Sunday, May 23, 2010 2:58 AM

BY SPENCER HUNT

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

In researching whether there is a link between cancer cases and C8, an industrial chemical found in Washington County drinking water, Dr. Edward Emmett had no problem getting detailed information from the Ohio Department of Health.

“There is a process,” said Emmett, an environmental-health researcher at the University of Pennsylvania. “It is a little bit slow, but we didn’t come across any particular barriers.”

Others have. About once or twice a year, state officials deny cancer-data requests from the public in the name of patient privacy.

Last year, when a group of Sandusky County parents asked for records that Ohio Department of Health officials used to investigate a cluster of cancer cases among children in and around Clyde, the agency refused.

Story continues below
Advertisement

The parents wanted to see a map the state had created showing, at the street level, where the children lived.

“I pushed real hard. I twisted arms. I went to my friend (U.S. Sen.) Sherrod Brown and said ‘Hey, you’re going to have to intervene here,’” said Warren Brown, a Sandusky County administrator.

His daughter Alexa, 11, died in August of a brain tumor.

“They did release a map, but not in the detail we were hoping for,” Warren Brown said.

After weeks of arguing, the department provided the group with a map that outlined neighborhoods where cancers were reported.

Health Department officials also balked at a Dispatch request for a complete set of data showing Franklin County brain-cancer cases by ZIP codes. The newspaper requested the data to examine an unusual case involving a rare, deadly brain cancer diagnosed in two East Side girls, who were neighbors.

Health Department officials ultimately released nearly all the requested records. An analysis of the data did not find an unusual number of childhood cancer cases in the county.

Health officials said public requests for detailed data from the state cancer registry are often rejected for fear that the information could be used to identify patients and violate their privacy, which is protected under federal law.

“If we seem like sticklers on this, it’s because it’s our responsibility,” said Bob Campbell, deputy director of the state’s Center for Public Health Statistics.

Campbell said the state instead tries to provide data that would not identify patients.

Since 2005, an agency panel has reviewed and granted 31 requests for cancer data made by university researchers and other government officials. Researchers must promise not to reveal patients’ identities or share raw data with the public. They also must promise to destroy the data by a specific date.

That panel does not handle public requests for data. Instead, Campbell’s office reviews them case by case.

Ohio’s policy is similar to those used by other states, said William Carpenter, a cancer epidemiologist with the University of North Carolina’s School of Public Health who works with and evaluates cancer data kept by states. He said officials are often too restrictive.

“If I request any identifier smaller than the state level, I have to specify why I need that,” Carpenter said. “Right now, it’s just so much trouble to get the data, it almost renders it not worth it.”

Emmett said he had hoped to use the cancer data he obtained to see whether there was an unusually high cancer rate among residents in the Little Hocking Water District. DuPont used C8 at a nearby plant to make Teflon.

The chemical had been detected in drinking water.

Emmett said he gave up his research in 2008 because many of the Washington County addresses provided by the state were too vague for him to determine whether they were in the water district.

Columbus Public Health officials said they had no trouble getting detailed Franklin County cancer data from the state to help in an investigation of the rare brain cancer diagnosed in the two East Side girls. They also had to agree to not reveal patient identities or share the data with the public.

Tying cancer cases to pollution or other environmental sources is difficult. State officials have never named a cause of any suspected cancer cluster.

Brown said he thinks that the state lacks the resources to conduct a thorough investigation in Clyde and that a public review of its data might help. He said he can’t believe that a map of cases by ZIP code would constitute an invasion of privacy.

“We’re talking about a cancer cluster, not tracking people down and bothering them,” Brown said.

shunt@dispatch.com
read online

Confronting the Toxics that Cause Childhood Illnesses in Tucson and Nationally

Tucson, Ariz., May 20, 2010. One out of three American children suffers from a serious chronic illness, harmed by the inescapable toxins in our everyday lives, and the incidence continues to climb. This extraordinary statistic comes from the just-released book Poisoned for Profit: How Toxins Are Making Our Children Chronically Ill, written by renowned investigative journalist, Alice Shabecoff and her husband Philip. A leading cause of this epidemic, the Shabecoffs point out, are the toxins in the 27 trillion pounds of chemicals our country makes or imports every year.

Earlier this week the presidential advisory panel on cancer released a report finding that cancers from environmental exposures have been “grossly underestimated.”

The good news: Congress has just begun work on a milestone new bill to test and get rid of the harmful chemicals found in our food, water, air and household products.

The National Disease Clusters Alliance, in collaboration with Families Against Cancer & Toxics, will convene a unique Tucson-based event on June 7th to present information about the extent and causes of clusters of childhood diseases, from leukemia to autism, birth defects, and asthma. It will investigate both the national evidence linking environmental hazards to epidemic of children’s diseases, and of local evidence from Tucson and other community clusters. ‘Clusters’ are significantly higher than expected cases of a disease in a geographic area. Adding to this exploration, scientists Mark Witten and Paul Sheppard, from the University of Arizona, will discuss their unique research into a nationally-significant example of a cluster of leukemia among children and brain cancer among adults in Fallon, Nevada.

The Safe Chemicals Bill now under Congressional discussion is critical to this discussion because it will identify areas that are environmental “hot spots” bearing a disproportion burden of exposure to disease-causing agents. This bill charges EPA to identify and respond.

Cancer, once unheard of in childhood, has leapt 67% over just the past two generations. Autism has skyrocketed by 300% and asthma is up 141% since 1980, the Shabecoffs found through their seven years of research. The National Academy of Sciences recently said that one out of two pregnancies will end either in fetal death or a less than healthy child.

“You don’t have to look far for the culprit,” Alice Shabecoff says. “Look at the hormone disruptors in our skin cream, the formaldehyde in the baby’s crib, the radioactive waste in the water our kids drink, the arsenic in their chicken nuggets, the haze in the air. This generation is the first to be raised in a truly toxified world, exposed before conception, in the womb, and every day since.”

Poisoned for Profit asserts that corporations often knowingly pollute, then hide the evidence with the collusion of scientists-for-hire, p.r. companies, and lawyers, while the government looks the other way. They frame their book as a crime story. “Companies that pollute literally get away with murder,” they conclude.

“More than just an immediate threat to today’s children, the toxification of the environment is as urgent a threat to the future of humanity as global warming, though it’s as yet mostly gone unnoticed,” Shabecoff concludes.

The National Disease Clusters Alliance (NDCA) was formed in 2005 out of the urgent need to identify and respond to emerging disease clusters. NDCA, headquartered in Tucson, is made up of a unique cross-section of representatives across the country from non-profit organizations, community activists, scientists and academia. Currently, there are no government agencies that either track or respond sufficiently to disease clusters in communities.

Trevor Schaefer, a cancer survivor and the NDCA Youth Ambassador, will discuss the need for societal action to not merely treat childhood cancer, but to prevent it. He and his mother Charlie Smith and Dr. Mark Witten met with Sen. Barbara Boxer and EPA Chief Lisa Jackson last Summer to describe the current failures to prevent and respond to disease clusters. This meeting was instrumental in inspiring language authorizing the EPA to identify and assist areas that are suffer “hot spots” of disease.

“We are suffering an epidemic of epidemics, with an almost constant drumbeat of alarming health reports.” NDCA executive director Terry Nordbrock explains. “The time is right for us to join together and demand strong precautionary action to protect children’s health.”

If you go:
Poisoned for Profit: How Toxins Are Making Our Children Chemically Ill
Book party and fundraiser
Sponsored by the National Disease Clusters Alliance
Monday June 7, 2010 6:30-8:30pm
At the Friends Meetinghouse 931 N 5th Ave, Tucson AZ
• Keynote speaker Alice Shabecoff, New York Times journalist and renowned author
• Terry Nordbrock, MPH, NDCA Executive Director
• Dr. Mark Witten, pediatric toxicologist
• Dr. Paul Sheppard, dendrochronologist (tree ring expert)
• Trevor Schaefer, childhood cancer survivor
No charge to attend.
Wine & Hors D’Oeuvres
Silent auction, book sales and call for donations to benefit NDCA.
For more details call 877-676-NDCA (6322)

Wednesday, May 19, 2010
BY ERIN PATRICIA GRIFFITHS
COMMUNITY NEWS (GARFIELD EDITION)

Garfield, NJ–The State Department of Health and Senior Services has determined that 16 out of 160 homes tested in Garfield for toxic levels of hexavalent chromium do in fact have contaminated dust in the basements.

The department will be holding a special community meeting in Garfield City Hall on May 20 at 7 p.m. for all those affected and any residents in the city with concerns about the recent report.

City Manager Tom Duch announced the newly discovered public health risk at the council meeting last night. All 16 affected property owners have been notified of the hexavalent chromium contamination.

The homes or properties that have been affected will need further remediation, said Duch.

According to a press release issued by the State Department of Health, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been testing homes and properties within the city and requested a health consultation after conducting an investigation into groundwater infiltration. More than 250 homes within Garfield have been tested and inspected to date.

The homes that have been tested are in the area around the E.C. Electroplating Company in the city, according to the Department of Health. The company, located on Clark Street, had an incident in 1983 in which more than 3,600 gallons of chromium plating solution was discharged from a storage tank and contaminated the groundwater in the surrounding neighborhood.

“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was out again over the last couple of weekends and they’ve been going through the neighborhoods and they’ve been kind of expanding the region, looking into homes that border that particular area,” said Duch.

Contamination within a home occurs when infiltrated groundwater seeps into a basement, evaporates and then leaves contaminated residue behind. Residents in the affected area are a risk for exposure if they have touched contaminated surfaces and then swallowed dust on their hands or food, according to the press release.

Some health risks to residents that are associated with exposure to hexavalent chromium include lung and other cancers, irritation to the nose lining, asthma, respiratory problems, skin rashes, stomach and small intestine irritation, ulcers and anemia.

“It is unconscionable that the chromium pollution in Garfield has gone on for so long putting a community at risk. The failure of the government to step in after knowing about the problem for so many years just shows how broken the system is,” said Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club.

The EPA as well as the Department of Health and Senior Services will continue to study the city and test for hexavalant chromium contamination. Any residents with questions or concerns are encouraged to attend the community meeting Thursday night.

“We are committed to working with the community, answering their questions and providing additional health information, and we will support EPA’s and ATSDR’s (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) efforts to address chromium contamination in Garfield,” said Health and Senior Services Commissioner Dr. Poonam Alaigh.

E-mail: griffithse@northjersey.com

read full article

For two years, residents of a small cluster of houses in Seattle’s South Park neighborhood have known they were living with elevated levels of a toxic compound known as dioxin/furans in their yards. And for two years they’ve watched Seattle City Light and the federal government tussle over what to do about it.

By Craig Welch
Seattle Times environment reporter

The poisons surfaced first along the city streets, and later were found in yards and gardens, too.

For two years, residents of a small cluster of houses in Seattle’s South Park neighborhood have known they were living with elevated levels of a toxic compound known as dioxin/furans. And for two years they’ve watched Seattle City Light and the federal government tussle over what to do about it.

Next month City Light and the Environmental Protection Agency plan to outline options for cleaning up one of the most polluted spots along the Duwamish River — the few blocks around an old asphalt plant not far from the South Park Bridge.

But those plans are expected to put off most decisions about dioxin, raising more questions in a neighborhood long frustrated by a lack of answers.

“They really don’t have a good handle on it,” said resident Tina Gary. “They were surprised to find dioxins there in the first place. Why should we be convinced they’ve got it figured out now?”

Dioxins are a byproduct of incineration and industrial activities involving chlorine, and collect in the fatty tissue of humans. People exposed to high levels can develop skin diseases, heart problems, diabetes and cancer.

Dioxin is found everywhere, but governments and industry have fought for 40 years over just how much low-level exposure is unsafe, leading to confusing guidelines between state and federal agencies.

The amount of dioxin found in the community of two dozen homes in 2008 is not overly high: about 20 to 50 parts per trillion. That’s well-above levels at which the state urges cleanup, but well-below safety standards set by other agencies.

A State Department of Health study of the neighborhood is expected next month, though an early draft suggests health risks are extremely small, said health assessor Elmer Diaz.

But basic information is still hard to come by and frequently in dispute, including where the contamination originated, how widespread it is, and whether its volume exceeds what might be found in other neighborhoods.

The most obvious source might seem to be the asphalt plant, which operated from 1937 to 1993 and is known as a source of neighborhood contamination of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

The now-defunct company for years used waste oil from Seattle City Light for fuel, some of which it spread on streets to keep down dust. If the dioxin contamination gets linked to that fuel it would make the pollution Seattle City Light’s responsibility.

But chemical fingerprinting has been inconclusive, and City Light has been unwilling to do more tests in the area.

The utility even has samples from the neighborhood in cold storage it has never analyzed for dioxin because it doesn’t see a need.

“We’re responsible for cleaning up areas our past practices connect us to,” said Lynn Best, director of environmental affairs for City Light. “But at this point there doesn’t seem to be anything that connects it (the dioxin)” to the asphalt plant.

The EPA, on the other hand, isn’t ready to rule out the plant, and City Light, as a contributor.

“It’s just not that clear-cut one way or another; we’re still looking at the data,” said Lori Cohen, associate director of EPA’s Superfund cleanup program in Seattle. “I would say there is not absolute evidence one way or the other.”

Meanwhile, EPA officials have said that dioxin data from Denver, Alabama and as far away as the Netherlands shows dioxin levels in this neighborhood are three to five times higher than what appears typical for most cities. City Light says there’s too little data worldwide to reach that conclusion.

“We don’t know what would be considered normal because so little testing has been done,” Best said.

City Light maintains it wants to get to the bottom of the dioxin issue and is seeking grants to do in-depth regionwide testing.

But Best said ratepayers would be furious if City Light spent money cleaning up pollution it didn’t cause or couldn’t justify.

“We’ve been sued for that before,” she said.

Certainly many residents understand her perspective. Lee Burnett has lived a few blocks from the asphalt plant off and on since 1939, and from his yard can see houses where people lived into their 90s despite pollution. He jokes about the holes surveyors poke in his yard trying to understand the contamination’s spread.

But he recognizes that the science of dioxin’s effect on people is complicated.

“I don’t want to tell people who know more than I do what to do,” Burnett said. “For all I know, some of these folks could have lived to 120 if they hadn’t been surrounded by all this stuff.”

But others are frustrated that the issue just drags on and on.

“Do I have dioxins in my yard? I don’t know because they won’t test it,” Gary said. “We’re all wondering what would happen if it were an area like Wallingford that had dioxin issues, what the city’s response would be then.”

Thea Levkovitz, with the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition, an alliance of community groups trying to restore the waterway’s health, said City Light should err on the side of this neighborhood.

“Let’s be honest: None of the dioxin levels are screaming high,” she said. “No one’s going to die tomorrow. But these folks live where they have a lot of things going on, pollution from other sources, higher diabetes rates. They have to wipe their dogs’ paws when they come inside. And we don’t really know how much we don’t know.”

Craig Welch: 206-464-2093 or cwelch@seattletimes.com

read full article

By MICHAEL JAMISON
of the Missoulian | Posted: Wednesday, May 19, 2010

LIBBY – A small army of federal bureaucrats has descended on northwest Montana, helping victims of Libby’s asbestos contamination to sign up for unprecedented Medicare benefits.

“This is a new thing for Social Security,” said Nancy Berryhill, the administration’s regional commissioner. “No other group like this has ever been selected to receive Medicare.”

Under the new national health care law, victims of Libby’s asbestos are eligible for Medicare, regardless of age. Generally, Medicare is reserved only for senior citizens, or those with long-term disabilities.

The health care law contains a clause that opens Medicare to anyone diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease who stayed in Lincoln County a total of six months over a 10-year period. Even those who have never worked – and so never paid into Social Security – are eligible.

Berryhill’s Denver office only learned of the special Libby benefits a month ago, and since then has been scrambling to train her Social Security employees in dealing with the unique applicants.

Her first step was to issue a nationwide alert, to all Social Security offices, advising people of the change. She then began revamping the administration’s Web site, and overhauling its electronic application programs to speed the review process.

On Monday, she said, a team of nine opened the doors at a new Social Security storefront in Libby at the old downtown city hall, and saw almost 60 people before closing time. Some, she said, were able to complete the entire process before day’s end.

That storefront will remain open indefinitely, as long as there is demand from the community, Berryhill said. In addition, she added three new staffers to the existing Social Security office in Kalispell, where they will be answering telephone inquiries about the new benefits.

Currently, the only way to apply for the special Medicare program is to drop by the Libby office on weekdays, or to call Kalispell toll-free at (888) 482-3128, she said. Additional information is available online at http://www.socialsecurity.gov/libby/

***
Berryhill, who worked the Libby field office herself this week, said she has no idea how many might apply – “it could be hundreds, it could be thousands,” but she is working with the local asbestos-disease clinic to access patients who likely qualify. In addition, she has plastered towns as far away as Whitefish and Eureka with pamphlets explaining the program, and has been meeting with local media outlets throughout the region.
The benefits come after years of asbestos contamination in Libby, which has left hundreds dead and many more sickened. The problems have been traced to the now-defunct W.R. Grace and Co. vermiculite mine, which for decades unearthed the deadly asbestos alongside vermiculite. The asbestos was spread widely around Libby, as residents used vermiculite as a soil additive and home insulation.

The company – which was cleared of criminal wrongdoing last year – still faces many civil suits, and has initiated its own health insurance program to provide some care to victims.

That insurance, however, only covers asbestos-related ailments, while the new Social Security benefits are standard Medicare fare – covering all health issues for those who qualify.

“This is a full health-care package,” Berryhill said, covering everything from asbestosis to flu shots to broken arms.

And generally, she said, there’s no conflict between existing insurance programs and Medicare, with the federal program usually providing secondary coverage. If the Grace plan should one day be dropped, she said, the Medicare benefits would remain unchanged.

***
The unusual benefits were added to the national health care legislation by Montana Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, who has visited Libby many times since the tragedy there became known 10 years ago. Locals have praised the legislation, saying that while much has been spent on asbestos cleanup in town, not enough money has been provided for ongoing health care.
Berryhill said she did not know how much longterm care might cost for an average asbestos patient, saying that sort of analysis was irrelevant to her directive to help patients register for coverage.

Her storefront in Libby, and the additional staffers in Kalispell, will remain on the job as long as needed, she said, recognizing that although continued applications will be received for years, the initial months will likely prove busiest for processors.

On Monday, while about 60 people walked into the Libby office, another 50 or so called the Kalispell hot line.

“We want to make it simple and fast,” she said, adding that people need only bring their Social Security number and an identification, such as a driver’s license.

For those whose incomes are limited, she said, financial assistance can be available to help cover Medicare premiums, deductibles and co-payments.
“We want to get the word out,” she said, “and we want to get eligible people signed up.”

Reporter Michael Jamison can be reached at (406) 862-0324 or at mjamison@missoulian.com.

read online

The President’s Cancer Panel Report:
“Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now”

Compiled by the Collaborative on Health and the Environment

Media coverage and other responses to the PCP Report:

Organizational responses

Reproductive Health Advocates Commend the President’s Cancer Panel
May 6, 2010

Media coverage

Journal of the National Cancer Institute, President's Cancer Panel Stirs Up Environmental Health Community
July 28, 2010

Science and Environmental Health Network: Networker newsletter, Reflections on the President's Cancer Panel Report (including commentary by Ted Schettler, MD, MPH)
June/July 2010 issue

JAMA, New Report Argues Environmental Factors Are Underappreciated as Cancer Risks
June 22, 2010

Huffington Post, A Bridge to Somewhere – Responding to the President's Cancer Panel Report (Part 1)
June 7, 2010

WTIC radio, CT: Greener Living Radio, Dr. Richard Clapp is featured in the first hour of the program speaking to cancer and environment and the PCP report
Greener Living Radio website
June 5, 2010

Los Angeles Times, Environmental Cancer Risks May Be More Dangerous Than You Think
May 24, 2010

The Lancet, Preventable Cancer in the US
May 15, 2010

Time, Cancer, Cancer Everywhere
May 14, 2010

NPR On Point, Environmental Cancer Risk: The President's Cancer Panel sounds the alarm on environmental cancer risks
May 12, 2010

WBAI radio, NYC, Green Street Radio, Dr. Richard Clapp discusses the PCP
May 11, 2010

Huffington Post, Memo to the American Cancer Society: Every Cancer Counts
May 11, 2010

Reuters, Environmental Cancers Still a Wild Card
May 10, 2010

The Brian Lehrer Show, Cancer and the Environment
May 10, 2010

Effect Measure, Environmental Cancer: because it's there
May 8, 2010

Boston Globe, Cancer Panel Sounds Alarm on Exposure to Chemicals
May 7, 2010

New York Times op-ed column by Nicholas Kristoff, New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer
May 6, 2010

Huffington Post, blog post by Jeanne Rizzo, President and CEO of the Breast Cancer Fund, co-facilitator of CHE's Breast Cancer Working Group, Will the War on Cancer Evolve to Take on Environmental Risks?
May 6, 2010

Washington Post, "Cancer Panel: 'Grievous Harm' Posed by Unchecked Chemicals in US"
May 6, 2010

Environmental Health News, "President's Cancer Panel: Environmentally Caused Cancers Are 'Grossly Underestimated" and 'Needlessly Devastate American Lives"
May 6, 2010

On the Ground, Nicholas Kristoff's blog, "Cancer Panels and Journalistic Panels"
May 5, 2010

Daily Kos, Vindicated…by President's Cancer Panel, no less
May 6, 2010

Breitbart, President's Cancer Panel Report Finds True Burden of Environmentally Induced Cancer Greatly Underestimated
May 6, 2010

Business Week, US Must Do More to Cut Cases of Environmental Cancers
May 6, 2010

USA Today, "Toxins Causing 'Grievous Harm', Cancer Panel Says"
May 6, 2010

MedPage Today, "Cancer Panel Says Environment May Contribute to Cancer Risk"
May 6, 2010

Plastic News, Obama's cancer panel pushes for more regulation of chemicals
May 6, 2010

Advancing Green Chemistry, President's Cancer Panel Report links environmental toxics to cancer; strongly endorses Green Chemistry
May 6, 2010

Los Angeles Times, "Cancer Risk of Chemicals in the Environment Uncertain"
May 5, 2010

NPR's Health Blog, "Everyday Chemicals Threaten Our Health, But Exact Risks Are Unknown"
May 6, 2010

Reuters, "American's 'Bombarded' With Cancer Causes: Government Panel"
May 6, 2010

CHE website

New York Times
By DANNY HAKIM
Published: May 10, 2010

ALBANY — New York unveiled what it billed as the nation’s first comprehensive statewide cancer map, which became available Monday on the Web site of the State Department of Health.

Not that the Health Department is doing so eagerly. The creation of the map was opposed by both the department and the American Cancer Society when it was proposed two years ago, according to a review of state records, amid concerns that its unfiltered data could be misinterpreted.

State officials were forced to create the map when the Legislature voted in support of it, and Gov. David A. Paterson sided against his own administration in signing the legislation.

The interactive map allows users to see the count of incidences of various types of cancer in different census blocks, which can number in the thousands of people in New York City or fewer than a hundred in upstate counties. For instance, randomly highlighting a four-square-block chunk of Brooklyn, between Henry and Court Streets and Second and Fourth Places, shows 23 cases of cancer out of 1,195 residents, with pancreatic and uterine cancers the most prevalent.

The map also allows users to overlay potentially hazardous sites nearby, including brownfields, superfund sites or buildings in which chemicals are stored. The sponsors of the legislation that created the cancer map argue that the public should be allowed access to the information, since it is compiled by the state. But they repeatedly cautioned that it represents raw data, merely presenting a count of cancer incidences, and should be interpreted with care.

For instance, if the map were oriented on top of a nursing home, it would be expected to show a higher than normal instance of cancer, but it would not represent some kind of “cancer cluster.” There is also no adjustment for the age of the population or a number of other factors, like whether cases of lung cancer were attributable to environmental factors or smoking.

“This is Step 1 in a process which over the course of months and years will yield a conclusion about where cancer clusters exist in New York,” said Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, a Westchester Democrat who sponsored the mapping legislation, calling it a “first step in getting to answers about whether these clusters are statistical accidents or related to an environmental cause.”

The American Cancer Society initially opposed the legislation, writing in a 2008 letter to the governor’s office that “giving people potentially misleading information about the relative danger or safety of living or working in a specific neighborhood or region is no service to them.”

But David Momrow, a senior vice president at the society, said on Monday that recent tweaks to the legislation had allayed their concerns, particularly explanations included on the new Web site “about the qualifications or limitations of reading a map and being cautious in your interpretation.”

Claudia Hutton, director of public affairs for the Health Department, said, “We felt an overlay of environmental-type facilities with new cancer cases might lead people to make incorrect conclusions,” adding that, “to be most useful to the public, health information needs to be provided with context.”

Mr. Brodsky disagreed.

“You bump against this question again and again: Should the government trust the people enough to tell them the truth?” he said. “The time when you could trust the government to say, ‘Trust me I know best’ is long past.”

Senator Tom Libous, a Republican of Binghamton who sponsored the legislation in the Senate said, “We believe this is good, solid public health policy, that people should have this information.”

The state Division of Budget previously forecast that creating and maintaining the map would cost about $3.2 million a year, though it was done within the Health Department’s existing budget. The map was compiled using 2000 census data and cancer diagnoses from 2003 to 2007. Upstate, particularly small census blocks were sometimes combined, to protect patient privacy.

The Health Department is working on a next step that will try to identify anomalies where high incidences of cancer legitimately do exist, and it hopes some of those results will be available this year.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: May 13, 2010

An article on Tuesday about an interactive map that New York has released showing incidences of cancer throughout the state quoted incorrectly from comments by Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, who supported the decision to release the map to the public. He said, “The time when you could trust the government to say, ‘Trust me I know best’ is long past.’ ” He did not say trust “the governor.”

A version of this article appeared in print on May 11, 2010, on page A18 of the New York edition.

read full article

Related

Interactive Map From the N.Y. State Department of Health

Daily Exposures Cause Far More Cancers Than Once Thought, a Presidential Panel Says

By EMILY WALKER
ABC News MedPage Today Staff Writer
May 6, 2010

Environmental carcinogens are responsible for a far greater number of cancers than previously believed — a fact that suggests eradicating these environmental threats should be a priority for President Obama — according to the report of a presidential advisory panel.

“The Panel was particularly concerned to find that the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated,” wrote the authors of the report, “Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now.”

“The panel urges you most strongly to use the power of your office to remove the carcinogens and other toxins from our food, water, and air that needlessly increase health care costs, cripple our Nation’s productivity, and devastate American lives,” the report’s authors wrote in a letter to President Obama.
Related
Is Cancer Being Overdiagnosed?
FDA Wants New Safety Standards for X-Rays
CT Scan Radiation: ‘Public Health Time Bomb’?

The President’s Cancer Panel was established by the National Cancer Act of 1971, when then President Richard Nixon declared war on cancer. The panel is required to submit an annual report to the president describing the status of the “war” and identifying both progress and barriers to continued advances.

The singling out of environmental causes for cancer in this year’s report is considered a major — and some said welcome — departure from previous reports, according to a number cancer specialists contacted by ABC News and MedPage Today.

“For the past 30 years … there has been systematic effort to minimize the importance of environmental factors in carcinogenesis,” said Dr. Philip Landrigan, director of the Children’s Environmental Health Center at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City.

“There has been disproportionate emphasis on lifestyle factors and insufficient attention paid to discovering and controlling environmental exposures,” he said. “This report marks a sea change.”

Dr. Jennifer Lowry, a medical toxicologist at Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics in Kansas City, Mo., said the report finally lends a “voice that could be heard that the environment does play an important role in the health of all people of every age.”

The report is actually a synthesis of testimony from more than two dozen experts in cancer, chemicals and environmental toxins.

Based on that testimony and research compiled over the last two years, report authors Dr. LaSalle Leffall, Jr., of Howard University and Vivian Smith, professor emerita at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, concluded that the government has failed to prevent unnecessary exposures to carcinogens. The challenge for the Obama administration, they wrote, is to intensify research efforts into environmental toxins.

“With the growing body of evidence linking environmental exposures to cancer, the public is becoming increasingly aware of the unacceptable burden of cancer resulting from environmental and occupational exposures that could have been prevented through appropriate national action,” Leffal and Smith wrote in the letter to the president.

Among the potential exposures cited in the report were pesticides, fertilizers, pharmaceutical byproducts in the water supply, household chemicals and tanning beds. Emissions from cars, trucks and planes add to the toxic mix, the authors wrote.

But the authors said there was no evidence connecting the use of cell phones to increased cancer risk.

While Americans are exposed to thousands of chemicals each year, only several hundred of those chemicals have been safety tested, Leffal and Smith said.

The study of environmental factors and their effect on cancer has been giving short shrift compared to studying lifestyle factors and genetic and molecular causes of cancer, the authors claimed.

But paging through the lengthy report, it was difficult to find solid science to back that strong statement.

“At this time, we do not know how much environmental exposures influence cancer risk and related immune and endocrine dysfunction,” Leffal and Smith wrote.

In an interview, Leffal said he hoped the report, if nothing else, would raise awareness that chemicals and other environmental toxins may be causing cancer and that more studies are needed.

“We think based on what we know, when you look at all the data, it just appears to us that there are areas where its been greatly under-reported,” Lefall said. “We don’t know 100 percent, but that’s why we believe we need to do more research.”

The National Toxicology Program, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, does list some chemicals such as benzene and formaldehyde and some substances including tobacco as carcinogenic, but environmental factors, such air pollutants and naturally-occurring chemicals, are less well-understood.
Related
Study Finds ‘Epidemic’ of Skin Cancer
Soft Drinks Linked to Pancreatic Cancer Risk
Moderate Drinking Tied to Breast Cancer Return

Public awareness about some compounds, such as bisphenol A (BPA), has increased in the past year as a handful of studies and report linked the ubiquitous chemical — widely used in plastics such as baby bottles and other drink containers — to metabolic disorders, heart disease and male sexual dysfunction.

Also, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently announced it would review safety data on another common chemical, triclosan, which is used in antibacterial soaps and washes, toothpastes and cosmetics, after lab tests on animals were concerning.

In the report, Leffal and Smith recommended that physicians routinely ask about their current workplace and living environment as a routine part of collecting patient history.

They also recommended:

Conducting a thorough assessment of workplace exposures and cancer risks;

Creating a more coordinated and transparent system for enforcing environmental health standards;

Increasing funding for federal research into occupational and environmental epidemiologic cancer research;

The Environmental Protection Agency should lower its current maximum standard for radon exposure, and the public should be better informed about the risks of radon;

Providing better care to military personal who were exposed to nuclear fallout.

Radiation exposure has long been recognized as a cancer risk, but this latest report from the President’s Cancer Panel claims that patients and healthcare professionals are not completely aware of radiation exposure from imaging techniques such as computed tomograpy (CT) scans — a radiation exposure that might be increasing with the use of whole body scans and virtual colonoscopy.

And while the report issued a call for increased emphasis on dialing down the radiation exposure with CT, the government may actually be out in front on this issue; the FDA recently proposed new safety requirements for manufacturers of CT scanners and fluoroscopic devices. Those new requirements are designed to reduce unnecessary radiation from medical imaging.

ABC4.com
Reported by: Brent Hunsaker

MONTICELLO, Utah (ABC 4 News) – For nearly 20 years, Monticello was a Uranium boomtown. It started in I941 when the government opened a Uranium Mill in town to feed the Manhattan Project. The Vanadium Corporation of America mill produced the “yellowcake” that Robert Oppenheimer and his team would use to create the first atomic bombs.

The mill paid good wages and the workers felt patriotic. Fritz Pipkin remembers his dad working in the mill. “I feel like my father was a hero,” he said. “It was no different than the soldiers in Germany or Japan. They gave their lives to create this product that was used for the Manhattan project and the bombs that ended the war.”

Pipkin also remembers playing in the piles of radioactive tailings at the mill. “As kids we’d go on down the canyon right here and we’d camp out and drink from the water that came through the tailings ponds. Nobody knew of any danger. It’s a wonder kids in Monticello don’t glow in the dark from all the hours we spent down here on these tailings piles.”

Pipkin now has Leukemia. He is one of nearly 600 cases of cancer confirmed in current and former residents of Monticello. It is a number, they say, that is still climbing.

86-year-old Lee Wilkin is battling cancers in both her breasts and lungs. “It’s terrible how many people here have got cancer,” she said recalling that her mother and three sisters also have had their own battles with cancer. The family lived in the shadow of the Uranium mill. “You couldn’t hang clothes out when the wind was blowing … because they would turn yellow.“ Wilkin also worked at the mill for two years. She remembers a relative coming home for lunch still covered with yellow dust from the morning’s work. She said, “Anyone I’ve ever talked to that worked there was never warned about it.”

Pete Steele worked at the mill too. He remembers the day his doctor diagnosed him with Multiple Myeloma, “I says, ‘What’s next?’ And she says there is no next, you’re dead.”

After the mill closed in 1960, it would take another 40 years for the federal government to finish cleaning up the site. The tailings are now buried south of town. The pile has been capped and sealed and is monitored continuously.

Steele and Pipkin both serve on a town committee that is pushing the federal government to take full responsibility for the treatment of Monticello’s cancer patients. Steele said, “It’s not for me. I’ve already gone through it. There’s nothing that I can do to change anything. But If I can change it for somebody down the road then I’ll think that I’ve accomplished something.”

Armed with a study from the Utah Department of Health that shows a cancer cluster, the committee has received grants for both cancer education and screenings. And yet, paying for a screening is one thing, paying to treat what the screening finds is a much bigger commitment. “We feel like the government needs to stand up and take care of the people,” explains Pipkin. “They created the problem, they need to take care of the medical needs.”

On Friday cancer survivors will gather at the mill site to dedicate a memorial to those worked there during the 40’s and 50’s.

They will be called heroes of both World War II and then the Cold War. They never took up a weapon against an enemy, but they did produce the lethal material that made what remains today, the ultimate weapon.

And of some it will be said that they paid the ultimate price. “We have paid a heavy price. We really have,” said Wilkin. “And we’re still paying,” said Steele.

read online

Gina Solomon
Senior Scientist, NRDC

Today I was privileged to be an invited guest of the community of Fort Chipewyan, Canada. I can’t blame you if you’ve never heard of “Ft. Chip” – after all, there are only 1000 residents, and it’s only accessible by plane or boat. But you should hear about it, because what happens there will affect all of us.

The town has been suffering for more than ten years from surprisingly high rates of cancer. A local doctor sounded the alarm, and eventually the government did an investigation. The government’s press release at the time the cancer study was released made it sound like there was no problem: “A study of the cancer incidence in Fort Chipewyan finds levels of the rare cancer cholangiocarcinoma are not higher than expected.”

The results of the cancer study were never presented to the community, and the government claimed there was no problem. That’s where I came in. One of my colleagues asked me to peer review the Alberta Health Services cancer investigation. To my surprise, the actual report did not align with the headlines:

* Overall, the report found a 30% increase in cancers in Ft. Chip compared with expected over the last 12 years;
* Leukemias and lymphomas were increased by 3-fold;
* Bile duct cancers were increased by 7-fold;
* Other cancers, such as soft tissue sarcomas, and lung cancers in women, were also elevated.

I’m not sure who wrote the press release for the government, but it sure weren’t the scientists who actually did the investigation.

It wasn’t just the elevated cancer rates that got my attention, however. It was also the types of cancers seen. Leukemias and lymphomas have been linked in the scientific literature to petroleum products, including VOCs (volatile components of petroleum), dioxin-like chemicals, and other hydrocarbons. Biliary cancers have been linked to petroleum and to PAHs (chemicals in tar and soot). Soft tissue sarcomas are very rare and lethal cancers that have also been linked to dioxin-like chemicals and hydrocarbons. It’s an interesting pattern — almost all of the cancer types that were elevated have been linked scientifically to chemicals in oil or tar.

It’s especially interesting because little Ft. Chip is located downstream from the largest tar sands mining and oil production operation in the world. Other scientists who also presented their findings to the community today revealed significant increases in toxic metals, PAHs, and related chemicals in the water and sediments of the river downstream from the tar sands.

About 200 community members filled the hall where the scientists and physicians presented their findings. Then the community members spoke. Elders from the Mikisew Cree Nation and the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation decried the lack of action by the government and industry. Other community members talked about their own cancer diagnoses, or about the problems they were seeing in the fish, ducks, and wildlife they hunt for food. One man brought a deformed fish to the researchers, asking that it be tested for contaminants. The meeting was long, intense, and important. These people are concerned about their livelihood, and their lives. They are also concerned about the state of their rivers, the lake, and the wildlife.

Afterward, as I flew back to Edmonton on the tiny plane, I looked down on miles of pristine boreal forest dotted with lakes and entwined by rivers. Then the tar sands operations came into view – vast scars on the land, massive sulfur piles, smokestacks creating huge plumes into the sky, and enormous tailings ponds next to the river glimmering with an oily sheen; tailings ponds that are almost certainly leaching contaminants into the Athabasca River, which carries them down toward Ft. Chip.

As I prepare to head down to the Gulf Coast, I wonder what will happen here in Canada. Will the newfound distaste for offshore oil drilling be a boon to the tar sands, thereby worsening the ecological and health situation up here? Or will the public realize that petroleum comes with a price that is too high to pay, and move toward a safer energy future?

This post originally appeared on NRDC’s Switchboard blog.

By Grace Schneider
Louisville KT Courier-Journal

As research scientists and federal regulators gathered in Washington, D.C., last month to discuss a new study of cancer rates near nuclear power plants, Sarah Sauer of Corydon, Ind., asked them for a favor.

Don’t forget the people behind the numbers, said Sarah, 16, a sophomore at Presentation Academy in Louisville.

Moments earlier, as she spoke to the National Academy of Sciences panel, the teen brought some in the room to tears, standing on a step-stool to reach the microphone as her high-pitched and strained voice told as much about her cancer battle as her words.

Linda Modica, a Sierra Club member from Tennessee who attended the panel meeting, said Sarah was a brave girl.

“It came off in a very poignant and powerful way,” said Modica.

It was a moment for which Sarah and her family had waited years — a chance to put a face on a study that will examine whether youngsters and adults who have lived near nuclear power plants suffer from higher rates of cancer.

“I got sick and I don’t want everybody else to have to go through the whole thing I did,” Sarah said in an interview last week after her return from Washington.

Her father, obstetrician Joseph Sauer, moved the family from Illinois to Southern Indiana in 2004, hoping to escape exposure from the Braidwood generating station in Braceville, Ill., about five miles from their last home. Doctors told Sarah’s parents they suspect her rare form of brain cancer was caused by environmental contamination from Braidwood, although her parents concede they can’t say for certain.

Before moving, however, the Sauers joined a chorus of environmental activists and others who clamored for more updated scientific analysis of cancer risks linked to nuclear facilities and enrichment plants. Most oppose President Barack Obama’s support for a nuclear renaissance because they contend that past problems associated with atomic-powered generating plants haven’t been adequately examined.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently asked the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study on cancer in populations surrounding nuclear generating stations. A 1990 report by the National Cancer Institute ruled out a link, but critics have insisted that study was flawed because it considered only children who died of cancer, not children like Sarah who were sickened but survived. It also examined populations by county, not groups living closest to the power plants, critics said.

read full article