustic WTC dust. An important precedent was set in 2006 when the District Court found that the Government established a RICO violation against the tobacco industry for misrepresenting the health effects of their products:
U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division, Organized Crime and Racketeering Section (10/11/07) Civil RICO: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, A Manual for Federal Attorneys, p. 299. http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/civrico.pdf … Following a nine month non-jury trial, the district court issued its 945-page final opinion. See United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 449 F. Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. 2006). Regarding liability, the district court found that the Government established the alleged enterprise and that each defendant was liable for a substantive RICO violation (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)) and that each defendant, except for one defendant, was liable for conspiring to violate RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)). Id. at 851-52,

–4–

867-73, 901-907. The district court found that the Government proved an overarching scheme to defraud the public, stating: [O]ver the course of more than 50 years, Defendants lied, misrepresented, and deceived the American public, including smokers and the young people they avidly sought as “replacement smokers,” about the devastating health effects of smoking and environmental tobacco smoke, they suppressed research, they destroyed documents, they manipulated the use of nicotine so as to increase and perpetuate addiction, they distorted the truth about low tar and light cigarettes so as to discourage smokers from quitting, and they abused the legal system in order to achieve their goal -- to make money with little, if any, regard for individual illness and suffering, soaring health costs, or the integrity of the legal system.

“Maiming” is a covered violent crime under RICO
The following is an excerpt from the DOJ Criminal Resource Manual, stating that maiming is covered by the RICO statute:
9-110.000 ORGANIZED CRIME AND RACKETEERING … 9-110.800 Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Activity (18 U.S.C. § 1959) Section 1959 makes it a crime to commit any of a list of violent crimes in return for pecuniary compensation from an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity, or for the purpose of joining, remaining with, or advancing in such an enterprise. The listed violent crimes are murder, kidnapping, maiming, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, and threatening to commit a "crime of violence," as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 16. The listed crimes may be violations of State or Federal law. In addition, attempts and conspiracies to commit the listed crimes are covered. http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/110mcrm.htm#9-110.101

In 1997 and 2006, DOJ published guidance for pursuing RICO convictions for violent crimes committed to support a pecuniary interest by enterprises engaged in racketeering. “Maiming” and “assault resulting in serious bodily injury” under either state or federal law as well as conspiracies to commit these crimes are covered. The specific intent to maim is not necessarily a prerequisite for prosecution:
US Dept. of Justice (October 1997) Criminal Resource Manual 109 http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00109.htm ... In 1984, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98- 473, Ch. X, Part A (Oct. 12, 1 1984), which added, inter alia, a new offense, Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Activity. This offense, initially codified as 18 U.S.C. § 1952B, was renumbered in 1988 as 18 U.S.C. § 1959, without any substantive change. Section 1959 makes it a crime to commit any of a list of violent crimes in return for anything of pecuniary value from an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity, or for the purpose of joining, remaining with, or increasing a position in such an enterprise. The listed violent crimes are murder, kidnapping, maiming, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, and threatening to commit a “crime of violence,” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 16. The listed crimes may be violations of State or Federal law. In addition, attempts and conspiracies to commit the listed crimes are covered. ... Congress designed Section 1959 to supplement RICO and hence Section 1959 may be used in addition to RICO. ... § 1959. Violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity (a) Whoever, as consideration for the receipt of, or as consideration for a promise or agreement to pay, anything of pecuniary value from an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity, or for the purpose of gaining entrance to or maintaining or increasing position in an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity, murders, kidnaps, maims, assaults with a dangerous weapon, commits assault resulting in serious bodily injury upon, or threatens to commit a crime of violence against any individual in violation of the laws of any State or the United States, or attempts or conspires so to do, shall be punished ... To establish a completed substantive violation of Section 1959, the United States must prove all of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt. 1. The existence of an “enterprise” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1959(b)(2). 2. The charged enterprise engaged in, or its activities affected, interstate or foreign commerce. 3. The charged enterprise engaged in “racketeering activity” as defined in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1959(b)(1) and 1961(1). 4. The defendant committed one of the following crimes: a. murder b. kidnapping c. maiming d. assault with a dangerous weapon e. assault resulting in serious bodily injury upon any individual, or 7 f. threatens to commit a crime of violence against any individual , which offense was in violation of the laws of any state8, or the United States.

–5–

5. Such underlying crime of violence was committed either: a. as consideration for the receipt of, or as consideration for a promise or agreement to pay, anything of pecuniary value from the charged enterprise, or, b. for the purpose of gaining entrance to or maintaining or increasing position in the charged enterprise. ... In Sections II (F) through (J) below, OCRS applies the foregoing principles to determine the generic definitions of murder, kidnapping, maiming, assault with a dangerous weapon and assault resulting in serious bodily injury. First, we examine the analogous provisions of the Model Penal Code and federal and state statutes existing in 1984 when Section 1959 was enacted to determine the prevailing definitions in 1984 of murder, kidnapping, maiming, assault with a dangerous weapon, and assault resulting in serious bodily injury. We conclude that any statute that contains elements that substantially correspond to the generic definitions in 1984 of murder, kidnapping, maiming, assault with a dangerous weapon and assault resulting in serious bodily injury may constitute predicate crimes of violence under Section 1959. It is especially significant to bear in mind that it is immaterial whether the statute at issue uses the same labels or terms as the list of violent crimes under Section 1959. Conversely, it is not dispositive that the statute at issue uses the same labels as the Section 1959 underlying crimes of violence. Likewise, it is not dispositive that the defendant’s underlying misconduct violated the generic definition of the particular crime at issue. Rather, the dispositive issue is whether required elements of the statute at issue substantially conform to the generic definitions in 1984 of murder, kidnapping, maiming, assault with a dangerous weapon, and assault resulting in serious bodily injury. ... H. Maiming 1. Generic Maiming a. “ ‘Maim’ is the modern equivalent of the old word ‘mayhem’. . . . Mayhem, according to the English Common Law is maliciously depriving another of the use of such as of his members as may render him less able, in fighting, either to defend himself or to annoy his adversary.” ... Under English Common Law, therefore, “[t]o cut off, or permanently to cripple, a man’s hand or finger, or to strike out his eye or fore tooth, were all mayhems. . . if done maliciously, because any such harm rendered the person less efficient as a fighting man.” ... Thus, the essence of “mayhem” or “maiming” at common law was “malicious maiming or maliciously and intentionally disfiguring another.” As the law developed in the United States up to 1984, “mayhem” or “maiming” encompassed “malicious maiming or disfigurement” that resulted in permanent or protracted disfigurement, dismemberment or disabling. Some statutes also required specific intent to maim or disfigure. ... 18 U.S.C. § 114, proscribed “maiming within maritime and territorial jurisdiction,” and provided as follows: Whoever, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and with intent to maim, or disfigure, cuts, bites, or slits the nose, ear, or lip, or cuts out or disables the tongue, or puts out or destroys an eye, or cuts off or disables a limb or any member of another person; or Whoever, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and with like intent, throws or pours upon another person, any scalding water, corrosive acid, or caustic substance-- Shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both. ... Moreover, in 1984 at least fourteen states (California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin) had statutes that 58 specifically proscribed “mayhem” or “maiming.” For example, the California offense of “mayhem” provided that: Every person who unlawfully and maliciously deprives a human being of a member of his body, or disables, disfigures, or renders it useless, or cuts or disables the tongue, or puts out an eye, or slits the nose, ear, or lip, is guilty of mayhem. Under this provision, specific intent to commit mayhem is not an element of the offense: “If a person unlawfully strikes another, not with the specific intent to commit the crime of mayhem, and the blow so delivered results in the loss or disfigurement of a member of the body of the assaulted party or in putting out his eye, the crime is nevertheless mayhem.” ... Furthermore, courts have interpreted “maiming” to have its ordinary and plain meaning and that the specific intent to maim is synonymous with an intent to inflict “some serious bodily injury.”

Organized Crime and Racketeering Section U.S. Department of Justice (December 2006) Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering 18 U.S.C. § 1959 A Manual for Federal Prosecutors http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/vcar.pdf ... A. Introduction In 1984, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98- 473, Ch. X, Part A (Oct. 12, 1984), which added, inter alia, a new offense, Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Activity.1 This offense, initially codified as 18 U.S.C. § 1952B, was renumbered in 1988 as 18 U.S.C. § 1959, without any substantive change.2 Section 1959 makes it a crime to commit any of a list of violent crimes in return for anything of pecuniary value from an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity, or for the purpose of joining, remaining with, or increasing a position in such an enterprise. The listed violent crimes are murder, kidnapping, maiming, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, and threatening to commit a “crime of violence,” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 16. The listed crimes may be violations of State or Federal law. In addition, attempts and conspiracies to commit the listed crimes are covered. ...

–6–

As the law developed in the United States up to 1984, “mayhem” or “maiming” encompassed “malicious maiming or disfigurement” that resulted in permanent or protracted disfigurement, dismemberment or disabling. Some statutes also required specific intent to maim or disfigure. ... For example, in 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 114, proscribed “maiming within maritime and territorial jurisdiction,” and provided as follows: Whoever, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and with intent to maim, or disfigure, cuts, bites, or slits the nose, ear, or lip, or cuts out or disables the tongue, or puts out or destroys an eye, or cuts off or disables a limb or any member of another person; or Whoever, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and with like intent, throws or pours upon another person, any scalding water, corrosive acid, or caustic substance— Shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.56 ... Moreover, in 1984 at least fourteen states (California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin) had statutes that specifically proscribed “mayhem” or “maiming.”58 For example, the California offense of “mayhem” provided that: Every person who unlawfully and maliciously deprives a human being of a member of his body, or disables, disfigures, or renders it useless, or cuts or disables the tongue, or puts out an eye, or slits the nose, ear, or lip, is guilty of mayhem. CAL PENAL CODE § 203 (1955). Under this provision, specific intent to commit mayhem is not an element of the offense: “If a person unlawfully strikes another, not with the specific intent to commit the crime of mayhem, and the blow so delivered results in the loss or disfigurement of a member of the body of the assaulted party or in putting out his eye, the crime is nevertheless mayhem.”

Maiming by corrosives/caustics not limited to “throwing or pouring” or “specific body parts” as contended in 3/14/03 torture memo by DOJ’s John Yoo
A widely publicized 3/14/03 memorandum authored by John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General is relevant here. If his conclusions are accepted, then inhalation exposures to caustic substances would not be covered by the maiming statute since the lung is not considered to be a covered body part, and inhalation does not constitute what he claims to be the limited acts of “throwing” or “pouring.” The recent torture of the physician in El Salvador who had a hood filled with quicklime placed over his head by the National Guard would not be considered as maiming by Mr. Yoo’s interpretation. Mr. Yoo’s 3/14/03 memorandum argues that only the specific acts of “throwing or pouring” corrosive caustic materials on victims constitutes maiming , and that the body parts are also limited as well to “a body part the statute specifies -- i.e., the nose, ear, lip, tongue, eye, or limb”:
John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General (March 14, 2003) Memorandum for William J. Haynes IT, General Counsel of the Department of Defense. Re: Military Interrogation of Alien Unlawful Combatants Held Outside the United States. http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/yoo_army_torture_memo.pdf You have asked our Office to 'examine the legal standards governing military interrogations of alien unlawful combatants held outside the United States. You have requested that we examine both domestic and international law that might be applicable to the conduct of those interrogations. ... Although we do not believe. that these laws would apply· to authorized military interrogations, we outline the various federal crimes that apply in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States: assault, 18 U.S.C. § 113 (2000); maiming, 18 U.S.C. § 114 (2000); and interstate' stalking, 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2000). ... b. Maiming Another criminal statute applicable in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction is 18 U.S.C. § 114. Section 114 makes it a crime for an individual (1) ''with the intent to torture (as defined in section 2340), maim, or disfigure” to (2) “cut[], bite[], or slit[] the nose, ear, or lip, or cut[] out or disable[] the tongue, or put[] out or destroy[] an eye, -or cut[] off or disable[] a limb or any member of another person.” 18 U.S.C. § 114. It further prohibits individuals from “throw[ing]or pour[ing] upon another person-any scalding water, corrosive acid, or caustic substance” with like intent. … Moreover, the defendant's method of maiming must be one of the types the statute specifies-i.e., cutting, biting, slitting, cutting out, disabling, or putting out -- and the injury must be to a body part the statute specifies -- i.e., the nose, ear, lip, tongue, eye, or limb. … Similarly, the second set of acts applies to a very narrow band of conduct. It applies only to the throwing or pouring of some sort of scalding, corrosive, or caustic substance.

–7–

Mr. Yoo errs in claiming maiming restricted to certain body parts Mr. Yoo errs claiming that that the only body parts covered by the U.S. maiming statute are “the nose, ear, lip, tongue, eye, or limb.” Mr. You arbitrarily deleted part of the list contained in the Title 18 maiming statute, namely the very inclusive phrase “or any member.” The following is the full list of body parts from USC Title 18:
US CODE, TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I – CRIMES, CHAPTER 7 – ASSAULT http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C7.txt http://uscode.house.gov/pdf/2005/2005usc18.pdf ... Sec. 114. Maiming within maritime and territorial jurisdiction Whoever, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and with intent to torture (as defined in section 2340), maim, or disfigure, cuts, bites, or slits the nose, ear, or lip, or cuts out or disables the tongue, or puts out or destroys an eye, or cuts off or disables a limb or any member of another person …

In 2006, the DOJ itself came to far broader interpretation of the affected body parts. DOJ also cited language from many other state statutes that did not restrict maiming to specific body parts:
Organized Crime and Racketeering Section U.S. Department of Justice (December 2006) Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering 18 U.S.C. § 1959 A Manual for Federal Prosecutors http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/vcar.pdf ... Furthermore, courts have interpreted “maiming” to have its ordinary and plain meaning and that the specific intent to maim is synonymous with an intent to inflict “some serious bodily injury.” ... Based on the foregoing analysis of the development of the common law offense of mayhem, OCRS [DOJ’s Organized Crime and Racketeering Section] concludes that the generic definition of “maiming” within the scope of Section 1959 encompasses conduct with intent to maim or disfigure that results in permanent or protracted disfigurement, disablement or dismemberment of a body part of another person. [OCRS included no specific limited list of body parts, choosing instead to use the all encompassing phrase “a body part”.] … Courts in California have relied on the stated rationale of the crime to include serious injuries to body parts in addition to those specifically listed in the statute: “The fact that various parts of the head are mentioned in section 203 is probably attributable more to historical happenstance than to a current legislative intent to exclude from the purview of mayhem areas of the head not specifically mentioned.”

Case law also does not support Mr. Yoo’s interpretation. A maiming conviction was upheld when Drano® (sodium hydroxide, or lye) was introduced into a woman's vagina. This body part also was not on Mr. Yoo’s limited list of body parts covered by the maiming statute:
1982 OK CR 127, 650 P.2d 50, LONNY WAYNE BROWN, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, APPELLEE, Case No. F-81-529. August 16, 1982 Rehearing Denied September 27, 1982. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ok&vol=/appeals/1982/&invol=1982okcr127 ... 1. Lonny Wayne Brown, appellant, was charged with the offense of Maiming, in Tulsa County District Court, Case No. CRF-80-1154, he was found guilty of the offense of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon ... was sentenced to ten (10) years' imprisonment, and he appeals. 2. In his first assignment of error he contends that the trial court erred in submitting an instruction on maiming to the jury. Since the jury obviously believed him not guilty of maiming and found him guilty only of the offense of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, we are of the opinion that this assignment of error is completely without merit. ... While at her husband's apartment the witness testified that he continually suggested that they have sexual intercourse, she refused. Thereafter, Mrs. Brown was forcibly taken into a dark bedroom of her husband's apartment where the defendant removed her jeans. While holding her, he applied lotion to her private parts and told her it would be over “in a minute.” She then felt a small object forced into her vagina. The defendant got up from the bed and went into the bathroom. Mrs. Brown sensed a burning sensation from within her vagina which erupted into unbearable pain. The defendant told her that Drano crystals had spilled onto the bed and must have gotten inside of her. He examined his wife and transported her to a local hospital for emergency treatment. Mrs. Brown had suffered extreme internal injuries necessitating surgery and a long period of convalescence. A small rubber ball was discovered and removed from Mrs. Brown's vagina by treating physicians. The defendant returned to his apartment to retrieve the container of Drano, and took it to the hospital where he was treated for minor burns. After being questioned at the hospital he was placed under arrest and jailed. The defendant consistently maintained that his wife's injuries were not purposely caused and had occurred accidentally. He denied having any knowledge of the rubber ball. ... 4. Dr. Hans Norberg testified that the injury permanently limited the victim's ability to achieve sexual fulfillment, because of scarring which occurred. ...

–8–

5. From the foregoing statement of facts, it is abundantly clear that the State established a prima facie case of maiming, see, State v. Bates, ¶6

Mr. Yoo also errs that only the “pouring or throwing” of caustics/corrosives constitutes maiming Mr. Yoo contended that only “throwing or pouring” of caustic/corrosive substances is covered by the U.S. maiming statute. Apparently he would exempt torture such as forcefeeding hydrated lime slurries (calcium hydroxide) which was a practice in Egypt around 700 C.E., or putting detainees in gas chambers filled with caustic corrosive atmospheres, or knowingly subjecting U.S. citizens to corrosive caustic atmospheres in the workplace or home. Again, by Mr. Yoo’s interpretation, the recent case of torture in El Salvador of a man with a hood saturated with caustic calcium oxide (quicklime) described in Senate testimony would not qualify as maiming, since nobody “throwed” or “poured” the lime-filled hood on the physician. (See: http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=3028&wit_id=6780 ). Mr. Yoo’s “pouring or throwing” limitation is not upheld by case law, such as the above cited case. A rubber ball containing with Drano® was inserted into a woman’s vagina. This constituted neither “throwing” nor “pouring.” The Virginia State criminal code, and undoubtedly other state statutes, also do not limit maiming to “throwing” or “pouring.” Even the 1837 British statute against maiming does not restrict the application method to “throwing” or “pouring”:
Supplement to The Law Journal Reports for 1837. A Compendious Abstract of the PUBLIC GENERAL ACTS OF THE UNITED KINGDOME OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND: 7 William IV. – 1837. From The Law Journal, Vol. XV. London, Published by E. B. Ince. Page 159. http://books.google.com ... th Cap. LXXXV, AN ACT to amend the Laws relating to Offences against the Person. (17 July 1837.) ... Punishment for cutting and maiming with intent to disfigure. ... ... or who shall unlawfully and maliciously throw or cast at or upon or otherwise apply to any person any corrosive or noxious liquid or substance, with any of the intent in the same Acts mentioned, or who shall counsel, aid, or abet therein ...

–9–

Section 2 – HISTORY OF MAIMING BY LIME: Stone Ages, Ancient Egypt, Papal State, Nazis, El Salvador, Uzbekistan
This section provides grisly details from of the historical use of lime in human torture and warfare. Both calcium hydroxide (hydrated lime) and calcium oxide (quicklime) were alkaline corrosive constituents of WTC dust. Calcium hydroxide is the alkaline caustic constituent responsible for the caustic properties of newly pulverized concrete without any external heat sources. Calcium oxide is produced from calcium hydroxide at 540° C., a temperature far exceeded by the fires at Ground Zero. However, as described in Section 3 of this report, in 1980 EPA published regulations claiming that pH levels that were even higher than the pH of quicklime and hydrated lime were not corrosive to human flesh, and in 1993 claimed no health effects even to the eyes, respiratory system, and gastrointestinal tract.

Stone Ages – corrosive properties of lime (constituent of cement and WTC dust) known
The corrosive properties of both quicklime (calcium oxide) and hydrated lime (calcium hydroxide) on human skin and other organs were probably known from the first they were used in the Stone Age for removing hair and fat from animal skins. Technically speaking, quicklime would be converted to hydrated lime when water was added to the quicklime before applying it to animal skins.
R. J. Davis (2004) Basic Nanostructured Catalysts. In: Dekker Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. J. A. Schwarz, et al., Eds., p. 225. http://books.google.com/books?id=RHcUpRj_wI8C&dq=quicklime+%22stone+age%22&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0 See also: http://www.omri.org/CaO_final.pdf http://www.romanconcrete.com/Article1Secrets.pdf ... The earliest use of alkalis was probably about 4000 B.C. during the New Stone Age period in the production of Quicklime (CaO) by roasting limestone (CaCO3). The early uses of quicklime were for the removal of fat and hair from leather and in the production of cement.

Great care would have been necessary to prevent corrosive burns to the skin of the person using the lime on animal hides. During this same time period, people would have figured out they could injure others with the same lime slurries.

Lime torture in the European Middle Ages
A notable torture legend goes back to 303 CE (Common Era), when Saint George the Dragon Slayer was either “thrown into”, “drenched with” or “immersed in” what is described as “quicklime” as punishment for speaking out against the state. The exact form of the caustic lime is uncertain, but the descriptions imply a water slurry of calcium hydroxide (slaked lime or hydrated lime) and not dry quicklime (calcium oxide).
Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese. Saint George The Holy and Great Martyr George the Trophy Bearer. … Once, when he heard in a court the inhuman sentence concerning the annihilation of Christians, Saint George became inflamed with compassion for them. Foreseeing that sufferings were also awaiting him, George distributed his property to the poor, freed his slaves, appeared before Diocletian and, having revealed himself as a Christian, denounced

– 10 –

him for cruelty and injustice. George's speech was full of powerful and convincing objections against the imperial order to persecute Christians. After futile persuasions to deny Christ, the Emperor ordered that the saint be subjected to various tortures. Saint George was confined in a dungeon, where they placed him supine on the ground; his legs they confined in stocks, and on his breast they placed a heavy stone. But Saint George manfully endured the sufferings and glorified the Lord. Then George's torturers began to refine their cruelty. They beat the Saint with ox hide whips, subjected him to the wheel, threw him into quicklime and forced him to run in shoes with sharp nails inside. The holy Martyr endured everything patiently. Finally, the Emperor ordered the Saint's head to be cut off. Thus, the holy sufferer departed unto Christ in Nicomedia in 303 AD. http://www.antiochian.org/book/export/html/441 Encyclopedia of the Celts … GEORGE, SAINT (third-fourth century) Patron of England. He was martyred at Lydda in Palestine by being shod in red-hot shoes, broken on a spiked wheel and immersed in quick-lime. http://www.celticgrounds.com/chapters/encyclopedia/g.html Hoorn's Religious Heritage walk: religious statues and wall panels … In 305 S. George was arrested by the state persecutors of the early Christians, he was tortured on the rack and drenched in quick lime but miraculously suffered no harm. Caesar's wife was so impressed by this that she underwent baptism and accompanied S. George to the tower on the town wall where they were both beheaded. This is said to have taken place in the Promised Land. http://www.oudhoorn.nl/stadswandeling/religieuzewandeling/index.php?page=1&lang=en

Christians opposed to the Roman Catholic Church or other non-believers were subjected to various physical tortures during the Middle Ages, including having quicklime applied to their bodies or open wounds:
Robertson, Alexander (1905) The Roman Catholic Church in Italy. Published by Morgan and Scott, London. pp. 24 - 25 PRISONERS WERE TORTURED AND DRUGGED. – Instruments of torture, the lash, and prison hardships and privations of all kinds, were used to extort confessions. Men were dosed with belladonna so that they might betray themselves unwittingly.. As Mr. Stillman says, they were given “drugs which produced delirium in the patient, whose ravings were recorded as testimony against him.” Condemnation was invariably the outcome of a trial, when many were executed, many sent to the calleys, and many were doomed to imprisonment, with their bodies weighted with iron, their legs chained together, or they themselves chained up to the walls of their cells, for life. Gavazzi, who was the first to enter the dungeons of the Inquisition in the Castle of St. Angelo, in 1870, after the taking of Rome, and many others who entered afterwards, such as Pianciani, Gaiani, and Spada, have left their testimony that they saw there all kinds of instruments of torture and death – irons, hooks, chafing-pans, ropes, quicklime, trap-doors over caverns and shafts 9one described by Gavazzi being seventy feet deep); whilst the remains of the human victims themselves of all ages and both sexes, consisting of hair, bones, skulls, and skeletons, were seen in dungeon, cellar, and shaft. http://books.google.com Bartholomew Fache, gashed with sabers, had the wounds filled up with quicklime, and perished thus in agony at Fenile. James S. Wylie (2003, first published 1878) The History of Protestantism. Heartland Publications. http://books.google.com

In the 16th Century, Saint Rose is said to have intentionally disfigured her own face with quicklime (which in practicality would need to have been in the form of a slurry of hydrated lime and water):
ST ROSE was born in Lima, at the end of the sixteenth century, of rich and honoured parents. ... In vain a host of suitors sighed for her hand; she would listen to no word of love, and when their pleadings and her parents' importunities had become insistent, she disfigured her too charming visage by the application of a mixture of pepper and quick-lime. http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=hallg&book=saints&story=roses&PHPSESSID=7f79846be00e9f909f6309e0b706593d http://www.katemonkey.co.uk/saints/lives.html

A book published in 1591 by Antonio Gallonio also describes torture of Christians by quicklime. This book even includes an illustration of the torture technique, depicting one man pouring dry quicklime from a flat rectangular shallow tray onto another. The illustration was by the renowned artist Antonio Tempesta, well known for his fresco paintings which used hydrated lime slurries (calcium hydroxide). The artist would have been personally well familiar with the hazards of all forms of lime.

– 11 –

Chapter VI. Of Red-hot Plates, and Torches, and Blazing Brands ... For all the Heathen bade Christians of either sex, to the scorn of Christ, to be racked on the horse and mangled with scourges, iron claws, and the like (as hath been described in the preceding chapter), and to be stretched in the stocks to the fourth and fifth hole, yet was not their savage rage thereby exhausted. Whence it came that often and often they would have quicklime or molten lead or boiling oil or something similar poured over their fresh brands.

... [Caption on illustration at page 120] Fig. XX. A. Wooden horse. B. Martyr taken down from the horse and being rolled about over shards of pottery. C. Having quicklime, boiling oil and the like, poured over him. pp. 115-120, Torture: Torments of the Christian Martyrs, Translation of Trattato degli instrumenti di martirio, by.Antonio Gallonio. Originally published in 1591 in Rome. 2006 Reprint of book available from Kessinger Publishing. High resolution scan of Figure XX was a special courtesy from Liam Quin: http://www.fromoldbooks.org/ http://www.fromoldbooks.org/Gallonio-TorturesAndTorments/ http://www.holoweb.net/~liam/cv/ A larger, higher resolution image of this same illustration is in preparation and will be made available at a later date. To view a low resolution version of this illustration, use the following link to Google Books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=U7trv5_19zkC&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=gallonio+%2B+quicklime&source=web&ots=TrWjKD4MCj&sig=YT3ULoR02VbPXa12GgVWU1msB5c&hl=en

Lime torture in ancient Egypt, circa 710 CE
In 710 CE, it was documented contemporaneously that men in Egypt were punished by being forced to drink “quicklime.” Actually, this would be the forced ingestion of “slaked lime” slurries, or calcium hydroxide. Immediately after quicklime is added to water, it is converted to calcium hydroxide. The documentation of this type of human torture comes from preserved tax records for a particular district of Egypt. This form of punishment was criticized by Egypt’s ruler because it was incapacitating men for work and making them unable to pay taxes and supply goods to the state:
Wickham, C. (2005) Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean, 400-800. Oxford Univ. Press, pp. 134-137. Thanks in part to the survival of tax receipts (still called entagia) in large numbers, both on papyrus and on ostraka, local collections of documents are, as in previous periods of Egyptian history, almost unfairly rich by the standards of other regions: over 400 texts for Aphroditô, 300 for Bala'iza, both just south of Asyût in Middle Egypt ... But Aphroditô is the pendence from Antaiopolis ... and had its own pagarch and administrative district. ... private letters and documents, in Aphroditô as elsewhere in Egypt ... the main time-range is even narrower, for most of our texts come from a single three-year period, 709-11, the beginning of the governorate of Qurraibn Sharik (709-15) ... with Qurra constantly making demands and never fully being satisfied ... What the governor of Egypt wanted, and expected, from Aphroditô around 710 can stand for what he wanted from Egypt as a whole. … It is already clear that from the above that Qurra did not only want taxes from Aphroditô, but mean as well (with their wages and travel expenses), and we must add a wide array of ad hock dues ... Quru did not only requisition, we can see him in other roles too. In a handful of texts he orders Basilios to get private debts repaid, presumably in response to the appeals of creditors. In a dozen more he gives instructions about the apprehension of fugitives from taxpaying and their return to their correct tax districts – or their registration as taxpayers in Aphroditô itself. In one letter, of 710, he

– 12 –

commands Basilios not to use any torture that makes the victim sick and incapable of work – especially not the forced drinking of quicklime! – and tells him to instruct village headmen in the same way, with the threat of punishment. (Evidently such activities were standard on the ground.) http://books.google.com

Quicklime was first chemical warfare agent during Middle Ages
The use of quicklime in warfare during the Middle Ages is also well documented:
Society for Chemical Weapons Victims Support. A brief history of chemical warfare. ... In the 9th century, Leo IX of Byzantium, writing on warfare, described “vases filled with quicklime which were thrown by hand. When broken, the vase would let loose an overpowering odor which suffocates those who are near.” Historically, the chemical weapons were fire and gas, but during the nineteenth century poisons and chemicals were used in wars. http://www.scwvs.org/en/about.asp?t=Infocenter&sl=4&mc=7 Medieval Weaponry (1998-2008) by Lise Hull ... The trebuchet was introduced to England by Louis of France in the 13th century. The basic design was a long arm pivoting on an axle at the summit of a high frame. The shorter end of the long arm carried enormous containers of earth and rubble weighing many tons as a counterweight. ... Cut stones were sometimes used as the projectile, weighing as much as 300 lbs. The standard weight of the stones were 60 to 100 lbs. Ten of these stones could be produced a day by a single stone cutter. Stones found at Pevensey Castle weighed 240 lbs. The range of the trebuchet appears to have been about 500 yards, with deadly accuracy. Other projectiles known to have been thrown by the trebuchet included paving stones, dead horses, pots of quick lime, and scraps of iron. http://www.castles-of-britain.com/castle36.htm Henry V and Joan of Arc (Part 2 of the Hundred Years War) (2006) Martin Ayres ... Henry's force headed for Harfluer on 11 August 1415. ... Harfluer was first but not the easiest. Its commander, the lord of Estouteville had a small garrison, but the fortifications were considerable. ... Heavy timber barbicans guarded the town's gates; from the ramparts crossbowmen and artillerists kept a sharp lookout, while quick lime and hot oil were held in readiness. http://rapidttp.com/milhist/lectures/hundred2.html Medieval Naval Warfare, 1000-1500 (2002) Susan Rose ... [p. 30] He then goes on to describe the English as possessing galleys with iron rams which lolled and sank the enemy and as using quicklime thrown onto the French ships to blind the crew. http://books.google.com Sayers, William (2006) The Use of Quicklime in Medieval Naval Warfare. The Mariner’s Mirror, 92(3): 262 – 269. [Contains 7 quotations from contemporaneous authors during the 1200 to 1400 CE time period describing the use of quicklime in naval warfare, including Chaucer!]

19th century forensic physician describes quicklime under the new maiming statue
Lime was described by a forensic physician in 1930 as one of the covered corrosive substances that would “maim” pursuant to the recently enacted Scottish statute against maiming. The following are excerpts from the 1830 British medical journal and a 1829 treatise on poisons describing the corrosive caustic properties of lime. The effects on intact skin, the mouth and throat, the stomach and respiratory system were noted in addition to the eyes:
Christison, Robert (1829) A Treatise on Poisons, in relation to Medical Jurisprudence, Physiology, and the Practice of Physic. Chapter VIII. On Poisoning with Lime, Edinburgh, Adam Black, North Bridge. p. 65. http://books.google.com ... Lime, the last poison of the present groupe … Though a feeble poison, it has nevertheless proved fatal in the human subject. Gmelin takes notice of the case of a boy who swallowed some lime in an apple-pye, and died in nine days, affected with thirst, burning in the mouth, burning pain in the belly, and obstinate constipation. A short account of a case of this kind of poisoning is also given by Balthazar Timæus, A young woman, afflicted with pica or depraved appetite, took to eating quicklime [calcium oxide] and in consequence she was attacked with pain and gnawing in the belly, sore throat, dryness of the mouth, insatiable thirst, difficult breathing and cough; but she recovered. – It is well known that quick-lime [calcium oxide] also inflames the skin or even destroys its texture, apparently by withdrawing the water which forms a component part of all soft animal tissues. When thrown into the eyes it causes acute and obstinate opthalmia, which may end in loss of sight. On this account it will belong, I presume, to the poisons included in the Scottish act against disfiguring or maiming by corrosives.

– 13 –

Christison, Robert (1830) Critical Analyses. A Treatise on Poisons, in relation to Medical Jurisprudence, Physiology, and the Practice of Physic. North, John, Editor, The London Medical and Physical Journal, Vol. VIII., page 511 ff. http://books.google.com ... Causes of accidental death have occurred from swallowing Lime, but it is a feeble poison. “When thrown into the eyes, it causes acute and obstinate opthalmia, which may end in loss of sight: on this account it will belong, I presume, to the poisons included in the Scottish act against disfiguring or maiming with corrosives.

Nazi Germany quicklime torture of Jews
The Nazis also used quicklime as a torture agent against Jews and others they deemed undesirable:
The Times, 7/17/00, http://www.mishalov.com/Karski.html ... Jan Karski, Polish resistance hero, was born on April 24, 1914. He died in Washington on July 13 aged 86 ... Disguised as a Ukrainian guard, Karski was taken into an extermination camp by a real guard bribed by the Polish underground. The atrocities he saw in his brief spell inside the wire provoked such a reaction that he nearly gave them both away. “A quivering cargo of flesh,” is how he later described the scenes before him. As well as starvation, stabbing and shooting, Karski watched as Jews were packed into rail cars that were coated on the floors with quicklime, sealed and moved a short distance away. After a few days the cars were opened, the dead Jews burnt, and a new layer of quicklime laid for the next group. NY Times, 7/15/00 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A07E0D9143BF936A25754C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2 ... Jan Karski Dies at 86; Warned West About Holocaust ... Ranks of uniformed men pressed the crowd onto waiting box cars that had been coated with quicklime. Those who fell or fainted or who could not move were thrown into the cars. When no more bodies could fit inside, the doors were shut. Mr. Karski was told that the trains were heading for a camp not far away where their human cargo would be led into gas chambers. But he was also told that sometimes the trains were just left on sidings until those inside starved or suffocated. Robert Payne (1973) The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler ... http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NAZIS.CHAP1.HTM ... Hitler told Himmler that it was not enough for the Jews simply to die; they must die in agony. What was the best way to prolong their agony? Himmler turned the problem over to his advisers, who concluded that a slow, agonizing death could be brought about by placing Jewish prisoners in freight cars in which the floors were coated with...quicklime...which produced excruciating burns. The advisers estimated that it would take four days for the prisoners to die, and for that whole time the freight cars could be left standing on some forgotten siding.... Finally it was decided that the freight cars should be used in addition to the extermination camps.

2007 quicklime torture of physician in El Salvador
People are still being tortured using lime. The following comes from 2007 testimony by a torture victim in El Salvador before the Senate Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law. A hood containing calcium oxide (quicklime) was used to partially asphyxiate the torture victim to induce a confession.
Dr. Juan Romogoza Arce Executive Director, La Clinica del Pueblo Plaintiff, Arce v. Garcia (November 14, 2007) Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate. No Safe Haven: Accountability for Human Rights Violators in the United States . http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=3028&wit_id=6780 ... The next day, I was taken to the headquarters of the National Guard in San Salvador. I was blindfolded. My captors kept saying they were taking me to the “best hotel in El Salvador.” For the next 22 days, three to four times a day, National Guardsmen subjected me to unspeakable torture: electric shocks to my ears, tongue, testicles, anus and the edges of my wounds until I lost consciousness. The Guardsman forced me to regain consciousness by kicking me and burning me with cigarettes. They sodomized me with foreign objects and subjected me to additional electric shocks and asphyxiation with a hood containing calcium oxide. I was also subjected repeatedly to various forms of waterboarding where my head was immersed in water to simulate drowning, including being hung by my feet and having my head held in a bucket of water until I almost drowned. I was tortured in such a way as to ensure that I could never practice my chosen specialty of surgery again. They broke my arm and fingers, causing me to lose normal function and movement in my hand. I was never treated for any of my injuries.

– 14 –

2006 torture of Christians in Uzbekistan with quicklime
In 2006, quicklime (calcium oxide) was used for religious persecution torture in Uzbekistan. International Christian Concern ( www.Persecution.org ) had no further information about this incident.
Christian News New Zealand (September 10, 2006) Six Christians released from prison in Uzbekistan http://www.persecution.org/suffering/countrynewssumm.php?country=Uzbekistan ... Prayers have been answered for six Christian men who were arrested last month in Termez, Uzbekistan. ... The men, including a Ukrainian national on holiday visiting Christian friends, had been arrested around 24th August. Other Christians arrested at the same time, including some women and children, had been beaten before they were released. Some of the women had been sexually abused, the first report of this in modern church history in Uzbekistan. ... The men had been held for eight days without prosecution. It is believed that they were held this long in order to give the bruises and wounds they sustained from being beaten time to heal before they could have a medical examination to see how they had been injured. On their release two of the men were taken to hospital; one man had had his hands and feet held in buckets of quicklime, causing injury to his skin.

Lime for decomposition of corpses, demonstrating maiming effects on skin
Additional proof that lime can main comes from its use from early human history to decompose corpses. Any initially applied quicklime (calcium oxide) would be converted to hydrated lime (calcium hydroxide) from water percolating through the soil as well as from moisture from the corpse itself. Thus, the full decomposition process would be from the high pH chemical species calcium hydroxide (hydrated lime), not quicklime. The following describes the selective use of quicklime on just the heads of the deceased for decomposition purposes:
Isabella L. Bird Bishop (1883) The Golden Chersonese And The Way Thither http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/bird/chersonese/chersonese.html ... It is not clear whether torture is actually recognized by Chinese law, but it is practised in almost every known form by all Chinese magistrates, possibly as the most expeditious mode of legal procedure which is known. ... This Ma T'au, the place of execution, on which more than one hundred heads at times fall in a morning, is simply a pottery yard, and at the hours when space is required for the executioner's purposes more or fewer pots are cleared out of the way, according to the number of the condemned. The spectacle is open to the street and to all passers-by. Against the south wall are five crosses, which are used for the crucifixion of malefactors. At the base of the east wall are four large earthenware vessels full of quicklime, into which heads which are afterward to be exposed on poles are cast, until the flesh has been destroyed.

1800’s – Burns to heads of slaves from brief contact with lime
The corrosive caustic effects of having quicklime powder for short periods of time on the heads of slaves were described contemporaneously in 1856:
Shawn W. Miller (2003) Stilt-Root Subsistence: Colonial Mangroves and Brazil’s Landless Poor. Hispanic American Historical Review 83:2, 223-253. Duke University Press. http://hahr.dukejournals.org/cgi/reprint/83/2/223 ... Thomas Ewbank [in 1856] provided a vivid description of slaves, chest-deep in the surf of Gloria Bay, landing tea chests of quicklime, their heads whitened by the caustic powder that had been carelessly ladled from boats with a hoe. Each trip out, the porters submerged themselves to remove the burning lime from their heads and shoulders.

Chemical burns by brief contact with hydrated lime on goal line on soccer field
Of particular relevance were burns suffered by adolescents where the only exposure was brief contact with calcium hydroxide (hydrated lime) used to mark a goal line in a football field:
Gelmetti C & Cecca E. (1992) Caustic ulcers caused by calcium hydroxide in 2 adolescent football players. Contact Dermatitis 1992: 27: 265–266. Synergy, Medline, ISI, Chemport, CSA, www.blackwell-synergy.com

– 15 –

... Chemical burns from calcium hydroxide have commonly been reported. though almost always in adulthood (1-10) and frequently, though not always (11, 12), occupationally. ... Case No. I An II-year-old boy presented with roundish erosive lesions, tending to coalesce, with polycystic well-defined uninfIamed borders, on the upper 1/3 of both thighs, especially the left (Fig. I). Symptoms were limited at presentation to a mild burning sensation. The history revealed that erythematous lesions had first appeared quite suddenly a few hours after a soccer match and that they had quickly become erosive and burning. History also revealed that during the football match, the boy had fallen on the white marked-out touchline {the line that marks the boundaries of the field of play). In this way, he had come into contact with powder containing calcium oxide, subsequently hydrated by sweat. Case no. 2 A 16-year-old boy also presented with erosive lesions, with well-defined borders against an inflammatory background. The lesions, partly covered with yellowish crusts, were confluent in large irregular areas on the upper ½ of the thighs and the sides of the scrotum. The only symptoms were mild burning and stinging. The history showed that he too had fallen on the touchline during a soccer match, resulting similarly in intense transient erythema rapidly followed by erosive lesions in the same areas. ... Calcium oxide (CaO), commonly called quicklime, is a white earthy material. In the presence of water, it converts into the corresponding hydroxide, becoming a powdery mass (1-3). Calcium oxide is often used. even in international competition, to mark out soccer or rugby touchlines. The white 1ines are usually first marked out on the grass with chalk powder and then fixed on the (wet) field with calcium oxide. Alternatively. a mixture of calcium, chalk and other binding materials is sometimes used. The proportions of these materials are variable and depend on the current assets and conscientiousness of the people concerned, particularly in the amateur game. ... We think it necessary to look for new methods or to adopt the necessary warnings to prevent, or at least reduce, the skin damage described above. Such cases are probably under-reported and under-diagnosed. J. Spoo and P. Elsner (2001) Cement burns: a review 1960–20. Contact Dermatitis, Volume 45 Page 68 http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1034/j.1600-0536.2001.045002068.x ... The skin, eye and respiratory tract are the organ systems most prone to damage by ready-mixed cement or cement dust. Damage to the respiratory epithelium may become life-threatening (6). So-called cement burns do not relate to skin damage caused by thermal effects, but are due instead to irritation or alkaline burns of the upper skin layers. The skin lesions induced are classified in degree according to the depth of the damage. ... Clinical symptoms and signs were described uniformly: pain, burning sensations, erythema and tissue defects (erosions, ulcerations, necroses) were mentioned in almost all cases. In several reports edema and vesicles were described, whereas pruritus or hypesthesias were rare. ... A survey of local and systemic treatment and of surgical debridement or skin grafting is given in Fig. 5. It is clear that skin grafting was necessary in 1/4 of the cases reported. Information on the mean duration of the healing process was available for 29 persons (62%), and amounted to 6 weeks. ... As mentioned above, 4 cases of exposure to cement powder used for marking playing fields have been described (27, 28). All those affected were of school age. Skin lesions on the thighs were induced by falling on the touchline and moistening of the dry powder by sweat or rain. The scrotal skin was also involved in 1 case. ... Typical features of cement burns are damage to the horny layer by abrasion, occlusion and wetness, and possible progressive damage to deep skin layers by the alkalinity of cement.

OSHA and NIOSH findings that calcium oxide, hydroxide, and cement maim
U.S. federal health agencies also describe the maiming potential from corrosive skin burns and caustic corrosive burns to the respiratory tract:
NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. Calcium hydroxide Ca(OH)2. Synonyms & Trade Names Calcium hydrate, Caustic lime, Hydrated lime, Slaked lime. … Skin: Prevent skin contact Eyes: Prevent eye contact … Symptoms Irritation eyes, skin, upper respiratory system; eye, skin burns; skin vesiculation; cough, bronchitis, pneumonitis Target Organs Eyes, skin, respiratory system http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0092.html NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. Calcium oxide. CaO. Synonyms & Trade Names Burned lime, Burnt lime, Lime, Pebble lime, Quick lime, Unslaked lime. … Skin: Prevent skin contact Eyes: Prevent eye contact … Symptoms Irritation eyes, skin, upper respiratory tract; ulcer, perforation nasal septum; pneumonitis; dermatitis http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0093.html Occupational Safety & Health Administration … Calcium Oxide … NIOSH Immediately Dangerous To Life or Health 3 Concentration (IDLH):25 mg/m … Potential symptoms: Irritation of eyes, skin, upper respiratory tract; ulcerated, perforated nasal septum; pneumonitis, pulmonary edema (may be delayed); lacrimation, spasmodic blinking; brittle nails, irritant contact dermatitis. … Prolonged contact with wet cement, which is alkaline due to the reaction of water with calcium oxide to form calcium hydroxide, can result in full-thickness skin burns that may require surgical treatment. http://www.osha.gov/dts/chemicalsampling/data/CH_224500.html

– 16 –

NIOSH Electronic Library of Construction Occupational Safety and Health … Physician's Alert: Skin Conditions … Cement/caustic burns. Portland cement; lime; other alkalies … Blisters, dead or hardened skin, black or green skin. Flush with copious amounts of water; buffered solution to neutralize alkalies; burn wound care; surgery; skin grafting; physical therapy. Cement burns are alkali burns. They can progress and should be referred to a specialist without delay. http://www.cdc.gov/eLCOSH/docs/d0200/d000281/d000281.html National Institutes of Health, ... Medical Encyclopedia: Calcium hydroxide ... Symptoms Lungs Breathing difficulty (from inhalation) Throat swelling (which may also cause breathing difficulty) Eyes, ears, nose, and throat Severe pain in the throat Severe pain or burning in the nose, eyes, ears, lips, or tongue Loss of vision Gastrointestinal Severe abdominal pain Vomiting Burns in the esophagus (food pipe) Vomiting blood Blood in the stool Heart and blood Hypotension (low blood pressure) develops rapidly Collapse Too much or too little acid in the blood (leads to organ damage) Skin Irritation Burn Necrosis (holes) in the skin or underlying tissues http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002910.htm New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services. Hazardous Substance Fact Sheet. CALCIUM HYDROXIDE ... The following acute (short-term) health effects may occur immediately or shortly after exposure to Calcium Hydroxide: Contact can severely irritate and burn the skin and eyes with possible eye damage. Breathing Calcium Hydroxide can irritate the nose, throat and lungs causing coughing, wheezing and/or shortness of breath. ... Medical Testing. If symptoms develop or overexposure is suspected, the following are recommended: Lung function tests http://www.state.nj.us/health/eoh/rtkweb/documents/fs/0322.pdf This report does not review the similar conclusions and findings of other governments and international bodies, or the research showing human beings have suffered full skin thickness chemical burns from these materials from less than 4 hours exposure.

This report does not review the similar conclusions and findings of other governments and international bodies, or the research showing human beings have suffered full skin thickness chemical burns from these materials from less than 4 hours exposure.

– 17 –

Section 3 – CHRONOLOGY: U.S. Aids and Abets Maiming by Forced Inhalation of Lime and Concrete-related Materials
The last section of this report covered the historical torture and maiming with lime of St. George the Dragon Slayer, the practice in ancient Egypt forcing men to drink hydrated lime slurries (incapacitating them for work), quicklime in medieval naval and siege warfare, Roman Catholic torture of heretics using lime, Nazis locking Jews in rail cars with quicklime, Christians in Uzbekistan, the National Guard in El Salvador using quicklime filled hoods during interrogations, etc. There is a tendency for the public to tune out during arguments between talking head experts over the hazards of this, that or the other substance. But lime and lime-related materials like concrete and cement are not in this category. It’s been known for some time, despite EPA’s claims to the contrary in 1980, 1993 and 1996. This section emphasizes the modern day maiming by Corporate America using the same lime and concrete-related materials. But this time it is with the assistance of the U.S. government. To understand the willful maiming of the Ground Zero First Responders, laborers, residents and office workers after 9/11, we must go back at least to 1980. That is when EPA started doctoring the numbers, changing the pH levels that the United Nations’ World Health Organization (WHO) determined cause irreversible tissue destruction (chemical burns). By this clever, slight-of-hand, EPA crafted regulations that exempted the lime and cement-related industries from controlling its caustic emissions. These same regulations were and still are incorporated as-is by reference into the Superfund criteria followed by HAZMAT First Responders all across the country responding to disasters such as the WTC collapse. Long before 9/11, things had already been set in motion. There was no turning back just because of the magnitude of the human exposures from the World Trade Center collapse. This section adds new incidents of pH fraud for lime and cement-related materials in addition to those documented in my report submitted to the FBI on 5/6/07. See: http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/index2008/Jenkins.pdf (All boldfaced underlined text in the excerpted material below is emphasis added.)

1980, 1993 and 1996 – EPA hazardous waste and Superfund offices use falsified pH levels for caustic burns to skin, eyes , respiratory system and gastrointestinal tract
EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) is responsible for promulgating regulations under several environmental acts. The statutes of concern to hazardous releases from the WTC include the Superfund statutes (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act [CERCLA] and National Contingency Plan [NCP]) as well as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). An organization chart may be found at: http://www.epa.gov/swerrims/programs.htm

– 18 –

In 1980, OSW published regulations under RCRA that blatantly falsified the pH level that would cause irreversible corrosion (destruction) of the skin for alkaline materials. EPA claimed that a pH level of 12.5 would not damage the skin, actually falsifying the pH level (changing the numbers) that the United Nations’ World Health Organization (WHO) determined was corrosive to the skin. The WHO actually found that a pH of 11.5 would damage both skin and eyes. (A pH of 11.5 is 10 times less corrosive than a pH of 12.5.) Within a few months, these same 1980 regulations under RCRA were incorporated by reference into the new CERCLA statute that set criteria levels for hazardous releases from disaster sites. In 1993, as part of the cement kiln dust (CKD) regulations, EPA’s OSW expanded upon this falsification, claiming that a pH level of 12.5 would also protect the respiratory system, eyes, and gastrointestinal tract. It was necessary to make this broader claim of safety because EPA was evaluating the hazards from the airborne dust emissions from portland cement manufacture. The pH of portland cement and CKD is from 11 to 13. EPA now needed to exempt cement kilns not only for skin contact hazards, but also for inhalation and ingestion hazards. Surfaces of cars, homes, roads, etc. are typically covered with layers of this CKD around these plants, and small children are exposed. In 1996, EPA’s OSW reexamined its 1980 regulations, found them justified on the false grounds that they were needed to encourage recycling. In actually, in 1985 EPA had already granted a special exemption to de-regulate the recycling of these exact same corrosive wastes. Thus, EPA’s original 1980 falsifications of the UN WHO pH levels was no isolated blunder of the past. It was repeated with deliberate intent. 1980 – EPA falsifies United Nations corrosive standards by a factor of 10 EPA falsified the maiming ability of cement and lime-related products on 5/19/80 to justify lenient regulations for the Corrosivity Characteristic at 40 CFR § 261.22 under the RCRA authority. The following are excerpts from the regulation in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and the Listing Background Document used as a basis to set the pH level at 12.5 instead of 11.5 to protect the public from chemical burns from exposures to hazardous wastes. EPA justified this pH level of 12.5 by claiming that the United Nation’s World Health Organization (WHO) said that a pH level of 12.5 was safe for the skin:
[May 19, 1980 CFR § version, same as current] EPA 40 CFR § 261.22, Federal Register, Vol. 45, No.98, p. 33122. www.Heinonline.org Characteristic of corrosivity ... (a) A solid waste exhibits the characteristic of corrosivity if ... It is aqueous and has a pH less than or equal to 2 or greater than or equal to 12.5 ... [May 19, 1980] BACKGROUND DOCUMENT: RCRA SUBTITLE C - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT, SECTION 3001 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE, 261.22 - CHARACTERISTIC OF CORROSIVITY Available from the National Technical Information Service, Product Code PB81184319. www.NTIS.gov. ... Studies indicate that pH extremes above 11.5 and below 2.5 generally are not tolerated by human corneal (eye) tissue [Reference] (3). ... These limits were chosen in an attempt to balance the following considerations: sensitive human tissue may be damaged when contacted with substances exhibiting pH levels below 2.5 or above 11.5: ... Upon consideration of these comments and after further deliberation, the Agency has decided to extend the range of acceptable pH levels by decreasing the lower limit from pH 3.0 to 2.0 and increasing the upper limit from pH 12.0 to 12.5. With respect to the upper limit, the Agency agrees with the commenters that otherwise non-hazardous lime stabilized sludges and wastes should not be designated as hazardous. Accordingly, the Agency has adjusted the upper limit to pH 12.5 to exclude such wastes from the system.

– 19 –

... Although eye tissue is damaged when the pH is above 11.5, normal skin tissue is clearly less sensitive than eye tissue. Consequently, increasing the upper pH limit to 12.5 should not significantly increase the likelihood of damage to skin. ... [Reference] 3. Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety. Volume 1. Geneva, International Labor Office, 1971-72. pp. 220-221. ... ...

But EPA was deliberately and intentionally falsifying (actually changing the pH numbers) in the WHO Encyclopedia. Fifty-five dollars (postage and handling included) and 3 days later, the original bound 2-volume set of the 1971-72 version of the WHO Encyclopedia was on my doorstep. The following is a scanned version of the relevant section:

International Labour Office (1971, 1972) Chemical Burns. In: Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety, Volume I – A – K, pages 220 - 221 International Labour Office, CH 1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland, 1971. Special McGraw-Hill Edition, 1972, Library of Congress Card Number: 74-39329, International Standard Book Number: 07-079555-X.

Thus it is demonstrated that EPA deliberately and intentionally falsified (changed the pH numbers) in the WHO Encyclopedia by a factor of 10. A one-unit change in a pH level is a difference of a factor of 10 in the concentration of corrosive hydroxyl anions. I joined the same branch, same division in OSW in October, 1980, that was responsible for developing the falsified RCRA 40 CFR §261.22 Corrosivity Characteristic regulation. See the reference section of my 5/6/07 report at http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/index2008/Jenkins.pdf for the names of the individuals who were involved in developing these 5/19/80 regulations. In addition, in 1980, the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) amendments to RCRA included special exemptions for cement kiln dust (CKD) from portland cement manufacturing facilities until “further study.”
EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (undated) Cement Kiln Dust Waste, Cement Kiln Dust Legislative and Regulatory Time Line. http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/ckd/ ... October 12, 1980—Congress enacts the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1980 (Public Law 96-482) which amends RCRA. Among the amendments, Section 3001(b)(3)(A)(i-iii)—frequently referred to as the Bevill Amendment— temporarily exempts three special wastes from hazardous waste regulation until further study can be completed. Cement kiln dust is one of the wastes exempted. At the same time, Section 8002(o) requires EPA to study CKD and submit a Report to Congress evaluating the status of its management and potential risk to human health and the environment by October 1983. EPA is also required to make a regulatory determination (within six months of the completing the Report to Congress) as to whether CKD warrants regulation under RCRA Subtitle C or some other set of regulations.

1980 – Superfund statute incorporates the same falsified pH 12.5 trigger level into the threshold for HAZMAT responses to disasters like the WTC collapse EPA's most compelling reason for setting the alkaline corrosivity at pH 12.5, rather than the health-based pH level of 11.5, was to protect key industries from reporting uncontrolled environmental releases under the new 1980 Superfund legislation. On 12/11/80, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or

– 20 –

Superfund) was enacted, which broadened the scope of the existing National Contingency Plan (NCP). Immediately as of the enactment date, 12/11/80, any environmental release without a permit of CERCLA-defined Hazardous Substances required reporting to the National Response Center. "Hazardous Substances" were defined by CERCLA by reference to any substances meeting the falsified RCRA Corrosivity Characteristic:
CERCLA (12/11/80) U.S. Code, Title 42--The Public Health and Welfare. http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title42/chapter103_subchapteri_.html http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/tools/cercla/ Chapter 103--.Subchapter I--Hazardous Substances Releases, Liability, Compensation. Sec. 9601. Definitions. For purpose of this subchapter-- ... (14) The term ``hazardous substance'' means (A) any substance designated pursuant to section 311(b)(2)(A) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(2)(A)), (B) any element, compound, mixture, solution, or substance designated pursuant to section 9602 of this title, (C) any hazardous waste having the characteristics identified under or listed pursuant to section 3001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6921) ... Sec. 9602. Designation of additional hazardous substances and establishment of reportable released quantities; regulations ... (b) Unless and until superseded by regulations establishing a reportable quantity under subsection (a) of this section for any hazardous substance as defined in section 9601(14) of this title, (1) a quantity of one pound, or (2) for those hazardous substances for which reportable quantities have been established pursuant to section 1321(b)(4) of title 33, such reportable quantity, shall be deemed that quantity, the release of which requires notification pursuant to section 9603(a) or (b) of this title. ... Sec. 9652. Effective Dates; Savings Provisions (a) Unless otherwise provided, all provisions of this chapter shall be effective on December 11, 1980. EPA Office of Emergency Response. Protection of Environment. Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR §300 CHAPTER I. http://www.epa.gov/epahome/cfr40.htm SUBCHAPTER J -- SUPERFUND, EMERGENCY PLANNING, AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW PROGRAMS PART 300 -- NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN ... §300.3 Scope. (a) The NCP applies to and is in effect for: ... (2) Releases into the environment of hazardous substances, and pollutants or contaminants which may present an imminent and substantial danger to public health or welfare of the United States. ... §300.5 Definitions. ... Hazardous substance as defined by section 101(14) of CERCLA, means: Any substance designated pursuant to section 311(b)(2)(A) of the CWA; any element, compound, mixture, solution, or substance designated pursuant to section 102 of CERCLA; any hazardous waste having the characteristics [which includes the Corrosivity Characteristic with pH of 12.5 as trigger] identified under or listed pursuant to section 3001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (but not including any waste the regulation of which under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) has been suspended by Act of Congress); any toxic pollutant listed under section 307(a) of the CWA; any hazardous air pollutant listed under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521 et seq.); and any imminently hazardous chemical substance or mixture with respect to which the EPA Administrator has taken action pursuant to section 7 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.). ... ... Subpart E -- Hazardous Substance Response -- §300.400 General. (a) This subpart establishes methods and criteria for determining the appropriate extent of response authorized by CERCLA and CWA section 311(c): (1) When there is a release of a hazardous substance into the environment; ... §300.410 Removal site evaluation. (b) A removal site evaluation of a release identified for possible CERCLA response pursuant to §300.415 shall, as appropriate, be undertaken by the lead agency as promptly as possible. The lead agency may perform a removal preliminary assessment in response to petitions submitted by a person who is, or may be, affected by a release of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant pursuant to §300.420(b)(5). ... (f) A removal site evaluation shall be terminated when the OSC or lead agency determines: (1) There is no release; (2) The source is neither a vessel nor a facility as defined in §300.5 of the NCP; (3) The release involves neither a hazardous substance, nor a pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent and substantial danger to public health or welfare of the United States; ... § 302.4 Designation of hazardous substances. (a) Listed hazardous substances. The elements and compounds and hazardous wastes appearing in table 302.4 are designated as hazardous substances under section 102(a) of the Act.

– 21 –

(b) Unlisted hazardous substances. A solid waste, as defined in 40 CFR 261.2, which is not excluded from regulation as a hazardous waste under 40 CFR 261.4(b), is a hazardous substance under section 101(14) of the Act if it exhibits any of the characteristics identified in 40 CFR 261.20 through 261.24. ... Table 302.4--List of Hazardous Substances ... Unlisted Hazardous Wastes ...* Characteristic of Corrosivity. ... ...

1993 – EPA expands falsification by saying pH 12.5 is now safe for eyes, respiratory system, gastrointestinal tract as well as the skin EPA further falsified and expanded upon the pH levels associated with human health effects in its 1993 Report to Congress on Cement Kiln Dust (CKD). CKD is a fine dust released into the air from the portland cement manufacturing industry. CKD coats the surfaces of cars, homes, roadways, etc. in the surrounding communities, and thus is an inhalation and ingestion hazard as well as a skin hazard, particularly to young children. The following is an excerpt from EPA’s 1993 Report to Congress, claiming that a pH level of 12.5 was not only safe for the skin, but to all human tissues:
EPA, Office of Solid Waste, OSWER (12/31/93) Report to Congress – Cement Kiln Dust Waste. http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/ckd/cement2.htm ... Major results and conclusions from the evaluation of potential danger to human health and the environment from the management of CKD [cement kiln dust] are presented below. ... The pH of CKD leachate measured in laboratory tests typically ranged from 11 to 13. High pH levels in ground water and surface water may result in a variety of adverse effects, including the mobilization of certain metals and other constituents that could pose toxicological problems, human tissue burns (at pH levels above 12.5 or more), corrosion in pipes, and objectionable taste in drinking water. In addition, high pH levels could cause a wide variety of adverse ecological effects.

After EPA's 1993 Report to Congress asserting that only pH levels over 12.5 were hazardous, EPA's 1997 risk assessment for CKD never even mentioned corrosive inhalation, ingestion or skin contact hazards, although it discussed the inhalation, ingestion and skin hazards of other toxic constituents of CKD. The caustic hazards to all human tissues from CKD in surrounding communities were thereby brushed under the rug and ignored, never even being mentioned as a possibility considered during the regulatory review and comment process.
EPA, Office of Solid Waste, OSWER (1997)Technical Background Document: Population Risks from Indirect Exposure Pathways, and Population Effects from Exposure to Airborne Particles from Cement Kiln Dust Waste. http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/ckd/cement4.htm

DOT Hazardous Materials regulatory loopholes for concrete-related materials
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has been regulating the transport and shipment of hazardous materials for almost 100 years under Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 100 to 185. -- Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. The DOT criteria for skin corrosivity are a subset of “Class 8” hazardous materials. The DOT Class 8 criteria are important because they are incorporated by reference into OSHA standards as well as the EPA Community Right to Know regulations:
[10/1/07] DOT, Code of Federal Regulations, 49 § 173.136 Class 8—Definitions. http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassemble.cgi?title=200749 [See also general DOT hazardous material information] : http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/ … (a) For the purpose of this subchapter, ‘‘corrosive material’’ (Class 8) means a liquid or solid that causes full thickness destruction of human skin at the site of contact within a specified period of time. A liquid, or a solid which may become liquid during transportation, that has a severe corrosion rate on steel or aluminum based on the criteria in § 173.137(c)(2) is also a corrosive material..

– 22 –

... (c) Skin corrosion test data produced no later than September 30, 1995, using the procedures of part 173, appendix A, in effect on September 30, 1995 (see 49 CFR part 173, appendix A, revised as of October 1, 1994) for appropriate exposure times may be used for classification and assignment of packing group for Class 8 materials corrosive to skin. … (§ 173.137 Class 8—Assignment of packing group. The packing group of a Class 8 material is indicated in Column 5 of the § 172.101 Table. When the § 172.101 Table provides more than one packing group for a Class 8 material, the packing group must be determined using data obtained from tests conducted in accordance with the 1992 OECD Guideline for Testing of Chemicals, Number 404, ‘‘Acute Dermal Irritation/Corrosion’’ (IBR, see § 171.7 of this subchapter) as follows:

There is an all-important benchmark in the DOT regulations for skin corrosivity. If the material does not cause full skin thickness corrosion in animals in 4 hours or less, then it is exempt from the DOT Class 8 criteria for skin corrosion. This is true even if there are published peer review studies showing that humans have had full skin thickness chemical burns from the same substance in less than 4 hours. The DOT has the option of stepping in itself and evaluating the human data and requiring that a substance be managed as a DOT Class 8 corrosive material, but it never has for lime and cement-related materials. This is a prerogative of DOT itself, however, and the shipper only needs to supply animal testing evidence. 7/18/94 – DOT proposes incorporation of 1992 OECD Test Guideline 404: Mandatory classification as skin corrosive if pH 11.5. Major problem for transporters of cement-related materials. In 1994, DOT proposed adding the 1992 version of OECD Guideline 404 as the method for determining corrosion to skin, an animal test. The 1992 version of OECD Guideline 404 states clearly that a material must be classified as a skin corrosive if the pH is 11.5 and higher. It does not allow further animal testing to try to disprove this presumption.
OECD (July 17, 1992) OECD Guideline for Testing of Chemicals. 404. Acute Dermal Irritation/Corrosion. [Excerpts from the 1992 OECD Guideline may be found on the Health Canada website at:] http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/occup-travail/ref_man/cpr-rpc_60-eng.php ... In the interests of animal welfare, it is important that the unnecessary use of animals is avoided, and that any testing which is likely to produce severe responses in animals is minimised. Consequently, test materials meeting any of the following criteria should not be tested in animals for dermal irritation/corrosion: i) materials that have predictable corrosive potential based on structure-activity relationships and/or physicochemical properties such as strong acidity or alkalinity, e.g., when the material to be applied has a pH of 2 or less or 11.5 or greater (alkaline or acidic reserve (1) should also be taken into account);

This presents a major problem for the lime and cement-related industries, since all of their materials have a pH of 12.45 and higher. DOT provides 2 loopholes however, described below, either the continued use of pre-1995 data, or the use of an in vitro test method (Corrositex®) that has not been validated for materials such as calcium hydroxide with such a high alkali reserve capacity. In any event, both the new OECD 404 animal test or the in vitro Corrositex®test can be subverted beforehand by the intentional or inadvertent pre-neutralization of these lime and cement-related materials before testing just by the exposure to the atmosphere in thin layers by a month or more (according to my own range-finding experiments).

– 23 –

10/1/97 – DOT grandfathers in pre-1995 animal tests which allow applying dry granular solids to the skin of rabbits, an animal that does not sweat In 1997, DOT grandfathered in any pre-1995 animal test results for skin corrosivity that did not use the OECD Guideline 404 protocols. The expressed purpose was to exempt companies from performing new tests. However, the old DOT Appendix A test method allowed the use of dry solid powdered materials to be placed against the skin of rabbits for 4 hours. The new OECD Guideline 404 requires wetting the solid material first. Vastly different skin corrosion results would be obtained for materials like calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, and dry portland cement.
[5/6/97 FR final rule, effective date 10/1/07] Department of Transportation, Federal Register, Hazardous Materials: Harmonization With the United Nations Recommendations … Final Rule http://hazmat.dot.gov/regs/notices/hm215bf.pdf … Section 173.136 A new paragraph (c) is added to clarify that skin corrosion test data developed prior to September 30, 1995, would continue to be valid. This revision is based on a statement in the preamble to the HM–215A final rule (December 29, 1994; 59 FR 67400) that RSPA would not require retesting of materials classified under the previous test method in Appendix A of Part 173. ... § 173.136 Class 8—Definitions ***** (c) Skin corrosion test data produced no later than September 30, 1995, using the procedures of Part 173, Appendix A, in effect on September 30, 1995 (see 49 CFR Part 173, Appendix A, revised as of October 1, 1994) for appropriate exposure times may be used for classification and assignment of packing group for Class 8 materials corrosive to skin. [10/1/87] 49 CFR § 173 APPENDIX A – METHOD OF TESTING CORROSION TO SKIN 1. Corrosion to the skin is measured by patch-test technique on the intact skin of the albino rabbit, clipped free of hair. A minimum of six subjects are to be used in this test. 2. Introduce under a square cloth patch, such as surgical gauze measuring not less than 1 inch by 1 inch and two single layers thick, 0.5 milliliter (in the case of liquids) or 0.5 gram (in the case of solids and semisolids) of the substance to be tested.

4/28/93 – DOT grants loophole – “Special Permit” for use of in vitro test instead of OECD Guideline 404, circumventing UN Globally Harmonized System In 1993, DOT issued a Special Permits (previously called Exemptions) for an in vitro (test tube) test instead of and as a replacement for the 1992 OECD Test Guideline 404, an animal test. DOT approved the use of the Corrositex® in vitro test. The DOT website does not provide the first approval date (1993), but this date is documented in the Corrositex® website at: www.Corrositx.com The latest DOT Special Permit renewal for Corrositex® was issued on 5/3/06:
DOT-Special Permit 10904, EXPIRATION DATE: April 30, 2010, GRANTEE: InVitro International http://hazmat.dot.gov/sp_app/special_permits/docs/10000/SP10904.pdf ... 1. GRANTEE: InVitro International Irvine, CA 2. PURPOSE AND LIMITATION: a. This special permit authorizes the use of a classification test method for the determination of skin corrosivity as an alternative to a procedure specified in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR). [The “alternative is OECD Test Guideline 404, which requires application of a wetted material to animal skin for 4 hours.] ...

DOT is a rogue agency in allowing Corrositex® to be used as the sole basis for not classifying a material as corrosive. The United Nations Globally Harmonized System (GHS) requires that methods such as Corrositex® should only be used in a tiered system: If positive, then there is the option of classifying as corrosive with no further animal testing. If negative, however, DO NOT CLASSIFY AS NON-CORROSIVE, but proceed to animal testing. The U.S. National Institute of Health and its peer review committees state the same thing.

– 24 –

Self implementing DOT regulations without oversight DOT publishes a “Hazardous Materials Table” at 49 CFR § 172.101. The terms “portland cement” and “calcium hydroxide” are not found in this table. However, the generic categories corrosive solids and liquids, “not otherwise specified” are listed. These are generic listings, where the transporter or producer is required to determine if their product is corrosive themselves. These are self-implementing DOT regulations, where the shipper is required to both test and determine which label from the DOT Hazardous Materials Table best applies..
DOT# DOT# DOT# DOT# UN3266 UN1760 UN3262 UN1759 Corrosive Corrosive Corrosive Corrosive liquid, basic, inorganic, n.o.s. [not otherwise specified] liquids, n.o.s. solid, basic, inorganic, n.o.s. solids, n.o.s.

Calcium oxide (quicklime) is listed in the DOT Hazardous Materials Table as forbidden for air transport. This does not mean that calcium oxide is exempt from all other DOT Class 8 corrosive hazardous materials regulations. The shipper must determine the other applicable DOT standards for Class 8 materials that are applicable to calcium oxide. Most MSDS’s of calcium oxide suppliers claim they are exempt from all DOT regulations except air transport. That means they claim to be allowed to transport calcium oxide in paper bags in the same cargo compartment with lead acid batteries containing free acid. Not true. If something was hazardous enough to be banned altogether from air transport, this does not mean it was deemed safe for transport in all other instances. The same exothermic fire hazard reaction of calcium oxide (quicklime) with water can occur during ground transport as well. If a material is not specifically listed in the DOT Hazardous Materials Table, this does not constitute an exemption. The shipper is required to first determine whether the material meets the criteria for a Class 8 material (full skin thickness corrosion in 4 hours or less) and only then determine the most appropriate shipping label.

Interlocking US regulations for corrosives
The table below shows some of the interlocking U.S. regulations for corrosives. When EPA falsified the pH level for its Corrosivity Characteristic in 1980 under 40 CFR § 261.22, this same level was incorporated into the Superfund/CERCLA standards for environmental releases in disasters such as the WTC collapse under 40 CFR §302.4(b). Then, DOT incorporates by reference all substances on this same Superfund/CERCLA list into the DOT List of Hazardous Substances and Reportable Quantities under 49 CFR § 172.101 Appendix A. The following table also shows those parts of the federal government complaint with the United Nations GHS consensus standards for corrosive materials, namely testing using the UN sanctioned OECD Test Guideline 404 testing criteria for corrosivity. But as discussed earlier, DOT allows loopholes by grandfathering in pre-1995 data and the use of the in vitro Corrositex® test in lieu of animal testing which is non-compliant with the UN GHS.

– 25 –

pH LEVELS vs. PRESUMPTIONS OF HAZARDS Includes federal U.S. regulations which conflict or falsify UN standards EPA RCRA Corrosivity Characteristic 40 CFR §261.22 using falsified UN pH levels EPA CERCLA (Superfund) Hazardous Substances at 40 CFR §302.4(b) incorporating 40 CFR §261.22 DOT Appendix A to 49 CFR§172.101 incorporating CERCLA 40 CFR§302.4(b) (above) with falsified UN pH levels EPA Toxics/Pesticide office, 40 CFR §158, pH 11.5 presumed corrosive no further testing UN Globally Harmonized System (GHS), OECD 404, pH 11.5 set as corrosive no further testing in 1992 version UN Basel Convention treaty, in effect but US has not signed, UN GHS levels, lists some lime wastes as hazardous DOT 49 CFR§173 – incorporates 1992 OECD 404, loopholes for pre-1995 data, allows flawed in vitro test in lieu NYC Fire Code – uses DOT 49 CFR §173.136 - .137 incorporating 1992 OECD 404 - mandatory pH 11.5 corrosive Canada Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) – references UN GHS Health Canada consumer products– OECD 404 and mandatory pH 11.5 plus alkali reserve capacity criteria- tests European Commission – corrosive for pH 11.5 plus alkali reserve may result in lower corrosive pH level OSHA HCS, 29 CFR §1910.1200 –references unpublished pre-1995 DOT method 49 CFR §173 Appendix A OSHA HAZWOPER, 29 CFR §1910.120 – references unpublished pre-1995 DOT method 49 CFR §173 Appendix A EPA SARA, 40 CFR §370.2 –references OSHA HCS, 29 CFR §1910.1200, referencing DOT 49 CFR §173 App. A

ACIDIC CORROSIVE pH range

CAUSTIC/ALKALINE CORROSIVE pH range 2 — 12.5 safe, no further testing 2 – 11.5 further testing sometimes allowed

0 — 2

12.5 – 14

0 — 2

11.5 — 14

?

?

?

1/17/95 – Japan earthquake, corrosive high pH concrete dust during reconstruction
On 1/17/95, a devastating earthquake hit the city of Hyogo, Japan, called the Great Hansin Earthquake or Kobe Earthquake. Fires broke out simultaneously all over the city. More than 5500 people were killed. See links below to this study as well as to a video and pictorial essay of the earthquake:
Takao Gotoh, Takashi Nishimura, Minoru Nakata, Yuzuru Nakaguchi, and Keizo Hiraki (2002) Air Pollution by Concrete Dust from the Great Hanshin Earthquake. J. Environ. Qual. 31:718–723. http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/31/3/718 AsiaPacificProductions: http://approd.com/credits.html

Japan IDNDR) (1995) Pictures of disasters in the Great Hanshin - Awaji earthquake. [See Section 23 for demolition debris piles and transfer to barges.] http://www.crid.or.cr/digitalizacion/pdf/eng/doc8339/doc8339.htm

A study determined both total suspended particulates (TSP) and the pH of dust generated during building demolitions one month after the disaster. The buildings were over 5 stories high and situated around a railway station. A few hundred thousand people had to walk by these demolition sites every day to change trains. Even after one month’s exposure to rain and the atmosphere, the pH of the demolition dust samples exceeded 11.5. The highest TSP concentration was only 150 μg/m3. Twenty-five percent of those who replied to a questionnaire reported a worsening of health after the earthquake, and 67% complained about respiratory problems.

2000 – U.S. implosion demolition research ignores corrosive high pH concrete dust
Implosion demolitions were and are billed as spectator events with no warning or protection from the corrosive alkaline loading to the upper and lower respiratory systems. Before 9/11, health studies were performed on the dust generated by both standard mechanical demolitions of buildings as well as after implosion demolitions of buildings. The high caustic corrosive level of the dust was carefully ignored by not testing the pH, the simplist chemical test available. Much more sophisticated tests were performed, like transient elevations in mercury and lead. But the pH was never measured, much less tested. The studies in question are listed below. – 26 –

Christopher M. Beck, Alison Geyh, Arjun Srinivasan, Patrick N. Breysse, Peyton A. Eggleston, and Timothy J. Buckley (2003) The Impact of a Building Implosion on Airborne Particulate Matter in an Urban Community. J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 53:1256–1264. http://www.awma.org/journal/pdfs/2003/10/beck.pdf Dennis Stefani, Dennis Wardman, and Timothy Lambert (2005) The Implosion of the Calgary General Hospital: Ambient Air Quality Issues. J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 55:52–59. http://www.calgaryhealthregion.ca/hecomm/envhealth/RAM/Publications/Implosion_of_Calgary_General.pdf Samuel Dorevitch, Hakan Demirtas, Victoria W. Perksy, Serap Erdal, Lorraine Conroy, Todd Schoonover, and Peter A. Scheff (2006) Demolition of High-Rise Public Housing Increases Particulate Matter Air Pollution in Communities of HighRisk Asthmatics. J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 56:1022–1032. http://www.awma.org/journal/pdfs/2006/7/dorevitch.pdf Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce (May 19, 2000) After the implosion: Where did all the concrete go? http://www.djc.com/special/concrete00/4.html Seattle Post Intelligencer (March 26, 2000) http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/kingdome/photo.asp?SubID=33&PhotoID=635

See the 11/18/07 entry in this chronology where the pH of an implosion demolition was measured, and the pH was over 12. See pages 45-47 and 50-52 of my 5/6/07 report as well at
http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/index2008/Jenkins.pdf

Additional concerns – Dr. Geyh involved with Baltimore 2000 implosion study offers assistance after 9/11, generates WTC studies finding no problem I was informed that Dr. Allison Geyh called into the EPA New Jersey emergency response center on 9/11 to offer assistance, but was turned away, at least initially. When EPA and NYC eventually offered advice to residents and office workers, they followed the advice Johns Hopkins developed as a result of their 2000 implosion demolition study which ignored evaluating the caustic pH. The advice offered by Johns Hopkins after their demolition study was to use a wet mop and damp cloth, identical to the advice NYC and EPA gave to residents after the WTC collapse.
Johns Hopkins School of Public Health (January 31, 2001) Building Implosions Not a Spectator Sport. http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/PR_2001/Buckley_implosions_2001.html

Dr. Geyh and her group were subsequently funded through EPA to study workers involved in the WTC removal operation. Her group tested air contaminants, predictably failing to test the pH. Her research group did find airway obstruction in some workers, but described it as "mild" and added the excuse that these symptoms could have been present in the same workers before arrival at the WTC. Dr. Geyh and her research team also conducted a questionnaire survey of these same workers about personal perceptions of their health. The only health symptoms her team found significant enough to report from the worker's responses were (a) psychological impacts and (b) increased "drug use." See extended excerpts from these studies on pages 50-51 of my 5/6/07 report at
http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/index2008/Jenkins.pdf

9/11/01 – HAZMAT First Responders undoubtedly test WTC dust for pH
HAZMAT response personnel, whether from fire departments, local emergency response organizations, EPA, etc. are trained, pre-equipped, and required to test the pH of materials released in incidents like the collapse of the World Trade Towers. OSHA and EPA regulations require a series of mandatory tests including pH. Equipment that must be prepacked and ready to deploy after these incidents include pH meters and simple paper test strips. The United Nations Environmental Programme also recognizes the need for – 27 –

immediate field testing of pH by any enforcement personnel who first encounter suspect hazardous wastes, again using simple pH paper strips or field pH meters. See page 25 of my 5/6/07 On 9/11/01, tests for pH were undoubtedly performed. But First Responders, much less the general public, never saw this data. This is a possible scenario: HAZMAT personnel at Ground Zero compared their pH test results with the falsified Superfund/CERCLA pH 12.5 criteria for alkaline corrosivity. This pH 12.5 level was derived from the falsified 1980 RCRA Corrosivity Characteristic, described in the 1980 entry this chronology. After making the comparison, HAZMAT may have felt comfortable in taking no further action, because the pH levels of WTC dust would have been near but below 12.5, with only some samples having levels higher than 12.5.

9/11/01 – NYU scientists begin media blitz for EPA, posing as independent voices
On 9/11/01, Dr. George Thurston, a professor at New York University, mobilized to reassure residents. He was funded through EPA and NIEHS.
NIEHS Community Outreach and Education Program (COEP) Summary. http://web.archive.org/web/20030222053952/http://www.niehs.nih.gov/centers/coep/nyu-coep.htm http://www.med.nyu.edu/environmental/research/wtc/ ... As voices independent from the government officials, NYU COEP Director Dr. George Thurston and his fellow Center members have been active in interacting with and informing the public about our Center's WTC research findings since September 11. NYU Center members have attended meetings with PTA's and parent groups, advised the school system on environmental issues, and have presented information at numerous public forums held in downtown New York. NYU Center members have also been widely interviewed by the press and have made appearances in the media since September 11th, including on CNN Live, CBS Nightly News, and NPR's Morning Edition.

A compendium of Dr. Thurston’s reassuring media statements may be found in reference 72, cited on page 15 of my 5/6/07 report at http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/index2008/Jenkins.pdf . He met with parents at Stuyvesant High School, excusing high levels found by EPA and NYC as only “spikes” and irrelevant, etc. At the time, I was assisting some Stuyvesant parents in interpreting the data EPA was providing, and spoke with Dr. Thurston on several occasions to interpret statements attributed to him. After the EPA Inspector General’s report was published on 8/21/03 finding EPA had given misleading statements, Dr. Thurston emailed me saying that he had always cautioned residents there could be a problem and take precautions.

9/12/01 and 9/13/01 – NYU collects settled outdoor WTC dust, separates into different sizes, sends to EPA labs for analysis
On 9/12/01 and 9/13/01, NYU scientists (Dr. Chen, Dr. Thurston, et al.) collected dust samples from outdoor surfaces in NYC near Ground Zero on request by EPA. NYU separated the dust into different size fractions, and then provided the dust samples to EPA for testing, as well as claiming to test the outdoor dust themselves.

– 28 –

EPA and NYU’s claims about both the pH and asbestos content of these same dust samples collected by NYU on 9/12 and 9/13 are discussed throughout this chronology. A summary of the claims by EPA and NYU regarding these samples is given below: 9/12/01 – 9/13/01 (NYU): NYU collects settled dust from ground, ledges, etc. near Ground Zero. 10/18/01 (NYU): Dr. Thurston claims smallest respirable WTC dust particles contained no asbestos, and that EPA had found the same results for asbestos in the smallest respirable size particles. Provable false claim since EPA data for both air and settled dust available in September 2001 showed smallest particles contained asbestos. Although about asbestos, this Thurston statement goes to the credibility of his later claims about the pH of the same particles. 10/29/01 (EPA): EPA receives fractionated PM2.5 (smallest size respirable particles) from NYU for pH and other testing. Photographs show significant neutralization opportunity before testing by exposure to atmospheric carbon dioxide and moisture (“carbonation”) by storage on unprotected original filters. EPA then dilutes the dust nearly 600 to 1 with water before testing the pH. Any lay person can understand this extreme dilution constitutes extreme fraud, obviously lowering the pH test results to less hazardous levels. My own preliminary range finding studies show significant neutralization of simulated WTC dust in the dry state exposed to the ambient atmosphere over a one month period. 2/11/02 (NYU): Dr. Thurston claims in Senate testimony that the smallest, respirable particles neutral, non-alkaline (pH = 7). This was probably a ploy to counter the USGS results released 1/13/02 in the press showing the pH was higher than 12 for WTC dust as a whole (not separated into large and small particles). The NYU claim is highly unlikely in light of data from Dr. Cahill, Univ. of California Davis. He found that the smallest particles and largest particles contained the same relative amounts of concrete (21 and 22%) and aggregate used in concrete (15% and 12.5%). (See 3/20/07 entry in this chronology.) Since concrete would be a major contributor to alkalinity, Cahill’s data makes the NYU Thurston/Chen claims highly improbable that the smallest particles were non-alkaline. 2/20/02 (NYU): I contacted Dr. Thurston questioning his 2/11/02 Senate testimony, and he reiterated his claims, refusing to provide substantiating laboratory methodology. Dr. Chen emailed me 2/20/02 providing no analytical test method substantiation of the claim that the smallest particles were neutral. However, Dr. Chen’s email stated that although the smallest particles were neutral, the larger particles had a pH higher than 11. 10/17/02 (NYU): Dr. Chen presentation at public forum again claims that the smallest particles neutral (pH = 7), saying this was good news for First Responders. A graph in his presentation also shows the larger particles, pH = 11 and higher. – 29 –

12/02 (EPA & NYU): Both EPA and NYU simultaneously publish papers on the pH of the on the exact same WTC dust samples collected by NYU on 9/12 and 9/13 and also separated into different size ranges by the NYU. But the two publications make very different claims. NYU’s Thurston and Chen publish in the December 2002 issue of Lancet medical journal, again claiming that the smallest particles were neutral, again saying this is good news for First Responders, but provide no analytical method details to substantiate their claim. Very interestingly, the Lancet publication now states that the largest particles only had a pH of 10. This is a big difference from the 10/17/02 Chen presentation and Dr. Chen’s 2/20/02 email, stating the largest particles had a pH greater than 11. The EPA publication, on the other hand, does provide analytical method details. It is evident that the samples were allowed to neutralized by exposure to the atmosphere for more than a month before testing. Then, EPA commits the most egregious fraud by diluting the dust samples nearly 600 to 1 with water before testing the pH. Even with this extreme dilution, EPA reports the smallest particles pH between 8.88 and 10 (alkaline). Although performing extensive other types of tests, EPA reported no pH levels for the larger WTC dust particles. 5/25/04 (NYU): Dr. Chen serves on EPA expert panel for WTC cleanup. Dr. Chen’s presentation now shows again a pH of greater than 11 for the larger WTC dust particles. However, to obfuscate this fact, this time Dr. Chen deletes the pH numbers on the vertical axis of the graph. 2007 (EPA): EPA publication discusses the earlier pH testing of the same 9/12 and 9/13 dust samples by EPA and NYU. The EPA publication gives credence to the NYU results, even though NYU has never published any analytical details. The EPA 2007 publication also discusses the earlier EPA results of pH 8.88 to 10.00 for the smallest WTC particles, but fails to discuss that this was only after extreme dilution.

9/16/01 and 9/17/01 – Rutgers team collects outdoor dust samples, pH tested by after intentional pre-neutralization by prolonged water soaking
A research team headed by Rutgers University’s Dr. Paul Lioy collected dust samples from streets near Ground Zero on 9/16/01 and 9/17/01. The following describes the laboratory techniques used by the Rutgers group to intentionally neutralize the dust samples to a large extent before pH testing. First, they mixed dust samples with water and stored the dust/water suspensions for “several days” at room temperature, followed by storage in a refrigerator for an unspecified time period:
P. Lioy, C. Weisel, J. Millette, S. Eisenreich, D. Vallero, J. Offenberg, B. Buckley, B. Turpin, M. Zhong, M. Cohen, C.e Prophete, I.Yang, R. Stiles, G. Chee, W. Johnson, R. Porcja, S. Alimokhtari, R. Hale, C. Weschler, L-C. Chen [received for publication 1/15/02] 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. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(7): 703. http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/EHP110p703PDF.PDF …

– 30 –

pH analyses ... placed them in test tubes; aliquots of distilled, deionized water were added to make a concentration of approximately 30 mg/mL. The tubes were inverted several times and were then sonicated. The samples were left at room temperature for several days before centrifugation. The extract from each filter sample was removed to a new test tube before centrifugation. All samples were centrifuged and the supernatant was removed to new tubes and stored in the refrigerator. A 1-mL aliquot of extract was used for pH measurement. ... the Cortlandt Street sample had a pH of 11.5. Both the Cherry and Market Street samples had a pH of 9 ...

As discussed in my 5/6/07 report, these exact same soaking times, using the exact same water-to-concrete dust ratios, results in neutralization of the alkaline pH. See the graphic below from a study published in 2006:
Chi-Sun Poon, X.C. Qiao, Dixon Chan (2006) The cause and influence of self-cementing properties of fine recycled concrete aggregates on the properties of unbound sub-base. Waste Management 26 1166–1172. http://www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman ...

Leachate pH of different size fractions of recycled concrete from a commercial concrete recycling facility as a function of time.

See Jenkins’ 5/6/07 report, pages 11 - 12 at: http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/index2008/Jenkins.pdf for more information on this deliberate pre-neutralization before testing pH.

9/17/01 – USGS collects dust samples indoors and outdoors, dilutes 20:1 with weak acid before pH testing, does not release results for many months
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) also collected WTC dust samples from both indoors and outdoors on 9/17/01. USGS also used innovative non-standard laboratory methods to test pH, namely diluting samples 20-to-1 with weak acid before testing the pH, resulting in significant but not complete pre-neutralization. Even with this partial preneutralization, USGS found higher pH levels for WTC dust than they did for dry portland cement powder.

– 31 –

USGS found pH levels over 12 for WTC dust using this 20:1 weak acid dilution method. USGS claimed in a 2/13/02 news article that they released these results to EPA and emergency response personnel, but there is contradictory USGS information on that claim. (See 2/13/02 entry in this chronology.) This chronology documents the changing USGS claims about the pH levels of WTC dust, both indoor and outdoor, over the years. See the other entries in this chronology for these dates 1/13/02, 2/5/02, 10/02, 5/25/04 and 2006 and the table below:
USGS’s changing pH results INDOOR WTC dust highest OUTDOOR WTC dust highest 1/13/02 St. Louis PostDispatch article 12.1 and “12 and higher” (both indoor/outdoor) 12.1 and “12 and higher” (both indoor/outdoor) 2/5/02 USGS study on USGS website 11.8 10.8 10/02 USGS fact sheet graph 12.4 10.09 “non-caustic alkalinity” 5/25/04 USGS presentation to EPA panel 12.4 10.09 “noncaustic alkalinity” 2006 USGS paper in ACS monograph 12.4 12.04

9/01 – Implosion demolition experts advise in WTC removal
Representatives from the building demolition industry were involved in advising NYC officials on the deconstruction and removal of debris from the WTC.
Protec is one of the world’s most knowledgeable independent authorities on explosive demolition, having performed engineering studies, structure analysis, vibration/air overpressure monitoring and photographic services on well over 1,000 structure blasting events in more than 30 countries. ... Protec was operating portable field seismographs at construction sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn on 9/11. ... In the weeks following 9/11, several Protec building inspectors and staff photographers, including the author, were contracted by demolition teams to document the deconstruction and debris removal processes at Ground Aero. ... Brent Blanchard, Senior Editor for Implosionworld.com and Director of Field Operations at Protec Docuemtntation Services, Inc., Rancocas, New Jersey ( www.protecservices.com ) (August 8, 2006) A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1,2, & 7 from an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint. www.implosionworld.com

These parties would have been knowledgeable about the high corrosive pH levels of newly pulverized concrete dust and rubble. This is because concrete rubble from demolitions cannot conveniently be recycled as aggregate in roadway construction, a fact well studied by both federal and state highway departments, because of its high pH and alkali reserve capacity, or reused in other environmentally sensitive situations.

9/21/01 – Turner Construction consultants withhold WTC dust pH data
Turner Construction Company employed a consortium of consultants headed by HP Environmental, Inc. to test and evaluate hazards for its demolition and deconstruction crews near Ground Zero around 9/21/01. This was a requirement under the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) to assess workplace hazards Dr. Hugh Granger, toxicologist and certified industrial hygienist, headed the HP Environmental team. He was also a consultant to the Securities and Exchange Commission after the WTC collapse for workplace hazards, and was also involved as a consultant after the 1993 bombing of the WTC. http://www.tera.org/peer/WTC/WTC%20Peer%20Review%20Meeting%20Notes.pdf

– 32 –

HP Environmental tested WTC dust for pH but withheld this data in their public data releases and presentations. It is unknown what the results were, whether their samples were allowed to pre-neutralize by carbonation prior to pH testing, or their laboratory methods. In a November 2007 telephone conversation, Dr. Granger offered to provide me with this pH data, but I declined on the grounds that it could have been generated after-the-fact, and laboratory substantiation altered or incomplete. In November 2007, Dr. Granger also described a presentation his group made around 9/19/01 at a daily Ground Zero safety meeting held in the auditorium of a nearby school. The date of 9/28/01 may be more accurate, because this date was included in a footnote in the HP Environmental paper briefly posted on the AIHA website on 10/2/01:
A complete set of data available from this Preliminary Health Hazard Assessment was presented on September 28, 2001 to the WTC Site Safety Committee and is available from Mr. David Collins, Director of Health and Safety, Turner Construction Company, NY, NY

Granger described giving handouts of his presentation at the 9/19/01 or 9/28/01 meeting to the participants (including state, federal, and local agencies as well as representatives of prime contractors). He described discussing the HP Environmental results for particulates, metals, asbestos, and organics, but did not mention discussing pH or corrosivity during his presentation. I asked Granger if the PowerPoint presentation he had sent me in November 2001 was the same one he handed out to the participants of the 9/01 meeting, and he replied in the affirmative. The HP Environmental PowerPoint presentation showed 2 interior shots of Building A with surface dust samples, obviously of concern. The HP Environmental paper that was posted on the AIHA website for one day on 10/3/01 specifically states that dust samples were taken from intact building interiors. Thus, HP Environmental was not limiting its testing to only settled dust outdoors, where it might have been neutralized to some extent by rain. Excerpts from the 9/01 HP Environmental PowerPoint presentation are provided below.
R. Hugh Granger, Ph.D., CIH, HP Environmental, Inc., Piotr P. Chmielinski, M.S., CIH, HP Environmental, Inc., George Pineda, CIH, ET Environmental, LLC., Dave Collins, Director of Safety, Turner Construction Company. © HP Environmental, Inc. 2001. Preliminary Health Hazard Assessment: Rescue Phase (I) Operations - Turner Construction WTC - Building #7 Introduction • Emphasis on medically relevant, acute exposures for Turner Construction employees. • Focus on north edge of WTC Building #7 rubble and surrounding areas to the west, north and east at a distance of up to 4 city blocks. • Data and conclusions derived from this study may be relevant when anticipating exposures for other workers, other work tasks, and other environments (ambient & within building structures) during rescue (phase I) and recovery (phase II) operations. Study Design & Tasks • Rational: The potential for production of medically relevant concentrations of aerosols and chemical vapors/gases is most reliably determined by characterization of the source material. • Primary focus: Determine the nature of chemical and particle characteristics of settled dust residues produced by the fire and catastrophic collapse of high-rise office buildings (towers) associated with the WTC. • Secondary focus: Identify chemical and particle hazards presented by the settled dust and determine health risks posed by acute (short-term) inhalation, dermal, and ingestion exposure for Turner Construction workers. ... Participating Scientists & Laboratories • Dr. Jim Millette, MVA, Inc. • Dr. Edward Dantsker, Anabell Environmental, Inc. • Dr. Tom McKee, Scientific Laboratories, Inc. [now "AmeriSci"] • Mr. George Pineda, CIH, ET Environmental, LLC. • Dr. Hugh Granger, CIH, HP Environmental, Inc. • Mr. Piotr Chmielinski, M.S., CIH, HP Environmental, Inc.

– 33 –

• Mr. Brent Sharrer, M.S., CIH, HP Environmental, Inc. • AMA Laboratories, Inc. • American Medical Laboratories • Anabell Environmental, Inc. [Anabell Environmental Inc., 8648 Dakota Drive Gaithersburg, MD 20877, 301-548-9425, Contact Name:Ed Dantsker, President] • Analytics, Inc. • HP Environmental, Inc. • MVA, Inc. • Scientific Laboratories, Inc. ... Categories of Investigation & Distribution of Samples to Laboratories ... Corrosivity/Reactivity (Cyanide/sulfide) ... B [bulk] Anabell [Anabell Environmental, Inc.]

NYC OEM Director confirms Turner Construction participation in health and safety decisions The following is an extended excerpt from the 11/8/05 deposition of Samuel Benson, Director, NYC Office of Emergency Management. In particular, it confirms that Turner Construction, Bovis Construction, and other contractors responsible for debris removal at Ground Zero were in the “inner circle” and participated in the morning briefing meetings and evening decision-making steering committee meetings on health and safety.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. November 8, 2005, VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION of SAMUEL N. BENSON taken by Plaintiffs, ... Q. Could you please state your name for the record. A. Samuel Neal Benson, that's N-E-A-L, Benson. ... I'm employed by the New York City Office of Emergency Management. ... I've effectively been employed by the Office of Emergency Management for about eight and a half years at this point. ... I am the director of health and medical planning and preparedness. ... Q. When did you first become involved in the World Trade Center response? A. Immediately upon the impact of the first plane. ... A. I don't remember all of the contractors Q. ... What specific contractors were you specifically involved with for debris removal at the World Trade Center site? ...that were at the site. I do know that we had representatives from a number of different contractors that were involved in our health and -- there were a number of contractors that had representatives at the health and safety meetings. Q. Did you have any involvement with any representatives from the Turner Construction Company? A. Yes, that sounds familiar. Q. Okay. With whom did you have interactions with from the Turner Construction Company? A. I don't remember the names of the individuals. Q. Do you recall anybody from the Turner Construction Company who you interacted with regarding work at the World Trade Center site? A. I'd characterize it that I know there were representatives of Turner at the meetings that I attended. I don't remember the names of any of the individuals at this point in time. ... Q. Did you ever have any interaction with any representatives from the Bovis Construction company for work regarding the World Trade Center site? A. Yes. And I would characterize it the same way. Q. You don't recall anybody in particular who you interacted with at Bovis Construction company regarding the World Trade Center site? A. It's been a few years. I don't remember the names. I do remember Bovis. I remember they had representatives there. I do remember interacting with them at various points, but I can't recall the specific names. ... Q. Do you recall interacting with anybody from AMEC construction company for work related to the World Trade Center site? A. Yes, and I would have -- I'd give you the same answer. ... Q. Do you know if the OEM contracted with anybody for work to be performed regarding the World Trade Center site? A. I don't know the specifics of the contracting procedure and whether it was OEM or any other city agency and how they did that. ... Q. Would it be fair to say that -- the steering committee that you were a member of, would it be fair to say that they had the overall responsibility for health and safety of workers at the World Trade Center site? MS. BERNSTEIN: Objection. A. I would characterize it as coordinating the health and safety efforts. I don't know that we -- you know, the word that I'm -- we coordinated those efforts. And I would -- that's the way I would characterize our efforts there.

– 34 –

Q. What agency or committee had the overall responsibility for coordinating health and safety for workers at the World Trade Center site? MS. BERNSTEIN: Objection. A. The steering committee was set up to coordinate the health and safety activities. Q. Did OEM have a health and safety person present at the World Trade Center site on a daily basis? A. OEM doesn't have a health and safety person. Q. There were times when OEM had personnel present at the World Trade Center site after September 11th of 2001? A. Yes. ... Q. Mr. Benson, I've marked as Benson Exhibit 2 a collection of documents provided to my office by your counsel. However, the only questions I have for you is regarding the first page. A. Okay. Q. It appears to be safety meeting minutes from December 13th, 2001. Do you recall ever seeing these meeting minutes? ... A. Yes. Q. Do you recall seeing those meeting minutes? A. No. Q. Do you know whether or not the safety meeting is one of the meetings that you discussed earlier that was held by the OEM? A. This is not the same series of meetings. Q. Okay. And how do you know that this was not part of the same series of meetings? A. These -- these notes are from the 8 a.m. safety meeting, which was the operation meeting held at the site. Again, what we did was, the 1800, the 6 p.m., which was the overall safety and health for all safety and health issues, that, again, was designed and the timing was such that anything that was brought up or resolved or if there was a critical issue that -- for example, if some result had come back and the scientists had said, Oh, my God, this is really horrible, it would have fed into the 1800 meeting so that we could either take immediate action or if we needed to revise the day's operation, it would feed into the morning meetings. These were the morning meetings where operational orders went out to the people working at the site, meaning the four borders as you had defined earlier. Q. Who chaired these eight o'clock safety meetings? A. I don't know who chaired the meeting at eight o'clock in the morning. Q. Did you ever attend any of the eight o'clock safety meetings? A. I only attended one or two of them. Q. Do you know what or when you attended the safety meetings at eight o'clock in the morning? A. I don't recall exactly, other than to say it was probably only within the first couple of weeks, as -- in sort of the same way that I said I went down to the site to sort of scope what was going on, I didn't need to have detailed knowledge of the operational safety meeting in the morning. I did attend a couple to understand the dynamics and see the players. I saw what was going on, and it was not necessary for me to be there each morning for me to do this. Q. Who were some of the players at the eight o'clock safety meetings? A. The operational agencies that were at the site, the fire department, DDC, as well as a number of the contractors. And I can't -- you know, whoever was operating at the site. I can't -- I don't know the details of each of the individuals that were there. Q. Uh-huh. A. But it was a different -- it was a different goal of this meeting. Q. Were the issues that were discussed at these eight o'clock safety meetings given to you as being a member of the steering committee? MS. BERNSTEIN: Objection. A. I sometimes did get documents or copies of this or they were brought up in the evening discussion. ...

10/18/01 – NYU Dr. Thurston claims smallest WTC particles contained no asbestos. Fatal error. Can’t hide this time by refusing to provide substantiating lab data.
Although this entry in the chronology addresses asbestos instead of pH, it provides an insight into the credibility of NYU’s Dr. Thurston and his later testimony on 2/11/02 about the pH of the smallest particles of WTC dust. In a press release for a 10/18/01 NYU public forum, Dr. Thurston claimed there was no asbestos in the smallest WTC particles. This claim was made while First Responders and the public were being exposed to very high levels of WTC dust. Dr. Thurston emphasized the reassuring importance of this alleged finding saying there would be no asbestos in the particles that would penetrate deep into the lungs. Dr. Thurston even repeated this claim that the smallest particles contained no asbestos in his 2/11/02 Senate testimony, adding the claim that the smallest particles were also neutral, non-alkaline, low pH. (See later 2/11/02 entry in this chronology.) – 35 –

NYU Press Release (10/17/01) NYU holds forum on air quality in NYC following World Trade Center disaster http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-10/nyum-nhf101701.php http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2001/C/200113719.html … On Thursday, October 18, NYU School of Medicine will hold a community forum at NYU School of Law in Washington Square to discuss a wide range of environmental health issues relating to the World Trade Center disaster. … "So far, all of the data from government and independent studies indicate that the air in the community around ground zero and in Manhattan does not appear to represent a health risk to the general population," says George Thurston, Associate Professor of Environmental Medicine at NYU School of Medicine, who organized the forum. … "Our results so far," says Dr. Thurston, "confirm what the EPA is finding, namely that there are very low levels of asbestos in dust and there is no asbestos in the small particles that deeply penetrate the lung." Thurston, G. D. (2/11/02) Statement of Dr. George D. Thurston, Sc. D. to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the United States Senate Re: The Air Pollution Effects of The World Trade Center Disaster, February 11, 2002. http://www.senate.gov/~epw/107th/Thurston_021102.htm … Only trace amounts of asbestos were found in our samples. [contrast this claim with NYU's later publication that the range was 0.8 to 3% for their samples.] The less than one percent that was as PM2.5, or the particles that would reach deepest in the lung, was found to have a neutral pH, with no detectable asbestos or fiberglass. Thus, while our analyses are consistent with the government’s conclusion that the WTC dust is not likely to have short or long-term serious health impacts on otherwise healthy local residents, we found that it is very irritating and capable of causing the symptoms reported by many residents.

The claim about the smallest particles containing no asbestos was a fatal error. Dr. Thurston was depending on the fact that both EPA and NYC only released the overall total asbestos in air and dust on their websites at that time. He thought he could get away with claiming he himself had unique information available to no one else on the smallest respirable size particles. He assumed that EPA and NYC had never and would never release their own data on the smallest particles. He was wrong. What Dr. Thurston did not realize was that EPA had already released more complete air testing data, which broke down the sizes of the asbestos fibers. Hard copies of the more complete data were made available to the public in the EPA Region 2 building reading room, and also provided in response to a FOIA from the New York Environmental Law and Justice Project (NYELJP). NYELJP posted scanned versions of this data on its website beginning in October 2001. The more detailed asbestos air data showed the amount of fibers less than 5 microns (5 μm) and fibers larger than 5 μm. There was a predominance of the smallest size respirable asbestos fibers. See the following links first for the detailed hard copy data released by EPA in October 2001, and then the more limited data that did not break the asbestos down into sizes that EPA posted on its website on 9/29/01:
New York Environmental Law and Justice Project 10/01 posting of EPA asbestos air data categorized by fiber sizes: http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/nyeljp-EPA-WTCTestResults.htm EPA 2003 posting of same hard copy asbestos air data in website protected from public disclosure. This website cannot be found using a search engine: http://www.epaosc.org/doc_list.asp?site_id=WTC EPA (9/29/01) Air Monitoring Data for Asbestos, posted on the EPA website, now only available from www.webarchive.org at the following link: http://web.archive.org/web/20010929112114/www.epa.gov/air/nyc/ EPA 9/30/01 announcement of posting data on its website (www.WebArchive.org version of announcement) http://web.archive.org/web/20011217155607/http://www.epa.gov/epahome/wtc/epa-osha01.htm

Dr. Thurston’s claim that the smallest size dust particles contained no asbestos also contradicts EPA’s data for bulk, settled WTC dust. EPA obtained fiber size data for settled – 36 –

asbestos dust within several days after 9/11. EPA had comparison testing using both the TEM and PLM methods for settled asbestos dust at its own NYC building. TEM (electron microscope) can detect the smallest fibers. PLM testing is less sensitive and can detect only larger fibers. EPA was only able to find asbestos when it used the TEM method, but found no asbestos when it used the PLM method on the exact same dust samples. Thus, it was proven that the settled WTC dust also contained the smallest respirable size asbestos. But Dr. Thurston did not know about this particular EPA testing at the time. EPA’s finding of asbestos in the smallest particles using TEM, but not by the grosser PLM test method was the basis for the evacuation of the EPA building for its secret cleanup after 9/11. Later testing by EPA and private parties of settled dust testing also showed asbestos was in the smallest particles, because it was found by TEM but not PLM testing. See Jenkins' 7/4/03 “Documentary Basis for Litigation” for details on EPA’s findings of asbestos in settled dust around its own building and other areas near Ground Zero using TEM but not PLM:
http://www.nycosh.org/environment_wtc/Jenkins-7-4-03-documentary-d.pdf http://www.wgenblaw.com/pdf11.pdf http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/PDF/Jenkins-7-4-03-documentary-d2.pdf

If Dr. Thurston was fabricating his claims about the smallest WTC dust particles not containing asbestos, is it possible that he was also prevaricating about the pH of the smallest particles being neutral (not alkaline) in his 2/11/02 Senate testimony? As additional context, there was actual falsification of the air asbestos monitoring data (actually changing the numbers, deleting high asbestos test data altogether) during this time period by NYC. See Jenkins' 7/15/04 report. After my report, NYC defended itself claiming that it had not posted the high asbestos readings on its website near Chinatown because it only posted data from its permanent monitoring stations. This excuse is baseless for two reasons. First, if unexpectedly high asbestos readings are found in a location farther away from Ground Zero, the response should not be to abandon additional testing. Second, NYC did post on its website data from other locations that were not included in its “permanent monitoring station” category. NYC has since corrected its website.
Jenkins (7/15/04) NYC data concealed by EPA and NYC after 9/11 ... http://www.911ea.org/EPA_Concealment_07.15.04_Jenkins1.pdf http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/PDF/EPA%20concealment-071504-Jenkins.pdf

10/29/01 – EPA receives 9/12 and 9/13 samples from NYU for pH testing. EPA allows pre-neutralization by atmospheric carbonation, then uses extreme dilution nearly 600to-1 water to dust ratio to ensure low pH results
As seen from the 9/12/01 and 9/13/01 entry in this chronology, NYU collected outdoor dusts from the streets, ledges, etc. in NYC. These samples were separated into different size ranges at NYU. According to the 12/02 EPA report at page 48, the smallest size fractionated particulates were still on the filters when delivered to EPA for analysis on 10/29/01. EPA extracted the filters with water on 11/2/01. The pH testing of the water extracts was reported as being performed “immediately” after the extractions (EPA 12/02 report at page 7). – 37 –

EPA (December 2002) Toxicological Effects of Fine Particulate Matter Derived from the Destruction of the World Trade Center. National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/wtc/WTC_report_7b3i.pdf [The pH testing part of the full 12/02 EPA study was published again as a separate article in 2003 below] J. K. McGee, L. C. Chen, M. D. Cohen, G. R. Chee, C. M. Prophete, N. Haykal-Coates, S. J. Wasson, T. L. Conner, D. L. Costa, and S. H. Gavett (2003) Chemical Analysis of World Trade Center Fine Particulate Matter for Use in Toxicological Assessment. Environmental Health Perspectives, 11(7): 972 http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/5930/5930.pdf

Testing by EPA of dust samples collected by NYU began after 10/29/01, after significant atmospheric neutralization took place (carbonation reaction) EPA did not test the very finely divided PM2.5 dust on the filters until 11/2/01, a sufficiently long period for significant neutralization by carbonation by reaction with carbon dioxide in the air. This is particularly true for a sample as small as that being used by EPA, and in a finely divided state on a filter. My preliminary range finding studies show significant neutralization by exposure to air of small samples of simulated WTC dust samples over a month’s exposure to ambient air. There is no evidence in the published record that these samples were stored by NYU prior to shipment to EPA in any carbon dioxide free environment, This could only be achieved by the use of a CO2 absorbent like soda lime or an active moisture free nitrogen blanket. The original dust that NYU collected was probably stored in plastic bags/jars with sufficient head space containing air (carbon dioxide/moisture). The separation process itself used by NYU, resuspension in a cyclone, would have greatly increased the exposure to the atmosphere, particularly for the fine particulates having the largest surface-to-mass ratio, causing accelerated carbonation processes. EPA was also more than disingenuous when it claimed that it could not understand why its samples were further neutralized by the freeze-drying “lyophilization” procedure, since clearly this step forced even greater carbonation reactions converting calcium, sodium, and potassium hydroxide to their respective carbonates.
The pH of water extracted WTC PM2.5 ranged from 8.88 in WTCE to 10.00 in WTC8 (Table 2). The alkaline pH is consistent with previous reports of WTC PM (USGS, 2002) and probably results from the building materials comprising much of the dust (see below). The pH of lyophilized WTC PM2.5 reconstituted in unbuffered saline was very close to neutral, while MSH was very slightly acidic and ROFA was moderately acidic (average 3.74 at 2 mg/ml). It is not known why the pH of WTC PM2.5 should be close to neutral after reconstitution in saline; perhaps the salt neutralizes a basic component of the extract. ...

EPA “extreme dilution” fraud – adds nearly 600 times water to dust before testing pH Below, EPA describes the pH testing methods performed on the samples it received from NYU on 10/29/01. The appalling aspect was adding water in the ratio of nearly 600-to-1 to the dust particulates. This nearly 600:1 dilution is an extraordinary high ratio of water to solids. The official SW 846 EPA method for determining the pH of solids requires a 1:1 ratio of solids to water. In other words, the laboratory was using extreme dilution to guarantee that they did not find a high pH. This is extremely dishonest. This is fraud that can be easily understood by the public.
EPA (December 2002) Toxicological Effects of Fine Particulate Matter ... http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/wtc/WTC_report_7b3i.pdf

– 38 –

... B. Extraction of PM from Teflon Filters Filters were extracted using a modification of a method by Biran and coworkers (1996). Each filter was handled with clean sterilized stainless steel forceps. Filters from each of the 7 individual collection sites (1 - 3 filters per site) were extracted into a single volume of distilled water (Gibco BRL ultrapure 10977-015, lot 1063705) in the ratio of 0.5 ml water per mg sample (2 mg PM / ml water; range 24.96 - 27.14 ml). This volume of water was pipetted into a 100 ml sterile plastic specimen cup containing a 3 mm thick Teflon ring at the bottom of the cup designed to support the filter. [Calculation of dilution ratio of water to dust: 1 milliliter of water = 1 cubic centimeter of water = 1 gram of water = 1000 mg water 2 milligrams dust = 0.002 grams dust. Amount of dust extracted from 1 to 3 filters at each site: range 29.79 to 47.67 mg, average of 42 mg 25 ml water = 25,000 mg water 25,000 mg water ÷ 42 mg = 595 mg water per mg dust sample]

If EPA used this 600:1 extreme dilution method on the smallest particles and still found pH levels from 8.88 to 10, then we can only imagine what type of dilution ratios NYU must have used on the same small particles in order to get a neutral pH of 7. Although performing extensive other types of tests, EPA reported no pH levels for the larger WTC dust particles. This is an interesting fact in and of itself.

11/01 – Rutgers team pH tests indoor dust after pre-neutralization by extended water soaks, also reports suspicious pH values of exactly 11 as highest value for many samples
There was a second EPA-funded WTC dust study headed by Rutgers University/Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. This time, the dust was collected from indoor locations near Ground Zero on 11/19/01. Not surprisingly, the highest reported pH level was only 11. The reason that this is no surprise is the fact that the researchers yet again soaked the samples in water for long periods before testing. See the discussions above on the first Rutgers study of WTC dust in the 9/16/01-9/17/01 entry in this chronology,.
L.-M. Yiin, James R. Millette, A. Vette, V. Ilacqua, C. Quan, J. Gorczynski, M. Kendall, L. C. Chen, C. P. Weisel, B. Buckley, I. Yang, and P. J. Lioy (2004) Comparisons of the Dust/Smoke Particulate that Settled Inside the Surrounding Buildings and Outside on the Streets of Southern New York City after the Collapse of the World Trade Center, September 11, 2001. J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 54:515–528 http://www.awma.org/ METHODS The 16 indoor bulk (total deposited mass) settled WTC dust/smoke samples were collected from the two adjacent buildings using protocols similar to those developed to collect surface dust in previous studies. … Samples for elemental analysis … .VOCs that were adsorbed to dust were analyzed using thermal desorption and a gas chromatograph (GC)/MS detector. … All other details of equipment and procedures used to collect and analyze the sampled dust/smoke have been reported in the manuscript by Lioy et al. … Address Liberty Street Floor 8 5 4 2 Sample ID 124 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Location LR & BR Library Hall Basebo Floor Hall & High Chair BR Front Front Entrywa ard LR Room Room y Color gray/tan N/A gray/tan N/A gray/tan gray/tan tan N/A tan N/A gray/tan pH 11 N/A 11 N/A 11 11 11 N/A 11 N/A 11 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

There is another compelling reason for doubting the veracity of the pH results in this second Rutgers study. For the Liberty Street building, all the pH results were exactly 11. Yes, 7 out of 7 dust samples from different floors, having different colors, having different measured particulate size ranges, all having different concentrations of a large range of metals, all having widely different concentrations of various organic compounds, all appearing highly heterogeneous from the photographs. Amazingly, all had a reported pH level of exactly 11.

– 39 –

I personally have never seen any data set like this, where a large range of tested chemical and physical properties are different, but the pH levels are exactly the same, the exact same whole number, namely 11. Also, a pH level of 11.0 is ever so conveniently under the established United Nations presumptive trigger level for tissue corrosivity of 11.5. Dr. Lioy demonstrates knowledge of neutralization over time of the high pH in WTC dust Dr. Lioy was one of 6 expert consultants hired by EPA for advice on what to test to determine whether WTC dust remained in residences and required cleanup. The final EPA report (link below) does not attribute names, but mentions that testing for the pH (after 2004) was a possible candidate for “fingerprinting” the presence of WTC dust.
Peer Review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s “Final Report on the World Trade Center (WTC) Dust Screening Study” (October 2005) http://www.epa.gov/wtc/panel/pdfs/WTC_peer_review_report.pdf

Notes taken by Jenna Orkin, World Trade Center Environmental Organization (www.WTCEO.org) at the 7/26/04 meeting of this expert panel indicate that Dr. Lioy was aware of the neutralization of WTC dust over time. Rutgers apparently tests dust from a school as well as apartments, but does not report results Although no results were included in their 2004 publications, the Rutgers team also apparently tested, but did not report the results of, WTC dust from inside a school:
[Rutgers University website, undated.] Environmental Health Effects of WTC http://www.eohsi.rutgers.edu/wtc/ehnetwork/Projects.shtml Analysis of indoor settled dust/smoke samples (Principal Investigator: Paul J. Lioy) ... The dust and smoke plume emitted by the collapse of the WTC contained a complex mixture of many irritating agents and other pollutants. Scientists are examining and comparing indoor samples gathered from one school and several apartments in one building immediately downwind of the plume to outdoor samples to determine if the potential health concerns were similar or greater for indoor and outdoor locations.

11/01 to 12/01 – NYC/ATSDR collects indoor/outdoor dust in residential areas after atmospheric neutralization, tests pH after unknown holding time
During November and December 2001, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), funded by EPA through its NCP/Superfund authority, in conjunction with the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) tested dust inside and outside buildings near Ground Zero. Although pH was tested, samples were taken months after 9/11, more than adequate time for near neutralization by atmospheric carbonation (verified by my own preliminary range finding study). Furthermore, we do not know how long samples were held by NYC/ATSDR before pH testing. A press release with no pH data or allusions to pH data was issued 2/8/02 by NYC/ATSDR, claiming no hazards from anything, but only mentioning asbestos and a few other toxic substances. Probably pH was not tested by this time. At least NYC/ATSDR used the correct SW 846 method for pH in solid materials, namely a 1:1 water/solids ratio.

– 40 –

New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (September 2002) Final Technical Report of the Public Health Investigation to Assess Potential Exposures to Airborne and Settled Surface Dust in Residential Areas of Lower Manhattan. http://www.epa.gov/wtc/panel/ATSDRFinal-report-lowermanhattan-02.pdf ... [p. 5] Several of the minerals detected in the settled surface dust samples, such as Portlandite, can make the dust more alkaline, or raise the pH. Originally, the pH of all of the settled surface dust samples was to be determined. However, enough dust for this analysis was only available at two locations. Both dust samples were alkaline (pH of 8.6 and 9.8). On the pH scale of 0 (acidic) to 14 (alkaline or basic), these values are slightly alkaline. Mineral analysis of these two settled surface dust samples estimate levels of calcite (15%J, 19%J) and Portlandite (6%J, 3%J) [“Portlandite” is calcium hydroxide] were present, respectively. These crystalline minerals along with other components of concrete would have contributed to the measured alkalinity. [The "J" after the % indicates uncertainties in the laboratory data.] New York City Department of Health Office of Public Affairs (February 8, 2002) Press Release: NYC Department of Health Presents Findings from Indoor Air Sampling in Lower Manhattan. http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/press_archive02/pr08-208.shtml ... As part of an ongoing effort to assess the environmental impact of the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster and to respond to public health concerns, the New York City Department of Health (DOH) in collaboration with the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) conducted indoor and outdoor tests of thirty residential buildings in lower Manhattan.

Importantly, up to 8% calcium hydroxide was detected in WTC dust in the NYC/ATSDR study. This is highly significant, because dust containing as little as 0.185% calcium hydroxide could produce a leachate with a pH of 12.5.
NYC/ATSDR (September 2002) Final Technical Report ... Airborne and Settled Surface Dust in Residential Areas of Lower Manhattan. http://www.epa.gov/wtc/panel/ATSDRFinal-report-lowermanhattan-02.pdf ... Calcite (calcium carbonate) and portlandite (calcium hydroxide) are also components of concrete. They occurred with similar frequency in the dust samples and were often colocated with the quartz. Calcite ranged from an estimated 0.8%J to 19%J in outdoor areas, and from 0.02%J to 21%J in indoor areas. Portlandite ranged from an estimated 0.07%J to 6%J in outdoor areas and from 0.04%J to 8%J in indoor areas. [The “J” after the % concentration means there were uncertainties in the laboratory data.]

Another serious problem with the 9/02 ATSDR/NYC report was the falsification of health effects evaluations and standards for calcium hydroxide, calcium carbonate, and calcium sulfate, as explained in Jenkins’ 5/6/07 report, pages 19 – 21, at http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/index2008/Jenkins.pdf .

1/13/02 and 2/9/02 – USGS scientists release their pH test results through press
On 1/13/02, Andrew Schneider published 3 companion articles in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which were syndicated and carried by the print, radio and TV press world-wide. These articles addressed World Trade Center asbestos and the highly caustic, corrosive high pH WTC dust. Although asbestos had been covered by the press to some extent before, the story on the caustic high pH WTC dust (“like liquid drain cleaner”) was a first. On 2/9/03, Schneider published another article on the caustic, high pH WTC dust. This second report quoted EPA officials defending not releasing the data to First Responders and the public. I was quoted on 2/9/02 as verification that EPA had not released any pH data as required by law pursuant to a FOIA request, as well as in the 1/13/02 companion articles on asbestos. Excerpts from both the 1/13/02 and 2/9/02 Schneider articles on WTC asbestos and pH are provided below.

– 41 –

1/13/02 first St. Louis Post-Dispatch articles on WTC toxic hazards
Andrew Schneider (01/13/02) World trade center attack asbestos health threat [Companion piece to WTC high pH caustic dust below} http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/special/asbestos.nsf/story/FDE3F368E6AF383786256CAD0076A1EB?OpenDocument Andrew Schneider (01/13/02) “Scientists pull out all stops to test NYC dust.” St. Louis Post-Dispatch Republished by St. Louis P-D on 2/9/02 and 2/10/02. Links below for the republished 2/9/02 and 2/10/02 versions: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/special/asbestos.nsf/0/8DC49C62C3BDFD2186256CAD0076A1ED?OpenDocument http://www.911ea.org/News_Stories_From_February_2002.htm#Public%20was%20never%20told%20that%20dust%20from%20ruins%20is%20dangerously%20causti c http://landofpuregold.com/truth16.htm ... Swayze and Todd Hoefen, another USGS geophysicist, flew to New York on Sept. 17. ... Taking the ferry across the Hudson from New Jersey, they collected samples of dust in Zip-lock freezer bags from window ledges, flower pots, car windshields — anyplace it was collecting. They hoofed it out two miles — or to the river’s edge — in each direction of the compass from the collapsed towers and gathered three dozen samples. ... Worried that a rainstorm the night of Sept. 14 might have altered the dust, Swayze and Hoefen found dry samples — dust from an apartment on the 30th floor about three blocks from the World Trade Center and a gymnasium in the World Financial Center across from the smoldering ruins. Finding and analyzing the dry dust was crucial, the scientists said, because it presented an accurate picture of what risks workers and residents would face if they encountered dust that hadn’t been rained upon or splashed with wash water. ... Clark, Swayze and Hoefen were in the Imaging Spectroscopy Lab. Meeker was running the scanning electron microscope and doing energy dispersive spectroscopy. Steve Sutley was conducting X-ray diffraction on his sample of dust. Joe Taggart was doing Xray Fluorescence. And Geoffrey Plumlee and Phil Hageman were doing chemical analysis and chemical leach testing. ... Within hours, some results started coming back. They did find the asbestos they were searching for. But they also found an alphabet soup of heavy metals. But the real surprise was the pH of the dust. It registered a high of 12.1 on the samples taken indoors. Ammonia has a pH of 10. The degree of acidity or alkalinity in a material is expressed as a pH measurement. Neutral pH — like water — is 7 on a 15-point scale. From 7 to zero is an indication of acid. From 7 to 14, the top of the scale, is alkaline. Levels near either end of the pH scale can harm health. Plumlee was mixing one part of dust to 20 parts of water. ... “We were startled at the pH level we were finding,” he added. “We knew that the cement dust was caustic, but we were getting pH readings of 12 and higher. It was obvious that precautions had to be taken to protect the workers and people returning to their homes from the dust.” Significant efforts are being made at ground zero to keep the work area wet, to suppress the dust, but this has minimal effect on the hazards of pockets of dust just below the surface. ... They took their findings to toxicologists and emergency coordinators from the EPA and physicians from the U.S. Public Health Service and the Centers for Disease Control. These medical authorities agreed that the Geological Survey’s findings, especially the high pH levels, must be available to those setting rules for worker safety and those considering whether and when to permit people to return to their homes and offices, the scientists said. ... The USGS team broke all records and had their findings reviewed and on a “government only” Web site within a week. “It was important to get the information out to those who needed it,” Clark said. “What we wanted to indicate to emergency response workers and those making decisions about people returning to their homes and offices was that in addition to the high pH, there were heavy metals, especially chromium and aluminum, in the dust which could be released by water.” On Sept. 29, the information was e-mailed to all the government contacts the team had. [In the 2/9/02 and 2/10/02 versions of this article, the date was changed to Sept. 27] “Then it was sent to EPA, FEMA, OSHA and everyone else that seemed to be in charge,” Clark said. “It was just obvious that people needed to know what was in that dust.” But even today, most New Yorkers have never been told what the USGS team found in the dust. ... [The 2/9/02 version of this article links to the USGS website where its WTC study was posted. The 1/13/01 version of this article did not link to any USGS study on the USGS website.]

2/9/02 St. Louis P-D article – EPA denies having its own pH testing, defends not releasing USGS data previously
Andrew Schneider (2/09/2002) Caustic dust blankets World Trade Center area. St. Louis Post-Dispatch http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/special/asbestos.nsf/story/727E0EBECFD7DD0F86256CAD0076A1EE?OpenDocument http://www.nycosh.org/about_NYCOSH/NYCOSHNews/2002-february-News.html#anchor125184 http://landofpuregold.com/truth15.htm ... Even as the dust from the collapsed World Trade Center was still settling, top government scientists were determining that the smoky gray mixture was highly corrosive and potentially a serious danger to health. The U.S. Geological Survey team found that some of the dust was as caustic as liquid drain cleaner and alerted all government agencies involved in the emergency response. But many of those on the front lines of protecting the health of the public and workers cleaning up the site say they never got the information. "I'm supposed to be in the loop, and I've never heard any

– 42 –

specific numbers on how caustic the dust actually was," said Dr. Robin Herbert, co-director of the Mount Sinai Center for Occupational and Environmental Medicine. "There is a large segment of the population here whose physicians needed to know that information that USGS submitted. Exposure to dust with a high pH could impact everyone, but especially the very young, the very old and those with existing pulmonary disease." ... [A]n examination of all the EPA's public and press statements made since Sept. 11 found nothing that warned of the very high pH levels found by the Geological Survey scientists. Nor did the statements disclose the specific levels that the EPA's own testing found. "We've not heard of EPA or anyone else releasing information on specific pH levels in the dust, and that's information that we all should have had," said Carrie Loewenherz, an industrial hygienist for the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health, which provides assistance to more than 250 unions. "It's the specific numbers - those precise pH levels - that we need to make the appropriate safety decisions for the workers, and they were never released," Loewenherz said. "The dust, once it's in contact with moist tissue, the throat, the mouth, nasal passages, the eyes and even sweaty skin, it becomes corrosive and can cause severe burns." Most of the samples taken by USGS' team had a pH of 9.5 to 10.5, about the same alkalinity as ammonia. Two samples that were taken inside a high-rise apartment and in a gymnasium across from the wreckage of the World Trade Center had a pH of 11.8 to 12.1 - equivalent to what would be found in liquid drain cleaner. The degree of acidity or alkalinity in a material is expressed as a pH measurement. Neutral pH - like water - is 7 on a 15-point scale. Lower than 7, to 0, is an indication of acid. Higher than 7, to 14, the top of the scale, is alkaline. Levels near either end of the pH scale can harm the health of people and animals. Bruce Lippy, Loewenherz's counterpart with the operating engineers union, is responsible for the 300 workers running heavy equipment at ground zero. "Part of the dilemma we faced was not knowing precisely what was in the dust," Lippy said. "We knew it was caustic but had no information on exactly how caustic it was. I was trying to get people to wear the respirators, but if I knew how high the pH levels were, I could have been more persuasive in convincing the workers of the dangers." ... The Geological Survey's test results were posted Sept. 27 on a Web site restricted to government agencies. ... The USGS data on pH levels were not released by the EPA, nor apparently were the environmental agency's own test results on the dust. "It is extremely distressing to learn that the EPA knew how caustic samples of the dust were and didn't publicize the information immediately, or make sure that OSHA publicized it," said Joel Shufro, executive director of the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health. "If we had known at the time exactly how caustic the dust could be, we would have been in a better position to make informed decisions about respiratory protection to recommend and about the urgency of ensuring that workers and residents followed those recommendations," Shufro said. "It is inexcusable for EPA to have kept silent for so long about such a potential hazard." ... "What we're finding is incredible irritation to the lungs, throat and nasal passages," said Herbert, from Mount Sinai. "Some of the tissue is cherry red, vivid, bright, and "There are a large number of clinicians and public health specialists who are struggling to reconcile the health problems they're seeing with the exposure data they're being given," Herbert said. "The high pH in the dust may be a part of the answer. If the government had these pH readings of 11 and 12, the public and their physicians should have been told. Any credible information the government had relating to health issues just should have been released," she said. "There is no justification for holding it. You don't conceal the information from those who need it." ... Even within the EPA, professionals believe the agency did a disservice by not acknowledging and releasing the Geological Survey's data. Cate Jenkins, a senior environmental scientist in the hazardous materials division at the EPA headquarters, said: "The pH levels the USGS documented were far too high for EPA to ignore. They insisted that all the information regarding health and safety was being released to the public. Well, that's not true. There's nothing, internally or in public releases, that shows the agency ever disclosed specific pH levels." Late Thursday, the EPA's Bellow told the Post-Dispatch: "We have no specific data on pH levels." Bellow added, "This is all the available information on the subject." Late Friday, the EPA responded to the question of why it didn't collect its own pH numbers. "EPA had enough information about the alkalinity of the material from the World Trade Center without doing further analysis," Bellow said. The question of why EPA didn't release the data it had had remains unanswered.

2/5/02 –USGS officially releases pH data. Changed pH levels, falsified-back-dating of report to 11/15/01
On 2/5/02, USGS officially released its data on its website to First Responders and the public. The pH levels for the dust in the official 2/5/02 version of the USGS report were changed dramatically from the 12.1 or “over 12” in the Schneider 1/13/02 article to only 11.8. The pH scale is logarithmic. A one unit change in the pH represents a ten-fold change in the concentration of corrosive hydroxyl ions. The highest pH of outdoor dust level was only 10.8 in the 2/5/02 USGS report. – 43 –

USGS (2/5/02) Environmental Studies of the World Trade Center area after the September 11, 2001 attack. [2/5/02 is the actual posting date, the 11/15/01 date now on report was added in 2004, a falsification. See later analysis.] http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/ ... In general, the leachate solutions developed moderately alkaline to alkaline pH values (8.2 - 11.8), and high specific conductances (1.31 - 3.41 milliSiemens/cm, indicating high dissolved solids). ... The alkaline pH of the leach solutions, coupled with the high concentrations of calcium, carbonate, and sulfate, are consistent with an origin resulting primarily from the dissolution of concrete, glass fibers, gypsum, and other material in the dusts. The leach fluids with the highest pH and highest specific conductance are from dust samples collected indoors ...

Leach Table 1

USGS 2/5/02 version
Outdoor dust samples WTC-01-2 WTC-01-3 9.51 WTC-01-16 8.22 WTC-01-27 10 WTC-01-05 9.9 WTC-01-17 9.47 WTC-01-28 9.93 WTC-01-06 9.65 WTC-01-21 9.98 WTC-01-30 9.63 Girder Coatings WTC-01-8 INS [insufficient volume to test] Maximum 11.8 Mean 10.0 WTC-01-9 10.8 WTC-01-14 9.68 WTC-01-22 10.4 WTC-01-34 9.8 10.1 WTC-01-15

pH ... pH ...

10 WTC-01-25

pH ...

9.37

Indoor Dust Samples WTC-01-20 pH ... Minimum pH ... 8.22 11.8 WTC-01-36 11.8

USGS falsifies study release date in 2004, back-dating to 11/15/01 The actual release date of the USGS on its website can be determine by three factors. First, nobody in the WTC health community ever saw it before its posting in early February 2002. Second, the two St. Louis P-D articles (1/13/02 and 2/9/02) establish its release date. There was no weblink referenced in the 1/13/02 article, even though USGS scientists were quoted extensively. However, when the same article was republished on 2/9/02, it included a link to the USGS study. Finally, the WebArchive ( www.webarchive.org )shows that the first posting date was 2/5/02. See the analysis proving after-the-fact backdating using a WebArchive analysis in Jenkins' 10/25/06 report, pages 9-10 at http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/epamemocomplaint.pdf USGS added a date of 11/15/01 to their study sometime in 2004, where in all earlier versions from WebArchive there was no date on the report. This lack of timely notification on pH and chemical testing is in marked contrast to USGS's prompt release of thermal testing of the hot spots from the fires at Ground Zero to First Responders:
Images of the World Trade Center Site Show Thermal Hot Spots on September 16 and 23, 2001. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/

– 44 –

Results of Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) remote sensing data and interpretations show the distribution and intensity of thermal hot spots in the area in and around the World Trade Center on September 16 and 23, 2001. Data collected on the 16th were processed, interpreted and released to emergency response teams on the 18th of September, 2001.

2/11/02 – NYU Dr. Thurston Senate testimony: smallest WTC particles non-alkaline
Apparently it was felt necessary to counter the very alarming pH test results released by USGS scientists through the press and on its website (see 1/13/02 - 2/9/02 and 2/5/02 entries in this chronology above). In 2/11/02 Senate testimony, Dr. George Thurston, NYU claimed that although the larger WTC dust particles might be alkaline (high pH), his laboratory had performed tests on the smallest WTC particulates. He claimed that the smallest particles which could penetrate deep into the lungs were non-alkaline, non-corrosive, neutral, low pH:
Thurston, G. D. (February 11, 2002) Statement of Dr. George D. Thurston, Sc. D. to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the United States Senate Re: The Air Pollution Effects of The World Trade Center Disaster, February 11, 2002. http://www.senate.gov/~epw/107th/Thurston_021102.htm … Only trace amounts of asbestos were found in our samples. [contrast this claim with NYU's later publication that the range was 0.8 to 3% for their samples.] The less than one percent that was as PM2.5, or the particles that would reach deepest in the lung, was found to have a neutral pH, with no detectable asbestos or fiberglass. Thus, while our analyses are consistent with the government’s conclusion that the WTC dust is not likely to have short or long-term serious health impacts on otherwise healthy local residents, we found that it is very irritating and capable of causing the symptoms reported by many residents.

2/20/02 –Chen/Thurston defend neutral small particle claim to Jenkins, refuse to supply laboratory method information I questioned Dr. Thurston after his 2/11/02 Senate testimony claiming that the smallest particles of WTC dust were not alkaline. Dr. Chen responded, providing no analytical details but adding the information that the NYU labs found a pH greater than 11 for the larger particles, while still maintaining the smallest particles were neutral.
2/20/02 email from Dr. Chen at NYU to Cate Jenkins, Ph.D., EPA [See Jenkins’ 5/6/07 report, page 14, and references cited on page 15-16, at] http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/index2008/Jenkins.pdf ... I am not sure I can answer your questions. We first mechanically separated particles (sieving) with a cut off at 53 µm. We then aerodynamically separated the < 53 µm fraction to between 53 - 10 µm, 10 - 2.5 µm, and < 2.5 µm. We took a small aliquot from each fraction and suspended in a small volume of distilled, deionized water and used a pH meter to measure their pH. We found that the suspensions of the particles larger than 10 µm had a pH above 11, for 10 - 2.5 µm fraction, pH is above 8, and those < 2.5 µm is near neutral.

The NYU lab was probably diluting their sample with thousands of time the volume of water before any pH testing. EPA tested the same exact small particles collected and sizeseparated by NYU and found the pH for the smallest particles was 8.88 to 10, and that was after extreme dilution by EPA (nearly 600 parts water to 1 part WTC dust). See the 10/29/01 entry in this chronology which describes the extreme dilution/extreme fraud by EPA. In February 2002 I asked Dr. Thurston for his laboratory papers to substantiate the claim that the smallest particles were neutral, but he refused. See the references from pages 15-16 of Jenkins’ 5/6/07 report that provides more extensive excerpts from my email interchange with Dr. Thurston and Dr. Chen, at http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/index2008/Jenkins.pdf Thurston and Chen have never published any information on their alleged testing of their WTC dust samples, either the larger size or smallest size particles. There were no analytical

– 45 –

test methods details in the later 12/02 Lancet medical journal article by NYU’s Dr. Chen and Dr. Thurston, and no other published studies by NYU.

10/02 – USGS releases higher pH levels, but makes dishonest comparison to buffering capacity of WTC dust extracts after first removing the buffering capacity from the as yet undissolved calcium hydroxide in WTC dust
In a fact sheet dated October 2002, USGS provided even higher pH levels for WTC dust. From the graph on the fact sheet, the highest pH levels of WTC dust are now reported as 12.4, but you have to look at the graph in the fact sheet to figure this out.
USGS Environmental Studies of the World Trade Center Area, New York City, after September 11, 2001. [October, 2002 date on fact sheet. According to www.archive.org, the first captured date is 4/4/03.] http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0050-02/fs-050-02_508.pdf

This pH level of 12.4 was measured after dilution of WTC dust with 20 parts dilute acid. This is not a valid accepted method for testing pH. The EPA method requires a 1-to-1 dilution with water for testing the pH of solids. See EPA SW846 test method for soil-like materials at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/test/pdfs/9045d.pdf What is extremely interesting is that USGS also tested portland cement powder by the same 20-to-1 dilution with weak acid. USGS only found a pH level of 12.2 for cement powder. When tested by accepted laboratory methods, the pH level of portland cement is anywhere from 12.45 to over 13. Furthermore, some of the WTC dust samples had a higher pH than portland cement powder! See Jenkins’ 5/6/07 report, pages 6 – 9 at: http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/index2008/Jenkins.pdf for a discussion of USGS’s dishonest science using the inappropriate “alkalinity” comparison, performed only after they physically removed all the buffering capacity of WTC dust. USGS first obtained their 20:1 weak dilute acid extract of WTC dust and discarded all the as yet undissolved alkaline constituents remaining in the dust (calcium hydroxide). In other words, first the USGS first removed all the buffering capacity of WTC dust by filtering out the caustic undissolved dust particles from their water extract. Then and only then they compared the water extract to the buffering capacity of drain cleaner, etc. But it was the whole WTC dust particle that was inhaled into the lungs, not some brief diluted acid water extract. As discussed in my 5/6/07 report, the international community and United Nations treaties require the consideration not only of the pH of a material, but also its alkali reserve capacity. The alkali reserve capacity is a measure of the unreleased corrosive potential, which occurs as a material slowly dissolves. Both the European Union and the Canadian health system (and probably others) have published test methods to measure the alkali reserve capacity of corrosive materials. These methods test the whole material, both that which has entered into solution and the residual as-yet undissolved solids for the alkali reserve capacity:
United Kingdom Interpretation of the definition and classification of hazardous waste technical guidance WM2 http://www.aber.ac.uk/safety-environment/docs/public/haz_substances_wm2.pdf ... If the waste is believed to contain “ dangerous substances” with a high or low pH and can be leached to produce a leachate that has a pH of 2 or less or a pH of 11.5 or greater it should be assumed to be corrosive and thus be

– 46 –

hazardous waste by H8. If pH is being used as the basis of the classification, the acid/alkali reserve can be taken into consideration. The acid/alkali reserve provides a measure of the capability of an acid or alkali to maintain its pH and combined with pH provides a good indication of corrosivity. ... The acid/alkali reserve is determined by titration and is expressed as the grams of sodium hydroxide (equivalent) per 100 g of substance required to adjust the pH to the appropriate value. A waste should be considered as corrosive if: pH + 1/12 alkali reserve 14.5 ... Health Canada Consumer Product Safety. [2000] Determination of Acid and Alkali Reserves in Consumer Products http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/prod-test-essai/_method-chem-chim/c-14-2-eng.php ... For solid, paste, gel or products in the form otherwise unsuitable for direct measurement: The sample shall be prepared as a 10% (w/w) aqueous solution (1g + 10g of distilled water) and from this solution pipette an appropriate volume (start with 2mL) into a 100mL container and add approximately 50mL of distilled water. The solution is titrated with 0.1N HCl and a curve of the pH versus the volume of HCl is plotted. The volume of 0.1N HCl required to titrate to a pH of 10.00 ± 0.05 is measured (follow method "Base Reserve" when using the PCTitrate instrument). The alkali reserve expressed as grams of sodium hydroxide in 100g of sample is calculated using equation 2. ...

10/17/02 –NYU reasserts claim smallest particles neutral, large particles pH 11
On 10/17/02, New York University held another public forum. A slide presentation by Dr. Chen showed graphically NYU’s alleged pH testing results of large and small WTC dust samples collected on 9/12/01 and 9/13/01. In a bar graph, Chen shows the smallest particles being neutral (pH exactly 7) and the largest particles with a pH higher than 11:
L. C. Chen. (10/17/02) Community Exposures to Particulate Matter Air Pollution from the World Trade Center Disaster. http://www.med.nyu.edu/environmental/assets/chen.pdf [All presentations from 10/17/02 NYU forum:] http://www.med.nyu.edu/environmental/research/wtc/wtctalks.html DUST “FALLOUT” SAMPLES. WTC Ground Dust Samples collected on 9/12-13/01. Apartment buildings in November, 2001 … Large Dust Particles Were Alkaline and Irritating, But Small Particles (that can get into the Lung) Were Not [graph shows particles less than 2.5 μm had a pH of 7, which is neutral, and larger particles all had a pH of 11 or higher.] … Conclusions … Alkaline large particles were consistent with WTC cough symptoms. … Not everything is yet known about exposures or effects, but our results to date do not indicate long-term risks to the general public from WTC particle air pollution exposures.

Dr. Chen listed in his acknowledgement section 2 individuals from EPA, namely Steve Gavett, Ph.D. and Dan Costa, Ph.D.

12/02 – New NYU publication, small particles neutral, large particles now only pH 10
In December 2002, there were simultaneous publications by 1) NYU’s Chen and Thurston, and 2) EPA reporting pH test results for the exact same samples collected by NYU on 9/12/01 and 9/12/01, and also size fractionated by NYU. These samples were sent to EPA on 10/29/01. This entry in the chronology describes NYU’s alleged results. The next section in the chronology describes EPA’s publication on the same samples. Dr. Chen and Dr. Thurston were co-authors of a report in the 12/02 issue of the Lancet medical journal. Not surprisingly, Chen and Thurston repeat the claim that the smallest WTC dust particles were neutral. But what it surprising is this: With no explanation offered, Dr. Chen and Dr. Thurston dropped the pH level of the larger particles from 11 to 10. This is a big change, a change to 10 times less corrosivity for the larger particles
Lung Chi Chen, George Thurston (December 2002) World Trade Center cough. THE LANCET Supplement, Vol 360, www.thelancet.com http://niem.med.nyu.edu/WTC/wtccough.pdf ...

– 47 –

At the immediate urging of the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, we sent a team of technicians and students to collect dust samples at a number of locations in the area immediately adjacent to the World Trade Center site, and at nearby sites in lower Manhattan east, west, north, and south of the epicenter (Ground Zero) on the days after the collapse. All samples were collected from undisturbed surfaces, such as the top of a car, windowsills, or on sidewalks. ...One property of the dust that probably contributes to its irritancy is its caustic nature. The pH of most of the suspensions of the bulk World Trade Center settled dust was greater than 10, which is irritating to mucous membranes. However, the dust’s alkalinity decreased with decreasing particle size, with particles less than 2·5 m at about neutral pH. The caustic, alkaline large particles and large fibreglass fibres that were caught in the eyes, nose, and throat were probably responsible for the chronic cough of the residents and workers near Ground Zero. Thus, although the caustic large dust particles caused temporary nose, throat, and upper airway symptoms, they were effectively caught by the body’s defenses. Conversely, the fine dust that did reach the deep lung was lower in concentration and much less caustic.

There was no analytical method information whatsoever in this Lancet publication, just the bald-faced claim that the smallest particles were neutral and that now the new claim that larger particles only had a pH of 10 or greater. Chen and Thurston cannot explain away this pH level discrepancy (pH 10) for the larger particles by claiming they wanted to include the 2.5-10 m particle size range as well as the particles larger than 10 m. This is because they found essentially 0% of the particles in the 2.5-10 m size range according to Dr. Chen’s 10/17/02 presentation, much less than they did in the 2.5 m or less size range. They did not have enough dust in this 2.5-10 m size range to test pH by any credible analytical method. The fact that Chen and Thurston reported pH levels to begin with for the 2.5-10 m size range is another reason to doubt they ever performed any pH testing at all, coupled with the fact that they have never reported any testing methodology for their alleged pH testing.

12/02 – EPA reports same small size particles from NYU were alkaline, not neutral
In December 2002, EPA first published its pH and other testing results for WTC dust. The results and testing methods (pre-neutralization followed by extreme dilution 550:1 water-todust) were described in detail in the 10/29/01 entry in this chronology. To give context to the 12/02 NYU publication, the pH results published simultaneously by EPA are repeated here. The extreme dilution pH testing by EPA still showed alkalinity of the smallest WTC particles, pH levels from 8.88 to 10. These are the exact same samples collected by NYU on 9/12/01 and 9/13/01, size fractionated by NYU, and sent by NYU to EPA on 10/29/01.
EPA (December 2002) Toxicological Effects of Fine Particulate Matter ... http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/wtc/WTC_report_7b3i.pdf ... B. Extraction of PM from Teflon Filters Filters were extracted using a modification of a method by Biran and coworkers (1996). Each filter was handled with clean sterilized stainless steel forceps. Filters from each of the 7 individual collection sites (1 - 3 filters per site) were extracted into a single volume of distilled water (Gibco BRL ultrapure 10977-015, lot 1063705) in the ratio of 0.5 ml water per mg sample (2 mg PM / ml water; range 24.96 - 27.14 ml). This volume of water was pipetted into a 100 ml sterile plastic specimen cup containing a 3 mm thick Teflon ring at the bottom of the cup designed to support the filter. ... The pH of water extracted WTC PM2.5 ranged from 8.88 in WTCE to 10.00 in WTC8 [The pH testing part of the full 12/02 EPA study was published again as a separate article in 2003 below] J. K. McGee, L. C. Chen, M. D. Cohen, G. R. Chee, C. M. Prophete, N. Haykal-Coates, S. J. Wasson, T. L. Conner, D. L. Costa, and S. H. Gavett (2003) Chemical Analysis of World Trade Center Fine Particulate Matter for Use in Toxicological Assessment. Environmental Health Perspectives, 11(7): 972 http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/5930/5930.pdf

Even these pH levels of 8.88 to 10 are capable of immobilizing the natural clearance system of the respiratory tract, if not causing direct tissue destruction, thus allowing other more toxic constituents of WTC dust to penetrate deep into the lungs. In addition, these pH levels

– 48 –

of 8.88 to 10 if associated with sufficient alkali reserve capacity (as yet undissolved hydroxyl species such as calcium hydroxide) could also cause corrosive tissue damage. EPA reported no pH levels for the larger sized particles, even though there was more than adequate amount of sample available in this size range to test, and even though EPA appears to have performed every other test for the larger particles. This is very suspicious in and of itself.

5/25/04 – NYU Dr. Chen report again claims pH of large particles over 11, a change from the pH of only 10 reported in NYU 12/02 Lancet publication
NYU’s Dr. Chen served on EPA expert panel for WTC residential cleanup program. A slide in Dr. Chen’s presentation now shows again a pH of greater than 11 for the larger WTC dust particles. However, to obfuscate this fact, this time Dr. Chen deletes the pH numbers on the vertical axis of the graph. You have to have sufficient knowledge of pH values for neutral, etc. in order to decipher the 5/25/04 version of the graph that Dr. Chen first presented on 10/17/02.
EPA - Archived Material: World Trade Center Expert Technical Review Panel http://www.epa.gov/wtc/panel/ Lung Chi Chen (5/25/04) Community Exposures to Particulate Matter Air Pollution from the World Trade Center Disaster http://www.epa.gov/wtc/panel/pdfs/chen-20040524.pdf ... [page 22] Large Dust Particles Were Alkaline and Irritating, But Small Particles (that can get into the Lung) Were Not

5/25/04 – USGS’s Dr. Meeker report repeats 10/02 USGS fact sheet version of pH data
USGS’s Dr. Greg Meeker also served on the same EPA panel evaluating “fingerprints” to determine how far the WTC residential cleanup should extend. Meeker’s 5/25/04 presentation includes a graphic showing the pH of WTC dust that is identical to graphic in the fact sheet USGS posted 10/02 on its website. This 5/25/04 presentation by Meeker shows the highest outdoor dust pH level is about 10.09, the same value USGS gave in its 10/02 fact sheet.
EPA - Archived Material: World Trade Center Expert Technical Review Panel http://www.epa.gov/wtc/panel/ Meeker, Greg (5/25/04) Identifying Signatures for WTC Contamination http://www.epa.gov/wtc/panel/pdfs/meeker-20040524.pdf ... [See graphic on page 17 which includes the pH of dust samples collected by USGS]

This graphic was newly prepared by Dr. Meeker for his 5/25/04 EPA presentation. The colors were different, as well as the typefaces, etc. compared to the USGS 10/02 fact sheet. This was not a case of Dr. Meeker merely incorporating an already prepared graphic from an earlier USGS publication. In 2006, this same graphic appears again in a new USGS publication as “Figure 3” on page 256. But in the 2006 version of the same graphic, there are added pH results showing that outdoor dust actually was found to have a pH higher than 11 by USGS. See the 2006 USGS entry in this chronology.

– 49 –

Over the course of 2 years, USGS was adding pH data, showing higher pH levels than previously reported. This cannot be a case of the USGS performing additional pH tests on samples that it had saved through the years. This would be impossible, since these dust samples lose their alkalinity over time due to carbonation. My own range finding experiments with simulated WTC dust show significant reductions of pH with air exposure over a one month period.

2004 – Mt. Sinai’s Dr. Philip Landrigan misrepresents pH levels
Dr. Philip Landrigan, Chairman of the Department of Community and Preventive Medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, was the lead author of a report in Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) in 2004, funded in part by EPA. The main focus of the Landrigan et al. 2004 publication was to report new findings of adverse health effects in those exposed to WTC dust. However, this publication also discussed earlier WTC research, and misrepresented the pH test results from this earlier research (actually changed the numbers). Landrigan et al. 2004 changed the pH values published in Lioy et al. 2002. Landrigan et al. 2004 also claimed that the EPA McGee et al. 2003 was its source for a claim that the smallest particles were neutral, which is untrue. See the following excerpt from the Landrigan et al. 2004 publication contrasted to what was actually stated in the McGee et al. 2003 and Lioy et al. 2002 publications.
Philip J. Landrigan, Paul J. Lioy, George Thurston, Gertrud Berkowitz, L.C. Chen, Steven N. Chillrud, Stephen H. Gavett, Panos G. Georgopoulos, Alison S. Geyh, Stephen Levin, Frederica Perera, Stephen M. Rappaport, Christopher Small, and the NIEHS World Trade Center Working Group (2004) Health and Environmental Consequences of the World Trade Center Disaster. Environ Health Perspect. 112:731–739. http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2004/6702/6702.pdf … Dust pH was highly alkaline (9.0-11.0). ... Settled dust. To evaluate the composition of material deposited in lower Manhattan immediately after destruction of the WTC, samples of settled dust were collected at sites in lower Manhattan (Lioy et al. 2002; McGee et al. 2003). ... Each sample of settled dust had a highly alkaline pH (9.0–11.0). ... To assess the composition of settled dust by size, samples were mechanically sieved and then separated aerodynamically into three fractions (Lioy et al. 2002; McGee et al. 2003). … Materials < 2.5 µm in aerodynamic diameter comprised 0.88-1.98% of total mass. Alkalinity decreased with decreasing particle size, and particles <2.5µm had a more nearly neutral pH (Lioy et al. 2002; McGee et al. 2003). This finding is consistent with the dominant presence of highly alkaline, coarse cement particles in the large size fraction. ... A property of the dust that appears to have contributed to its intense respiratory irritability was its high alkalinity (Lioy et al. 2002; McGee et al. 2003). Larger particles composed principally of cement dust were especially alkaline (pH 9.0–11.0). These particles were of a size likely to be caught in the upper airways.

Paul J. Lioy, Clifford P. Weisel, James R. Millette, Steven Eisenreich, Daniel Vallero, John Offenberg, Brian Buckley, Barbara Turpin, Mianhua Zhong, Mitchell D. Cohen, Colette Prophete, Ill Yang, Robert Stiles, Glen Chee, Willie Johnson, Robert Porcja, Shahnaz Alimokhtari, Robert C. Hale, Charles Weschler, and Lung Chi Chen (July 2002) [received for publication January 15, 2002] 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. Environmental Health Perspectives • VOLUME 110, NUMBER 7, 703. http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/EHP110p703PDF.PDF … pH analyses ... placed them in test tubes; aliquots of distilled, deionized water were added to make a concentration of approximately 30 mg/mL. The tubes were inverted several times and were then sonicated. The samples were left at room temperature for several days before centrifugation. The extract from each filter sample was removed to a new test tube before centrifugation. All samples were centrifuged and the supernatant was removed to new tubes and stored in the refrigerator. A 1-mL aliquot of extract was used for pH measurement. ... The pH of an aqueous suspension of each sample was > 7; the Cortlandt Street sample had a pH of 11.5. Both the Cherry and Market Street samples had a pH of 9 (Table 1). ...

– 50 –

J. K. McGee, L. C. Chen, M. D. Cohen, G. R. Chee, C. M. Prophete, N. Haykal-Coates, S. J. Wasson, T. L. Conner, D. L. Costa, and S. H. Gavett (2003) Chemical Analysis of World Trade Center Fine Particulate Matter for Use in Toxicological Assessment. Environmental Health Perspectives, 11(7): 972 http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/5930/5930.pdf … pH levels of water-extracted WTC PM2.5 and control samples are shown in Table 5. The pH of water-extracted WTC PM2.5 samples before lyophilization ranged from 8.88 in WTCE to 10.00 in WTC8. The alkaline pH results from the building materials comprising much of the dust ... We conclude that water-soluble Ca containing compounds were enriched in the WTC PM2.5 fraction compared with those in the whole settled dust. ... The likely major acute inhalation hazards of WTC PM2.5 based on the results from this study are due to the presence of gypsum, calcite, and cement or concrete dust components. ...

Context of Dr. Landrigan’s misrepresentations of pH data Since there were so many co-authors and contributors to the Landrigan et al. 2004 publication, it is impossible to know who was responsible for the misrepresentations. However, the following may provide some insight on the issue. On 2/11/02 Dr. Landrigan delivered testimony before the Senate in which he described the fact that he had previously reassured parents that the schools in lower Manhattan were safe. He was a consultant to the NYC school system after 9/11 on school safety issues. He also testified before the Senate that he had a personal role in the much criticized advice for residents to do their own self-cleanups using “a damp mop or rag.” In this 2/11/02 testimony, he also claimed contaminant levels were below background levels and met exposure standards, when they were never tested with sufficient sensitivity for such claims. He claimed that the AHERA asbestos clearance level was a strict safety standard. Dr. Landrigan is an asbestos expert and would have known this was untrue, and that the AHERA clearance level is coupled with a rigorous remediation protocol and designed only to reveal any gross departure from these protocols. Even EPA finally denied that the AHERA level has any applicability to safety in the aftermath of the WTC, and imposed much stricter air levels for testing after cleaning of residences and schools. Below are abstracts from Dr. Landrigan’s 2/11/02 testimony, as well as an earlier false claim by him in the 11/01 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives regarding the AHERA standard, and citations for some of his earlier asbestos research demonstrating his superior expertise in asbestos toxicology:
Philip J. Dr. Landrigan (2/11/02) Impacts on the Health of Children of the September 11 Attacks on the World Trade Center Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate http://epw.senate.gov/107th/Landrigan_021102.htm ... Accordingly we developed recommendations in collaboration with the Ground Zero Elected Officials Task Force and the Manhattan Borough President that urged families to take the following prudent steps: ... For ongoing clean-up, use a HEPA vacuum (they can be rented) and a damp mop or rag on floors, walls and furniture to clean your apartment. Brooms stir up dust. ... School Health Risks. Based on our review of the most recent data, we are comfortable that the indoor environment of the schools in lower Manhattan is now clean and safe for children and adults. The public schools in lower Manhattan have undergone an extensive array of environmental tests more thorough than any that have been performed in any other New York City Public school. Measurements of contaminants (fine particulates, PCBs, dioxins, lead and other metals, asbestos, and volatile organic compounds) have found levels that in virtually every instance are well below applicable standards and background levels. ... Asbestos. Although “no asbestos is good asbestos”, the levels of asbestos fibers in the air in lower Manhattan and in and around P.S. 89 are at background levels for the city, and the levels in the schools are well below the AHERA 2 standard of 70 structures/mm . Landrigan (11/01) Environmental Aftermath. Environmental Health Perspectives • VOLUME 109(11) A 529 http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2001/109-11/EHP109pa528PDF.PDF

– 51 –

See also: http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2001/109-11/editorial.html ... Strict regulations for contaminants in schools are being applied. For example, the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) of 1986 requires that a standard for asbestos 10 times stricter than the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard for workplaces be applied in schools. … says Philip Landrigan ... Landrigan, Nicholson. Suzuki, Ladou (1999) The hazards of chrysotile asbestos: a critical review. Industrial Health 37: 271-280. Landrigan, Philip J. (1998) Asbestos -- Still a Carcinogen (Editorials). NEJM, 338(22): 1618-1619 http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/extract/338/22/1618

On 9/12/07 Dr. Landrigan again delivered Senate testimony which repeated the same misrepresentations of the pH levels published in the Lioy 2002 and McGee 2003 studies. These were the same misrepresentations of the pH levels in the Landrigan et al. 2004 EHP publication.
Philip J. Dr. Landrigan (9/12/07) TESTIMONY before The United States House of Representatives, Committee on Education and Labor, Hearing on “Why Weren’t World Trade Center Rescue and Recovery Workers Protected?” http://homeland.house.gov/SiteDocuments/20070920142102-37238.pdf ... Firefighters described walking through dense clouds of dust and smoke in those first hours, in which "the air was thick as soup". The high content of pulverized cement made the dust highly caustic (pH 10–11).

By 2007, there was no reason for Dr. Landrigan to rely solely on the McGee 2003 and Lioy 2002 studies for establishing pH levels of WTC dust. This is because the USGS report posted on 2/5/02 and USGS data published in 2007 showed WTC dust pH levels higher than 12. Dr. Landrigan had access to this USGS data for his 2007 Senate testimony, and should have included this when he characterized the pH of WTC dust. See also the recent 9/11/08 interview with Dr. Landrigan, where he again repeats the same misrepresentations:
Brandon Keim (9/11/08) 9/11 Health Problems Could Worsen http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/911-health-prob.html … Philip Landrigan: About two-thirds of the mass consisted of pulverized cement. It was extremely caustic, with a pH between 10 and 11. ...

In a Discover Magazine interview in 2007, Dr. Landrigan was circumspect about his approvals for reopening the still contaminated schools after 9/11:
Discover Magazine (9/7/07) World Plague Center Philip Landrigan tracks the massive health fallout from breathing NY air after 9/11. http://discovermagazine.com/2007/sep/world-plague-center/article_print … A: [Answer by Dr. Landrigan] At that point, only minimal air sampling had been done because all the air monitors had been destroyed. And most of the early sampling was focused on asbestos because we thought that asbestos was the big hazard. It took a few weeks before we realized that it was the complex mix of chemicals and dust that was the hazard—asbestos was just part of the puzzle— especially the pulverized concrete, which was extremely alkaline. [Q]: Like breathing Drano. A: Unfortunately, that's true. And the concentrations of dust in the air were so high that they overwhelmed all the normal defenses of the human respiratory tract, and people inhaled ounces of dust into their trachea or their bronchi… [Q]: There are 46,000 children who attend school in lower Manhattan. Six months after the attacks, you testified before Congress that the indoor environment at the schools was safe. Do you think this all-clear signal might have been premature? Have any follow-up studies been done on these kids? A: In retrospect, there was more indoor contamination that we initially realized. In some cases, windows were blown out and the contamination was painfully obvious. But it took a while to realize that there were a number of other buildings that didn't react swiftly enough to close their air intakes, so the contaminated dust got taken up with the air handling systems.

Dr. Landrigan cannot claim that he was unaware of the controversy over the misrepresentation of the pH data in his Landrigan et al.2004 publication. Dr. Landrigan was on the primary email list for my 8/22/06, 10/25/06 and 5/6/07 complaints on the falsifications

– 52 –

and misrepresentations of the pH levels of WTC dust, which explicitly named his 2004 publication as part of the falsifications. The misrepresentation of the pH levels of WTC dust by Dr. Landrigan and others in Senate testimony is not without consequence. The international community and other experts are not alerted as to the true respiratory hazards meeting UN presumptive corrosivity levels after the WTC collapse and the probability of similar hazards from building demolitions.

2006 – USGS releases even higher pH levels for WTC dust
In 2006 USGS scientists published even higher pH levels for WTC dust. This was by way of a chapter in a book resulting from a scientific symposium, not made known to the general public. Even then it was not available unless the book was purchased for $124.50 plus tax and shipping. See the following table where USGS now claims that outdoor dust, not just indoor dust, had pH levels higher than 12.

[USGS] G. Plumlee, P. Hageman, P. Lamothe, T. Ziegler, G. Meeker, P. Theodorakos, I. Brownfield, M. Adams, G. Swayze, T. Hoefen, J. Taggart, R. Clark, S. Wilson, and S. Sutley (2006) Chapter 12. Inorganic chemical composition and chemical reactivity of settled dust generated by the World Trade Center building collapse. In: Urban Aerosols and Their Impacts: Lessons Learned from the World Trade Center Tragedy, Jeff Gaffney and N. A. Marley (eds), American Chemical Society, Symposium Series 919, Oxford University Press, pp. 238 - 267. Presented in part at the 226th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society, NYC, 9/7/03 – 9/11/03. [Abstract only at link below:] www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Chemistry/EnvironmentalChemistry/?view=usa&ci=9780841239166

In this 2006 USGS publication, the pH levels for outdoor dust was over 11 for 3 samples, and over 12 for one sample. The highest outdoor dust sample in the USGS 2/5/02 report was only 10.4 (sample WTC01-22). The 2006 publication also gave the 2 indoor dust samples as – 53 –

having pH levels of 12.3 and 12.4, compared to the highest pH level for indoor dust of 11.8 in the 2/5/02 USGS report. ggg The appendix to the USGS 2006 publication indicated these new higher results were the result of "duplicate analyses." However, a "duplicate analysis" is a well defined chemical term, meaning a split sample where all analyses are performed at the same time under identical conditions as a quality control measure. This term is defined in published standard methods such as those of EPA.
EPA Office of Solid Waste. Test Methods SW 846, Chapter 1, Quality Control. page 27: Definitions. ... DUPLICATE: An intralaboratory split sample which is used to document the precision of a method in a given sample matrix. http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/test/main.htm

If these high pH levels were in fact from genuine duplicate analyses as claimed by USGS, then the higher results would have been available to USGS for inclusion in their 2/5/02 report that was and still is posted on the USGS website. The additional pH tests released in 2006 by USGS cannot be a case of the USGS performing additional pH tests on samples that it had saved through the years. This would be impossible, since these dust samples lose their alkalinity over time due to carbonation. My own range finding experiments with simulated WTC dust show significant reductions of pH with air exposure over a one month period. It is reasonable to conclude that USGS did in fact perform duplicate additional pH tests in September 2001, but withheld the higher pH test results from the public. As discussed in the 5/25/04 entry in this chronology, USGS’s Dr. Greg Meeker presented a graphic showing the different USGS pH results that was the same as the one posted on the USGS website in 10/02. Meeker made no changes in his 5/25/04 version of the graphic over the 10/02 USGS version. In the 2006 USGS publication, this same graphic appears again as “Figure 3” on page 256. However, in the 2006 version, there are added pH results on the graphic showing that outdoor dust had a pH higher than 11. Meeker’s 5/25/04 version of the graphic had fewer pH data points, and only showed a high of 10.09 for outdoor WTC dust. Over the course of 2 years, USGS was adding pH data, showing higher pH levels than previously reported. See the table below for the history of the changing USGS results.
USGS’s changing pH results INDOOR WTC dust highest OUTDOOR WTC dust highest 1/13/02 St. Louis PostDispatch article 12.1 and “12 and higher” (both indoor/outdoor) 12.1 and “12 and higher” (both indoor/outdoor) 2/5/02 USGS study on USGS website 11.8 10.8 10/02 USGS fact sheet graph 12.4 10.09 “non-caustic alkalinity” 5/25/04 USGS presentation to EPA panel 12.4 10.09 “noncaustic alkalinity” 2006 USGS paper in ACS monograph 12.4 12.04

3/20/07 – Univ. of California DELTA Group research demonstrates caustic alkaline properties of smallest WTC dust particles
The 3/20/07 issue of Esquire Magazine released data from a prominent World Trade Center research group, the DELTA Group at the University of California at Davis. University of California at Davis. The Esquire journalist was present during the procedures performed by – 54 –

Dr. Thomas Cahill who separating preserved WTC dust from the original plume into different sizes, and then tested the different size ranges. Cahill found that the smallest particles contained the same relative amounts of portland cement (21 and 22%) and aggregate used in concrete (15% and 12.5%). (See 3/20/07 entry in this chronology.) Since concrete would be a major contributor to alkalinity, Cahill’s data makes the NYU Thurston/Chen claims highly improbable that the smallest particles were non-alkaline.
Tyler Cabot for Esquire Magazine (3/20/07) The Bag. A Breakdown. http://www.esquire.com/features/breakdown0407 ...

Initial Dust Cloud, 9/11/01
Coarse particles (12 to 2.5 microns), 85 percent of sample ... 65% gypsum 22% cement 12.5% aggregate (sand and gravel particles) 0.5% other Very fine aerosols (0.26 to 0.09 microns), 0.02% ... 63% Gypsum ... 21% Cement ... 15% Aggregate Sand and gravel that were mixed to form the World Trade Center's concrete. 2% Other ... ... [See the 3 companion articles in the same issue of Esquire at the following links] http://www.esquire.com/features/Know9_11 http://www.esquire.com/print-this/9_11bag http://www.esquire.com/features/breakdown0407

In other words, if the proportion of cement and aggregate in WTC dust is the same in the smallest as well as the largest particles, then the pH of WTC dust would be the same for the smallest and largest particles. The USGS results published in 2006 applicable to bulk WTC dust, large and small particles, is therefore equally applicable to the smallest particles. The pH of newly pulverized concrete is well established through extensive research, particularly by federal and state highway departments who are faced with the dilemma of trying to dispose or reuse the highly alkaline, caustic concrete generated by the destruction of old highways. See Jenkins’ 5/6/07 report at http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/index2008/Jenkins.pdf for a table on page 46 summarizing the pH levels of newly pulverized concrete.

2007 – EPA publication gives credence to pH tests performed by NYU
Interestingly, in 2007 there was an EPA publication which inexplicably referred to the alleged independent NYU pH test results: – 55 –

[EPA] Lorber, et al. (December 2007) Assessment of Inhalation Exposures and Potential Health Risks to the General Population that Resulted from the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. Risk Analysis, Vol. 27, No. 5: 1203 – 1221. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/General+Population+Unlikely+to+Suffer+Health+Effects+From+9%2F11+Air...-a0172263824... [The complete report is available upon request from Joseph L. Walker, SRA communications advisor, 703-491-3301 or walkercom2@aol.com] … The issue of alkalinity also arises for WTC dust, including the inhalable size PM2.5 particles. McGee et al. (2003) found that pH levels of water-extracted PM2.5 before lyophilization ranged from 8.88–10.00. They state that the alkaline pH results from the building materials comprising much of the dust, most likely the alkaline earth (calcium, magnesium) compounds, as well as calcium carbonate, which is a major component of cement and other building materials. Chen and Thurston (2002) state that the pH of most of the suspensions of the WTC settled dust were greater than 10. They found that the dust’s alkalinity decreased with decreasing particle size, with particles less than 2.5 m at about neutral pH.

However, the McGee et al. 2003 publication did not refer to these alleged independent NYU results and alleged tests, even though the McGee et al. publication included Dr. Chen as a coauthor. As discussed earlier, the NYU scientists have never provided any details on their analytical techniques in any publication to justify their alleged independent pH test results. Although it is speculation, it is possible that EPA was motivated to give credence at this late date to the NYU Chen/Thurston claims that the smallest particles were neutral because of the controversy generated by my complaints of misrepresentations and alterations of the pH data by both Dr. Landrigan and Drs. Chen and Thurston. There was coverage in the NY Times, the CBS Early Show, and other major news outlets over my reports on the pH data falsifications:
(8/22/06) 1st Jenkins report on pH fraud not posted on the internet, press reports below. CBS link is a video interview. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/25/nyregion/25toxic.html?pagewanted=print http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/08/earlyshow/main1985804.shtml (10/25/07) 2nd Jenkins report on pH fraud posted at: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/epamemocomplaint.pdf (5/6/07) 3rd Jenkins report on pH fraud posted at Feal Good Foundation http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/Bulletins/Jenkins.pdf

2007 – USGS finds high pH levels in California wildfire ashes
USGS obtained ash samples from residential burn-outs after the California wildfires in 2007 and found highly alkaline corrosive pH levels. The residential ash pH levels of 12.5 to 12.7 were higher than ashes from the fires in the open wildlands, suggesting that the residential fires burned at higher temperatures.
USGS (2007) Preliminary Analytical Results for Ash and Burned Soils from the October 2007 Southern California Wildfires http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1407/pdf/OF07-1407_508.pdf http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1830 … Preliminary analyses of the ash and soil samples indicate several features of potential environmental or health concern. (1) Water leach tests (table 2) show that the residential ash samples generate high pH levels (12.5–12.7). These levels suggest that ash from burned residences can generate caustic alkalinity when it comes into contact with rainwater or water-based body fluids (such as perspiration or fluids lining the respiratory tract). In contrast, similar water leachates of the limited number of wildland ash samples analyzed to date generate somewhat less caustic alkalinity and lower pH (9.8–10.9). USGS water leach tests on ash from vegetation combusted in the laboratory at various controlled temperatures indicate that leachate pH correlates with temperature of combustion, with leachate pH maximizing at 12.5 for combustion temperatures over 600°C (J. Crock, unpub. data).

The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) stated that a normal open fire attains temperatures of 1100° C. The USGS fly-over remote sensing of thermal hot spots at – 56 –

the WTC on September 16 showed temperatures as high as 704° C. on the surface, meaning the temperatures would have been even higher in earlier days and below the surface. Calcium hydroxide, one of the constituents of concrete, is converted to calcium oxide (quicklime) at around 540° C. Calcium oxide will react violently with the moisture in human tissues generating high heat, and then the calcium hydroxide so generated will excerpt its alkaline corrosivity on human flesh. At temperatures between 750 - 1000° C., limestone (primarily calcium carbonate) is converted to calcium oxide. Three reports found glass spheres from melted glass in the plume of WTC emissions up until 10/30/01. Glass melts at about 1000° C. Sodium oxide would be released from the glass matrix and converted to sodium hydroxide with moisture on contact with human tissues. Cellulosics (wood, paper) are also converted to calcium, sodium. and potassium hydroxide at high temperatures. See pages 26-28 of Jenkins’ 5/6/07 report at
http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/index2008/Jenkins.pdf

11/18/07 – Citizens near implosion demolition get misleading pH – corrosive cement dust reassurances from Turner Construction expert who evaluated WTC dust
In November 2007, I was contacted by a concerned citizen living in a high-rise apartment building across the street from a pending implosion demolition of the Sheraton hotel in Bal Harbour, FL. I advised him of the high pH levels of freshly pulverized concrete, the need to independently seal windows and doorways with tape in addition to anything offered or planned by the parties responsible for the demolition, and not to be in the area until after rains had settled and neutralized the dust. I also advised him to purchase beforehand standard pH test strips. Concrete testing of Sheraton prior to implosion showed some pH levels above 11.5 The Bal Harbour town manager, the companies responsible for the demolition conducted limited pH testing of some of the building materials. Even though these samples were probably chosen to represent lower pH levels (surface layers of concrete, porous concrete) pH levels above 11.5 were still found in some samples. The following excerpts are from the testing consultant’s report:
EE&G Environmental Services, LLC (11/13/07) ... Subject: Opinion Position. Engineered Building Demolition by Implosion, 9701 Collins Avenue, Bal Harbour, Florida 33154 ... At the request of The Related Group of Florida ... EE&G has conducted a review of applicable Federal, State, and Local regulations and has developed opinions ... - The validity of conducting EPA Test Method 9045D, “Soil and Waste PH”, ore-implosion to predict the presence of caustic particulate associated with the implosion event. - Hazards to the adjacent and surrounding general public as related to dust particulate generated by the implosion event. ... - Citizens of Bal Harbour raise concerns regarding particulate associated with the implosion of the structures at the subject property. - A citizen of Bal Harbour requested that EPA Test Method 9045D be performed prior to the implosion event. - EE&G was contacted by an attorney representing a homeowner in Bal Harbour, by the City Manager of Bal Harbour, and by the Client in relation to the citizen’s concerns. - URS, representing the Client, conducted EPA Test Method 904D on appropriate building materials on November 12, 2007 for the purposes of waste characterization. - Results of the EPA Test method 9045D event yielded results above and below 11.5 PH. ... Per RCRA requirements, EPA Test Method 9045D was conducted by the Client for the purpose of waste characterization. The results of testing conducted by URS yielded PH levels withing the range of alkaline (above 7) and some results were above the RCRA characterization criteria as an alkaline waste (above 11.5).

– 57 –

Dr. Granger, Turner Construction consultant after the WTC collapse, reassures Bal Harbour One citizen contacted Dr. Hugh Granger prior to the demolition for advice on hazards. I had mentioned Dr. Granger as a possible consultant to the township. Dr. Granger of H. P. Environmental had previously been a consultant to Turner Construction Company as well as the Securities and Exchange Commission after the WTC collapse. As discussed earlier in this chronology, the WTC consultant team headed by Dr. Granger tested WTC dust for pH but withheld their data after 9/11 in their public data releases. I spoke to Dr. Granger by telephone before he advised the Bal Harbour citizens. He told me there was less concern about the pH of concrete dust per se, because similar pH alkaline materials like drain cleaner had a greater “buffering” capacity. He was obviously echoing the dishonest science used by USGS in its 10/02 fact sheet. After the WTC, the USGS first removed all the buffering capacity of WTC dust by filtering out the undissolved particles before comparing the buffering capacity to drain cleaner. In our conversation, I reminded Dr. Granger of the error of this fallacious comparison by both him and the USGS. I pointed out that he had received my 5/6/07 report which debunked the USGS pseudo buffering comparison. He agreed with me on the telephone, but apparently repeated this false science to the Bal Harbour resident. He also allegedly told them that any health concerns were related only to long term exposures of inhaled highly alkaline materials like concrete dust. Of course, this is not supported by any scientific basis, since short term inhalation of corrosive materials can result in permanent irreversible scarring, and inhalation of a corrosive material with such a high buffering capacity as the calcium hydroxide in concrete dust would be the equivalent of a de facto long term exposure. Dr. Granger refused to tell me first hand what he had told the resident prior to the 11/18/07 implosion, although I informed him by telephone message that without a written confirmation to the contrary, I would assume that the Bal Harbour citizen’s rendition of his advice was true. Dr. Scheff, Univ. of Illinois, reassures Bal Harbour residents no pH concern The township leadership also wanted an independent expert to "pass" on the safety of any elevated pH levels from the demolition. The township contacted Peter Scheff, Ph.D., one of the researchers associated with the study of mechanical demolitions of housing projects in Chicago discussed earlier in this chronology. Dr. Scheff was specifically asked his opinion on a study finding respiratory health effects from alkaline high pH dust generated during the recovery phase after the 1995 Japan earthquake (see earlier entry in this chronology). In a 11/15/07 email (below) Dr. Scheff made the spurious claim that the high pH demolition dust generated months after the Japan earthquake did not directly cause any health effects. Instead, he claimed the health effects stemmed from some unnamed environmental damage from the high alkaline loading from this same demolition dust. Dr. Scheff did not even offer us a conjecture on the nature of this alleged environmental damage. The Japanese study contained no such information. Was the grass not as green

– 58 –

because of the high alkaline loading, and thus people got depressed and somehow developed respiratory ailments as a result? Dr. Scheff was silent.
From: Scheff, Peter A. (mailto:pscheff@uic.edu) Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 2:05 PM To: Anthony C. Soroka Subject: Re: Quick Question: PH of Concrete Dust...Pease respond ASAP Anthony: I discussed this with Sam this morning. While there may be an issue with alkalinity, there is no good evidence to stop the implosion on this grounds. Sam said to look for a study in Baltimore where emissions from an implosion were monitored. They found no significant exposures as long as folks stayed indoors with the doors and windows closed. Water did nothing to modify exposure. The paper from Japan was concerning environmental effects of a large loading of alkalinity to the community. The health effects were from damage to the environment, not the direct effect of the particles on human health. The emissions from a single implosion does not have the potential to cause major environmental changes. Clearly dust is an issue. You need to be sure that people are protected by keeping them away or inside during the implosion. Monitoring during the removal phase could be useful to protect public health. If I get some time this afternoon, I'll look for the Baltimore paper. Peter Peter A. Scheff, Ph.D., Professor Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences University of Illinois at Chicago 2121 W Taylor Chicago, IL 60612 voice: 312-996-0800 fax: 312-413-9898 Peter, Based on your research and experience, are you aware of this concept that the PH of concrete dust (above 11.5) is harmful to breathe in. This is our sole focus now. Have you heard of such a thing? Is there any validity to such a claim? Has Dr. Dorevitch heard of such a thing? Is this accepted in the scientific community? You stated in your email yesterday that "The soil and waste PH stuff is of limited value"...What do you mean by that? I have attached an article from Japan which discusses the subject. I know you are at a site today, but if there is any way for you to briefly respond, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Anthony C. Soroka, Weiss Serota Helfman Pastoriza Cole & Boniske, P.L. 200 East Broward Blvd., Suite 1900 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 ASoroka@wsh-law.com Tel: (954) 763-4242 Fax: (954) 764-7770 Takao Gotoh, Takashi Nishimura, Minoru Nakata, Yuzuru Nakaguchi, and Keizo Hiraki (2002) Air Pollution by Concrete Dust from the Great Hanshin Earthquake. J. Environ. Qual. 31:718–723. http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/31/3/718 Air pollution in the areas affected by the Great Hanshin Earthquake (Hyogo, Japan) of 17 Jan. 1995 was quite serious. We performed three investigations of dust. In the first investigation, we measured the total suspended particulate (TSP) concentration in the greatly damaged areas, located around the Sannomiya Station where a few hundred thousand 3 people walked by during the daytime of 3 February. The maximum concentration at five points reached 150 g/m . In the second investigation, eight samples, which were classified into three groups (concrete, mortar, and soil dusts) as sources, were analyzed elementally by X-ray fluorescence. The elements found in concrete dust (Ca and S) were similar to those found in mortar dust. These differed from those found in soil dust (Ti, Fe, and Zr). The elements found in soil dust were important from the viewpoint of heavy metal contamination. In the third investigation, the alkalinity of concrete dust was observed by dissolution. This solution was equivalent to pH 11 to 12 and electrical conductivity 20 to 30 S/m. ... Twenty-five percent of those who replied to the British Medical Research Council (BMRC)-type questionnaire complained about worsening health after the earthquake, and 67% of them complained about respiratory problems. ... But the relation between the weakening of the environment after earthquake and the weakening of health was not clear until now. This work emphasizes the fourth investigation of concrete dust due to the destruction and demolition of buildings detailed from the viewpoint of alkaline pollution in the devastated area. ... pH and Conductivity of Collected Dust We measured the pH and electric conductivity (EC) values of the dust at five points around five demolition work sites, two of which were located around JR Sannomiya Station, two around JR Rokkomichi Station (Nada-Ku), and one located 1 km southwest of Sannomiya station on 16 Feb. 1995. The following results were obtained. All the measured pH values of the dust collected at the five points exceeded 11.5 and all the measured EC values exceeded 20 S/m.

– 59 –

From these results, it was suspected that these areas were polluted by alkaline concrete dust resulting from the demolition of deserted buildings. ...

Aftermath of 11/18/07 Bal Harbour implosion – pH over 12, children intentionally exposed The implosion demolition of the Bal Harbour Sheraton did take place on 11/18/07 as planned. Residents of a penthouse on the condominium across the street from the implosion performed repeated pH measurement using indicator test strips of dust that settled underneath an awning. In all cases, the pH level was above 12. Unlike the WTC collapse, there were no fires present at the Bal Harbour Sheraton demolition to generate even higher levels of caustic materials by the conversion of calcium carbonate to calcium hydroxide, and convert calcium hydroxide to calcium oxide (quicklime). Children were intentionally exposed to the freshly pulverized concrete dust. They were strategically place in crevices in the concrete building rubble to stage a mock rescue exercise. There were photographic essays published in the local news showing the fine dust on flowers, and at least one interview with a resident who stated their respiratory condition had worsened. The following are links to a few videos of the event posted on the internet, showing the condominium across the street where pH level 12 and above dust was deposited:
http://cbs4.com/local/bal.harbour.implosion.2.570600.html http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=71f_1195400661 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a7c_1195403331&c=1 http://www.truveo.com/Sheraton-Bal-Harbour-Implosion/id/2332431073

4/11/08, 5/13/08, 10/2/08 – Cement truck accidents dump wet concrete on victims – no DOT corrosive warning placards for HAZMAT rescue personnel
On 5/13/08, 4/11/08 and 10/2/08 serious accidents involved cement trucks overturning and spilling wet concrete into passenger cars. Cement truck accidents are common events. Using a Google news alert starting in April with the key words ‘cement truck” + accident results in several reports daily. 5/13/08 – Charleston cement truck accident traps passengers in hardening concrete The following is a graphic picture of the automobile where 3 people were killed, when their car was filled with wet concrete and rescuers tried to dig them out before it hardened. There was no “Class 8 – Corrosive” DOT placard on the cement truck, as is always the case, warning rescuers and the many volunteers of the hazard to themselves or the victims.
Nadine Parks, Charleston Post and Courier (5/13/08) Mother, daughter die in I-26 crash http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/may/13/mother_daughter_die_i_crash40687/?print ... A North Charleston mother and her twin teenage daughters were trapped Monday afternoon when a cement truck landed on top of their car and cement poured inside, hardening while rescue workers tried to dig them out. ... The Honda was nearly flattened on one side and the occupants were pinned inside. "All the concrete came out, pouring onto the car and in the car," Rogers said. "It literally filled the car with concrete up to their waist." The concrete began to dry as nearly 20 rescue workers used their hands and shovels to clear away the mixture, Rogers said. They had to cut the car away from the mother and her children, he said.

– 60 –

4/18/08 – Dallas cement truck accident On 4/18/08, another accident trapped passengers in their vehicle and spilled wet cement onto the victims. It took a substantial amount of time for firefighters to gain access to the passengers, because the cement truck was on top of the car. The driver of the car, was killed on impact. Her 6-year old daughter, riding in the back seat, survived and was rescued. A slide show on the internet by a local news station shows the wet concrete inside the vehicle:
cbs11tv.com (4/11/08) Dallas Cement Truck Accident Leaves 1 Dead http://cbs11tv.com/local/Cement.Truck.Accident.2.697933.html … Officials shut down both highways while fire and rescue crews were on the scene to determine if there were any survivors and clean up the mess. Debris and liquid could be seen on both sides of the highway. … The cement truck had spilled a portion of its load onto the ground, the SUV and the victims. cbs11tv.com (4/11/08) Cement Truck Crash In Dallas [Slide show] http://cbs11tv.com/slideshows/Cement.Truck.Accident.20.700196.html?rid=0

10/2/08 – Rowlett TX cement truck accident dumps wet cement into another vehicle The following is another report of a cement truck accident where wet cement exposed the victim in a passenger vehicle:
Star Community Newspapers (10/2/08) Rowlett: Man sent to hospital after cement truck overturns on SUV http://scntx.com/articles/2008/10/02/rowlett_lakeshore_times/news/844.prt ... According to Rowlett Fire Rescue a fully loaded cement truck rolled on top of the victim’s Dodge Durango as both were trying to make turns. ... Fire officials said some of the cement spilled onto the SUV and the roadway. Rowlett Fire Rescue personnel were able to clear the spilled cement from the roadway ...

– 61 –

Ready-mix cement industry claims exemption from DOT Class 8 placarding and RCRA Corrosivity Characteristic hazardous waste regulations A review of MDSD’s from ready-mix concrete companies supplying wet cement to construction sites invariable contains the claim that wet concrete in or from cement trucks are exempt from the DOT Class 8 corrosivity placarding regulations as well as the RCRA Corrosivity Characteristic for disposal of hazardous wastes. Materials meeting DOT “Class 8” corrosive material criteria must display the 9.8 by 9.8 inch signs (250 millimeters square) shown to the right. Cement trucks do not carry this DOT hazard warning. The basis of the claim by these companies for their exemption from the DOT placarding and other Hazardous Materials transport regulations for Class 8 corrosives is unknown. It may be that the claim is based on the DOT grandfather clause which allows the use of pre-1995 data testing that applied dry cement powder to the skins of rabbits, an animal that does not sweat. It may be that even wet cement applied in such small quantities to rabbit skin by the new OECD 404 test protocol quickly dries out, and therefore does not in any way simulate the real-world experience where humans exposure to wet cement results in full skin thickness corrosion in less than 4 hours, the all-important DOT criteria. It may be that the animal testing laboratories were supplied granular cement that was intentionally or inadvertently allowed to age in thin layers over several months, and thus pre-neutralized by carbonation processes. This granular material, even if reconstituted in water in the testing laboratory and showing its original high pH, could have lost its alkali reserve capacity by atmospheric carbonation. (pH alone is not an adequate test for sparingly soluble substances like calcium hydroxide which have a high hydroxyl buffering capacity). It may be that any in vitro tests of wet cement using Corrositex® are flawed for the same reason, being supplied with aged material that may have the same pH, but which has lost its alkali reserve when mixed with water. The basis for any claim that wet unhardened cement is exempt from the RCRA Corrosivity Characteristic hazardous waste listing at 40 CFR § 261.22 is also unknown. The pH of wet concrete would frequently be higher than 12.5. There are exemptions from the Corrosivity Characteristic for non-aqueous wastes that contain no “free liquids,” but their applicability to unhardened concrete is uncertain. EPA requires 50 pound per square inch pressure tests to determine whether there are free liquids in a waste, and does not allow the use of the paint filter test to make this determination. .
OSWER POLICY (04/19/1993) USE OF PAINT FILTER LIQUIDS TEST TO DETERMINE FREE LIQUIDS IN A WASTE http://yosemite.epa.gov/oswer/oswer.nsf/1d6b58d5ae9061b8852566da004e5a57/90d19cabb74d8335852569d000732a97!OpenDocument

– 62 –

OSWER POLICY (10/20/1993) RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS REGARDING HAZARDOUS WASTE IDENTIFICATION AND GENERATOR REGULATIONS http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/0c994248c239947e85256d090071175f/c997bb2c271faca78525670f006bed19?OpenDocument SW 846. METHOD 1311 - TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC LEACHING PROCEDURE http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/test/pdfs/1311.pdf http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/test/main.htm

Any “free liquid” exemption would not apply to washings from a cement truck that had a pH of 12.5 and higher. Any in-transit residues in a cement truck transported away from the construction site destined for disposal that have added water to prevent the hardening of the concrete inside the rotating drum undoubtedly would not qualify for any “no free liquids” exemption. In addition, since DOT requires the placarding for the transport of all hazardous wastes subject to RCRA regulations, including the 40 CFR § 261.22 Corrosivity Characteristic, cement trucks returning from construction sites with residual concrete and added water would be classified as a transporter of hazardous waste destined for disposal.

Ongoing – Manufacturers of soda lime carbon dioxide absorbents for diving and anesthesia claim exemption from DOT regulations
Carbon dioxide absorbents are used in diving equipment (“closed circuit rebreathers” or “rebreathers”) to eliminate the need for large pressurized metal air tanks. Similar carbon dioxide absorbing material is used in anesthesia equipment and submarines. These “rebreather” devices are used by amateur, professional, and military divers, as well as First Responders:
National Institute of Justice (11/02) Guide for the Selection of Personal Protective Equipment for Emergency First Responders (Respiratory Protection) NIJ Guide 102–00

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/191519.pdf
Lillo, R. S., et al (1996) Chemical safety of U.S. Navy Fleet soda lime. Undersea Hyperbaric Me. 23(1): 43-53.

http://dspace.mclibrary.duke.edu/bitstream/2193/1196/1/8653065.pdf

The most common carbon dioxide absorbent is a mixture of calcium hydroxide and sodium hydroxide, called soda lime. Some manufacturers use potassium hydroxide in addition to calcium hydroxide and sodium hydroxide, but these materials are not properly classified under the term “soda lime.”
Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soda_lime Soda lime is a mixture of chemicals, used in granular form in closed breathing environments, such as general anesthesia, submarines, rebreathers and recompression chambers, to remove carbon dioxide from breathing gases to prevent CO2 retention and carbon dioxide poisoning. It is made by treating slaked lime [calcium hydroxide] with concentrated sodium hydroxide solution.

Calcium hydroxide (hydrated lime) is the same concrete-related constituent that made WTC dust caustic. Sodium hydroxide and potassium would also have been present in WTC dust, where the primary source would have been heated and pulverized glass as well as the burning of cellulosics.

– 63 –

W. R. Grace warnings on MSDS compared to product literature W. R. Grace, Inc. is a major producer of carbon dioxide absorbents for diving and anesthesiology, under the trade name Sodasorb®.
[The photograph below appeared unattributed on many websites, probably from W. R. Grace promotional materials.]

The following are excerpts from the W. R. Grace Company’s Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for its product line Sodasorb®. The MSDS claims that a test using the Corrositex® in vitro test indicated that it would not be corrosive to human skin in less than 4 hours (DOT regulation criteria). It also claims that the pH level is unavailable, and that the material is not subject to DOT regulations for corrosive “Class 8” materials. Grace also never uses the term “corrosive” in its MSDS. Grace instead uses the term “permanent damage.”
W. R. Grace (3/11/03) Material Safety Data Sheet. Product Name: SODASORB® http://www.scubaschoolsofamerica.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=GZGLvdbiFsI%3D&tabid=72&mid=461 ... Ingredient CAS# Percent (max) Calcium hydroxide 001305-62-0 50-100 Potassium hydroxide 001310-58-3 1-10 Sodium hydroxide 001310-73-2 1-10 ... SECTION 9 - PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES Physical State: Solid Appearance/Odor: Odorless White Granules Odor Threshold: (ppm) Not Available pH: Not Available ... SECTION 11 - TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION ... SODASORB was determined to be non-corrosive using the InVitro International CORROSITEX test protocal to determine corrositivity. ... Waste Disposal Procedures: Consult all regulations (federal, state, provincial, local) or a qualified waste disposal firm when characterizing waste for disposal. According to EPA (40 CFR §261), waste of this product is not defined as hazardous. Dispose of waste in accordance with all applicable regulations.

– 64 –

[This is in reference to the EPA RCRA Corrosivity Characteristic at 40 CFR § 261.22, where EPA falsified the pH level causing skin corrosion in 1980, changing the level from pH 11.5 to pH 12.5. Apparently Grace is making the claim their product has a pH 12.5, which may or may not be true. Testing the pH of Sodasorb® is planned. Some states specifically regulate spent anesthesia cartridges as corrosive hazardous wastes.] SECTION 14 - TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION Proper Shipping Name: Compounds, Gas Absorbing, NOI UN/NA Number: Not Applicable Domestic Hazard Class: Nonhazardous Surface Freight Classification: Compounds, Gas Absorbing, NOI Label/Placard Required: Not Applicable ...

The following is from the Grace manual for its product Sodasorb® which describes the potential for dusting of Sodasorb® and subsequent inhalation. However, Grace does not include any of these precautions on its MSDS for Sodasorb®.
W. R. Grace & Co. (1993) SODASORB® MANUAL OF CO2 ABSORPTION http://www.sodasorb.com/English/downloads/Sodasorb_Manual.pdf ... Absorbent Dusting Dust may accumulate in a closed circuit breathing apparatus or the Sodasorb canister. Care must be taken to prevent dust induced laryngospasm, bronchospasm, or pneumonia. Improper filling of loose absorbents or careless handling of prepackaged canisters can cause dusting. The chance of dusting is minimized with the Sodasorb Pre-Pak, a pre-filled cartridge. High gas flows in the breathing circuit can also cause dust to accumulate at the bottom of the canister. This can be transmitted to the breathing circuit by over distention and rapid deflation of the breathing bag during preoperative leak testing of the circuit or from normal use. Slow deflation through the pop-off valve can minimize the risk of occurrence.

Apparent/probable repackager of Grace Sodasorb® hazard information differs EMD Chemicals Inc. (www.emdchemicals.com) represents the North American subsidiary of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. It sells but does not itself manufacture a product it describes as:
“Soda&Lime ... Synonym Sodasorb”

I contacted a technical representative at EMD who claimed that the word “Sodasorb" was generic and not a registered trade name (untrue). He stated that all EMD was required to reveal is the fact that this particular product is manufactured in the U.S. Based on this and further conversation, I believe that it is valid to conclude that apparently and/or probably the product repackaged and sold by EMD is in fact the W. R. Grace product Sodasorb®. EMD declared on their MSDS that the material they repackage meets the DOT Class 8 criteria for corrosives, choosing the DOT label UN number: “UN3262, corrosive solid, basic, inorganic, n.o.s. (not otherwise specified).” This is the correct choice.
EMD Chemicals Inc., Material Safety Data Sheet, Soda &Lime, Regular, 4 8 Mesh, Product Code SX0217 http://www.msdshazcom.com/WEB_DOCS/EMD/Docs/wcd00024/wcd02430.pdf ... Synonym Sodasorb ... CALCIUM HYDROXIDE ... 95 [%] SODIUM HYDROXIDE ... 2.5 POTASSIUM HYDROXIDE ... 2.5 ... Inhalation Hazardous in case of inhalation (lung corrosive). ... Repeated inhalation of dust can produce varying degree of respiratory irritation or lung damage. ... DOT Classification Proper Shipping Name: CORROSIVE SOLID, BASIC, INORGANIC,N.O.S.(POTASSIUM HYDROXIDE &SODIUM HYDROXIDE) Hazard Class: 8 UN number: UN3262 [Corrosive solid, basic, inorganic, n.o.s.] Packing Group: II

– 65 –

pH levels reported for other producers of soda lime-type carbon dioxide absorbents Although W. R. Grace states that the pH is unavailable for its Sodasorb® brand of carbon dioxide absorbent, manufacturers of similar products do report the pH. In a blog, Dräger Medical, Inc. describes their product as having a pH greater than 14. However, their MSDS states that the pH is only “around” 12. Note that a pH greater than 14 is more than 100 times more alkaline than a pH of 12. Pure solid sodium hydroxide pellets only have a pH of 13.8, according to the ICCVAM, although other sources state (without analytical references) that the pH of solid sodium hydroxide is as high as 14.
Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation. Can Soda Lime Canisters Spread MRSA? http://www.apsf.org/resource_center/newsletter/2007/spring/12_dearsirs.htm ... In Response: I am no expert in this field; however, I would question the value of changing the absorbent (pH >14) unless the facility also sterilizes the complete breathing system, including all parts coming into contact with patient gas. It seems the soda lime is the least of your worries. Sincerely, Robert Clark, Dräger Medical, Inc. Dräger Medical, Material Safety Data Sheet (1/17/06) Drägersorb® 800 Plus http://msds.sourcemedical.com/Docs/Dr%C3%A4gersorb%C2%AE%20800%20Plus%20(500).pdf ... pH-value ca. 12 [circa – “about” or “around” 12] Dräger soda lime is not a dangerous good. Dräger soda lime is not hygroscopic and contains less than 4% NaOH. Therefore it is not classified under UN-No. 1907. Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM) (1999) Corrositex®: An In Vitro Test Method for Assessing Dermal Corrosivity Potential of Chemicals. Appendix K, page K-22. http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/docs/reports/corprrep.pdf

Molecular’s MSDS for their product Sofnolime® soda lime carbon dioxide absorbent, provided a pH level from 12 to 14:
Molecular. Safety Data Sheet. Sofnolime ... Chemical Name Soda Lime http://www.airgas.com/documents/pdf/msds/m/mop-molecular%20products/sofnolime.pdf http://www.seapearls.com/dealerarea/public/SofnolimeSafetyDataSheet.pdf ... Sodium Hydroxide 3% Calcium Hydroxide >75% ... pH 12 – 14

Another soda lime supplier (Sigma-Aldrich) claims a broad range for the pH of its product, from 7 (neutral) to 14 (highly caustic). The claim of having a neutral pH at any point of time, even for totally spent soda lime absorbent, is not credible. This is because soda lime converts to calcium carbonate when it scrubs carbon dioxide from the air. Calcium carbonate is not neutral with a pH of 7. Calcium carbonate has a pH range of 8 – 9.5.
SIGMA-ALDRICH (4/11/04) MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET, SODA LIME WITH INDICATOR, PELLETS, http://www.et.byu.edu/groups/uolab/msds/sodalime_msds.pdf ... pH 7 - 14

Grace claim that in vitro Corrositex® test demonstrates Sodasorb® not corrosive The W. R. Grace MSDS claims that the in vitro Corrositex® test was negative for Sodasorb®. This test is approved by DOT to determine whether a material met the DOT “Class 8” criteria for skin corrosivity. Regardless of whether DOT’s approval of the use of this test is not compliant with the UN GHS or UN Basel Convention treaty, the test itself can be defeated very easily for a material like Sodasorb®. – 66 –

The Corrositex® test method allows for intentional or inadvertent pre-neutralization of soda lime type carbon dioxide absorbents by air exposure (carbonation) during shipment to the laboratory, holding time, preparation, pre-test workup, etc. Soda lime type carbon dioxide absorbents are designed by their very nature to react as quickly as possible with carbon dioxide in the air, and thereby neutralize. Otherwise, they would be ineffective products. Any Corrositex® analysis of Sodasorb® is not credible until such time as the integrity of the original material is proven a few minutes prior to analysis by the Corrositex® method. Both its pH and total calcium hydroxide (alkali reserve capacity), sodium hydroxide, and potassium hydroxide content should assured at the time of analysis. This could be performed by titration to pH 10 and comparison to a core sample from original newly manufactured product, followed by maintenance of the sample under a carbon dioxide-free atmosphere with a substantial insulating surround of the sealed sample imbedded in within soda lime itself. Potential for inhalation of fines from soda lime in “rebreather” diving equipment There have been FDA recalls of pre-packed soda lime anesthesia cartridges, including those using Grace’s Sodasorb®. There have been other recalls of soda lime absorbents that hade missing or damaged filters, faulty canisters, or elevated levels of small particles (fines) potentially exposing patients to soda lime dust. See:
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2003/ENF00793.html http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/medsun/news/printer.cfm?id=716 http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ENFORCE/ENF00154.html http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2005/ENF00902.html

The practice of divers carrying soda lime in plastic bags inside luggage on diving trips, where it can be crushed, may result in hazardous inhalation exposures to corrosive materials. This apparently common practice is described in a divers’ blog below.
http://www.rebreatherworld.com/scrubbers-and-absorbents/7410-need-your-feed-back-6.html [posting by Gill Envy] I would have to say ditto to what dave said. here in seattle it seems that a very unfortunate trend had begun with safnolime. While i have used safnolime a bit, i have made the switch to sodasorb and learned to put up with a little dust however because the price of safnolime is jumping up and the availability is spotty. ... I do believe that safnolime is a superior product (better product uniformity, little to no dust, seemingly a bit longer in duration-at least from what i can tell with the temp stick) http://www.rebreatherworld.com/scrubbers-and-absorbents/7410-need-your-feed-back-6.html Originally Posted by babar) how about taking the corrosive label off the keg? [10/18/06 response from Molecular representative] Sorry to reply so late. We are looking into the situation just now and are in the process of trying to have the label marked irritant as we think we have found an extension in the letter of the law that would make this possible. I will keep you updated on this and make you aware if we are successful. http://www.rebreatherworld.com/scrubbers-and-absorbents/7410-need-your-feed-back-6.html ... [posted 5/26/08] Yeah, we had the MSDS sheet in with the tub. The problem is the manufacturer's warning about it being mildly corrosive. That put him right over the top! I was afraid that if I tried to pass customs without the original manufacturer's label, that they would be even more suspicious. Live and learn. Next time, we'll break it down and put it in several different bags and spread it amongst the group. ... In fact, I only have had to pull out the MSDS 1 other time, when the customs guy in the Philippines saw my nice fresh Sodasorb container-which sensibly has no corrosive warnings-because he said the container was new. I had to spend my time convincing him I had no commercial use for it, not trying to tell him it was a "safe" chemical. He eventually understood when he saw how much other diving crap I had and let me pass... ... I flew to cancun with sorb both in vacuum packed baggies and a tub. The guy running the machine waved me over but one of his coworkers saw my rebreather and waved us on--with a smile. Tourist dollars. ...

– 67 –

When I do fly into other regions to dive my ccr I try never to take with me any absorbent but if I have to will carry it in clear ziplock bags and declare it as packing material. The manufacturer sheets did not even safe me once while flying into the U.S. ... I just double checked and the small, 10.3 lb "mini" kegs of safnolime do not have the "mildly corrosive" warning on them. http://www.rebreatherworld.com/scrubbers-and-absorbents/7410-need-your-feed-back-6.html ... [posted 10/18/06] Stephen [representative of Molecular Products Ltd.] First, thank you for all the replies and info you are giving us. I know you're the manufacturer but we're learning more with you on board. Can you really produce a soft container of sof that could cope with banging into hard dive equipment in a dry kit bag? At the moment I put the 4.5k plastic container in my dry kit bag and it copes just fine without the granules being ground into dust! ... When I went to Vancouver a Local diver supplied me with some lime in a one gallon zip lock bag. This worked very well it even survived the flight to Toronto in a soft suitcase. ... I've carried it locally in zip loc bags as well with a fair amount of banging with no trouble. The only reason I brought up the possibility of the manufacturer offering such packaging is that a zip loc bag of white powder may cause some concern with airport security people. Having a "factory sealed" bag with labeling would likely ease many concerns. http://www.rebreatherworld.com/188971-post18.html ... [posted 5/26/08] I am sorry to experience on the Cancun airport. Inconsistency with customs personnel is one way to describe your experience. For years all baggage coming into Cancun airport is x-rayed to look for items taxable or strange looking. When I do fly into other regions to dive my ccr I try never to take with me any absorbent but if I have to will carry it in clear ziplock bags and declare it as packing material. http://www.rebreatherworld.com/scrubbers-and-absorbents/1612-traveling-with-sofnolime-help.html ... [posted 9/30/05] have you freinds package it in plactics bags taped up for added security, yeh i know it looks like the stereo typical package of "drugs" but so far i havent ever had a problem transporting it this way, even when inspected by customs. and they pack eaiser than drums.

The current OSHA standards for inhalation of calcium hydroxide (the major component of soda lime) is based on the human perception of irritation in the upper respiratory tract, and not on any laboratory experiments to assess the actual necrosis of lung tissue after extended exposures. As discussed on page 53, Jenkins’ 5/6/07 report at http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/index2008/Jenkins.pdf the perception of irritation from inhaling corrosives is not correlated to actual tissue damage. Molecular fails to warn divers Molecular, who declared their product Sofnolime® as having a pH from 12 – 14 on their MSDS, responded to a scuba diver who wanted the corrosive label taken off the MSDS to facilitate customs inspections in other countries. The Molecular representative replied on 10/18/06: “we think we have found an extension in the letter of the law that would make this possible.” Note that a pH 14 is about the highest, most alkaline pH possible, not even considering the added hazard of the alkaline reserve capacity of as yet undissolved calcium hydroxide. See a screen capture below of the divers forum website where Molecular made this statement:

– 68 –

http://www.rebreatherworld.com/scrubbers-and-absorbents/7410-need-your-feed-back-6.html

DOT label “UN1907-More than 4% sodium hydroxide” does not constitute blanket DOT exemption if soda lime-type material is less than 4% The Grace MSDS for Sodasorb® (excerpted earlier) states Sodasorb® contains 1-10% potassium hydroxide in addition to 1-10% sodium hydroxide. Thus is not classifiable as “soda lime” per se in the first place. However, Grace calls their product “soda lime” and claims Sodasorb® exempt from DOT regulations because it contains less than 4% sodium hydroxide.
Steam Machines http://www.steammachines.com/ae6-Sodasorb.asp ... Transport Considerations: Sodasorb® absorbent is non hazardous as defined in the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act and U. S. Department of Transportation regulations contained in 49 CFR. Because there is less than 4% Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH) active ingredient in the material it is not classified as a corrosive and therefore may be transported by land, sea or air without the need for any special hazard or shipping warnings. Mid Atlantic Research http://www.midatlanticresearch.com/index.html ... Transport Considerations: Sodasorb absorbent is non hazardous as defined in the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act and U. S. Department of Transportation regulations contained in 49 CFR. Because there is less than 4% Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH) active ingredient in the material it is not classified as a corrosive and therefore may be transported by land, sea or air without the need for any special hazard or shipping warnings. W. R. Grace & Co. (1993) SODASORB® MANUAL OF CO2 ABSORPTION http://www.sodasorb.com/English/downloads/Sodasorb_Manual.pdf ... Shipping Regulations. Sodasorb absorbent is non hazardous as defined in the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act and U.S. Department of Transportation regulations contained in 49 CFR. It can be safely transported by land, sea, or air, and does not require any special shipping warning.

Another manufacturer claimed that it was not subject to DOT regulations because it was under 4% sodium hydroxide, and was not thus not under the particular DOT label “UN1907, Soda lime with more than 4 percent sodium hydroxide.” This company also stated that its hazard warnings for corrosivity on its MSDS only applied to its use, but not to its transport.
Molecular. Safety Data Sheet. Sofnolime ... Chemical Name Soda Lime http://www.airgas.com/documents/pdf/msds/m/mop-molecular%20products/sofnolime.pdf http://www.seapearls.com/dealerarea/public/SofnolimeSafetyDataSheet.pdf

– 69 –

... 14. TRANSPORT INFORMATION Transport Classification None UN Number None Hazard Class N/A Packing Group N/A 15. REGULATORY INFORMATION Supply Classification Corrosive Risk Phrases R34 Causes burns ... MOLECULAR PRODUCTS LTD http://www.seapearls.com/dealerarea/public/SofnolimeHAZMATInfo.pdf ... We hereby certify that the Soda Lime (Sofnolime) manufactured by Molecular Products Ltd contains less than 4% (Four Per Cent) Caustic Soda (NaOH) is classified as non-hazardous and that it is not restricted for transport. The label showing the corrosive symbol is a label for use of the product – not for transport. ...

After a careful reading of the DOT regulations, and after confirmation with a DOT hazardous materials specialist, any claim that a soda lime type product containing less than 4% sodium hydroxide does not in any way grant an exemption from the DOT Class 8 corrosive materials regulations. First, the shipper must determine whether the material meets the criteria for a corrosive Class 8 material as set forth in 49 CFR § 173. Then and only then, the shipper must choose the most appropriate name from the DOT Hazardous Materials Table at 49 CFR § 172. For soda lime (or a combination of potassium hydroxide and soda lime), there are 3 possible DOT labels:
DOT# DOT# DOT# UN1907 Soda lime with more than 4 percent sodium hydroxide UN3262 Corrosive solid, basic, inorganic, n.o.s. [not otherwise specified] UN1759 Corrosive solids, n.o.s. [not otherwise specified] Packing Group III Packing Group I, II, or I Packing Group I, II, or III

Like the U.S. DOT regulations, the United Nations Transport of Dangerous Goods List also includes “UN1907 – Soda lime with more than 4 percent sodium hydroxide.” The UN TDG model regulations (part of the UN Globally Harmonized System, GHS) also carefully explain that whether or not a specific material explicitly appears on the UN TDG list does not constitute an exemption:
UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods. Model Regulations. http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/publi/unrec/rev14/14files_e.html ... Part 3 Dangerous goods list and limited quantities exceptions ... 3.1.1 Scope and general provisions 3.1.1.1 The Dangerous Goods List in this Chapter lists the dangerous goods most commonly carried but is not exhaustive. It is intended that the list cover, as far as practicable, all dangerous substances of commercial importance. 3.1.1.2 Where a substance or article is specifically listed by name in the Dangerous Goods List, it shall be transported in accordance with the provisions in the List which are appropriate for that substance or article. A “generic” or “not otherwise specified” entry may be used to permit the transport of substances or articles which do not appear specifically by name in the Dangerous Goods List. Such a substance or article may be transported only after its dangerous properties have been determined. The substance or article shall then be classified according to the class definitions and test criteria and the name in the Dangerous Goods List which most appropriately describes the substance or article shall be used

Suppliers who declared soda lime as a DOT Class 8 corrosive The following 4 suppliers declared their soda lime as a DOT Class 8 hazardous material, and chose to use the DOT Hazardous Material label UN1907. An exhaustive search for other suppliers with this declaration was not performed.
Mallinckrodt Chemicals (8/10/04) Material Safety Data Sheet, SODA LIME http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/S2545.htm ... Calcium Hydroxide ... > 80% Potassium Hydroxide ... < 3% Yes Sodium Hydroxide ... < 2% Yes

– 70 –

... DANGER! CORROSIVE. HARMFUL IF SWALLOWED OR INHALED. CAUSES SEVERE BURNS TO EVERY AREA OF CONTACT. CAUSES SEVERE IRRITATION TO RESPIRATORY TRACT. ... Skin Contact: Corrosive! Contact with skin can cause irritation or severe burns and scarring with greater exposures. ... Proper Shipping Name: SODA LIME Hazard Class: 8 UN/NA: UN1907 Packing Group: III Information reported for product/size: 15KG SIGMA-ALDRICH (4/11/04) MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET, SODA LIME WITH INDICATOR, PELLETS, http://www.et.byu.edu/groups/uolab/msds/sodalime_msds.pdf ... pH 7 – 14 ... SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE Material is extremely destructive to tissue of the mucous membranes and upper respiratory tract, eyes, and skin. Inhalation may result in spasm, inflammation and edema of the larynxand bronchi, chemical pneumonitis, and pulmonary edema. Symptoms of exposure may include burning sensation, coughing, wheezing, laryngitis, shortness of breath, headache, nausea, and vomiting. To the best of our knowledge, the chemical, physical, and toxicological properties have not been thoroughly investigated. ... DOT Proper Shipping Name: Soda lime with more than 4 percent sodium hydroxide, UN#: 1907 Class: 8, Packing Group: Packing Group III Hazard Label: Corrosive ... EU ADDITIONAL CLASSIFICATION Symbol of Danger: C, Indication of Danger: Corrosive. R: 35 Risk Statements: Causes severe burns.

Fisher Scientific. Material Safety Data Sheet, Soda Lime, Indicating https://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/20855.htm ... Potential Health Effects Eye: Causes severe eye burns. Skin: Causes skin burns. May cause deep, penetrating ulcers of the skin. Ingestion: Causes gastrointestinal tract burns. Causes severe pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and shock. Inhalation: Irritation may lead to chemical pneumonitis and pulmonary edema. Causes severe irritation of upper respiratory tract with coughing, burns, breathing difficulty, and possible coma. ... US DOT Shipping Name: SODA LIME Hazard Class: 8 UN Number: UN1907 Packing Group: III Science Stuff. Material Safety Data Sheet, Soda Lime 4- 8 Mesh Reagent A.C.S http://www.sciencestuff.com/msds/C2517.html ... DOT Classification: Soda Lime, 8, UN1907, PG III

9/25/08 – Student poisons teacher with calcium hydroxide. EPA says safe.
This report’s opening section documented human torture and maiming by the forced ingestion of calcium hydroxide solutions in Egypt in the year 710 Common Era. The next section in this report described the modern history of the maiming of our citizenry by the forced inhalation of lime and concrete-related materials. In 1980 EPA’s hazardous waste office falsified UN World Health Organization (WHO) documents, claiming the WHO found that materials with a pH of 12.5 and less would not damage the skin. Then in 1993 EPA expanded its lie by claiming a pH of 12.5 was safe not only for the skin, but also for the respiratory system, eyes, skin and ingestion.

– 71 –

The last entry in this chronology is the case of a New York City high school student who poisoned his teacher by putting calcium hydroxide (lime) in her water. Pure calcium hydroxide (hydrated lime) has a pH of 12.45 for saturated solutions at room temperature. Thus, by EPA’s falsified criteria claiming only pH levels higher than 12.5 are dangerous, the high school student did nothing wrong.
WABC (9/25/08) Student allegedly poisons teacherThursday, September 25, 2008 | 10:19 AM http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=6413297 An East Harlem student spiked his teacher's water with calcium hydroxide -- sending the teacher to the hospital. Dru D'Amico was reportedly poisoned inside the Talented and Gifted School for Young Scholars on East 109th Street. She was treated for several hours at Metropolitan Hospital before being released. Officials say she was poisoned by a male junior high school student, who spiked her bottled water with calcium hydroxide yesterday afternoon. NY1 (9/25/08) http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/86315/manhattan-student-admits-to-poisoning-teacher/Default.aspx ... A Manhattan teacher is pressing charges against a student who admitted to giving her tainted water. An eighth grade student at the Talented and Gifted School for Young Scholars put calcium hydroxide into a teacher's water bottle on Wednesday. The substance is usually used to make mortar and cement. Dru D'Amico was taken to Metropolitan Hospital for examination and was released later in the day. Police say the 13-year-old student has been charged with reckless endangerment.

– 72 –

CONCLUSION
This report documents real crimes against the person with toxic materials, namely corrosive caustic lime and cement related materials. These same materials were the basis of the original maiming statutes in Great Britain in the mid 1800’s, and subsequently subject to U.S. federal and state maiming statutes. This report emphasizes the direct corrosive effects of alkaline high pH levels from concreterelated materials (along with their high alkali reserve capacity) from the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11/01. However, even lower pH levels will immobilize and incapacitate the respiratory clearance mechanisms. Thus, all the other toxic substances in WTC dust were able to enter the body much more easily than if the dust had not been alkaline. After the collapse of the WTC, withholding the pH levels, and then falsifying the caustic pH levels of WTC dust resulted in exposures that could have been prevented or ameliorated. Withholding and falsifying the high pH levels of WTC dust led to misdiagnosis and failures to treat those suffering from the caustic exposures. The individuals named in this report who knowingly falsified their own pH laboratory testing of WTC dust through tricks and subterfuges known to pre-neutralize and excessively dilute, or who falsified the previously published pH results of others (and even their own), apparently were acting under the careful direction and coordination of someone else. The pH Czar. There were too many incidents accompanied with the residual evidence in the publications themselves that can be used to prove the falsifications. The WTC pH coordinators also were clearly very knowledgeable about the chemistry of lime and cementrelated materials.

cc:

Robert S. Mueller, III, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation Bill A. Roderick, Deputy Inspector General, EPA Stephen Johnson, Administrator, EPA Susan Parker Bodine, Assistant Administrator, OSWER Robert Dellinger, Director, HWID, OSW, OSWER James Michael, Chief, Generator and Characteristics Branch, HWID, OSW, OSWER

– 73 –

U.S. Department of Justice

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Washington, D C. 20535-0001

November 6,2008

Dr. Cate Jenkins Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Dear Dr. Jenkins: I am writing in response to your October 13, 2008 letter providing, "Supplemental Evidence: Fraud in the Conduct and Dissemination of Human Tissue Corrosivity Data (pH Tests) in the Aftermath of the World Trade Center Disaster". This letter and your previous letter were received and reviewed by the FBI's New York Office . The allegations of falsification of pH corrosivity data for the World Trade Center dust by the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Geological Survey, and EPAfunded research groups were forwarded to the FBI Laboratory for review. Please refer any further information to the FBI's New York Office located at 26 Federal Plaza, 23rdFloor, New York, New York 10278-0004, telephone number (212) 384-1000. I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely yours,
i

." 7

,

Nancy Jean ~ & h ) ~ w Chief Public Corruption/Civil Rights Section Criminal Investigative Division

-

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->