INCLUDES COPY of 8/25/06 NY Times article where both EPA and the

NYU scientists defend their pH test results and lab procedures.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE

DATE: August 22, 2006

FROM: Cate Jenkins, Ph.D.1

GCB/HWID/OSW/OSWER/EPA

TO: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

Congressman Jerrold Nadler
Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney

SUBJECT: EPA-funded fraudulent pH reporting of WTC dust

Corrosive alkaline WTC dust (high pH) is attributed to be one of the major causative factors in
the current loss of pulmonary function and even deaths of first responders, workers and other
citizens near Ground Zero after 9/11.

EPA funded research falsified pH results for WTC dust, claiming that the smaller particles, those
which could be inhaled into the lungs, were neutral and not corrosive or caustic. Researchers
claimed that only the larger particles of WTC dust were corrosive, those which would be caught
and retained in the mouth and upper throat, and which would not reach the lungs.

This scientific fraud was accomplished by pre-neutralizing only the smaller WTC particles prior
to pH testing. (These are called PM2.5, or particulate matter with average diameters less than
2.5 microns.) However, larger WTC particles were never pre-neutralized prior to pH testing.
There is a paper trail to establish this: The same scientists published an associated study in 2003
which described the pH results for the smaller WTC particles both with and without using the
pre-neutralization procedure. The pre-neutralization procedure used freeze-drying and soaking
in saline solution for 2 days (called "lyophilizing").

The non-corrosive/neutral pH claim for small WTC particles was bolstered by an equally false
claim. This was the claim that the smaller WTC particles did not contain as much cement-like
particles which were converted to water-soluble calcium ("Ca") compounds by the WTC
collapse. These calcium carbonate-like compounds were responsible for the corrosive high pH
levels of WTC dust.

1
The conclusions and opinions are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. EPA
These falsifications directly contributed not only to emergency personnel and citizens not taking
adequate precautions to prevent exposures, but also prevented the subsequent correct diagnosis
of the causative agents responsible for the pulmonary symptoms. Thus, appropriate treatment
was prevented or misdirected, and loss of life and permanent disability undoubtedly resulted.

The following contrasts the statements from the EPA-funded research claiming the small WTC
particles were not corrosive with statements in the associated 2003 publication. Detailed
discussions are provided later.
Neutral pH (non-corrosive) claims for small High pH (corrosive) claims for small particle
particle WTC dust WTC dust

2/11/02 Senate testimony from New York 2003 Environmental Health Perspectives study
University
pH levels of water-extracted WTC PM2.5 and
[T]he less than one percent that was as PM2.5, or control samples are shown in Table 5. The pH of
the particles that would reach deepest in the lung, water-extracted WTC PM2.5 samples before
was found to have a neutral pH, with no lyophilization ranged from 8.88 in WTCE to 10.00
detectable asbestos or fiberglass ... in WTC8. The alkaline pH results from the
building materials comprising much of the dust ...
2004 Environmental Health Perspectives study
The pH of lyophilized WTC PM2.5 reconstituted
Materials < 2.5 µm in aerodynamic diameter [this is in unbuffered saline [pre-neutralized WTC dust]
the same as PM2.5] comprised 0.88-1.98% of total was very close to neutral (pH 7.36) ... It is not
mass. Alkalinity decreased with decreasing known why the pH of WTC PM2.5 should be
particle size, and particles <2.5µm had a more close to neutral after reconstitution in saline. ...
nearly neutral pH (Lioy et al. 2002; McGee et al.
2003). This finding is consistent with the dominant We conclude that water-soluble Ca containing
presence of highly alkaline, coarse cement compounds were enriched in the WTC PM2.5
particles in the large size fraction. 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. ... The high content of gypsum and
calcite in the WTC PM2.5 fraction suggests that
potentially toxic effects may also extend into the
smaller airways and lung parenchyma.

February 11, 2002 Thurston testimony before Senate subcommittee

On February 11, 2002, Dr. George Thurston, a scientist at New York University with EPA
funding for the World Trade Center environmental assessment, provided the following testimony
to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works:2
Only trace amounts of asbestos were found in our samples. [contrast this 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. [emphasis added]

Thurston was clearly and explicitly stating there was no cause for concern for any corrosive
caustic effects from WTC dust exposures deep within the lungs.
2
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
http://www.senate.gov/~epw/107th/Thurston_021102.htm

2
February 13, 2002 email interchange between Thurston, USGS, and Jenkins

On 2/13/02 I emailed Dr. Thurston because I was upset over his 2/11/02 Senate testimony
claiming the smaller WTC dust particles were not caustic. I expressed disbelief, proffering the
alternative hypothesis that the larger surface area to mass of the smaller particles could well
explain any discrepancy between their lower pH (lower alkalinity) results. During sample
storage prior to testing, moisture in the atmosphere could collect on the smaller particles, react
and neutralize them.

I also emailed my hypothesis to Dr. Geoff Plumlee, the U.S. Geological Service (USGS) scientist
responsible for the initial pH testing of WTC dust after the disaster, wherein universally high
corrosive pH levels were found.3 He also was concerned about the aging of the smaller WTC
particles and their neutralization prior to any opportunity for testing by NYU.

Dr. Thurston referred my inquiry to Dr. Lung Chi Chen at NYU, who was the scientist actually
responsible for the pH testing. Dr. Chen did not admit in his email to me that he neutralized the
smaller PM2.5 particles by the saline solution "lyophilization" technique.

The following are excerpts from this email interchange. This interchange is important in
establishing that Dr. Chen was extremely aware of the issue being presented to him both by Dr.
Plumlee and myself, namely the selective neutralization of the smaller particles prior to any
opportunity for pH analysis. But he was completely silent on the fact that his laboratory had also
observed this same phenomena, because they had artificially neutralized the smaller particles, but
not the larger ones, prior to any pH testing.
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Cate Jenkins
02/13/02 12:08 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Questions on your pH measurements
------------------------
George, I have another question for your that I am sure you can clear up, in the never-ending battle to clarify
hearsay: You are quoted as saying at the 2/11 hearing that in your studies you measured the pH of WTC dusts.
You fractionated the dust into smaller, respirable-size particulates, and found that the smaller particles did not
have a high pH (a high pH meaning alkaline or caustic).

Considering the high surface to mass ratio of the small particulates, wouldn’t you be concerned that the high pH
would quickly be neutralized by the moisture in the air? The cause of the high pH would be the presence of
calcium carbonate without any moisture content (anhydrous calcium carbonate), created by the extremely high
temperatures of the fires burning in the collapse of the WTC.

My questions would be as follows:

1. How long was it from the time of generation (time the dust was deposited on the ground directly after being in
the dust cloud) to the time of analysis?
2. Under what conditions were the samples maintained to preserve their anhydrous state?
3. Were WTC samples subjected to vacuum extraction and storage with a strong dessicant prior to analysis if in
fact they were collected almost instantaneously from the time of deposition from any smoke or dust plume?
4. Were any experiments performed where the smallest particles of WTC dusts were re-subjected to
temperatures comparable to the fires at the WTC to return them to their alkaline state, which would be more
similar to what their pH was at the time they were in the dust cloud and inhaled by firefighters and police
officers?

3
St. Louis Post-Dispatch (2/9/02) Caustic dust blankets World Trade Center area
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/PDF/StLouisDispatch-2-9-02-CausticDustBlanketsWTCarea.pdf

St. Louis Post-Dispatch (1/13/02) Scientists pull out all stops to test NYC dust. They found it hazardous.

3
5. I heard that you said that you aerosolized the finer particulates to study them. What methods did you use?
Did you aerosolize them prior to subjecting them to pH measurements? What type of anhydrous conditions
were employed during aerosolization to ensure that the moisture present in the air did not neutralize the
alkalinity/caustic nature of the small particulates? 6. Were any of the dusts subjected to pH measurement ever
in a wet environment outside prior to collection (i.e., rain or fire hoses)?

Thanks again,
Cate
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
[email protected] (George Thurston)
02/13/02 12:37 PM
To: [email protected]
cc: Cate Jenkins/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
Subject: Fwd: Questions on your pH measurements
------------------------
Lung Chi,
Can you please answer these questions regarding the pH
analyses of size=fractionated WTC dust.
George
...
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Lung Chi Chen <[email protected]>
02/20/02 09:30 AM
To: Cate Jenkins/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
cc: Thurston <[email protected]>,
Mort Lippmann <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Questions on your pH measurements
------------------------
Dr. Jenkins:
I am not sure I can answer you questions. We first mechanically separated particles (sieving) with a cut off at 53
:m. We then aerodynamically separated the < 53 :m fraction to between 53 -10 :m, 10-2.5 :m, and < 2.5 :m. 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 :m had a pH above
11, for 10 -2.5 :m fraction, pH is above 8, and those < 2.5 : is near neutral.

I am not sure whether this measurement technique is applicable to what you are envisioned. An airborne
particle may absorbed moister if the material made up of the particle is hygroscopic. It will reach an equilibrium
quickly with the surrounding air, and at very high relative humidity, may become a droplet. Unless other
chemicals present that may neutralize the pH, I can not see water itself would have any effect.

I hope this help.

best. -- Lung Chi Chen, Ph. D. New York University School

of Medicine 57 Old Forge Road Tuxedo, New York 10987
Voice: (845) 731-3560 Fax: (845) 351-5472 E-Mail:
[email protected]
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Cate Jenkins
02/20/02 06:28 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject:NYU's pH measurement of fine particulates
------------------------
Jeff, attached is info from Kirk Othmer on cement chemistry, and an email exchange I have been having with
NYU. Initially, calcium and magnesium hydroxides are formed, with a saturated water solution of pH up to 13.
But that then reacts further with all the other mineral forms. NYU (George Thurston) testified on 2/11/02 at
Clinton/Lieberman's hearing in NYC that:

"Our analyses of the WTC dust samples revealed that some 99 percent of the dust was as particles too large to
be breathed deeply into the lung, being largely caught in the nose, mouth and throat when inhaled. This large
dust, however, contained approximately one-third fiberglass, with much of the remainder as alkaline cement
dust. This large dust was, therefore, quite caustic and irritating to the eyes, nose and throat, consistent with the
now famous "World Trade Center cough"... The less than one percent that was as PM(2.5), or the particles that
would reach deepest in the lung, was found to have a nuetral pH, with no detectable asbestos or fiberglass."

I have been conversing with NYU on the matter, my theory being that the smaller particles could also have been
alkaline, but nuetralized with atmosheric moisture, or just common rain, due to their high surface area to mass
ratio. What are your thoughts on the subject?

Cate Jenkins 703/308-0453

4
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Geoffrey S Plumlee <[email protected]>
02/21/02 12:52 PM
To:Cate Jenkins/DC/USEPA/US@EPA cc:
Subject:Re: NYU's pH measurement of fine particulates
------------------------
Hi Cate-

The NYU results are quite interesting. I am glad that there are others who are working on the alkalinity of the
dusts. It is not clear from the procedure described in the NYU email whether the NYU folks added the same
mass of dust to the same amount of water for each of the size fractions. If not, then the differences in pH may
reflect at least in part a progressive dilution of the dust by water at increasingly finer particle sizes (ie there is
less of the dust at the finer sizes, that would therefore not have as much portlandite, etc., as the coarser sizes,
and that would therefore not shift the pH to as high a value as the coarser particle sizes).

If they did indeed add the same mass of dust to the same amount of water for each of the size fractions, then
the variations in pH between different size fractions could potentially reflect variations in the extent of
interactions of the dusts with slightly acidic water vapor or rain water (the acidity coming from carbonic acid, ±
low concentrations of sulfuric and nitric acids, found in rain). It could be that the smaller particles react more
completely and more rapidly with rain or water vapor, and therefore would show a less alkaline pH than the
larger particles.

Based on my experiences in sulfide oxidation and acid-mine drainage generation, I have seen cases where
reactive sulfide mineral samples stored in sample drawers pull moisture from the air, oxidize, and form sulfuric
acid droplets - I suspect that reactive concrete powder could similarly pull moisture from the air and become
progressively neutralized.

I think that it would be possible to grind up concrete and separate it into the same sorts of size fractions that
NYU used so that this hypothesis could be tested. I would put the different size fractions in humidity cells (which
are typically used to test the acid-generating capacity of mine wastes) for a given length of time, then do the pH
tests. It would be interesting to measure how rapidly the fine particles react and lose alkalinity as a function of
the relative humidity and temperature of the air - this could play in to whether or not people who inhaled the
finest dust fractions on or right after September 11th may have inhaled "fresher", more reactive and alkaline
particles.

Many Regards, Geoff Plumlee

[email protected] Geoffrey S. Plumlee, Ph.D. Research Geochemist U.S. Geological Survey Crustal imaging
and Characterization Team MS964 Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 303-236-1204, FAX 303-236-
1229 [email protected]
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Cate Jenkins
02/21/02 03:47 PM
To: [email protected]
cc: Thurston <[email protected]>, Mort Lippmann <[email protected]>,
[email protected] Subject: NYU pH studies of WTC dusts
------------------------
Dr. Chen,

Thank you for your clarification of 2/20/02. Attached are excerpts from the Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia on the
reactions that calcined (heated to high temperatures) uncured cement undergoes with the addition of water.
Initially, calcium and magnesium hydroxides are formed. This accounts for the fact that dry, uncured cement, in
a saturated solution with water, can have a pH of up to 13, which is quite alkaline.

However, on subsequent reaction of the hydroxides with the other mineral materials present, other reactions
take place, resulting in the formation of gels and eventually the crosslinked cured cement product itself, which
is no longer alkaline. In other words, the alkalinity of new cement powder when water is added is temporary.
With the fires and high temperatures present during the collapse of the World Trade Towers, the cement-like
materials were essentially re-calcined and converted back to uncured, reactive cement. The resulting dusts,
therefore, were found to be highly alkaline by both the US Geological Survey as well as yourself at NYU.

I raised the question of whether or not your group’s failure to find alkalinity in the very small particle fraction of
WTC dusts could be due to the fact that the very high surface-to-mass ratio of these particles could result in the
more rapid neutralization of the particles with either rain or moisture in the air on storage.

As you can see from the below attached correspondence, I also forwarded my hypothesis to Dr. Geoff Plumlee
of the US Geological Survey, who has also studied the alkalinity of WTC dusts. He has suggested a confirming
experiment of grinding uncured, powdered cement (under anhydrous conditions, of course), then fractionating it
into small particles as you did for WTC dusts (under strict anhydrous conditions), and then immediately testing
the pH. Alternatively, in my original correspondence to Dr. George Thurston, there might be an easier

5
 experiment, namely heating the small, fractionated portions of WTC dusts to temperatures similar to those
found in the WTC. Then the pH could be tested immediately. This would be helpful, I believe, in elucidating,
diagnosing, and treating the health problems of those who were exposed to the dusts as they existed at the
time they were inhaled.

Thank you very much,

Cate Jenkins
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

Associated 2003 study found that fine WTC PM2.5 particles were highly caustic (high pH)

An associated study was published in 2003 in Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP), funded
by EPA, and authored by many of the same scientists.4 One of the co-authors of the 2003 study
was the same Dr. Lung Chi Chen at NYU that corresponded by email with both Dr. Plumlee and
myself in 2002.

The 2003 EHP study found that the smaller PM2.5 WTC particles were equally caustic and as
corrosive as the larger particles. Furthermore, the 2003 EHP article also clearly stated that these
same small WTC particles were enriched with water soluble calcium compounds like calcium
carbonate, which would cause the corrosive properties.
Fires at the WTC site continued for several months before finally being extinguished, and recovery and
reconstruction efforts contributed to emissions of fine [particulate matter with a mass median aerodynamic
diameter (MMAD) < 2.5 µm; PM2.5], coarse (> 2.5 and < 10 µm; PM2.5–10), and larger (> 10 µm) PM
fractions.
...
The dust particles from the WTC site appear to be quite alkaline in nature ...
...
Analytical chemistry of aqueous extracts of samples. pH and endotoxin levels. 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, most likely the alkaline earth (Ca, Mg) compounds.
Calcium carbonate, identified by XRD, is a major component of cement (McKetta 1978) and other building
materials. It is almost insoluble in water (14 µg/mL), yet a saturated solution produces a pH of 9.4 (Weast
1985). For a 2 mg PM/mL ratio, this requires < 7 µg soluble calcium carbonate/mg PM. Such a level is easily
attainable in the WTC samples, given the percent ranges of Ca and carbonate carbon measured by elemental
and OC/EC/CC analysis. The pH of lyophilized WTC PM2.5 reconstituted in unbuffered saline was very close to
neutral (pH 7.36), whereas MSH was only slightly acidic (pH 6.61) and ROFA was moderately acidic (pH 3.74).
It is not known why the pH of WTC PM2.5 should be close to neutral after reconstitution in saline.
...
Table 5. pH and endotoxin levels of PM2.5 samples [endotoxin levels in table deleted]
______________________________________________________________________
Sample pH in pH in saline
code water [after pre-neutralization by "lyophilizing"]

Extraction 5.28
water
WTC8 10.00
WTC11 9.16
WTC13 9.47
WTCB 9.54
WTCC 9.32
WTCE 8.88
WTCF 9.55
SRM 1649a 4.20
Sterile saline 6.67

4
John K. McGee, Lung Chi Chen, et al. (2003) Chemical Analysis of World Trade Center Fine Particulate Matter
for Use in Toxicologic Assessment. Environmental Health Perspectives, 11(7): 972
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/5930/5930.pdf

6
 WTCX 9.35 7.36
MSH 6.61
ROFA 3.74
_______________________________________________________________________

We conclude that water-soluble Ca containing compounds were enriched in the WTC PM2.5 fraction
compared with those in the whole settled dust. Additionally, the WTC PM2.5 samples were remarkably
homogeneous in their overall elemental content, considering the wide geographic range of sample collection.
These results were unexpected, given the complexity of the building material composition and scale of the
disaster. However, they are reasonable, considering the prevalent use of gypsum in building materials such as
ceiling tiles, wallboard, and cement, and the ease with which these materials can be crumbled into a fine
powder, mix, and homogenize.

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. Both gypsum and calcite
irritate the mucus membranes of the eyes, nose, throat, and upper airways (Stellman 1998). Calcium carbonate
dust causes coughing, sneezing, and nasal irritation (NLM 2002). These symptoms of inhalation exposure are
similar to those reported by rescue and cleanup workers in the immediate aftermath of the WTC attack (Kelley
2001). The high content of gypsum and calcite in the WTC PM2.5 fraction suggests that potentially toxic
effects may also extend into the smaller airways and lung parenchyma. [emphasis added]
...

The 2003 EHP study also describes the artificial laboratory neutralization of only the smaller
WTC PM2.5 particles prior to pH testing. After pre-neutralization, predictably the pH tests
showed that the small WTC PM2.5 particles were now neutral and not corrosive.

2004 study co-authored by Landrigan, Lioy, Thurston, Chen, Geyh, Levin, others falsified
findings in the 2003 study

In 2004, the same scientists, joined by others, published another study in the journal
Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP),5 also funded by EPA. Very different statements were
made about the pH of fine WTC dust: :
Dust pH was highly alkaline (9.0-11.0). Mice exposed to WTC dust showed only moderate pulmonary
inflammation, but marked bronchial hyperreactivity.
...
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). More than 95% of the mass
consisted of particles larger than 10 µm in diameter. The largest mass concentration consisted of particles of >
53 µm in diameter, and there were proportionately more particles in this large size range in outdoor than in
indoor samples. 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.

It is important to note that falsifications of the pH levels of fine WTC dust did not first occur in
this 2004 EHP publication. Both Dr. Thurston and Dr. Chen, at a minimum, were making the
same false claims in February, 2002 through first Senate testimony and also by way of their
email interchange with Dr. Plumlee and myself. Undoubtedly there are other publications and

5
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 and Sheung P. Ng (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

NIEHS through the Superfund Basic Research Program (P42 ES07384 at Mount Sinai and P42 ES05948 at
UNC) and through the Centers for Environmental Health Science (P30 ES09089-04S; at Columbia; P30
ES00260 at NYU; P30 ES03819 at Johns Hopkins; and P30 ES05022 at UMDNJ); by EPA through the
Particulate Matter Health Research Center Program (R827351 at NYU) and a university partnership between
NERL and EOHSI (CR-827033 at UMDNJ)

7
representations claiming "neutral pH small size PM2.5 WTC particles" by other scientists
associated with the EPA funded research.

EPA and its funded scientists would have been well aware that other scientists would not have
the opportunity to check their pH test results by independent testing. This is because
unadulterated WTC dust was not available soon after 9/11 due to rains. the removal of heavy
deposits by EPA vacuum trucks, and lock-down security of the interiors of buildings and the
Staten Island landfill where WTC debris was transported and examined for evidence. The 2003
EHP study describes the difficulty in even having enough unadulterated WTC dust to complete
that particular study.

Conclusion

The fraudulent pH reporting may be one of the most egregious EPA-associated falsifications and
misrepresentations after 9/11. There is a long history of incidents already made public where the
federal EPA and the NYC Departments of Environmental Protection and Health falsified and
misrepresented toxic exposures from the World Trade Center collapse. There are others yet to be
revealed.

cc: Concerned parties and responsible officials

8
E.P.A. Whistle-Blower Says U.S. Hid 9/11 Dust Danger - New York Times Page 1 of 3

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/25/nyregion/25toxic.html?pagewanted=print

August 25, 2006

E.P.A. Whistle-Blower Says U.S. Hid 9/11 Dust Danger

By ANTHONY DePALMA

A senior scientist at the Environmental Protection Agency has accused the agency of relying on misleading data
about the health hazards of World Trade Center dust.

The scientist, who has been sharply critical of the agency in the past, claimed in a letter to members of the New
York Congressional delegation this week that test reports in 2002 and 2003 distorted the alkalinity, or pH level, of
the dust released when the twin towers collapsed, downplaying its danger.

Some doctors suspect that the highly alkaline nature of the dust contributed to the variety of ailments that
recovery workers and residents have complained of since the attack.

Tests of the gray-brown dust conducted by scientists at the United States Geological Survey a few months after the
attack found that the dust was highly alkaline, in some instances as caustic or corrosive as drain cleaner, and
capable of causing severe irritation and burns.

The tests that are being challenged by the E.P.A. scientist were conducted by independent scientists at New York
University. Those tests also indicated that larger particles of dust were highly alkaline. But they found that smaller
dust particles — those most likely to reach into the lower airways of the lungs, where they could cause serious
illnesses — were not alkaline and caustic.

The geological survey’s tests did not differentiate the dust by particle size.

A spokeswoman for the agency, Mary Mears, said in a statement that the E.P.A. stood behind its work on ground
zero environmental hazards, as did the N.Y.U. scientists. The scientist making the complaint, Cate Jenkins, who
has a Ph.D. in chemistry and works in the agency’s office of solid waste and emergency response, said the test
results helped the E.P.A. avoid legal liability. Residents of Lower Manhattan have sued the agency in federal court,
claiming that it bungled the cleanup.

Dr. Jenkins said the test reports had a costly health effect, contributing “to emergency personnel and citizens not
taking adequate precautions to prevent exposures.”

In her statement, Ms. Mears distanced the agency from Dr. Jenkins, who has worked for the E.P.A. since 1979 and

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/25/nyregion/25toxic.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewant... 8/25/2006
E.P.A. Whistle-Blower Says U.S. Hid 9/11 Dust Danger - New York Times Page 2 of 3

has been in conflict with the agency for years over her whistle-blowing activities.

“Dr. Jenkins has not participated in any aspect of the E.P.A.’s work on the World Trade Center,” the statement
said. “This appears to be a disagreement about scientific methods and not the validity of the results.” The New
York University scientists, who were not directly financed by the E.P.A., denied being pressured by the agency and
said Dr. Jenkins’s claims were without scientific merit.

Representative Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat whose district includes Lower Manhattan, received a copy of Dr.
Jenkins’s letter, and he said that he intended to look into the dispute.

“When a scientist who works for the E.P.A. makes serious allegations about the aftermath of 9/11, they must be
examined carefully,” he said.

The two scientists named in Dr. Jenkins’s letter are faculty members of the New York University School of
Medicine who collected dust samples from ground zero in the days after the attack.

One of them, George D. Thurston, is director of N.Y.U.’s Community Outreach and Education Program. He has
helped inform Lower Manhattan workers and residents about health hazards related to the terror attack.

Testifying before a Senate committee in 2002, Dr. Thurston said that more than 95 percent of the dust was
composed of comparatively large particles that were highly alkaline. He said that although they were irritating,
those dust particles did not pose serious health concerns for residents because they were too large to enter the
lower airways of the lungs.

Smaller particles, those less than 2.5 microns in size, are far more dangerous because they can be easily breathed
deep into the lungs. Dr. Thurston told the Senate committee that tests showed those particles to be pH neutral,
and therefore of less concern.

A year later, the same scientists, in conjunction with the E.P.A., among others, published a report in
Environmental Health Perspectives, a professional journal, in which they described a new round of tests in which
they found the smallest dust particles to have pH values from 8.8 to 10, which made them alkaline.

To keep the particles in the samples from congealing, however, they used a standard process that involved freeze-
drying and soaking the samples in saline. When pH tested, the particles were then found to be “near neutral.”

Lung-Chi Chen, the second N.Y.U. scientist, an inhalation toxicologist with N.Y.U.’s School of Medicine who was
responsible for the testing, said the saline could not have diluted the alkalinity of the samples so greatly that they
went from alkaline to neutral.

“We were not trying to mislead anyone,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/25/nyregion/25toxic.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewant... 8/25/2006
E.P.A. Whistle-Blower Says U.S. Hid 9/11 Dust Danger - New York Times Page 3 of 3

Dr. Chen said the samples tested prior to Dr. Thurston’s 2002 Senate testimony and those in the 2003 report
came from different batches of dust, which probably accounted for the difference in their alkalinity.

He said he was not surprised that the smaller dust particles had characteristics and alkalinity levels different from
the larger ones. He explained that the larger particles were made up of building materials that had been pulverized
by the pressure of the imploding towers. The smallest particles, he said, were probably a combination of crushed
material and the combustion byproducts produced by high-temperature fires that burned for weeks.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/25/nyregion/25toxic.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewant... 8/25/2006