Man in famous 9/11 photo dies from COVID-19 in Florida
Source: Associated Press
Updated 4:19 pm CDT, Saturday, July 4, 2020
Photo: Suzanne Plunkett, AP
FILE - In this Sept. 11, 2001, file photo, people run from the collapse of one of the twin towers at the World Trade Center in New York. Stephen Cooper, far left, fleeing smoke and debris as the south tower crumbled just a block away on Sept. 11, has died from coronavirus, his family said, according to The Palm Beach Post.
DELRAY BEACH, Fla. (AP) A man photographed fleeing smoke and debris as the south tower of the World Trade Center crumbled just a block away on Sept. 11, 2001, has died from coronavirus, his family said.
The Palm Beach Post reported that Stephen Cooper, an electrical engineer from New York who lived part-time in the Delray Beach, Florida area, died March 28 at Delray Medical Center due to COVID-19. He was 78.
The photo, captured by an Associated Press photographer, was published in newspapers and magazines around the world and is featured at the 9/11 Memorial Museum in New York.
He didnt even know the photograph was taken, said Janet Rashes, Coopers partner for 33 years. All of a sudden, hes looking in Time magazine one day and he sees himself and says, Oh my God. Thats me. He was amazed. Couldnt believe it.
Read more: https://www.chron.com/news/article/Man-in-famous-9-11-photo-dies-of-coronavirus-in-15386266.php
George II
(67,782 posts)While he was certainly in the high risk age, it certainly begs the question if he was vulnerable due to exposure on 9/11. I am guessing from his proximity that he was engulfed in that cloud of toxic chemicals. It would not surprise me if he had lingering lung issues that could have contributed.
It is a sobering thought since I am staring at the WTC Health Registry Survey that I regularly fill out due to my time there on Search and Rescue. Fortunately, I have never felt any ill effects but there is no guarantee that I wasn't exposed to something there. Yet another time that Republicans told us it was safe to venture out and breath the air without a mask. Fortunately, we had hazmat specialists on our crew to tell us otherwise.
ProfessorGAC
(65,010 posts)What is likely is damage from micro particulates.
I don't know for sure, but there may have been ACM in the Trade Center. (Asbestos Containing Materials)
It was built before asbestos was abandoned due to regulations, I believe.
As much force as was in play, the encapsulated asbestos could have become friable.
And, in general, high dust inhalation can do damage to the lungs & bronchi.
Although there was massive airborne debris, the temperature was probably to low, absent the stuff in the floors actually burning, to have released to much toxic vapors.
But, the super fine dust is a suspect.
genxlib
(5,524 posts)It is pretty well established that there was some nasty stuff in that cloud. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4686342/
Even though there probably was asbestos, that didn't actually turn out to be a notable component of the cloud.
However, silica dust is very bad for your lungs https://www.osha.gov/dsg/topics/silicacrystalline/ and it can come from ground up concrete. While the main building structure was steel, there was plenty of concrete in the building. I can tell you from my own personal witnessing that the concrete in that building was pulverized completely. I have pictures of floor assemblies with all kinds of steel elements (pans, reinforcing, joists) but utterly devoid of concrete. That collapse was a gigantic grinder to make all of that stuff airborne.
And that is just one component. There were documented levels of many components within that cloud. Not to mention it was alkaline enough to actually be caustic.
Anyway, it isn't necessary to speculate the generalities because numerous studies including the one above has identified health issues from the exposure. The only question is whether this particular person suffered any of those effects.
ProfessorGAC
(65,010 posts)I said toxic vapors were unlikely but that the microscopic dust was bad.
Where's the disagreement?
genxlib
(5,524 posts)Apologies.
This subject cuts a little close to home for me since I dont really know how much exposure I got.
ProfessorGAC
(65,010 posts)The post on which I commented described "toxic" stuff.
In my field, toxicity has a very specific meaning. It is used to describe things that are inherently toxic/deleterious.
For instance, there is no amount methyl diisocyanate that is not dangerous. There is no safe amount of ingested methanol. No amount of unbound mercury, or no amount of chlorine that's safe to breathe.
In the WTC disaster, the silicates you mentioned are potentially dangerous, but not inherently so.
Large particles at very low levels are not a huge concern.
High amounts of extremely tiny particles, much moreso. Silicates are not inherently dangerous, so in my world, not toxic.
Doesn't mean it's safe, just different than toxic.
I probably went so specific and was so much in my own frame of reference that I created confusion.
Actually, I think we agree on the concern. Just defining things in different ways.
genxlib
(5,524 posts)You are one of top voices for science on this site. I appreciate the input.
KY_EnviroGuy
(14,490 posts)They looked like walking concrete statues.....civilians, police and firefighters.
Brings back many sad memories.
KY........ ..........
bobbieinok
(12,858 posts)herding cats
(19,564 posts)A double scoop of horrific sadness.
Peace and love to those who held him dear. ❤️
spike jones
(1,678 posts)fled to Nagasaki for safety. I read that six people were known to have survived both blasts.
MustLoveBeagles
(11,599 posts)Nitram
(22,794 posts)danger. Quite a contrast with the guy in the tie on the right.
Brainfodder
(6,423 posts)XanaDUer2
(10,662 posts)and lost his life to another.