You are on page 1of 74

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
DATE: October 13, 2008

*
FROM: Cate Jenkins, Ph.D.
Hazardous Waste Identification Division, OSW
jenkins.cate@epa.gov

TO: Jane Mason, Special Agent, Environmental Crimes Unit,


Federal Bureau of Investigation
26 Federal Plaza, 23rd Floor, New York, NY 10278-0004

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. RICO PROSECUTION FOR MAIMING: Falsification of Corrosivity of WTC Dust and Concrete-related Materials

2. HISTORY OF MAIMING BY LIME: Stone Ages, Ancient Egypt, Papal State, Nazis, El Salvador, Uzbekistan

3. 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 pre-
neutralized 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:
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. ...
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 ɸ 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

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 force-
feeding 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# UN3266 Corrosive liquid, basic, inorganic, n.o.s. [not otherwise specified]
DOT# UN1760 Corrosive liquids, n.o.s.
DOT# UN3262 Corrosive solid, basic, inorganic, n.o.s.
DOT# UN1759 Corrosive 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 –
ACIDIC CAUSTIC/ALKALINE
pH LEVELS vs. PRESUMPTIONS OF HAZARDS
CORROSIVE CORROSIVE
Includes federal U.S. regulations which conflict or falsify UN standards
pH range pH range

EPA RCRA Corrosivity Characteristic 40 CFR §261.22 using falsified UN pH levels 2 — 12.5
EPA CERCLA (Superfund) Hazardous Substances at 40 CFR §302.4(b) incorporating 40 CFR §261.22 0 — 2 safe, no further 12.5 – 14
DOT Appendix A to 49 CFR§172.101 incorporating CERCLA 40 CFR§302.4(b) (above) with falsified UN pH levels testing
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
2 – 11.5
UN Basel Convention treaty, in effect but US has not signed, UN GHS levels, lists some lime wastes as hazardous
further
DOT 49 CFR§173 – incorporates 1992 OECD 404, loopholes for pre-1995 data, allows flawed in vitro test in lieu
0 — 2 testing 11.5 — 14
NYC Fire Code – uses DOT 49 CFR §173.136 - .137 incorporating 1992 OECD 404 - mandatory pH • 11.5 corrosive
sometimes
Canada Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) – references UN GHS
allowed
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

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 High-
Risk 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 pre-
packed 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 pre-
neutralization, 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 1/13/02 St. Louis Post- 2/5/02 USGS 10/02 USGS fact 5/25/04 USGS 2006 USGS
results Dispatch article study on USGS sheet graph presentation to paper in ACS
website EPA panel monograph
INDOOR WTC dust - 12.1 and “12 and higher” 11.8 12.4 12.4 12.4
highest (both indoor/outdoor)
OUTDOOR WTC dust - 12.1 and “12 and higher” 10.8 10.09 “non-caustic 10.09 “non- 12.04
highest (both indoor/outdoor) alkalinity” caustic alkalinity”

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 600-
to-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 WTC-01-05 WTC-01-06 WTC-01-14
pH 10.1 9.51 9.9 9.65 9.68
...
WTC-01-15 WTC-01-16 WTC-01-17 WTC-01-21 WTC-01-22
pH 10 8.22 9.47 9.98 10.4
...
WTC-01-25 WTC-01-27 WTC-01-28 WTC-01-30 WTC-01-34
pH 9.37 10 9.93 9.63 9.8
...
Indoor Dust Samples Girder Coatings
WTC-01-20 WTC-01-36 WTC-01-8 WTC-01-9
pH 11.8 11.8 INS [insufficient volume to test] 10.8
...
Minimum Maximum Mean
pH 8.22 11.8 10.0
...

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 size-
separated 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
ȝm 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 ȝm particle size range as well as the
particles larger than 10 ȝm. This is because they found essentially 0% of the particles in the
2.5-10 ȝm size range according to Dr. Chen’s 10/17/02 presentation, much less than they did
in the 2.5 ȝm or less size range. They did not have enough dust in this 2.5-10 ȝm 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 ȝm 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-to-
dust) 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 1/13/02 St. Louis Post- 2/5/02 USGS 10/02 USGS fact 5/25/04 USGS 2006 USGS
results Dispatch article study on USGS sheet graph presentation to paper in ACS
website EPA panel monograph
INDOOR WTC dust - 12.1 and “12 and higher” 11.8 12.4 12.4 12.4
highest (both indoor/outdoor)
OUTDOOR WTC dust - 12.1 and “12 and higher” 10.8 10.09 “non-caustic 10.09 “non- 12.04
highest (both indoor/outdoor) alkalinity” caustic alkalinity”

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 ȝm 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 co-
author. 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 ȝg/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 ȝS/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 ȝS/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 “re-
breathers”) 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, 4í8 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# UN1907 Soda lime with more than 4 percent sodium hydroxide Packing Group III
DOT# UN3262 Corrosive solid, basic, inorganic, n.o.s. [not otherwise specified] Packing Group I, II, or I
DOT# UN1759 Corrosive solids, n.o.s. [not otherwise specified] 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 concrete-
related 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 cement-
related 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 EPA-
funded 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 might also like