Talk:Health effects arising from the September 11, 2001 attacks
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Vulnerable individuals and issues of documentation
This week an editor, Alcsul, substantively rewrote parts regarding the deceased nun. His revisions did not conform to the facts as provided by the New York Daily News article.
The major virtue of providing references is that they are verifiable. Dogru144 02:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Editorial gutting of specific victims
Certain editors are gutting the article of references to various topics -gutted sections which do have ample documentation:
- vulnerable individuals
- volunteers as a topic
- specific volunteers
Please justify edits on this Talk page. Dogru144 11:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Clearing the Air reference
The date given for Juan Gonzalez piece predates 9/11. Mistake? I'll do this when I have time. 68.122.239.20 03:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- This is no mistake. This anonymous user was referring to a 9/10/2002 contribution by Juan Gonzalez to "In These Times", nearly a year after the 9/11/2001 event. Dogru144 14:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Poor choice in category removal
This was an industrial disaster: all kinds of chemicals were released into the air. This is causing deleterious health effects.
This was not a natural disaster; this was more an act of terror for one day, having an effect only on the victims present at the buildings prior to 9:30 AM that fateful Tuesday. Dogru144 23:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Toxic does not equal Industrial disaster.
Industrial disasters are mass disasters caused by industrial companies, either by accident, negligence or incompetence. While terrorism is a violent, shameful, tragic thing worthy of note when industry is attacked causing toxicity to people and the environment, it is not an act of an industrial company by any of the above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.3.65.82 (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Reply & User:65.3.65.82, please sign
Your definition is POV. Of course this was a terrorism act; industrial disaster in this case cannot be denied. It is heavily documented in the article. Dogru144 01:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- In this case, I agree with the IP. Looking at the contents of Category:Industrial disasters, it appears the criteria are that either
- The primary site was industrial in nature (Kader Toy Factory Fire)
- The trigger was industrial (Minamata disease).
- The September 11, 2001 attacks were on commercial and governmental targets rather than industrial, so that rules out the former. And while the health effects were exasperated by industrial factors, the primary impetus behind the health effects was the attacks, which can't really be said to be industrial in origin. I'm not sure what you're referring to with regards to the "heavy documentation"; could you provide examples of why this article belongs in the category, where articles on similar attacks would not? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 01:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Health effects in dogs
I ran across an article just now that reports that 5 years after 9/11, no rescue dogs involved in that event have developed any nasal cancer. These were dogs used to sniff out survivors, and they did not have any protective equipment. This seems to speak to the statement, premature deaths and other ailments of dogs in the area are "our canary in the coalmine" in the section on Ground Zero illness. I thought it was interesting, and I decided to bring it here for comments before adding it. --Joelmills 19:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
