seen updates on that for quite some time and we certainly haven t seen data for samples taken at the accident site and downwind of the accident site in terms of air sampling, in terms of the chemicals that are being released and that people are potentially exposed to. without that data it s hard to know what people should be worried about and what next steps may be. from reports on the ground, from people who live there and who have come back, there are certainly still odors and chemicals present in the area, and there are chemicals that we can smell, there are chemicals that we can t smell, and it really comes down to being able to measure those and understand what s in the what s in the environment. i really want to stress it s probably most important to know what s in people s homes. what from that accident may have gotten into people s homes or into the soil that people track into their homes. with small children i would always be worried about what they re getting into and their
evaluate some of these individuals that have come forward with some of these symptoms that may potentially be linked to the events of earlier this month. polo sandoval, cnn, new york. peter decarlo is an environmental health professor at johns hopkins university, spoke to cnn earlier about the accuracy of the tests in the area. here he is. the epa differentiates between monitoring and air sampling and they ve been doing both. monitoring seems to be what is heavily relied upon, especially in screening people s homes, and it s the data that s mostly reported on that response website. the problem with monitoring data is it doesn t give us chemical specificity, it doesn t tell us what chemicals are present and at what concentrations t gives us an idea of generally how much of a class of chemicals is there, but it doesn t specify the specific chemicals and that s what s important to understand exposure and potential toxicity. the air sampling data we haven t
mile from the crash site. ben, thank you so much for joining us today. first off, i want to get your response to what you just heard the senator say this morning. yeah, thank you, paula. thanks for having me. yeah, so whenever things were happening early on, sherrod brown was one of the first representatives to reach out at river valley action. he sent one of his representatives there and had a mini town hall about eight to ten of us there and took our notes. i think he s really capturing a mix of feelings. there s a lot of modell verbiage going on where we think might be potentially, things like that, people leaving a lot of wiggle room. besides the air being monitored which is not as sensitive item. it should be samples and we saw an article come out yesterday, an interview with a johns hopkins professor saying there should be three sites set up with air sampling and also the soil worries much more than we thought early on. and you and your family
things the ability to cause very common symptoms at the lower level. so, headache, eye irritation, nose irritation. we have to look at the measured facts and the measured facts include the fact that the air sampling in that area really pointing toward an air source for this. jesse: poison gas is lighting up the neighborhood and government doctors are saying, you know, your runny nose, your headache probably just a common cold. wait a second, a year ago, you couldn t go to the gym unless you were double vaxed with a mask. if you coughed, you had to isolate for 10 days. so, what s going on here? are we looking at a cancer cluster? and the doctors are telling us to shake it off? we need a second opinion. remember 9/11 all those first responders rushing out into the ash all over their face? we are still paying claims for