ACSH staffers were surprised to read a New York Times piece reporting federal officials conclusion that there is not enough evidence to link cancer to the dust and smoke originating from the World Trade Center attacks of September 11th. We were surprised, not because of the findings, but because we have become used to the Times dismissal of stories that, no matter how scientifically grounded, run counter to their political agenda. However, a new federal report released yesterday found that there is insufficient evidence to link the dust created at Ground Zero to any instances of cancer. The results of this report mean that first responders and 9/11 attack survivors will not qualify for federal benefits to compensate them for the medical costs of any cancer they develop. The James Zagroda 9/11 Health and Compensation Act provides $4.3 billion over the next five years to monitor, treat, and compensate people who were exposed to the fumes and dust. However, a second review of the cancer evidence will be conducted in early to mid-2012, Dr. John Howard, director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, told The Times.
Many, however, immediately questioned the validity of the findings, calling them a disappointment for residents and workers who have become sick. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) argues that this report is "premature and that the framework established by the Zadroga bill will demonstrate that those who were exposed to the witches' brew of toxins at Ground Zero have developed serious illnesses, including cancer, and deserve justice." "So many people have gotten such rare cancers and at such young ages," says Schumer, "that it seems obvious there must be a link. But, says ACSH s Dr. Josh Bloom, This is an example of precisely how not to use epidemiology. Anecdotal material and feelings may make for good news stories, but they often lead to the wrong answer.
Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, head of a 9/11 treatment, monitoring and research program at Mount Sinai Medical Center, echoed doubts about the report, particularly with regard to the eight cases of multiple myeloma found among 9/11 responders under the age of 45. People at the World Trade Center on 9/11 were exposed to a large number of substances, he says, and each different exposure has its own signature cancers, so there are a wide range of possibilities here.
ACSH s Dr. Elizabeth Whelan was astounded to find science-based coverage of the ground zero health effects in The Times. We suspected all along that evidence supporting a link between the plume of Ground Zero dust and cancer in first-responders and survivors would be lacking. Now we have the initial results of a thorough federal investigation to confirm our suspicions. I have no doubt that a second assessment will reach the same conclusion.
ACSH s Dr. Ross adds, It is a natural reaction to sympathize with those who worked at the WTC site and subsequently fell ill. However, that s a far cry from saying that the various substances in the dust caused cancer, at least without solid epidemiological data. Now," he says, "we know that such data are absent. A statement such as the one made by Dr. Landrigan, a well-known proponent of baseless chemical fears, that each exposure has its own signature cancer, illustrates how far from science-based evidence this discussion has wandered.