Transylvania University

Faculty of Economics and Business Administration

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Dumitriu Monica

Business Administration

1st Year – Group 8801

Coordinating professor:Ruxandra Albu

2011

1

COPSA MICA AREA AND HEAVY METALS POLLUTION

ABSTRACT

The reason for chosing to study Copsa Mica area is because this area is very close to my home

town Medias, and Copsa Mica, alongside Baia Mare and Zlatna are known as the representative

areas for nonferrous metallurgy in Romania. As a result of this almost 70 years old industrial

activity, the Copsa Mica area is strongly polluted with heavy metals like: Cd, Pb, and Zn. The

present paper presents some aspects impact of metals on environment and human health. There

are presented concentration data about 13 metals (including heavy metals) in the dump and on

the premises of SOMETRA SA measured with X-ray fluorescence technique, and also about the

biomarkers of exposure and effect upon children exposed to lead.

2

1. INTRODUCTION

At the present time of society development level, the industry has became the most important

pollutant, affecting large geographic areas. Urbanization is most often associated with an

economic, productive, development that can lead to major benefit for the health and

environment.In some countries, Romania is included, the lack of an adequate infrastructure and

services for controlling the pollution, environmental and health related problems, all lead to the

situation in which costs related to water supply, health services, hygiene, garbage collection both

for domestic and for industrial source are much higher and, in fact transferred in ht environment

and health budget. Recently, an increase in the people’s awareness was noticed regarding the risk

of exposures from the physical and chemical agents from the environment that can harm the

health of the people exposed.In the Copsa Mica area, the non-ferrous industry started here in

1939 a modest plant for zinc. At the present SC.SOMETRA SA Copsa Mica is a company

concerned with the extraction mainly of zinc and lead from the mining concentrates, but also of

other existing metals, such as cadmium, bismuth, antimony, copper, gold and silver.

3

Copsa Mica area stretches for a lengthways of about 30 km from E to W and for a breadth of

about 15 km on the N - S direction. Because is situated through the length of Tarnava Mare

River the transportation of pollutants in the area is favored by the existing air currents. In order

to determine the pollution degree of this area, soil samples have been collected from some

localities situated along the Tarnava Mare River, upstream and downstream from Copsa Mica

industrial area.

The level of pollution in Copsa Mica is one of the major environmental problem and risk for the

health of the population in Romania. It is well known that in some concentrations, most of the

metals are essential to life, but in excess, those same metals could be dangerous. Similarly,, the

prolonged exposure to high concentrations of heavy metals can affect people’s health and can

have severe effects in the long term. The heavy metals that pose greatest risk to health are lead

(Pb), arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd) and mercury (Hg). Heavy metals were largely used in industry

4

starting the XIXth century, thus being present in the environment nowadays. Sources of heavy

metals include: emissions from industries that use solid fuels, especially charcoals, smelters and

other industries (Pb, Cd and As), incinerators (Hg and Cd), mining lucrative facilities, pesticides

industries and wood preservatives (As and Cr), fertilizers for soils (Cd for example can be found

in phosphate based fertilizers), old house water supply systems (Pb) and old house paintings

(Pb).

The heavy metals can appear in the environment because of natural processes. As an

example, in some parts of the USA, natural sediment of As suffered geological processes and as

a result, the underground water layer was contaminated with the potential risk for contaminating

also the drinking water supply [12]. Once released in the environment, the heavy metals have the

potential to remain in the environment for decades or even centuries thus elevating the risk for

human exposure. People are potentially at risk for intoxication throughout contact with

contaminated soils and industrial discards or contaminated food. Food sources such as

vegetables,cereals, fruits, fish and shell-fish could be contaminated with heavy metals from soil

and water.The present paper deals with just a small part of an much larger study conducted by

the Environmental Health Center in Copsa Mica with the specified goal of evaluating the risk of

exposure to high heavy metals concentrations. This paper is a summary of the aspects linked to

the heavy metals concentration in the dump area inside Sometra Copsa Mica factory, the lab

method used for the evaluation of the distribution of those heavy metals and some health related

data in a selected population group with high susceptibility to lead poisoning.

2. METHODS

Soil samples were taken from the 30 cm depth of the dump inside the “SC SOMETRA SA”

and from drilling inside the perimeter of the same factory in April-May 2004 time interval.

The /samples were collected in polyethylene bags, free of metals. The samples were labeled,

sealed and transported to the lab were they were processed for X ray fluorescence technique (K-

X-ray Fluorescence 720 SL, made by Niton in 2002). The data entry was done using Microsoft

5

Excel 5.0. Database was then imported in Stata 5.0 using Stata-Transfer module. The statistical

analysis was performed using Stata 5.0. summary descriptive statistics and more advanced

techniques were performed. Central tendency measurements (mean and median, frequency),

measures of the variability of the data (interval, minim, maxim values, percentiles, standard

deviation, variance, Skewness and Kurtosis coefficients). A sample of 43 children age between 4

and 6 exposed to lead was studied. Exposure biomarkers (blood lead level) and effect markers

(weight height status) were measured. Blood lead level was measured using anode stripped volt

metric techniques using Lead Care System. The measures of both exposure and effect iomarkers

were then compared and then the results were compared using statistical techniques.

3. RESULTS

Thirteen metals were analyze (Pb, Zn, Cu, Cd, St, Mn, As, St, Cr, Hg, Mb, Ni, Se) in soil

samples and sediments collected from the sterile dump and within the SC SMOETRA SA

perimeter.

A total of 60 soil and sediment samples were collected. 8 out of them (13.33%) were collected

from the dump area of the SC SOMETRA SA, 31 samples (51.67%) were collected from

smelter from a 30 cm depth, 16 samples were collected from drilling within the SC SOMETRA

SA perimeter and 5 samples (8.33%) were collected from sediment collected within the CS

SOMETRA SA perimeter.

6

Analysis of the distribution of the mean concentration of heavy metals in soil collected from

the dump, showed, with the few exception of some metals (Sn –mean concentration 293.8 ppm,

threshold limit 300 ppm, Cr – mean concentration 0 ppm, threshold limit 600 ppm, Hg–mean

concentration 0 ppm, threshold limit 10 ppm, Mo–mean concentration 30.8 ppm, threshold limit

40 ppm, Ni–mean concentration 0 ppm, threshold limit 500 ppm, Se–mean concentration 18.5

pm, threshold limit 20 ppm) values over the intervention thresholds.

7

On the premises, in soil samples collected from the 30 cm depths, with the exception of Sn

(283.2 ppm measured value and 300 ppm threshold limit), Mn (1950.2 ppm measured value and

4000 ppm threshold limit), Cr (44.8 ppm measured value and 600 ppm threshold limit) and Mo

(1.7 ppm measured value and 40 ppm threshold limit) the concentrations of all other heavy

metals exceeded the intervention threshold.From the data on the distribution of heavy metals in

soil, depending on the sampling site, we could conclude that, overall, the highest mean

concentration of the heavy metals in soil were measured on the premises of the factory with the

exception of Cd, Sn, Mn, Mo. The comparative analysis using t test for mean concentrations of

heavy metals in soil in different sampling sites, confirmed that, in general, the heavy metals

concentrations were higher on the premises than in the dump area with the exception of few

heavy metals (Cd, Sn, Mn, Mo) but the differences were not statistical significant for any of the

metals. On the other hand, the difference in concentration in Mn and Mo between the dump and

the premises was statistical significant (the dump Mn concentration – 6794.39 as opposed to the

premises concentration – 1950.24 ppm and the dump Mo concentration of 30.82 ppm as opposed

to the premises concentration) (p=0.05 for Mn mean concentration comparison and p=0.000 for

Mo mean concentration comparison).

8

The comparative statistical analysis using t test for means of heavy metals concentrations in soil

samples collected on the premises, from different depths, revealed the fact that, in general, the

concentrations of heavy metals in soil decreased with the increase of depth, the differences were

statistical significant for Pb (p=0.01), Zn (p=0.003), Sn (p=0.01), As (p=0.008) and Ni (p=0.03).

The following heavy metals were exceptions: Cu – concentration 9346.5 versus 7892.75, Cr –

concentration 53.7 versus 44.82, Hg – concentration 585.2 versus 349.29, Se – concentration

36.85 versus 20.22 and Mn – concentration 21451.03 versus 1950.24, but the observed

differences is not statistical significant in all cases except Mn (p=0.02).

The comparative statistical analysis using t test for means of heavy metals concentrations in

soil and sediment at the premises of the factory indicated the fact that the concentrations of

heavy metals were higher in soil as compared to the sediment with one exception, Mn (2109.92

9

in the sediment as opposed with the concentration of 1950.24 in soil) but the difference is not

statistical significant.

X ray fluorescence technique (quite new for Romania and new for the rest of the world) allows

samples readings using 2 radioactive sources (Cd109 and Americiu 240) and generates X ray

spectrum for the analyzed samples. The reading takes about 120 seconds to complete, with a

sensitivity of 1 sigma (0.001 ppm) and accuracy of 99.99% [7-11].

The evaluation of the exposure taking into account the specific sources: house dust,

children’s hands, revealed the importance (statistical significant) of the oral intake of the

children’s hands dust (for lead).

Evaluation of the children exposure to lead from the area in vicinity with SOMETRA SA

through lead blood level measurements using Lead Care System showed an average of 39 μg/dL

with a standard deviation of 15 μg/dL, the minimum measured value being 19μg/dL, and in one

case the value exceeded 65 μg/dL. Statistical comparison performed on the lead blood levels by

gender revealed that the average for boys (40.22 μg/dL) is higher than for girls (36.61 μg/dL) but

the difference is not statistical significant.

Investigating the weight and height for children age between 4 and 14 years from Copsa

Mica area showed that the average weight and height decrease with the increase of the lead blood

level (the decrease being statistical significant). The results of the advanced statistical analysis

indicated the loss of the statistical significance of the correlation between the lead blood levels

and the weight/height indicators after statistically controlling for errors factors identified in the

previous steps.

As for children, the extent of time spent playing outside, their habit of playing with soil

during spring/summer, vegetable/fruits growing by families in the area, and street cleaning near

kindergarten/ school are the most important risk factors correlated with the lead blood level

The heavy metals may affect severely the human health including slowing growth and

development of the organism, cancer appearance, serious sickening of internal organs, sickening

of the nervous system and in extreme cases may cause even death. Exposure to some metals, as

Hg and Pb may also lead to development of a condition in which the immunitary system of a

person attacks his/her own cells. The result of this phenomenon are diseases of the joints

(rheumatoid arthritis), diseases of the kidneys, circulatory system or nervous system.

10

The heavy metals represent a major risk for the development of the human embryo, for newborn

and children. Some metals, such as Pb and Hg penetrate easily the placenta and may affect the

brain. Exposure during childhood to some metals may cause learning difficulties, may affect

memory and the nervous system and even lead to behavioural deviations such as increasing

agressivity and hiperactivity. In case of exposure to high levels of heavy metals they may affect

the brain irreversibly. Children may accumulate via food ingestion higher doses of heavy metals

because they consume a greater quantity of food than the adults, related to their own weight. The

children also absorb much easier heavy metals via the intestinal tract than the adults.

A growth in the level of pollution with Pb especially in urban areas is observed in countries

in course of development, and the children are the most affected by this pollution in proportion

of up to 90% as shown by recent studies performed in China, Bangladesh, Africa [12, 14]. Both

local industries and gases generated as a result of using fuels with additives based on Pb are in

these cases responsible for the pollution with Pb.

Children have a greater susceptibility to sickening as a result of lead poisoning because it

affects the development of the nervous system. Children absorb and retain a greater quantity of

Pb than adults related to their own weight and moreover most of the Pb ingested in the child’s

organism it remains in his/her body. Antenatal exposure was associated with a series of effects

upon the child such as: premature birth, low weight at birth, immunity decrease and

hipersensibility, diminution of the learning and memorizing capacity, intelligence level decrease,

slowing the growth process, problems in kidney functioning, agressive behaviour. These effects

may persist even after the child grows.

Pb is one of the few chemical elements for which effects upon health may be related directly

to the measured blood lead level. Measuring the blood lead concentration is the preffered method

for Pb exposure evaluation and its effcets upon health because reflects both the Pb quantity

recently ingested and the one accumulated in other tissues, both in children and adults. The

measured blood lead concentration for children is considered as being elevated if it is higher or

equal to 10 μg/dL.

Recent studies performed in the U.S. EPA showed that effects upon the central nervous system

and upon development in children may appear starting from a concentration level of 2,5 μg/dL.

11

4. CONCLUSION

1. Distribution of the concentration of metals in soil in accordance with the sampling points

reflect the fact that with the exception of cadmium, tin, manganese and molybdenum for

which the concentrations in soil were more elevated at the level of the waste dump of SC

SOMETRA SA the highest average values of the concentrations of metals in soil were

recorded in the premises of SC SOMETRA SA.

2. The difference between the two locations in terms of concentrations of heavy metals in soil

is not statistically significant related to any on the metals, nevertheless in case of manganese

and molybdenum the difference of concentration between the waste dump and the premises

(their concentration being higher in the waste dump - 6794.39 ppm compared to 1950.24

ppm in the premises in case of manganese and respectively 30.82 ppm compared to 1.7 ppm

in the premises in case of molybdenum) being statistically significant (in case of manganese

p=0.057 and in case of molybdenum p=0.000).

3. The comparative statistical analysis using the t statistic test of average values of

concentrations of metals in soil collected from the premises from different depths indicate

the fact that generally the concentrations of metals in soil decrease with the increase of

depth excepting copper, chrome, mercury, selenium and manganese.

4. The comparative statistical analysis using the t statistic test of average values of

concentrations of metals in soil and sediment in the premises indicate the fact that metals are

in concentrations statistically significant higher in soil than in the sediment excepting

manganese (2109.92 in sediment compared to 1950.24 in soil) but the difference is not

statistically significant.

5. The more important contribution was emphasized for lead (statistically significant) for the

digestive contribution from dust from the hands.

6. The factors to be taken into consideration regarding evaluation of predictible effects in

public health are the following: distribution of exposure of population (groups at risk),

realtionship exposure-response (variation of response, susceptibile groups), risk

12

cummulation (geographic cummulation of risk factors).It is required to research more on the

relations between the environment and deseases and this can only be done by working in teams.

It is a continuum process that must be improved at the national level with the main goal of more

precise understanding of the measures and policies that need to be implemented in the vast

domain of the environmental health. There are three asptects that need to be considered:

- Integration of the environment and health fields into macroeconomic policies

- Cost benefit analysis

- Primary care for the environmental health.

The latest two ideeas mentioned above will assure a better understanding of the problems

related to the inclusion of the environemntal health field in the investment decisions and

programs and their implementation. One aspect requires an atentive and correct abordation: the

identification and the evaluation of the risk areas for health and the environment that exist in

Romania, followed by the proposal of adequate programs for reducing and controling the risk

sources.

13

The ongoing environmental disaster of 9/11

The attacks of September the 11th, 2001, on the World Trade Centre in New York have had global implications. The impact of the attacks has manifested itself as the ongoing 'war against terrorism'. The Global impact of 9/11 though, has, to some extent, hidden the very real local impact of the attacks. Today many people will be offering up reflections on the tragedy of September 11, 2001. This act of violence, which shook Americans to their very core and cast doubt on a Presidential administration, one that would eventually prove to be less than capable at handling national tragedies, sent shock waves through our world.

Today many people will write about the way that 9/11 affected human rights and the privilege of privacy, created an unjustified war that we are still trying to find our way out of, and cost the lives of countless rescue personnel who will always be remembered as heroes.

Few will choose to focus on the negative impact of these terrorist attacks on the environment, because it is not nearly as visible an effect. When the Twin Towers were so viciously and unexpectedly attacked on September 11th, all of lower Manhattan was enveloped in toxic dust clouds rising almost 1000 feet into the air. Thanks to drifting winds at the time of the attack, these dust clouds slowly moved south, choking the inhabitants Brooklyn and Staten Island, slowly depositing an unknown cocktail of gases and airborne particulates all over everything.

In the days and weeks following the attack the Environmental Protection Agency gave assurances to New Yorkers that the dust permeating Lower Manhattan and the smoke still emanating from Ground Zero did not pose a health risk. The agency issued five press releases

14

within ten days of the attack assuring people that the air was safe to breathe, despite an absence of data to support such assurances.

In August of 2003, it was revealed that the EPA had been muzzled by the Bush administration. EPA Inspector General Nikki Tinsley issued a report on August 21, 2003, admitting that the reassurances were unfounded, and that the public statements of the agency were being influenced by the National Security Council, under the direction of the White House. The EPA, according to the report, had been influenced to ‘add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones’” (from 911research.wtc7.net).

Subsequent testing of air, soil and water samples taken from the Ground Zero site months and even years after the attacks confirmed lingering levels of asbestos as well as unknown toxic substances.

In his attempt to remain the triumphant leader of the city, then Mayor Rudy Giuliani seized control of the cleanup of Ground Zero, taking control away from established federal agencies, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, according to a May 14, 2007 New York Times article, titled "Ground Zero Illness Clouding Giuliani's Legacy."

15

Now,try for a moment to convert those crumbling towers into their constituent parts – hundreds of tons of asbestos were pulverized and released into the air; tens of thousands of fluorescent lightbulbs were smashed, each containing mercury; 50,000 computers ,each of which contained four to twelve pounds of lead, were destroyed; as were smoke detectors containing americium 241. In addition, there were record levels of dioxin, PCBs [Polychlorinated Biphenyls], and other contaminants released as the rubble of the WTC continued to burn, over several months. Dr. Marjorie Clarke, an environmental scientist from Hunter College at the City University of New York, reported to a NY City Council hearing that the destruction of a total of seven buildings in the attacks “produced uncontrolled emissions equivalent to dozens of asbestos factories, incinerators and crematoria - as well as a volcano”. A visual clue to the environmental disaster is provided by the accompanying photo, taken by NASA from a height of 250 miles – the dark plume shown in the photo represent more than the destruction of the buildings, but also a real and ongoing threat to the health of citizens of New York.

In the days following the attack a number of reassuring press statements were released by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the federal body responsible for monitoring air and water quality, including the September 18th statement by EPA Administrator Christie Whitman in which she said: “Given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C. that their air is safe to breath and their water is safe to drink”.

Two years later, in August 2003, the EPA’s Inspector General produced a report that confirmed what many people had suspected – that information coming from the EPA had first been given a reassuring spin in conjunction with the 'white house council on environmental quality, and that these reassurances were not based on scientific fact. The desire to get Wall Street and financial markets reopened quickly played a part in downplaying public health risks.

Jenna Orkin, of the World Trade Center Environmental Organization, and one of twelve current plaintiffs in a potential class action law suit against the EPA, lives in Brooklyn, and was suspicious from the start about the reassuring statements. “The air smelled awful. The fires burned or smoldered for over three months, the different temperatures resulting in the release of different toxic substances. For a while the air had the alkalinity of drain cleaner. I didn't trust the official story and didn't want my son going back to school in Stuyvesant (four blocks from the WTC) – she says – but for a long time, it was impossible to find data with which to make a case to my son and ex-husband. The New York Environmental Law and Justice Project as well as some scientists and members of the public told the truth at City Council or State Assembly hearings, but because the government officials insisted on testifying first, the more truthful testimony didn't come out until after the press had left”.

It took a full three months before Orkin had amassed enough data, as a private citizen, to convince both her son and ex-husband that the former should stay away from his school. Three months during which the fires continued to burn, releasing different toxins into the air. The air that ordinary citizens, like her son, were breathing.

16

“Several weeks after the disaster – Orkin continues – a mile north of Ground Zero, Dr. Thomas Cahill of the University of California at Davis found very- and ultra-fine particulates that were the highest he'd ever seen in the course of taking 7000 samples around the world, including at the burning Kuwaiti oil fields. The EPA itself found record levels of dioxin several months after the disaster”.

The World Trade Center Environmental Organization, of which Orkin is a member, are not alone in campaigning for a more comprehensive response to the environmental threats posed by 9/11. A number of groups such as the world trade center residents' coalition, 9/11 environmental action and the New York committee on occupational safety and health have been working tirelessly (in many cases without recompense) to highlight the issue, and to force the Government to address the problems caused by the attacks.

Immediately after the August 2003 Inspector General's report, Whitman was quoted as saying “when people are really upset, you can't win. You've got to say something, and what we communicated was what we knew. There may be long-term health implications we never could have conceived of, but we couldn't stop and stay, `We can't tell you for 10 years.' That absolutely wouldn't work”. Orkin is scathing in her response: ”It is not that when people are really upset, you can't win. It's that when people lie, you can't win. From day one, EPA has hidden behind the faux innocent mask of, ‘What do you expect us to do? This was unprecedented’. This was not the first environmental disaster they ever had to cope with. They are in the business of coping with environmental disasters and have procedures and precedents for doing so, all of which they violated in their response to 9/11. The precedents would have entailed expense so they reinvented the wheel as a triangle. But even taking Ms. Whitman's quote at face value: If they

17

'couldn't tell us for ten years' then they should have said that. Instead they took it upon themselves to assure people it was safe”.

As testing went ahead in the days after 9/11 EPA scientists themselves were amongst those surprised by Whitman’s statements. Robert Martin, the EPA ombudsman, who would later have his office closed by Whitman, recalled in an interview with journalist Laura Flanders that “it was not safe. You can’t have good science without good facts”. Dr Cate Jenkins, a hazardous waste expert at the EPA, criticised the statements made by Whitman’s office about asbestos levels, which claimed that the levels found were slightly above the 1% trigger, though for every fiber of asbestos EPA found, using outdated testing equipment, independent testers found nine.

Now, four years later, there is still argument within the scientific community about the environmental impact of the WTC attacks on public health. Researchers such as George D. Thurston, Professor of Environmental Medicine at New York University, have suggested that, broadly speaking, the EPA’s assurances have been borne out. Thurston in an interview with Chemical and Engineering News in 2003, was quoted as saying that by October 2001 at “sites five blocks away from Ground Zero, the air was really like other parts of the city. It was, thankfully, abbreviated exposures that people got to this plume [of debris from the WTC] -when they did get it”. Thurston did point out though, in a statement to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the US Senate, that “it is impossible to know what potential interactive effects might have occurred among the various pollutants, even at these low levels”. Other scientists, such as Dr Marjorie Clark, have argued vigorously against the EPA’s findings, and suggest that the bungled clean up operation still poses a significant public health threat.

18

As well as finding fault in the premature reassurances issued by the EPA, Jenna Orkin and various citizens groups are highly critical of the actual clean up operation post-9/11. Amongst the key complaints are that it covered a far too limited and arbitrarily determined area (for example, Brooklyn, where Orkin lives, and where air borne debris drifted has not had adequate testing measures, let alone clean up), and focussed primarily on asbestos despite the fact that independent testing had shown the presence of a variety of other contaminants. At the same time, the execution of the tests used by the EPA was, according to Orkin, substandard (some residents observed that EPA failed to turn on a fan, for instance, though required, or that they placed it facing the wrong direction). Ventilation systems were largely overlooked, though independent testing had suggested that these systems posed a significant risk. By precedent the EPA should have warned people that soft furnishings such as carpets and sofas could never be adequately cleaned and should thus be thrown out – in the case of the 9/11 clean up this information was not given. The most important criticism though was the terms in which the clean up was described, says Orkin: “They couched the cleanup in terms of, 'If you're concerned, we'll come clean your apartment out of the goodness of our hearts’. However since their flier explicity told people that EPA did NOT expect long term health consequences from whatever might still be in their apartments, about 80% of the people to whom the testing program was offered decided not to bother”.

The EPA commissioned a report, The Lessons Learned in the Aftermath of September 11, 2001, but to citizens like Orkin the report means little: “What they've really learned is the art of lying and sacrificing their own citizens when it's to their advantage. To be more specific: prior to 9/11,

19

when the EPA cleaned up a disaster in a populated area, they aimed for a 1/1,000,000 extra cancer risk per contaminant. In the case of Lower Manhattan, they decided we could be exposed to a hundred times that cancer risk per contaminant, and unlike most environmental disasters, this one had hundreds of contaminants whose synergistic effect could be explosive. So what the Federal Government has learned is that when an area is economically important, the bottom line trumps public health”.

One could be forgiven for thinking that these problems are a thing of the past. In reality, no-one knows yet what effect the fallout from 9/11 will have on public health. At the same time, the clean up is far from finished. Several contaminated buildings in Manhattan are scheduled for demolition currently, while, as Orkin points out, the precedent of the 9/11 cleanup may now be used as an operating principle in any future attacks/environmental disasters.

A number of groups, such as Orkin’s, are pressing for specific measures from the US Government in response to the bungled clean up operation:

Comprehensive healthcare for all those who are now or will become ill from their exposure to the contamination resulting from 9/11.(“We expect a broad spectrum of illnesses, – explains Orkin – not just respiratory but also neurological, endocrinological etc., all of which will need to be addressed. And some cancers will not manifest themselves for several decades. Many of those affected are immigrant workers who do not have health insurance. Congresspersons Shays and Maloney have introduced an excellent Bill that covers many of these problems”). Comprehensive representative testing for residual contamination to be followed by cleanup as warranted.(Consistently demanded by Congressman Jerrold Nadler as well as community activists and the former EPA ombudsman, and currently being considered by the World Trade Center Expert Technical Review Panel).

The upcoming demolition of several contaminated buildings highlight the difficult position New York citizens are in, as Orkin explains: “Ironic as it may sound considering their abominable response to 9/11 so far, we need the EPA, the only entity with the wherewithal to do it, to perform its legally mandated duty and take control of these 'deconstructions'. With the proviso, of course, that they do it right”.

Due to botched inspections and a clean-up process fraught with misinformation, we may never truly know the extent of the environmental damage caused by this attack.

20

REFERENCES1.E.S.Gurzau, M.Cucu, «Evaluarea, comunicarea si managementul riscului-Activitati

fundamentale implicate in controlul mediului si protectia pentru sanatate publica», acta med.Trans., vol.I, nr.2, pag.32-37, 1997

2.ES Gurzau et all, «Mediul industrial si comunal ca factor de risc al bolilor cardiovasculare», Igiena, nr.1-2, vol.XLII, 1997, p.59-64

3.ES Gurzau et all, «Evaluarea starii de sanatate a populatiei din zona Copsa-Mica»,Igiena, nr.1-2, vol.XLVII, 1997, p.6-10

4.ES Gurzau et all, «Relatia dintre poluantii atmosferici si bolile respiratorii la copii»,Igiena, nr.1-2, vol.XLVI, 2002, p.1-9

5. ES Gurzau et all, «Aspecte privind poluarea cu metale grele si iritanti In localitateaCopsa-Mica. Impactul asupra starii de sanatate a populatiei In varsta de 7-11 ani»,Sibiul Medical, 2002, nr.3, p.7-14

6. ES Gurzau et all, “Lung function, atopy and chronic exposure to air pollution inschoolchildren living in two cities of different air quality, Trace and macroelement in theenvironment and in living organisms”, Cluj-Napoca, 1991, p.42-49

7. “Method 6200 – Field Portable X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry For TheDetermination Of Elemental Concentration In Soil And Sediments”, USEPA

8. Donald Sackett, Keneth Martin – “EPA Method 6200 and Field Portable X-RayFluorescence”, On-Site In-Sights Workshops for innovative field characterization technologies, 1998

9. Stephen Shefsky, “Comparing Field Portable X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) To Laboratory Analysis of Heavy Metals in Soil”, International Symposium of Field ScreeningMethods for Hazardous Wastes and Toxic Chemicals, Las Vegas, USA, 29-31January1997

10. “Lead Dust Clearance Levels Guaranteed On-Site”, Niton Connects, November 1999,pg.1-2

11. Stephen Shefsky, “Sample Handling Strategies For Accurate Lead-In-SoilMeasurements In The Field And Laboratory”, International Symposium of Field Screening Methods for Hazardous Wastes and Toxic Chemicals, Las Vegas, USA,January 29-31, 1997

12. CDC’s National Exposure Report (2001).13. ATSDR. Toxicological Profile for Lead (Update), Agency for Toxic Substances and

Disease Registry, Atlanta, GA. 1999.14. EPA Integrated Risk Information System. Lead and compounds (inorganic),. National

Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.

21