(66th  in a series on Martin Tower)

Though Martin Tower is now an imploded heap of rubble and thus “old news,” Gadfly hastens to archive follower Al Wurth’s perspective so that it will be available to historians of this moment in Bethlehem history.

Wurth’s moving comments at the Nitschmann public meeting (where he was rudely interrupted from the head table) got the most vigorous applause of the night.

Here’s Wurth’s excellent essay, a version of which appeared as an op-ed just before the demolition.

Al Wurth, “What is the advantage to the community of ‘imploding’ Martin Tower?” Lehighvalleylive, May 17, 2019.

What is the advantage to the community of “imploding” Martin Tower?

In a few days, on Sunday May 19, Bethlehem residents will have a surprise on our way to church.  The spectacle is the announced  “implosion” of the iconic Martin Tower, the former headquarters of the steel company known round the world by the name of its birthplace — Bethlehem. However, it won’t be terrorists who have carried out the assault but rather our local officials and people we call “developers” who have led us to do it to ourselves.

The building will fall on itself after being broken apart with explosive charges and will release a cloud of dust that will spread over the city (and Nitschmann school across the road), and travel for miles in an ever-larger pattern to the Southeast, if prevailing winds are in place—aimed initially toward the most densely populated parts of town – the near West Side, downtown, the historic districts and the South Side—and toward South Mountain, which will likely contain even more of the dust in city.

Actually, we did not vote for any plan to destroy the Martin Tower; it was not a decision made by the people. It would never have been supported by a referendum, but we never had a vote. It was instead enabled, ambiguously, in a 6-1 rezoning vote (promoted by Mayor Donchez), by city council in December 2015, that effectively removed protection of Martin Tower as a historic structure. Only three of the members of City Council who approved that rezoning remain on council, Councilors Callahan, Reynolds, and Waldron; the lone dissenter, Kathy Reuscher, and the others, including City Business Manager Eric Evans, are no longer on council.

The insensitivity of the city leaders to the history and the uniqueness of the structure should not be surprising. Abandonment and destruction of old structures in “historic” Bethlehem has lately been common.  Indeed, good advice for preserving property would be: Don’t get on the National Register of Historic Places—like the old Broughal School, or even be designated historic, like the 2^nd Avenue Armory, because you end up in the cross-hairs of the absentee out-of-town speculators that call themselves developers.

So, three years later, it should be no surprise that the unique and historic structure, the tallest building in the Lehigh Valley, would be scheduled for demolition by “implosion” at the same time that cities around the world are seeing a boom in distinctive tall structures.  I recently visited Durham NC, where one was just completed, and condominiums on the upper floors are listed at $1 million. Rather than take advantage of the unparalleled views (much better than Durham’s) from our own tallest building (that used to be reserved for the steel execs), our leaders’ choice apparently has been to destroy both the uniqueness and the historical character of Martin Tower in favor of suburban-style “generica” developments made up of low-rise structures on acres of parking lots—mirroring the shopping centers across the street.

Bethlehem doesn’t have to settle for this plan, and certainly citizens should not face the risks of the “implosion demolition.” The original rationale for demolition, that the Tower was too plagued by old construction materials like asbestos, no longer applies. Fortunately, the negative characteristics of the old building have been removed by the developer; only the historic significance and the unique character of the building remain. With its costly and dangerous asbestos removed, it is what Bethlehem Steel made it to be—the skyscraper company’s skyscraper—a hometown tribute to the builder of world-class bridges and buildings.

Instead of completing the destruction, why not retrofit the remaining steel structure with new cover skin with solar panels, add state of the art efficiency, insulation, and daylighting, and other modern technologies, and remodel the old monument in a 21^st century form? The solar exposure (for PV panels and daylighting) is unmatched as the building is not shaded from any direction—another distinctive  characteristic of its monumental status.

The mayor and council and other state and local officials (who have been conspicuously silent) can work together to find a better and much safer plan. Place a moratorium on any demolition to get clear comparisons of cost and risk of the slow but steady (job creating) piece-by-piece demolition alternative, compared to the quick and dirty implosion. These estimates have not been provided to the public. Meanwhile, seek initiatives from other builders who could contract with the current owners for the structure’s skeleton and shell to be turned into multi-use and multi-level  residential, and commercial area, like so many similar developments in other communities.

The complaints from the absentee owners about how long it will take can hardly be considered serious given the years of inactivity that the location has endured. The owners will still have their special tax breaks from the CRIZ–that they can apply to the project and the surrounding property.  Make no mistake, citizens are paying for the destruction of Martin Tower not just in the destructive pollution and loss of our history; our leaders are actually giving special tax breaks to the wreckers.

The old obstacles to reuse have been removed; why destroy the core and its historic and structural integrity—and make citizens hide from the pollution?  How many communities would deliberately destroy their historic tallest building?  Bethlehem officials, and the developers, can do better.

Op Ed submitted by Prof. Al Wurth, Bethlehem resident and (imperiled) neighbor of Martin.

(64th  in a series on Martin Tower)
Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

Nalyn Marcus has had a business across the street from Martin Tower since 2007. 

 Dear Gadfly:

There is a lot of voiced concern, information and commentary on this site which I was only made aware of two weeks ago. Insightful info and thought provoking questions to raise awareness on many topics, but for me these weeks, I’m laser focused on the Tower and all it implies. I often wonder why the local media has not found it newsworthy to dig or write more on health concerns as part of their implosion coverage. It has seemed merely a brush stroke of coverage. I mentioned my concerns weeks ago to a reporter who said that the air quality was an ‘interesting angle’ that he might follow up on. Then nothing. Why I wonder. And how far of a reach does this site have? Is it monitored by our Lehigh Valley journalists or are we all preaching to our own choir?
So I’m using my painters tape and old sheets, taking photos and removing delicate glass and wall hangings tomorrow. I am grateful Im getting help and now that thunderstorms are forecast that is the blessing too. I’m doing more than has been suggested to get ready, but that’s me. I prefer to be over prepared, rather than lament ‘I shoulda’ after. Thank you for this site Gadfly. I believe we’re all better educated having this excellent source of info you provide.

Nalyn

(63rd  in a series on Martin Tower)
Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

Peter Crownfield is officially retired but spends most of his time working with students in his role as internship coordinator for the Alliance for Sustainable Communities–Lehigh Valley.

Gadfly:

The real takeaway from this entire process is that City officials:
• accepted the contractor as a valid source of information on risks
• excluded the city’s Health Department from the process
• assumed that DEP regulations protect public health (what the regulations actually do is permit harm as long as the applicant meets certain requirements)
Clearly they are willing to allow this to go ahead despite demonstrated public health impacts.
This is what happens when government officials place a higher value on property (& profits) than on people’s health & lives.

I think this [post#62 on silica] supports the fact that any comparison to Casilio is bogus, another false statement from the demolition company.

Peter

(62nd in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

CDI’s dust is only made of sand and lime — amazing!

May 9 afternoon meeting. Repeated again in the night meeting.

Why is Silica Hazardous?

Silica, often referred to as quartz, is a very common mineral.  It is found in many materials common on construction and oil & gas sites, including soil, sand, concrete, masonry, rock, granite, and landscaping materials.

The dust created by cutting, grinding, drilling or otherwise disturbing these materials can contain crystalline silica particles.  These dust particles are very small. You cannot see them. This respirable silica dust causes lung disease and lung cancer. It only takes a very small amount of airborne silica dust to create a health hazard.

https://www.silica-safe.org/know-the-hazard/why-is-silica-hazardous

(61st in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

George Lopez is retired after working twenty years with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Gadfly:

Reading this [post #60], here is what gets me. During all of the countless meetings between the owners, contractors, city, county, and state people that Councilperson Callahan mentions, why didn’t anybody ask one simple question ” Is dust damage covered by the contractor’s liability insurance?” The answer would be “No, only accidental discharges are covered (and this could hardly be called “accidental”) which brings us to the next question. “Why won’t the insurers cover it?” ITS BECAUSE THEY KNOW WHATS IN THE DUST! The risk is too great.

George

(59th in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

George Lopez is retired after working twenty years with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Gadfly:

Johns Hopkins has never used an implosion to demolish a building. That’s blatantly false. The building in question and cited in the study was Broadway Homes, which was owned by the Housing Authority of Baltimore City. Hopkins had no involvement with the implosion other than being an adjacent neighbor.

George

The point of reference here is CDI’s claim that hospitals use implosions, so that implosions must be good.

(58th in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

Dear Gadfly,

Your most recent questions [post #57] show a willingness to investigate a very difficult political environment. The city essentially is supporting the demolition without investigating the health hazard of demolition. They did have the City of Bethlehem Health Department at the meeting on Thursday, but they allowed the demolition company ( who is in a conflict of interest) to answer health concerns. As I found during my questioning [at the May 9 night meeting], the responses were essentially deflections about our worry about long-term health problems. An argument with them would have mitigated the points, I tried to make. So let me answer some of your questions and responses the company gave to defend the implosion.

1. The amount of dust will be the same if mechanically taken down slowly vs. implosion.
This may or may not be true, but a slow release would not have the magnitude of silica load to the community outside the building. As you questioned, most of the release would be experienced by the workers wearing masks in the building. On the other hand, the implosion would definitely increase the probability of the community to inhale silica since the dust will be outside the building. The mass of silica released all at once would increase the probability of inhalation to cause damage. Once the building is down, the processing of the remains will cause a constant stream of silica dust over a protracted time. If I were frequenting that area afterward, I would wear a mask. It is hard to understand how Lowe’s would not understand that going to their store may cause a health hazard. Maybe their income will drop because of fear of dust contamination. How about all the medical office buildings? Patients with medical disabilities will also be encountering dust from the processing of the remains of Martin Tower.

2. People who work in the cement industry do not have lung problems.
There are multiple papers that refutes this statement. Obviously they either made up the answer from the experience of one person or it was meant to be an outright lie. An example of a paper referring to Portland Cement workers is: Effect of Exposure to Cement Dust among the Workers: An Evaluation of Health Related Complications, published June 20, 2018. As you mentioned, these workers get chronic lung disease from inhalation of silica and lime. [Listen to the comment by resident #4 at the May 9 night meeting: post #56.]

3. Johns Hopkins used demolition as their choice, so why are we questioning the choice?
This statement does not explain if this decision was chosen by the physicians. The decision could have been for a small building away from the hospital. It could have been decided by the management without physician support. So by name-dropping, they were putting up a smoke screen.

The one thing I do know. The cause and subsequent morbid effect is generally distant. The silica ( and possible asbestos) acts as a foreign material that does not go away once inhaled. It stays in the lung. The body’s response is to put fibrous tissue around the irritation. This takes many years. If there is little silica inhaled, the fibrous response may be focal. The residual lung tissue is enough for normal living. However, if there is much silica inhaled, it will effect enough lung tissue to compromise the transfer of oxygen from the alveolar sacs into the capillaries. This causes chronic lung disease. It also could lead to cancerous transformation.

I think the fact that the demolition company could not quote any medical studies after implosion is troubling. They cited a Philadelphia Study on measurements proximal to the implosion. There was no reference to where this information could be found.

I believe the City of Bethlehem has done a poor job in alleviating the problem we are confronting. I would like to know why the city allowed the implosion to occur. I believe the city is opening themselves to future law suits due to negligence once pulmonary diseases manifest themselves in the future.

Steven Diamond, DO, MBA
Forensic Pathologist

(57th in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

Gadfly was a literature prof.

He knows “nuthin'” about the real, practical world out there.

Nuthin’.

Gadfly needs help.

Gadfly do believe (subject to review and documentation) that when asked what will be in the “dust” generated by the Martin Tower implosion — CDI answered twice (subject to review and documentation) that the dust will contain “sand and lime.”

Gadfly thought the dust would contain silica.

CDI did not mention silica.

Gadfly stands to be corrected.

Gadfly wishes somebody would correct him before he goes further, wasting your time.

So Gadfly does poor man’s research on the web and finds this web site: The Center for Construction Research and Training (CPWR — The Center for Construction Research and Training is an international leader in applied research and training for the construction industry, and serves as the National Construction Center for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health NIOSH). Sounds legit.

And reads such things as:

• The dust created by cutting, grinding, drilling or otherwise disturbing these materials can contain crystalline silica particles.  These dust particles are very small. You cannot see them. This respirable silica dust causes lung disease and lung cancer. It only takes a very small amount of airborne silica dust to create a health hazard.

Now this is a web site that focuses on workers, and when the developer has said that factors influencing the choice of implosion over conventional demolition are “safety and time,” I do believe that it is worker safety that is referred to. And we want worker safety too. But substitute “spectator” for “worker.”

And if one goes on in this web site, you find:

• A worker’s chance of becoming ill from exposure to silica dust depends on the tasks performed, the amount of dust they are exposed to, and the frequency of the exposures. Each exposure to silica adds into the total load of silica in the lungs – in other words, each exposure adds to the lung damage.

So it may be that one exposure to a small amount of dust of short duration might not affect a healthy spectator.

The argument we have heard is that about the same amount of dust has already been generated in the last 18 months will be generated now in one shot. So there is no worry.

I’m not smart enough to get my mind around that argument. But it sounds fishy.

Might not a large amount of dust all at once be possibly more dangerous to a spectator?

Likewise, I’m not smart enough to figure that out.

Let me repeat from post #39 a site that contradicts developer statements:

The most efficient of all commercial demolition methods is explosion or implosion, but it’s typically only suitable when mechanical demolition and deconstruction aren’t an option. There are public health concerns with this type of demolition, including environmental issues, damage to adjacent structures, flying debris, air quality concerns, noise, and more. When used, this is typically the least expensive commercial demolition method.

And look at the link provided by George Lopez in post #45.

I’m bothered by the idea (subject to review and documentation) that CDI mentions sand and lime but not silica.

So, here’s my bottom line:

1) Is CDI “hiding” the presence of silica in the dust? If so, why?

2) If silica is there, is the amount of exposure here dangerous for spectators?

Anyone clearer headed than I want to press their brow against such questions?

(56th in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

Martin Tower demolition

Rough notes on the question period at the May 9 evening meeting
(time notation keyed to audio on Gadfly blog)
(doesn’t start quite at beginning)

Gadfly loves this stuff. Democracy. Public participation. Nitschmann auditorium decently populated by interested residents. Asking questions. Making comments.

The presentations at the 6pm meeting were virtually the same as at the 3pm meeting, so we don’t have to repeat them.

But here, except for 3-4 questioners at the beginning of the session is a complete record of the public participation period.

Listen to the whole proceeding. Use the “contents” below to browse to a specific section in which you are interested. Use the index at the end to find topics. Whatever. But Gadfly invites you to live or relive democracy in action.

1) work safety: pregnant woman asking if it’s safe to go to work at Lowe’s. Not if the dust blows in that direction. Do what you feel comfortable with.

2) Wind (1:45): will wind be measured on site? What will be the velocity on site at implosion time? No Anemometer on site. Higher velocity is better; dust gets quite dispersed. Wind not a factor.

3) long-term health problems (7:50): asking for Health Department statement on long-term health problems. Health director responds it’s ok.

4) Monocacy Creek (16:00): effect? Casilio has been there for years. Screens present prevent contamination.

5) air quality (19:30): distribution of small particulates? Will air be monitored before and after? Yes, testing before, during, and after, and checking of size. Will info be published? Yes.

6) cost (22:06): who pays? Not the City!

7) dust (23:00): how wide an area affected by particulate and how long? Worst-case scenario is calm day. What is dust made of? Sand and lime. How long does toxicity last? Been doing this for 18 months onsite and not toxic. How is it cleaned up? Sweep dry first, then water. Where disposing it? On site. Clean fill.

8) air quality (26:38): machines to clean air? masks? No.

9) decision factors for implosion (28:00): safety for workers and time.

10) responsibility (30:07): How many people here are elected representatives? Not enough consideration for citizen safety. If this goes bad, who is responsible? Demolition team.

11) air quality (32:20): why is our air quality so bad? Have anything to do with the 18 months of demolition work? No.

12: approvals (33:27): who approves? City and State. When? Friday, Monday. What chemicals in explosives? They go off as gas immediately on detonation. What’s the City permit? Demolition permit. Who approved remediation? Asbestos, EPA. Lead? No. Why not measure particulates? Jars will be analyzed. How made public? The independent firm? Vertex. How much water will be used? 3 cannons, several hundred gallons per minute. Water goes to inlets that have protection. How monitored? Screens will be monitored. Any way to know what the long-term impact is?

13: doing business (51:16): when can my customers with respiratory distress come back? Monday. If the dust blows toward you, we’ll clean it up. Pets? Keep inside if worried.

14): people with disabilities (53:52): can you get my son out of there for a day or two? Let’s talk.

15): I-Beam (55:59): what doing with it? will be onsite or in museum.

16) Monocacy (58:12): Is there no water testing and are alerts dependent on casual observers? Is there no pro-active, official monitoring? Protection is in place, and it is monitored to function properly. Not dependent on casual observers. Site will be actively monitored.

17) media (1:04:30): How is the “stay inside” message getting out for people who won’t see the last slide? City web site, newspapers, media, probably will be upped next week.

18) the clean-up (1:06:16): how do you clean up? contractor sweeps up.

19) asbestos (1:07:36): what about asbestos left? None, all gone.

20) work safety (1:10:08): what time do I need to get out of my house to go to work? satisfied

21) against questioners (1:12:25): you people are doing a good job, why grousing, nobody worried about Minsi bridge.

22) asbestos (1:14:42): was air quality tested when it was being cleaned out? Yes.

23) Why? (1:15:38): why did we want to blow this building up in the first place? Effect on the school we’re in? Safer than a carefully managed step-by-step demolition? Do you think the voters would have chosen this method?

24) photographic survey (1:21:08): Yes, also seismographs. Residents aren’t aware; talk to them.

25) infrastructure (1:24:45): this is a “done deal” – but looks to future, feels it will be worse. Traffic concerns. Mayor described past history and the public comment process at some length.

26) recycling (1:30:27): business closed on Monday? No. Recycling? Yes, steel and concrete. Reiterated the “done deal” now but wanted openness in future, so Mayor explained the process again.

27) Mayor’s conclusion (1:34:12)

28) affordable housing (1:34:55): Looking ahead, senior citizen asked for a portion of the site be affordable housing.

———————————————————————————————-

Index

air quality: 5, 8, 11, 12

asbestos: 12, 19, 22

approvals: 12

awareness: 24

business: 13, 26

clean up: 18

cost: 6

decision factors: 9

dust: 7

future: 25, 26, 28

health, long-term: 3, 10, 12

home safety: 9

I-Beam: 15

media: 16

Monocacy Creek: 4, 12, 16

people with disabilities: 14

pets: 13

recycling: 26

seismograph: 24

why?: 23

wind: 2

work: 1, 20

(55th in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

Breena Holland is an Associate Professor at Lehigh University in the Department of Political Science and the Environmental Initiative. She is a past and current director of Lehigh University’s South Side Initiative.

Gadfly, I agree [with Gadfly post #52], which is why I used the word “equivocating” in my characterization of the message that was conveyed. One has to wonder whether the city might have actually encouraged viewing the demolition as a spectator sport had citizens and a couple councilwomen not drawn attention to the health risks. Since any recognizable impacts would likely be far in the future when the mayor is no longer in office, it’s hard to shake the feeling that the situation is being handled carelessly because there won’t be any immediate political consequences. I think I recall from a recent meeting, that Councilman Bryan Callahan even suggested that citizens’ spectator activity at the implosion would be a sign that everything is fine, that the citizens who are worried are over-reacting [yes, see post #38]. And yet, at the meeting with the “experts” from the company, when pushed, they finally admitted that the “safe” thing to do is stay indoors.

Risk tolerance should not be the default position of public officials. We look to them protect us, not to gamble with our health while trying to find something worth cheering in a a series of terrible land use decisions.

Breena

(54th in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

Gadfly depends on audio here. Unfortunately, his video failed him. Just pretend we are living in the Age of Radio. It’ll be fine.

You know Gadfly. He likes to work from beginning to end. He likes to put all the information out before editorializing.

He’s gotten out of his usual sequence here. He should have given you the developer and CDI (the demolition people) and City presentations first.

So let him try to fill in. Gadfly likes you to have the primary sources, so that you can do your own thinking and ask your own questions.

Here, then, are the presentations at the 3pm Thursday May 9 meeting. You can refresh your memory if you were there, or you can, in a sense, attend the meeting if you weren’t there.

1) Intro by the Mayor and the handoff to developer Duane Wagner of HRP Management (who is described as hosting the meeting) (6 mins.)

2) James Santoro of Controlled Demolition Inc, the company doing the implosion (5 mins.)

3) PowerPoint presentation by Robert Novatnack, Emergency Management Coordinator for the City (19 mins.) You don’t have the slides unless you came to one of the two meetings, but you can follow along pretty easily just with the audio.

The above presentations were replicated almost exactly at the 6pm meeting, heard one, heard both.

Then the floor was opened for questions from the audience.

The only question regarding the health issue that we are following here was Gadfly’s. He addressed his questions mainly to the CDI guy, with a few to the developer at the end.

First, go back and listen again to Santoro, but this time begin at min. 1:45.

Then listen to the exchange initiated by Gadfly (a minute or two at the beginning was cut off).

Gadfly has already analyzed this exchange at length in post #49, so he won’t repeat that here. You might want to go back and take a look.

The presentations at the 6pm meeting were virtually the same, but in his next post Gadfly will give you the question period of that 6pm meeting.

(53rd in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

Peter Crownfield is officially retired but spends most of his time working with students in his role as internship coordinator for the Alliance for Sustainable Communities–Lehigh Valley.

Gadfly:

“We don’t encourage” is a weak recommendation, especially when conditioned with the silly bit “if you find dust uncomfortable.”

The real point is that the fine-particulate matter is harmful even if you don’t notice or don’t have any immediate reaction.

The only reasonable health message is “we strongly advise” people not to be outside and to wear a respirator if they are within, say 2 kilometers—and to post signs throughout that area.

Too difficult or expensive? — then don’t do the implosion.

Peter

(52nd in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

And how have you spent your Monday morning?

May 13

Bob, Bob, Duane, Adam:

Pesky Gadfly again. Always acknowledging your hard work in a complex endeavor. But again pointing out after reviewing all the documents and recordings, that I think there is a mixed-message about people being outside for the implosion. The following “argument” will be convoluted, I know, but please hang tough.

1) In the May 9 afternoon presentation, the CDI focus is on preventing dust from going inside houses. Nothing is said about being outside.

2) In the question period after its afternoon presentation, CDI is direct about being outside: “We don’t encourage people to come out during the process; stay indoors during the process. Stay at home, watch it on television.” “We don’t encourage” is strong and direct. “Stay at home” is what we call in the language business imperative mood; it is strong, direct, forceful. Why was this important message dependent on a question to elicit it? Why was this important message not part of the direct presentation? But, anyway, it is clear.

3) There’s a disjunction between #1 and #2.

4) In #6 in the City “Martin Tower Implosion Frequently Asked Questions” document posted online and handed out at the two meetings,” the questions are: “Are there any precautions residents should take related to dust? Should residents stay indoors during the implosion and, if so, for how long?” The first question is answered, focusing on preventing dust from getting inside houses. Unlike the imperative statement above in #2, however, the answer to the important second question about being outside is prefaced by the conditional “if”: “If you find dust uncomfortable, etc.” Why doesn’t the City FAQ clearly say we don’t encourage you to be outside, stay home, and watch it on tv?

5) Another disjunction. So is the recommendation to stay indoors during the implosion or not? CDI and the City are not saying precisely the same thing.

6) The Dept of Health handout presents a new disjunction. In the afternoon question period, CDI says that if you are outside, stay upwind. DOH says that too but adds the important imperative to wear a respirator. CDI does not say that and even in the question period at the night session the idea of wearing a mask is said to be unnecessary, seemingly contradicting the DOH.

7) At the end of my question segment at the night session, CDI took issue with my characterization that the message was it was ok to be outside but to use commonsense (precisely, I would point out, the term CDI used in the afternoon session!), pointing me to the “Your Attention Please” document where, according to CDI, “we are advising people to stay indoors.” I humbly protest that you will find nothing of the sort in that document. The conditional “if” is again operable. There is NO direct advice for people to stay indoors in that document.

8) After which comment by CDI, the City pointed, conclusively to answer me, to the statement at the end of the contact number slide: “REMEMBER, THE BEST PLACE TO VIEW THE IMPLOSION IS FROM THE COMFORT OF YOUR OWN HOME WATCHING IT ON TELEVISION.”  Exactly. But where else in the packet is this said that we should be asked to remember it here? I don’t see it.

9) In the “Implosion Dust” slide, all that is said is “Please stay indoors IF you have any respiratory conditions aggravated by dust.” There is nothing about staying in, watching on tv, etc.

10) My belabored point is that there is confusion on what your position is. If “REMEMBER, THE BEST PLACE TO VIEW THE IMPLOSION IS FROM THE COMFORT OF YOUR OWN HOME WATCHING IT ON TELEVISION” is your bottom line because of health reasons, as the City indicated to me in the night session, then that should be on the title page of the packet not buried at the end, precisely as an acute audience member pointed out to you during the night session. And City officials should be heard saying that over and over again. And the media should be prompted to amplify that message for you.

11) It sounds to me that both the City and CDI want the important soundbite about health to be that for safety reasons THE BEST PLACE TO VIEW THE IMPLOSION IS FROM THE COMFORT OF YOUR OWN HOME WATCHING IT ON TELEVISION.” Well, in my opinion, it’s lost in your documents and presentations.

Ed Gallagher

Can Gadfly get some breakfast now?

(51st in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

Peter Crownfield is officially retired but spends most of his time working with students in his role as internship coordinator for the Alliance for Sustainable Communities–Lehigh Valley.

ref: “Where are the Health people?” post #50

Gadfly:

Well, two possibilities seem obvious — which does not mean either is correct!

City officials did not realize there were any potential health concerns because they got all their information from the developer and/or the demolition contractor. – or – City officials did realize there were potential health concerns and sidelined all health experts in favor of the pro-demolition people. (But why on earth would the city’s business manager be on the panel‽)

I hope there are other reasons, since either of these would be frighteningly irresponsible.

Peter

(51st in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

John Marquette is a retired librarian/archivist, author, historian, and a resident of Bethlehem. His current project is focused on the restoration of the interior of the Archibald Johnston Mansion in Housenick Park. 

Given the questions from the meeting at May 9 and many citizens and local experts expressing concern over the project, why do we continue the implosion countdown clock to May 19?

Councilmember Van Wirt seems to all but ask this question in her post from earlier today. There’s no containing the resultant plume, if indeed there is a plume. We know there’s going to be particulate matter. The state health people haven’t given their own evidence.

Because the tower’s structural frame has been compromised in preparation for removal, the demolition needs to take place. Once it’s down, however, what stops the developers from moving forward with plans which look and feel inconsistent with good urban planning? What does the Ronca/Herrick plan do that integrates the Martin into the heart of the city of Bethlehem and not simply imitate a little piece of Lower Macungie Township in the heart of our home? Nothing.

This ought not to be a quid pro quo. Implosions are cheap and efficient and environmentally risky. Herrick and Ronca are ready to build and to take full advantage of the tax district in which the Martin Tower property sits.

Withhold additional permits and revoke the permits already issued based on insufficient evidence of safety. Let’s stop the rush to development.

John

It’s worth starting to think seriously what steps can be taken to stop the rush to development or even the rush to implosion.

(50th in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

Gadfly’s focus — spurred by follower concerns — has been on the health and environmental effects of implosions.

Gadfly learned that Martin Romeril (audio posts #19 and #38), Nalyn Marcus (post #34), Barbara Diamond (post #23), and others had been trying to get information about the demolition to no avail. Nalyn, for instance, reported a few posts back that she had been trying for 8 weeks to get information. 8 weeks! After promising an update by mid-April, you might remember or noticed, the City information web site went dark.

Public anxiety is captured well in this email sent to Gadfly: “My father lives at 1102 Eaton Ave, Bethlehem.  He turns 92 years old tomorrow.  The apartment building that he lives in is located directly across the street from the Martin Towers. I am very concerned for his health and well-being along with all of the other residents at that location, as they are all elderly.  My dad has breathing issues.  What is being done to remove those residents for the duration of this implosion?  They’ve been told to cover their air vents.  How does that prevent particulates from coming in through the door?  It’s an old building, there are other ways the dust and asbestos could get in.  Regardless, of the abatement, potentially there will be particulates and dust that will get into this building.  Also, what if it causes breaks in the building from the implosion and other issues, such as water pipe or gas pipe breaks?  Obviously, there is concern that this implosion could not go as planned as there are going to be ambulances and emergency services standing by.  So, rather than wait to see if someone is affected, why not ensure these people are taken elsewhere for the event?  I think they should be given an alternative location until the air quality and the building are deemed safe.  Please advise me as to what is being done.”

Gadfly formulated a long list of questions into a “Letter to the City” (post #32 in this series) and got a few minutes to “depose” reps from the developer and demolitioner at the afternoon meeting for stakeholders last Thursday May 9. He hopes you listened to the audio of his interchange in post #49.

But what to ask and/or talk about at the general meeting for the public in the evening? He didn’t want — and there wouldn’t be audience patience for  — a lot of “in the weeds” kind of questions, so he tried to think about his one most important and major concern.

Thus, Gadfly decided to focus on the lack of an authoritative Health Department (City or State) voice in the discussion to address health concerns, especially long-term health concerns.

This seemed such a glaring omission.

Once again, please listen to the audio, go to the source — and think for yourself.

Only 8 minutes this time.

“Is there a health person here?” Gadfly asked right out of the gate. Bethlehem Health Director Kristen Weinrich was not among the 13 officials at the Head Table but sitting in the front row. Gadfly said he would feel comfortable if a health official said the implosion was ok health-wise, pointing out that the people answering the health questions were the developer and the demolitioner, “people making money” off the project and with no health credentials: “I want to hear from a health person.” Gadfly pointed out that the developer claim that they’ve done 18 months of work without a complaint was weak since the kind of health problems we’re worried about don’t show up for years, for decades, and even the most cursory survey of the web would show that silica dust (in concrete) causes cancer and silicosis. (The earlier scene of our resident forensic pathologist making his case to a business man struck Gadfly as completely absurd.) Gadfly wanted a health person to point to the studies that make sense of all this. Can we have the evidence from Phila. studies that were referenced, he asked? The demolitioner assumed that Gadfly was advocating for conventional demolition — not so — just advocating for assurance about health safety. Gadfly cited an online source that said implosion is cheaper but has more health hazard than other types of demolition and the need for a trusted health professional to decide whether that’s true. Gadfly pointed out that other cities clearly advise “Stay inside,” and the City replied that that was their message (Gadfly would say it’s not strong enough).

In what he thought would be conclusion, Gadfly ended (to a smattering of applause), asking “Where are the Health people?”

But then it got pretty interesting. The response was that the City Health Director was in the front row, to which Gadfly asked why she wasn’t at the Head Table — and a response to that was that there were not enough seats. Grrrr. If she was thought important, enough seats would certainly have been provided. And, in fact, it was not necessary for the City Business Manager and the demolition assistant to take space at the Head Table. They certainly had no higher priority than City Health Director.

In Gadfly’s opinion, the City Health Director should have had a forefront role. No question.

But Gadfly’s question did flush out the Health Director Kristen Weinrich to make — off the cuff — what he called in post #42 a position statement. Here it is again:

“The Health Department does not regularly get involved with air quality issues . . . but in looking at long-term health outcomes due to dust, you are looking at direction, long-term exposure, and you’re looking at quantity. So that everything I’ve been told and everything I’ve seen, they’ve done everything that they can to minimize [garbled audio]. It’s a short-term event, they’re not expecting any type of long-term exposure, and we’re not expecting [garbled audio] amount of dust. So that’s my opinion from a public health standpoint.”

Now we can agree or disagree, but here at least and at last is the kind of statement that Gadfly felt that we needed from the beginning.

The City Health Director does not say that there will be no long-term health problems from the implosion but that the demolitioners are doing all they can to minimize exposure, which will be to only small amounts of dust for a short time.

She went on to say that she was concerned about short-term outcomes for those with respiratory diseases.

Gadfly does not understand why the Health Director did not have a central role.

Gadfly does not understand why the Health Director had to be flushed out to make statement.

Chew on this too, and there will be more to follow.

(49th in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

There were two meetings on Thursday May 9 — for the stakeholders (residents and businesses) in the exclusion zone at 3PM in Town Hall and for the general public at 6PM in Nitschmann Middle School.

Both meetings were run well by Bethlehem Emergency Management Coordinator Robert Novatnack. Novatnack — affable, courteous, patient, knowledgeable — set an excellent tone for both meetings. The Mayor made clear several times that day as well as at Council two nights before that he wanted everybody to have the opportunity to speak and that he was willing to stay as long as that took. In Gadfly’s opinion, public comment was amply solicited and welcome and, except for one ugly blip late in the night meeting, the atmosphere was cordial. Well done.

Gadfly will talk about the meetings one at a time.

Awareness of or concern for long-term health issues did not seem much present at the stakeholders meeting.

But for 10 minutes Gadfly got to play the lawyer he always wanted to be, and specifically here played the role of a lawyer taking a deposition.

The deposed are Jim Santoro from Controlled Demolition Inc. and Duane Wagner from owner Herrick/Ronca.

Please listen.

Gadfly always urges that you go to the primary source and make your own conclusions.

Do your own thinking.

There are bullet notes below that you can browse as you listen or use to refresh your memory afterwards.

But please listen and think about what you hear.

It takes but 10 minutes.

And then join me in formulating some take-aways.

• what is the nature of the contaminants now in the building? (a minute or two in the beginning of the audio was lost)
  
  • only concrete dust no different than the long-standing Casilio business has been expelling for years
• Concrete dust is not dangerous even in the quantity that will be released at this time?
  • the same quantity of dust is released in conventional demolition and implosion; you can avoid exposure in implosion because of the short duration; conventional demolition means weeks or months of constant exposure
  • we don’t encourage people to come out during the process; stay indoors during the process
  • stay at home, watch it on television
• why don’t you encourage people to be outside during the process?
  • why do you want to be out in the dust? (tonal implication being that it is not a good idea)
  • the vast quantity of the dust is going to settle on the property
  • give us a chance to clean up before you come outside
• So somebody standing outside downwind to get a look at this, you’re comfortable that that’s safe — people with good health — you would recommend that they stay inside? (awkwardly phrased)
  • I would never recommend that (being outside), but it should be ok
  • if you have a respiratory condition, absolutely don’t go out, that’s not being smart
• But people with good health, you wouldn’t recommend it, but you’re not saying they shouldn’t do it
  • I don’t recommend people standing in the middle of the road either (a bit garbled)
  • take things and be sensible about them
  • if you’re going outside to watch this, stand upwind
• How far do you consider the dust will go?
  • read a study many years ago that can’t be pinpointed that said 140 miles
• Could you point us to an independent general scientific study?
  • there haven’t been many of them
  • Phila, dust-sampling over 30 years of their work there has never found any contaminant
  • air quality returns to normal 6 hours later
  • there’s a spike of dust in the air and then it goes away
• You are saying that for people who may be worried, perhaps unreasonably so, about health, there isn’t an independent general study, scientific study of this kind of implosion that has been going on for decades?
  • correct
  • Gadfly then said there are studies on the web, some saying implosions shouldn’t be done in metropolitan areas — the problem is knowing which studies to believe
• I would feel comfortable with a recommendation of a scientific study about the long-term health effects of implosion.
  • to be fair you’d have to study conventional demolition too
• There are several kinds of demolition: what was the factor in choosing implosion?  Was it cost? Was it time? Was it health?
  • time and safety; safer and faster
  • about same amount of dust as demolition that’s occurred on that site for the past 18 months
  • not one comment, complaint, or concern during that time
  • there’s acute exposure and people are recommended to stay inside if they think it’s going to bother them
• “Shelter in place” is a kind of awesome term.
  • stay inside or go away for a short period of time
  • same amount of dust, same kind of degree we’ve been working with for 18 months and no issues
  • Burnside now has to clean Casilio’s dust off their vegetables, same thing
• Is the dust only a problem when it’s in the air?
  • Yes, and you only worry about respirable dust
  • monitoring that will be done is only of respirable dust
  • Lots of hospitals use us for good reasons, to get it over quickly, protect people
• In choosing this mode of demolition, was the cost a factor,  . . . Is this more expensive, less expensive?
  • cost was not a factor
  • decisive factors = safety and time

———-

Join me in compiling a list of take-aways from this developer and demolitioner “testimony.”

1) They are not recommending people be outside (stay in and watch it on tv). My sense is that that message needs to be amplified by the City. People should be actively discouraged from watching in person.

2) Silica is a component of concrete, and silica is dangerous — perhaps mainly from long-term exposure – but there has been testimony that one exposure can be deadly. The claim that there are no contaminants needs to be interrogated.

3) The argument that Bethlehem is habituated to Casilio without harmful effect and the Lehigh Valley is habituated to the concrete industry (like in Coplay, Bath, etc.) without harmful effect needs to be interrogated.

4) There must be relevant scientific studies.

5) We are given no data about anything. (You know who you are)

6) Given time, “we” could have commissioned somebody to review the scientific literature and digest it for us.

7) Since the danger here is invisible — not apparent for years and years — the argument that they have been working for 18 months without a complaint is without merit.

8) The argument that the same amount of dust is produced over time by conventional demolition as implosion needs to be interrogated — is that true? And would a big dose of dust all at once not possibly be more deleterious than small doses over time?

9) It’s hard to believe that cost was not the driving factor — a web source says implosion is the least expensive mode of demolition.

10) Bottom line: “we” take their word for everything; no data.

Chew on this, and Gadfly will shortly continue with discussion of the night meeting.

(48th in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

x-posted from the “You know you’re from Bethlehem” Facebook page

The demolition contractor, hired by the developer, should not be fielding health risk questions. That should have been done by the State Department of Health, who was not there. The Department of Environmental Protection representatives did not answer the questions about protecting Monocacy Creek, the developer did. When there is a profit motive, data and advice to citizens should come from people who are impartial. The bottom line from the developer last night was clear: we only do what we are obligated by law to do. He referenced other development projects many times but did not seem to understand the scale of this project and it’s significance to the citizens of Bethlehem may require a better approach than “we did nothing illegal here.”

Paige Van Wirt

Paige Van Wirt is a Bethlehem City Councilwoman, physician, and small business owner.

(47th in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

Gadfly:

Just a couple of things . . . Conventional demolition isn’t any less safe than explosives demolition. The facts don’t bear that out one bit. In fact, the opposite is true. You can look at the number of accidents from explosives demolition v. conventional demolition and the number of man-hours worked. There’s been at least 8 or so workers in the past year that have been killed while preparing a building for implosion, just look at the Didcot Power station incident, for example. Heck, when they imploded the Sheraton in Bal Harbour, Florida, the owner of the company’s daughter was several thousand feet from the structure and still got hit in the head by a chunk of flying debris. It almost killed her. I think she said she got something like 60 stitches.

With a conventional approach to demolition, water can be used at the source to palliate the dust, and any workers exposed to what little if any dust that is left are required by OSHA to wear Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).

The problem is that he [the demolition company rep] reads from a script. He can’t deviate from that script. 99% of the time he’s never challenged on it. Which brings up another Red Flag. On a project of this size, why didn’t one of the firm’s principal attend these meetings? I guess they need the plausible deniability that they get from sending a contract employee.

George Lopez

(46th in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

Dr. Nalyn Marcus has operated Marcus Family Chiropractic in Bethlehem since 1991, since 2007 on Eaton Ave., almost directly across the street from the front entrance to the Martin Tower site.

Gadfly:

I am glad I attended all three meetings. One at my office, the city hall stakeholders’ and the 6pm public one. While I continue to be grateful for the efforts to assist in minimizing dust infiltration to my office, I still believe there should have been an earlier offering of accessible information about the implosion. Preparedness and potential impact implication sooner than 10 days prior could have saved me much time, energy, and worry. Data to allay all our concerns should have been posted way in advance. I for one have had the upcoming implosion as my primary focus; for 8 weeks I’ve been calling various agencies, collecting bits and pieces of eye-opening info. And also many dead ends. Yesterday’s public information meetings finally helped clarify many of my concerns and questions, although some long-term health, air, and water assurances weren’t really made with a thunderous promise. The final phrase I heard was “well, it’s a done deal.” True. And now we must look to making smart choices for ourselves and our community as the professionals do all they can to make this implosion come out with the safest outcome possible. What can we do now? Stay involved if you have a concern. It takes a village, and we’ve all learned something from this. Our city government needs to keep hearing from us. Our voices and votes, not private sector dollars, should always be loudest and carry the most weight.

So, windows and doors closed, tape up, and fingers and toes crossed for an incident-free 5/19, and to quote Tiny Tim,

God bless us, everyone!

PS since I just learned our air quality is getting poor grades, what are we doing about that? How can we each individually make a positive impact? Let’s keep THAT conversation going.

Nalyn

The Gadfly is humbled by the straightforward native eloquence of his followers.

(45th in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

Gadfly:

Dr Cate Jenkins is the foremost expert on concrete dust. She retired from the EPA several years ago. Here is some good information on concrete dust. On page 38 they even have a picture of and made reference to implosions. Basically concrete dust is very caustic. It’s even more caustic that Drano. I can’t believe in light of all the current studies the Health Director would say concrete dust doesn’t present any problems. There’s 33,000 cases of cancer caused by the dust from the WTC collapse. Many of them form a one-time exposure to the dust. Here’s some interesting info on the subject.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/DrJenkinsRequestsSenateInvestigationOnWTCdust.pdf

George Lopez

(44th in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

Peter Crownfield is officially retired but spends most of his time working with students in his role as internship coordinator for the Alliance for Sustainable Communities–Lehigh Valley.

Gadfly:

I was unable to be at the meeting last night, but I agree wholeheartedly with these points [Breena Holland’s “Observations”]. It’s reassuring that the city is no longer boosting this as a spectator event.

The study from the European Journal of Scientific Research [cited by Gadfly a couple of days ago: “An Evaluation of Buildings Destruction Technique and Its Menace”] makes clear that it is much easier to control the dust from slow demolition and that deconstruction is much better from an environmental and public health point of view — even if these processes produce the same amount of dust, which is questionable at best. And, as Breena noted, residents don’t have the benefit of protective gear that workers would have. And the cost could even be LOWER than the combined total of the implosion, the public safety services, the immediate cleanup, plus the cost of removal of hundreds of tons of dust & debris.

I haven’t heard or seen any indication that the city or the contractor has considered the long term impacts of silica and other fine-particle pollution.

Based on my experience with street sweepers, they rarely use enough water to control the dust to which pedestrians are exposed — and will the contractor sweep (or pay for) all sidewalks & parking lots to be swept. How about dust that falls on people’s lawns & gardens? (Or the compost center, which Breena has mentioned before.)

Some studies have shown a fallout zone of 10km or even 20km. Have the citizens and municipalities within a 20 km radius been warned? (Depending on wind conditions, that could extend as far as Phillipsburg, Nazareth, Coopersburg, Dorney Park, or beyond!) It is unlikely that larger particles, or even PM10, would travel this far, but smaller particles could.

P.S. — I also agree that Bob Novatnack is probably the best person the city could have for this.

Peter

Gadfly invites observations from followers who attended the meeting or who have pertinent knowledge — even if they differ from views posted so far.

(43rd in a series on Martin Tower)

Martin Tower demolition May 19
www.martintowerbethlehem.com

Breena Holland is an Associate Professor at Lehigh University in the Department of Political Science and the Environmental Initiative. She is a past and current director of Lehigh University’s South Side Initiative.

Successes: 

1) Bob Novatnack (meeting moderator and emergency manager): the best thing about this implosion that the city has going for it.

2) Clear message that CITIZENS SHOULD STAY INSIDE DURING AND AFTER THE IMPLOSION. THIS IS NOT A SPECTATOR SPORT EVENT.

3) Council members Negron and Van Wirt, who effectively amplified the views of many citizens in advocating that the mayor respond to public concern about the implosion.

Failures:

1) There were no public health officials on the panel. The person from the city’s health department only spoke from the audience when a citizen demanded it. She lacked any concern for the composition of the dust, despite a medical doctor who studies dead people explaining the potential impact of cement dust on people’s lungs. When asked how we would know if the dust had a negative impact, she said epidemiological studies could reveal that in 15 years or so. How comforting!

2) Minimal data will be gathered on the chemical composition of the particles and in order to see any of the air quality data, citizens will have to request the DEP send them a file. This data should be posted on the city’s website and put in an accessible form by the city.

3) No one addressed the secondary dust events due to street/sidewalk sweeping and how dangerous and long-lasting those will be.

4) No one will do any actual monitoring of the water quality of Monocacy Creek so we know if and how the implosion will impact the water. The demolition company simply has some mechanisms for controlling runoff from smaller events that have happened throughout the last year related to the smaller building demolitions. Citizens have no way of knowing whether these capturing devices are working. We are supposed to take the demolition company’s word for it.

5) The demolition company made a rather dubious argument that implosion is safer than dismantling because no one is in the building (presumably workers doing the disassembling) and because it concentrates the dust created all at one time (vs. spreading it out over a longer dismantling period). The obvious question is “safer for whom?” My concern is the city residents, not people working for a demolition company. And please show me some data to support the absurd claim that dust created from dismantling is in aggregate equivalent to dust created from implosion. If you are creating the same amount of dust, you are probably not doing a very good job at your dismantling.

6) The city encouraged viewing the implosion as spectator sport until there was public outcry.

7) The city failed to convey the precautionary message to stay inside during and after the implosion, until the public meeting, when the demolition company’s equivocating on the issue was finally addressed with a clear statement.

8) It is blatantly obvious that the implosion is being done to save the developers of the property money at citizens’ expense.

9) Why has an implosion even been planned when a blast permit has not yet been issued?

10) Many people are not upset about how the city is handling the implosion but, instead, with how the city is managing the property’s use. It was rezoned to benefit the property owners, and will be destroying an iconic part of our city’s history, only to replace it with traffic causing generic luxury housing and retail that competes with existing local businesses. The word “travesty” was appropriately used to convey the city’s failure.

Breena

Gadfly invites other observations from followers who attended the meeting. They don’t necessarily have to be lengthy, for Gadfly will compile shorter ones.