Search

The unprecedented toxic release in lower Manhattan on September 11, 2001 created one of the worst environmental disasters in US history, followed by a contentious and ongoing battle over the existence, etiology, and legitimation of World Trade Center-related illness. In this paper, I explore the enactment of epistemic authority by a complex array of stakeholders-government officials, scientists, physicians, environmentalists, advocates, journalists, and politicians-who have woven medical-scientific knowledge into their competing agendas and platforms. Despite the scientific validation of environmental dangers, the clinical documentation of illness and the epidemiological substantiation of links between environmental exposure and illness onset, the political-economic interests of federal, state, and local bodies have often been privileged over the protection of public health. 9/11 illness is a 'contested illness' enmeshed in politically charged disputes regarding the relationship of environmental toxins to disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The terrorist attacks on 9/11 tested the government's communications capabilities and illustrated the flaws in available systems, equipment, and procedures. The attacks in lower Manhattan proved too much for current emergency response practices. Traditional communications methods were severely strained from a combination of overuse and structural damage. Resourceful emergency responders and local officials were forced to rely on less technical means of communication. Despite prior warnings of radio equipment limitations, officials carried outdated devices that lacked the ability for long distance communication or interoperability with other departments. Individuals turned to new means of sharing and acquiring information. Smart phones, text messaging and online media established themselves as vital lifelines in an emergency. The government has learned from these constraints and revised its emergency response and disaster preparedness procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]