In the early 1970's, concerns about air pollution from leaded gasoline gave birth to the Environmental Protection Agency, whose original intent was defined by its name. But perhaps no other government agency has ever done more to live up to the "Law of Unintended Consequences", as illustrated by the debacle in lower Manhattan Island, New York City, on Sept 11, 2001.
Initial groundbreaking for the World Trade Center began in 1966. And 35 years later, on September 18, 2001, the New York Times wrote about the irony of how the building plans were fatefully altered..."Anticipating an EPA ban on using asbestos in commercial construction in New York City, the builders stopped using the material by the time they reached the 38th floor of the North Tower" (the first one to go up); and..."More than half of the original, asbestos-containing material was later replaced after the construction of the World Trade Center began".
In its design, the WTC's architects called for asbestos coating on the steel support beams. The coating's purpose was to delay heating of the beams in case of a fire, which would provide an estimated four hours for orderly evacuation and fire fighting, before the beams weakened to the point of structural collapse.
But after the EPA outlawed asbestos while the Center was under construction, the substitute that was used proved to be tragically inadequate. Engineers and architects alike were surprised when the towers collapsed so soon after terrorists had crashed the hijacked planes into both structures.
Were it not for the ban, the four hour window of an asbestos coating on the beams could have limited casualties to only those on the floors where the planes impacted. This is doubly unfortunate because it is a consequence of an illogical fear that proved to be calamitous.
This fear-mongering is characteristic of the EPA:, which since its inception over the years, has evolved into a bully pulpit of regulations backed by environmentalists and trial lawyers, who often ignore research data, and show no sense of proportion in trading one risk against another.
Ever since the initial EPA ban on asbestos, U.S. regulators have thrown scientific data out the window and banned all forms of the mineral, even though asbestos in the U.S. has not strongly been linked to health problems. But the chilling possibility will always endure that the Sept. 11, 2001 WTC building collapses may have been preventable had asbestos been used, which could have prevented the spread of fire to the upper floors.
Steel melts at 2,750* Fahrenheit, but it will start to bend and buckle at temperatures as low as 600 degrees if the fireproofing is inadequate. It is increasingly clear that disproportionate regulations at federal, state, and local levels, obviously cost a disastrous number of human lives on that September 11 day of infamy.
The irony remains that there is no evidence that anything was gained from the ban in terms of health benefits. The original concerns were that indoor air in the skyscrapers would be contaminated by circulating air passing over asbestos fireproofing. As a result, it was only used up to the thirty-eighth floor of the first WTC tower, and not at all in tower 2, with horrific results.
Asbestos has qualities that set it apart from any other material. It is virtually indestructible. It has been used since the time of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and was prized for its heat-resistant properties. The history of asbestos is its reliability as an insulator and fire-stopper.
Before World War II, asbestos was widely used to insulate the boilers of steam locomotives, but otherwise it was not in widespread use until the 1940's. Untold numbers of American sailors' lives were saved during the war because of asbestos used in ship-building.
After World War II, the asbestos industry in the U.S. literally exploded. According to estimates, over 100,000 schools and 700,000 public and commercial buildings used asbestos for insulation, decoration, and fireproofing. But once the EPA entered into the picture in the early 70's, the over-regulation concerning asbestos began to snowball.
In 1986, Congress passed the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA), mandating that schools be considered as "high priority buildings", and all asbestos containing materials be identified and maintained in a condition so as to not present a health risk.
So after 1986, many well a well-constructed post-war school building was demolished unnecessarily because of AHERA, and cost many a states' taxpayers needlessly in the construction of sterile, new post-modern classrooms, that are testimony to the folly of asbestos scaremongering run amok across the nation.
Asbestos is not dangerous unless airborne. Thus the ACTUAL dangers historically have been largely limited to those who worked in the mines or at places that produced asbestos products. These workers were exposed to large amounts of airborne asbestos, and they brought the dust into their homes for their families to inhale or ingest in their food.
But even if airborne, many studies of asbestos workers indicate that it takes much more than casual exposure to cause disease, even over periods as long as 15 to 30 years. Asbestos doesn't radiate; so its mere existence in low levels is not automatically cause for alarm. If the asbestos is solid, the consensus is that there is no discernable risk to health
Over time, the rules and regulatory laws of the EPA can be compared to evolution of prescription drugs. Both have had unintended consequences, which are known as side effects. And the side effects of Clean Air Act of 1970 put new regulations in place that over the last 38 years, would see an unprecedented expansion of the Environmental Protection Agency's authority that impacted every corporation, small business, and eventually reached down to every individual U.S. household. So where will it all end?
In July, 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency announced the 'Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking' (ANPR), which would regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. This is likely the largest, most far-reaching regulation ever.
Regulating carbon dioxide means regulating 85% of the energy we use, which comes from sources that emit CO2. And regulating these sources of energy will increase prices to consumers (e.g. electricity and gasoline). This greatly reduces efficiency in the economy, leading to job losses and large reductions in economic growth.
But just like asbestos, allowing the EPA to move forward with this far-reaching regulation denies whether carbon dioxide actually DOES endanger human health. Obviously, the concept of regulating carbon dioxide could be the largest regulatory intrusion into Americans' personal lives-- a nightmare scenario.
How did air pollution regulations get this way? A number of analysts have shown that a complex, centrally controlled, and process-focused Clean Air Act serves the interests of environmental activists, federal and state regulators, and even many regulated businesses.
Environmental activists gain power, prestige, and increased funding in a centralized, coercive regulatory system, with many administrative decision points. This assures the continued need for large numbers of state and federal regulators, who wield massive and unconstitutional power over Americans' lives.
And with the ever-popular Barack Obama in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency after Jan. 21, the EPA would classify carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant, and use the Clean Air Act to curb emissions by power plants and manufacturers. Such a move could halt construction on as many as half of the 130 proposed new coal-fired power plants across the country.
These Stalinist-like, EPA-proposed decrees would require permits to 'emit' carbon dioxide from the majority of American small businesses, farms with more than 25 cows, and even large single-family homes, as well as schools, hospitals, and public buildings. So, according to the wisdom of EPA, 24 cows are okay, but if one were to become pregnant--LOOKOUT!
So look for the Obama administration to carry on the mantle of the EPA tradition--economic destruction under the liberal mantra of, "It's the right thing to do".
Perhaps the EPA could be better described as the EDA (the Economic Destruction Agency). Over the past 38 years, they've become a natural predator to our economic development. And like the Sept.11 fiasco, EPA-generated regulations will continue to destroy untold amounts of wealth, generate unemployment, and bring economic misery to Americans for years to come.
Big Brother is alive and well in the career ranks of the EPA. The radical environmentalists such as Greenpeace, Earth First, and the Sierra Club, have become the tail wagging the dog of the U.S. economy.
The original regulatory action of the EPA banned lead tetra-ethyl as a gasoline component for use as an octane booster. In banning the additive, the EPA performed an unprecedented amount of good in eradicating air pollution. But like the proverbial poker player, perhaps it would have been much better for America if the EPA had quit while they were ahead.