no monte, I just have a great deal of experience on the subject. That interview reitze posts is a smattering of facts, half truths and distortions.
Basic Risk Assessment
chemicals cause effects
People are exposed to chemicals (or hazards) through a few modes, inhalation, ingestin, dermally, punctures, radiologically
if you have a chemical hazard ie TCE, you can either breath it, drink it, splashed on your skin, enter through open cuts.
the most important mode is breathing because that is the highest volume of chemical one could normally be exposed to
SOOOO if it is breathed, it is airborne. if it is airborne, samples can be collected, if samples can be collected they can be tested.
I am assuming that when an agency says no environmental factors they have looked at this VERY BASIC engineering and science to make their conclusions.
as for all of the scary shit she talks about, those types of site ARE ALL OVER THE DEVELOPED PORTIONS OF THIS COUNTRY. You cannot swing a dead cat in any industrial and most commercial parts of the country without hitting plumes and "reports of kids playing with drums"
Not to say they arent serious, they are, but the level of panic implied by this interview is a joke. The threat is more long term, most of these sites are known and studied. THE REMEDIES ARE FAR too expensive as the responsible parties are gone and Superfund is dried up. so states do what they can to clean these properties up.
