In the shadow of the fallen towers, there was more than just rubble and the terror. There were countless chemicals in the air, some good, some bad, and some deadly. Asbestos was among the deadly chemicals. Throughout history and throughout the world, it has been used to meet the need of materials to act as insulators, and much more. It is resistant to heat and corrosive materials, as well as being a very good nonconductor of electricity. Its hollow fibers are what make it a good insulator (“Asbestos,” 2008). First used by the ancient Romans, asbestos was introduced to the United States in the 1850s and by the 1930s, it could be found in almost any type of product. It did not occur to anyone that it might be a hazard since there was no data
…show more content…
The government and the American people have a moral responsibility to care for the people who risked their lives for their fellow Americans on 9/11. This compensation should come out of gratitude, if nothing else. So far, there is some evidence to support the effects of 9/11 on health of rescue workers. The New York City Fire Department said that 9000 firefighters who were exposed in 9/11 may be more susceptible to cancer. In 34,000 WTC rescue workers, there were small increases in prostate cancer, thyroid cancer and multiple myeloma (a type of cancer) in 2007-8 compared to average New York state residents (“What we know,” N.d.). This would make sense, since the rescue workers most likely had the highest dose of asbestos. However, the evidence is not overwhelming. Some could argue that there is not enough evidence that 9/11 is still killing people, that science cannot prove a direct connection. But one key argument against these people is that both asbestosis and most types of cancer can take many years to develop and show symptoms. For example, lung cancer has a latent period of 15-30 years, so it can go for a decade or more before it is detected. Since 9/11 happened about less than 15 years ago, the point where most people will be diagnosed with the disease has not even passed yet (“Material Safety,” 2007). It is certainly ethical to provide compensation for those people, but is it a realistic decision? The unfortunate part is that the tragedy is probably not over yet, but the fortunate part is that the government has decided that there is indeed sufficient reason to provide these people with compensation. There is paid medical treatment available for people who were there at the World Trade Center and who develop a 9/11 related disease (“What we know,” N.d.). It is essential to take action against asbestos, after centuries of regarding it innocent-until-proven-guilty. Just because no
The government and the American people have a moral responsibility to care for the people who risked their lives for their fellow Americans on 9/11. This compensation should come out of gratitude, if nothing else. So far, there is some evidence to support the effects of 9/11 on health of rescue workers. The New York City Fire Department said that 9000 firefighters who were exposed in 9/11 may be more susceptible to cancer. In 34,000 WTC rescue workers, there were small increases in prostate cancer, thyroid cancer and multiple myeloma (a type of cancer) in 2007-8 compared to average New York state residents (“What we know,” N.d.). This would make sense, since the rescue workers most likely had the highest dose of asbestos. However, the evidence is not overwhelming. Some could argue that there is not enough evidence that 9/11 is still killing people, that science cannot prove a direct connection. But one key argument against these people is that both asbestosis and most types of cancer can take many years to develop and show symptoms. For example, lung cancer has a latent period of 15-30 years, so it can go for a decade or more before it is detected. Since 9/11 happened about less than 15 years ago, the point where most people will be diagnosed with the disease has not even passed yet (“Material Safety,” 2007). It is certainly ethical to provide compensation for those people, but is it a realistic decision? The unfortunate part is that the tragedy is probably not over yet, but the fortunate part is that the government has decided that there is indeed sufficient reason to provide these people with compensation. There is paid medical treatment available for people who were there at the World Trade Center and who develop a 9/11 related disease (“What we know,” N.d.). It is essential to take action against asbestos, after centuries of regarding it innocent-until-proven-guilty. Just because no