|
medpundit |
||
 |
 |
|
Tuesday, September 17, 2002Despite the Post’s claims that the breathing problems are a “plague”, the study found that out of 1,636 firemen who were at the site on September 11, 2001, the day when the dust was at its highest concentration, only 128 (8 percent) developed breathing problems. In the 6,958 firemen who worked at the sight in the next two days, when the dust was still settling and the fires still burning, only 187 (3 percent) developed problems, and of the 1,320 rescuers who worked there between the third and seventh day after the attack, only 17 developed problems. (1 percent). These are remarkably low numbers, especially given some of the descriptions by the firemen themselves of what it was like down there on that first day: A healthy 45-year-old deputy chief who had never smoked arrived at the World Trade Center shortly after the second jetliner's impact. He supervised medical triage directly in front of the south tower when it collapsed. He was buried under falling debris, from which he was able to extricate himself. He reported that the air was "darker than a sealed vault and thicker than pea soup" ...Within 24 hours after exposure, all 332 firefighters with World Trade Center cough reported having a productive cough; the sputum was usually black to grayish and infiltrated with "pebbles or particles." The Post interviews a lung specialist from Mount Sinai, who can’t resist the temptation to slam his generalist colleagues: He said he has seen too many patients misdiagnosed by primary care doctors unfamiliar with treating serious chemical burns. "It doesn't leave us confident that they will get appropriate evaluation and care," Levin said. These people aren't suffering from chemical burns so much as they're suffering from inhaling dirt. The specialists don’t have any experience treating people who have inhaled pebbles, either. They’re guessing at the best treatment, which is the best that anyone can do under the circumstances. posted by Sydney on 9/17/2002 06:39:00 AM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|
