Advertisement
New Docs Detail How Feds Downplayed Ground Zero Health Risks
Source:
(ProPublica)
Reporter:
ProPublica Staff
Location:
NY, NY, United States
Published:
September 8, 2011 06:03 pm EDT
Topics:
Politics, Espionage And Intelligence, Health, Illness
by Anthony DePalma, Special to ProPublica
In the dark and uncertain days after Sept. 11, 2001, the sight of thousands of shaken New Yorkers returning to their apartments, offices and schools in Lower Manhattan seemed to signal a larger return to normalcy.
Now new documents have emerged showing that federal officials in Washington and New York went further than was previously known to downplay concerns about health risks, misrepresenting or concealing information that ultimately might have protected thousands of people from the contaminated air at ground zero.
In one instance, a warning that people should not report to work on a busy thoroughfare in the financial district—Water Street—was rewritten and workers instead were urged to return to their offices as soon as the financial district opened on Sept. 17. In another, federal officials declared that testing showed the area was safe when sampling of the air and dust—which ultimately found very high levels of toxic chemicals—had barely begun.
The documents do not reveal how—or whether—federal officials explicitly weighed the competing goals of ensuring New Yorkers' safety and projecting an image of a city and nation unbowed. But taken as a whole, the records—which include email messages from the White House's Council on Environmental Quality to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, as well as interagency correspondence—give the most detailed account yet of how officials kept potentially disturbing data about health risks from the public.
Last year, Congress approved $4.3 billion to treat and compensate people with health issues related to exposure to ground zero dust.
"The misleading communications by civic leaders and their failure to insist on respiratory protection in the days, weeks and months after the initial rescue operation ended undoubtedly contributed and will continue to contribute to sickness in the rescue and recovery workers and in the citizens of Lower Manhattan," said Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, chairman of the Department of Community and Preventative Medicine at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine. Mount Sinai has screened more than 25,000 ground zero responders for illnesses suspected of being related to the dust and treated many of them.
In response to questions about the way the disaster was handled, the EPA issued this statement: "The federal response to 9/11 has been thoroughly examined, including by EPA's own Inspector General. What is clear is that dedicated EPA staff worked tirelessly under nearly impossible conditions to respond to an unprecedented disaster." The statement goes on to note that the events of 9/11 tested the agency in many ways "and it is clear that some things could have been done better. Our focus every day since 9/11 has been on working to improve and expand our capacity to respond to emergencies."
As the 10-year anniversary of 9/11 approaches, questions continue to arise over the way government agencies assessed risks at ground zero and communicated what they knew to the public. In some respects, the documents examined by ProPublica, which were obtained through Freedom of Information requests filed by the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (NYCOSH), a labor union health group, expand upon what's come out before about the White House's role in shaping the information about ground zero contamination.
In 2003, the EPA Inspector General issued a scathing report outlining how the agency recast some of its public communications at the behest of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, a branch of the Executive Office of the President. The report concluded that the White House had at least indirectly influenced the wording of some statements by removing cautionary language about air safety downtown. It also found that the EPA had gone beyond what it knew in making general statements about the air in the first weeks after the attacks. In particular, the report harshly criticized Christine Todd Whitman, the EPA administrator in 2001, for telling people in New York that the "air is safe to breathe" before she had the facts to back it up.
Whitman declined to comment on the newly released documents. But in 2007, she strongly defended her agency before a congressional committee investigating the 9/11 response.
"It's utterly false then for EPA critics to assert that I or others at the agency set about to mislead New Yorkers and rescue workers," Whitman told the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, whose chairman, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., represents the area around ground zero. "Every statement I made was based on what experts, who had a great deal of experience in these things, conveyed to me,"
At the same hearing, Samuel Thernstrom, the associate director of communications for the environmental council, defended his role in coordinating the flow of information about ground zero, saying his goal had been simply "to help ensure that EPA's statements were as clear and accurate as possible."
But the new records, some of which were made available to the New York labor group as recently as this summer, depict an administration more set on projecting confidence and protecting itself against political attacks.
In an email dated Sept. 20, for example, John Henshaw, OSHA's chief administrator, said he had received a phone call from Thernstrom warning that several senators were asking questions about how OSHA was cooperating with the EPA at ground zero. In response, Henshaw directed his staff to gather details deflecting such concerns.
"I would like to have the information at hand before any inquiries come in, to nip any criticism in the bud," Henshaw wrote. "They have a history of taking pot shots at us and if we can respond quickly, in a positive, strong, well thought out way, we may take some wind out of there (cq) sails."
In several instances, the documents show, officials offered assurances about air quality before they even had test results or downplayed the degree of the contamination found.
Early on Sept. 13, a day and a half after the World Trade Center towers collapsed, Thernstrom called OSHA's New York office to say Whitman was on her way to the city to talk to reporters about the agency's air testing "since all monitoring reports have been so positive thus far," according to an OSHA email.
But according to its own records, the EPA had only tested a handful of asbestos samples before Sept.- and didn't get the results of tests for other contaminants until Sept. 23.
A joint press release put out by the EPA and OSHA said dust samples taken from cars and buildings on Sept. 13 had asbestos levels "slightly above" the 1 percent level at which federal regulations apply. The new documents, however, specify that the samples contained 2.1 to 3.3 percent asbestos—or 200 percent to 300 percent higher than the trigger standard.
"These documents confirm that what happened at the World Trade Center is that we proceeded with a minimalist approach in terms of caution and never really scaled it up as it became necessary, rather than assuming the worst-case scenario and scaling it back as appropriate," said David M. Newman, a workplace safety expert with NYCOSH.
Newman started filing public information requests several years ago to better understand how federal, state and city agencies made decisions affecting worker safety at ground zero. NYCOSH advocates for worker safety, in partnership with environmental and health groups, workers' rights organizations and unions whose members worked on the cleanup. (ProPublica is making the full set of documents obtained by NYCOSH available for examination. We have created a page that lets you search through these records.)
One batch of documents obtained by NYCOSH significantly amplifies a White House intervention described more generally in the 2003 Inspector General report. Within days of the twin towers' collapse, when the air was heaviest with asbestos and dioxin, a warning that office workers in New York's Financial District might be at risk if they returned to their workplaces was removed from public statements at the request of the Council on Environmental Quality.
The original draft of the release that was going to be issued by the EPA and OSHA said "higher levels of asbestos" had been found in seven samples taken by OSHA on Water Street in the Financial District. The Inspector General's office examined inter-agency emails and found that after the White House reviewed the draft and suggested revisions, the information about Water Street was removed, as was this warning to office workers: "The concern raised by these samples would be for workers at the cleanup site and for those workers who might be returning to their offices on or near Water Street."
The newly released documents show that, in place of the caution about Water Street, office workers were urged to return to work on Monday, Sept. 17. "Our tests show it is safe for New Yorkers to go back to work in New York's financial district," OSHA's administrator says in the final version of the release.
Officials seemed to be sending two distinct messages: telling office workers and residents the air was safe, while repeatedly warning first responders and crews working right on the debris pile to wear protective gear. Those conflicting assurances and warnings given by federal officials left workers and residents unsure what steps to take to protect themselves.
Critics have accused officials of not leveling with the public about what they knew and didn't know in the aftermath of the attacks.
In July 2002, for instance, it was revealed that, despite assurances by EPA and OSHA officials, harmful dust remained on Wall Street well after it reopened because vacuum trucks had initially used the wrong filters.
The new documents show that in 2003 an investigator with the Inspector General's office asked Tina Kreisher, the EPA's chief spokeswoman on 9/11, whether she or anyone else at the agency considered acknowledging the misstep. Kreisher said she could not remember whether such a discussion had taken place.
Kreisher could not be reached for comment. In her interview with the Inspector General's office, she acknowledged that the EPA's choices reflected a conscious effort to reassure the public. "The emphasis came from the administration and the White House." she said.
Federal officials also opted not to sound alarms even after tests registered unprecedented levels of dioxin at and around ground zero, the NYCOSH documents show.
Dioxin, a pollutant that can cause cancer, damage the immune system and lead to developmental problems, is most harmful when absorbed through food. But it can also cause harm when inhaled. OSHA discussed the alarming test results internally:
"Just received a sample taken at the WTC (in or near the plume I believe)," an OSHA employee wrote in an October 2001 email to John Henshaw, the agency's administrator. "The result was very high … EPA is saying it is one of the highest levels they have ever seen." The level was about 1,000 times higher than normal for dioxin.
Henshaw forwarded the message to Patricia Clark, regional administrator of OSHA's New York office, and asked what she knew about the dioxin sampling. By early that same afternoon, Clark wrote back calmly reminding her boss that OSHA does not have a standard for exposure to dioxin, and that the extremely high level "would drop off dramatically away from the plume."
A year later, the EPA acknowledged in a report that dioxin levels had reached "the highest ambient concentrations that have ever been reported," but discounted their significance because the dioxin had not been ingested.
Newman said he was shocked to find that OSHA had knowledge of this early on in the cleanup and did not issue a warning. "There is no evidence or indication that this information had any significant impact on their operation or the way they communicated risk to the workers," he said.
OSHA did not respond to requests for comment on the documents or its handling of this matter.
The NYCOSH documents make clear that, contrary to the claims of some critics, local officials recognized the extraordinary hazards of working on the pile and tried to address them, sometimes with little support from their federal counterparts.
City health officials consistently urged responders working amid the rubble to wear proper respiratory equipment, including specially fitted respirator masks, throughout the cleanup. Kelly McKinney, the associate commissioner of the New York City Department of Health in 2001, repeatedly asked OSHA to enforce orders for workers to wear respirators. OSHA officials responded that they were acting in an advisory role and would not issue fines because that would slow down operations. Instead, OSHA said it would encourage voluntary compliance with the regulations.
The voluntary approach had limitations. According to one email, when an OSHA representative tried to set up a mobile distribution point for respirator masks, he was reportedly told to leave by a city fire department battalion chief. "The Fire Department takes care of its own," the chief said. "We don't need any help from civilians."
As part of its response to the 2003 Inspector General report, the EPA promised to improve how it communicated risk in rapidly changing emergencies, such as the 9/11 attack.
An agency spokesman said that since then, the EPA has helped develop a government-wide plan for crisis response. The agency also has opened an Emergency Operations Center that provides the agency's data and expertise to other government agencies during emergencies.
Nevertheless, some 9/11 veterans, including Nadler, the ground zero congressman, say they would still question government assurances that air was safe in the aftermath of a similar disaster.
"I'd be very leery about believing it unless I saw real evidence," said Nadler. "There's always a pressure on government to say that things are better, there's always pressure to cover up the extent of a disaster, and depending on the character of the officials in charge they may or may not yield to that pressure."
Anthony DePalma, a former New York Times correspondent who covered the 9/11 health issues, is author of "City of Dust: Illness, Arrogance and 9/11"
- Provided by ProPublica.org
Republish
Email
Facebook
Digg
Twitter
Share
[ Close ]
When publishing articles from AHN we require that you follow several simple rules and that you abide by our Terms and Conditions.
You may:
Use and display the provided article text on a website or blog.
Under the following conditions:
You may not republish the article(s) wholesale, automatically or systematically; articles must be republished individually.
You may not sell license or redistribute the content without specific permission. Email us if you’d like to.
You must display and attribute the article in the manner specified by AHN (but not in any way that suggests that we endorse you or your use of the work).
You may not remove ads, logos or tracking information from the article.
You may display the article on a website, but you may not use the article for any other commercial purposes.
You may not alter, rewrite, transform, or build upon the article.
You may only use provided the javascript code to request the article from our systems.
Copy and paste the following into your blog entry or the HTML on your page. It will automatically deliver the article as the page loads.
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.allheadlinenews.com//syndicator?storyid=7020884860"></script>
<< Return to script page
License
THE WORK (AS DEFINED BELOW) IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE ("LICENSE"). THE WORK IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE
LAW. ANY USE OF THE WORK OTHER THAN AS AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS LICENSE OR COPYRIGHT LAW IS PROHIBITED.
BY EXERCISING ANY RIGHTS TO THE WORK PROVIDED HERE, YOU ACCEPT AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. TO THE EXTENT THIS LICENSE
MAY BE CONSIDERED TO BE A CONTRACT, THE LICENSOR GRANTS YOU THE RIGHTS CONTAINED HERE IN CONSIDERATION OF YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH TERMS AND
CONDITIONS.
1. Definitions
"Collective Work" means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology or encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in
unmodified form, along with one or more other contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a
collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work (as defined below) for the purposes of this
License.
"Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation,
musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any
other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted, except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a
Derivative Work for the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or sound recording, the
synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License.
"Licensor" means the individual, individuals, entity or entities that offers the Work under the terms of this License.
"Original Author" means the individual, individuals, entity or entities who created the Work.
"Work" means the copyrightable work of authorship offered under the terms of this License.
"You" means an individual or entity exercising rights under this License who has not previously violated the terms of this
License with respect to the Work, or who has received express permission from the Licensor to exercise rights under this License despite a previous
violation.
2. Fair Use Rights. Nothing in this license is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict any rights arising from fair use, first
sale or other limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under copyright law or other applicable laws.
3. License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, non-exclusive,
revocable (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below:
to reproduce the Work, to incorporate the Work into one or more Collective Works;
The above rights may be exercised on freely and openly accessible web media formats . The above rights include the right to make such
modifications as are technically necessary to exercise the rights in other media and formats, but otherwise you have no rights to make any alterations
or Derivative Works. All rights not expressly granted by Licensor are hereby reserved, including but not limited to the rights set forth in
Sections 4(d) and 4(e).
4. Restrictions.The license granted in Section 3 above is expressly made subject to and limited by the following restrictions:
You may publicly display the Work only under the terms of this License, and You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier
for, this License with every copy of the Work You publicly display. You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this
License or the ability of a recipient of the Work to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License. You may not
sublicense the Work. You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer of warranties. When You publicly display the
Work, You may not impose any technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights
granted to that recipient under the terms of the License. This Section 4(a) applies to the Work as incorporated in a Collective Work, but this does
not require the Collective Work apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this License. If You create a Collective Work, upon
notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collective Work any credit as required by Section 4(c), as demanded.
You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward
commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. The exchange of the Work for other copyrighted works by means of digital file-sharing or
otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, provided there is no
payment of any monetary compensation in connection with the exchange of copyrighted works.
If You publicly display the Work (as defined in Section 1 above) or Collective Works (as defined in Section 1 above), You must, unless a
request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are
utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or (ii) if the Original Author and/or Licensor
designate another party or parties (e.g. a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution ("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's
copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent
reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not
refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work. The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable
manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors of
the Collective Work appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors.
For the avoidance of doubt, You may only use the credit required by this clause for the purpose of attribution in the manner set out above and, by
exercising Your rights under this License, You may not implicitly or explicitly assert or imply any connection with, sponsorship or endorsement by
the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties, as appropriate, of You or Your use of the Work, without the separate, express prior written
permission of the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties.
5. Representations, Warranties and Disclaimer
UNLESS OTHERWISE MUTUALLY AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES IN WRITING, LICENSOR OFFERS THE WORK AS-IS AND ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF ANY
RIGHTS HELD IN THE LICENSED WORK BY THE LICENSOR. THE LICENSOR MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE WORK, EXPRESS,
IMPLIED, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MARKETABILITY, MERCHANTIBILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE,
NONINFRINGEMENT, OR THE ABSENCE OF LATENT OR OTHER DEFECTS, ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OF ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER OR NOT DISCOVERABLE. SOME
JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO SUCH EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.
6. Limitation on Liability.
EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT WILL LICENSOR BE LIABLE TO YOU ON ANY
LEGAL THEORY FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THIS LICENSE OR THE USE OF THE WORK, EVEN IF
LICENSOR HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
7. Termination
This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License. Individuals
or entities who have received Collective Works (as defined in Section 1 above) from You under this License, however, will not have their licenses
terminated provided such individuals or entities remain in full compliance with those licenses. Sections 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 will survive any
termination of this License.
Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work).
Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any
time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be,
granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above.
8. Miscellaneous
Each time You distribute or publicly digitally perform the Work (as defined in Section 1 above) or a Collective Work (as defined in Section
1 above), the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this
License.
If any provision of this License is invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, it shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the
remainder of the terms of this License, and without further action by the parties to this agreement, such provision shall be reformed to the minimum
extent necessary to make such provision valid and enforceable.
No term or provision of this License shall be deemed waived and no breach consented to unless such waiver or consent shall be in writing and
signed by the party to be charged with such waiver or consent.
This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings,
agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear
in any communication from You. This License may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and You.
There are no third-party beneficiaries to this Licesnse.
You waive any right to jury trial in connection with any action or litigation in any way arising out of or related to this License. You
agree to pay all reasonable attorney fees and other costs incurred by Your breach of this license.
This agreement will be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of
the State of Florida without regard to its conflicts of law provisions. You agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of the state and
federal courts located in Palm Beach County in the State of Florida, and any cause of action which arise from use of this web site or from
interpretation of these terms and conditions must be filed in the state and federal courts located in Palm Beach County, State of Florida. If
any provision of this agreement shall be unlawful, void, or for any reason unenforceable, then that provision shall be deemed severable from this
agreement and shall not affect the validity and enforceability of any remaining provisions. Any remaining provisions shall be given effect to
the fullest extent possible.
Need more news? visit FeedSyndicate for all of your content needs
This is a BETA service and subject to change or cancellation.
Recent Posts
Most Popular Comments
Recent Comments
Popular Threads
Advertisement
Advertisement
[ CLOSE ]
-->
[ CLOSE ]
[ CLOSE ]
[ CLOSE ]
Submit News |
Privacy Policy |
Terms of Use |
Contact Us |
News and Content Feeds |
Journalism Jobs
Follow AHN on Twitter
AHN Social News connects you with friends and the news
© 2011 AHN All Rights Reserved | Hosted on the NewsBahn™
Other News on Friday, 9 September 2011 NATO says mistakenly killed BBC Afghan reporter in July
|
OECD warns rich nations of risk of new recession
Alert level in U.S. bases raised ahead of 9/11 anniversary
Jets hoping teams new jersey will mark identity in NHL
Ben & Jerry's to introduce "Schweddy Balls" ice cream
Survey: Majority of Tea Party supporters reject "global warming"
U.K. central bank leaves interest rate at 0.5%
Turkish warships will escort aid vessels to Gaza: Erdogan
|
Credit rating agency Fitch warns it might downgrade China's debt
WikiLeaks reveals details of U.S. involvement in Mexican Drug War
Government soldier kills 10 at Mogadishu refugee camp
Fidel Castro photos published after health rumors
|
NHL, Jets remember Brad McCrimmon following plane crash tragedy
Google buys Zagat to vie with OpenTable, Yelp
|
Twitter now has 100 million active users
|
Major Yahoo shareholder calls for new board
|
Verisign CFO resigns, shares fall
|
Analysis: AOL's Armstrong feeling the heat with Project Devil
|
U2 to descend onto red carpet at Toronto film fest
|
Cranky Miss Blankenship takes Randee Heller to the Emmys
|
Tom Hardy, from 'Warrior' battles to Batman brawls
|
Mary Tyler Moore to get SAG lifetime award
|
Interim PM warns Libya battle not over
|
Insight: Tsunami town epitomizes Japan Inc's dilemmas
|
Syria protesters appeal for help, more bloodshed looms
|
Sept. 11 anniversary terror attacks threat raises security concerns in NYC, DC
Al Qaeda shadow of former self 10 years after 9/11
|
J.P. Arencibia, Ricky Romero lead Blue Jays past Red Sox
American Pass-time: Rodgers three scoring strikes help Packers lead Saints
Insight: China's war on terror widens Xinjiang's ethnic divide
|
Pay for U.S. doctors is tops says study
J.R. Smith close to inking richest deal in Chinese Basketball Association history
San Diego communities hit by power outage
North Korea military parade shows leader's succession on course
|
Probe finds U.S. soldier killed BBC reporter mistaken as suicide bomber
Simon Dyson shares lead at Dutch Open delayed by vandals and weather
New Docs Detail How Feds Downplayed Ground Zero Health Risks
U.S. accuses Venezuela officials of drug ties
|
Michelle Wie bellies up, dyes hair red for NW Arkansas championship
U.N. boss uses 9/11 to call for global anti-terror treaty
|
Insight: Cisco suits on China rights abuses to test legal reach
|
Analysis: New Japan PM a bureaucrats' puppet or puppet master?
|
Google buys Zagat to vie with OpenTable, Yelp
|
Amazon sales tax deal in California may help rivals
|
South Korea police probe Samsung Card over data breach
|
Insight: Cisco suits on China rights abuses to test legal reach
|
SAP reaches plea deal in Oracle criminal case
|
LG Elec denies report of overseas mobile staff cuts
|
Galliano gets $8,400 fine for anti-Semitic outburst
|
U2 descends onto the Toronto film festival
|
Jackson fans angry at tribute concert price cuts
|
Reese Witherspoon struck by car while jogging
|
Israel says Turkish ship move harsh and serious
|
Bartz's words on firing may have cost her $10 million
On the Afghan frontline, U.S. soldiers see longer war ahead
|
Bank of America may layoff 40,000
Psychic sheep predicts New Zealand rugby victory
Tony Blair: No regrets about befriending Gaddafi
|
Study: Weight Watchers works better than doctor treatment
Thirteen Sudanese policemen killed in clashes in Darfur
|
Drugs beat stents in preventing stroke
Syrian demonstrators call for international protection
|
Flood waters add to IDPs misery
UN aid chief to check North Korea food shortage
Analysis: Turkey to complicate life for Israel, but avoid war
|
Russia eyes privatization bid to raise $40.4 billion by 2014
Negotiations with Somali rebels an option: PM
|
Displaced to be moved out of schools in south
Mexico's Pemex seeking 10 missing contractors
|
ARV supply and funding woes
Iraq: Victim or beneficiary of September 11 attacks?
|
Apple wins German court ruling on Samsung tablets
|
Alibaba to release English mobile OS this month: executive
|
Amazon sales tax deal in California may help rivals
|
Venice film festival wins on points, lacks knock-out
|
Documentary brings Egypt's revolt to Venice fest
|
Wimps and wusses? Men flounder in new U.S. TV shows
|
Greece at new risk of being pushed off euro
Bodies of missing Tenn. mom, Jo Ann Bain, and daughter found
Female Breasts Are Bigger Than Ever
AMD Trinity Accelerated Processing Units Now in Volume Production
The Avengers (2012 film), made the second biggest opening- and single-day gross of all-time
AMD to Start Production of piledriver
Ivy Bridge Quad-Core, Four-Thread Desktop CPUs
Islamists Protest Lady Gaga's Concert in Indonesia
Japan Successfully Broadcasts an 8K Signal Over the Air
ECB boosts loans to 1 trillion Euro to stop credit crunch
Egypt : Mohammed Morsi won with 52 percent
What do you call 100,000 Frenchmen with their hands up
AMD Launches AMD Embedded R-Series APU Platform
Fed Should not Ignore Emerging Market Crisis
Fed casts shadow over India, emerging markets
Why are Chinese tourists so rude? A few insights