Health

Some Headlines for the World Trade Center Health Studies Mislead Findings

If searched you Google News for “World Trade Center health study” you would find more than 500 articles. If you were just skimming the headlines, you wouldn’t know quite what to believe.

Here are a few:

“Study Suggests Higher Cancer Risk for 9/11 Firefighters” — New York Times

“Dusty legacy of 9/11 still a medical mystery” — Associated Press

“Death Rate Surprisingly Low In Workers Exposed to Sept. 11 Dust” — NPR Blog

“New study: 9/11 first responders much more likely to develop cancer” — CNN Blog

“Mixed Health Findings Reported in 9/11 Rescuers‎” – Family Practice News

“Firefighter Cancer Tied to Ground Zero Exposure, New Study Says” — Huffington Post

Cancer Risk Insignificant for 9/11 First Responders

Here is a brush up on why a study about the long-term effects of 9/11 on first responders was conducted.

When the World Trade Centers went down after the terrorist attack on 9/11, an obscene amount of dust, toxins and other potentially harmful debris came with it. Some first responders got sick. There was even a bill set up — the 9/11 Responders Bill — which was signed into law this year to help pay for some of these medical expenses. But just what medical issue qualifies for this help is a controversial question.

With the eve of 9/11′s 10-year anniversary, two studies reviewing the long-term health of a large sample group of first responders was published in The Lancet, a British medical journal. The mixed findings from the studies remain controversial on several counts, but especially when it comes to the First Responders Bill and accuracy of the results (i.e. Is this review still too soon to tell the actual effects?).

Here are some of the highlights of what the two studies found:

  • Of the nearly 9,000 ground zero fire fighters, researchers found they were four more cases than what might normally be expected in a similar group of men who weren’t exposed. Basically, the study found that 242 firefighters exposed to the attacks had developed cancer within the study period, compared to the 238 that researchers would have expected in the general public.
  • Researchers found less lung cancer than expected — only 9 cases instead of the 21 they expected to see. That’s reassuring because people are concerned about inhaled dust particles. All 9 of the cases involved smokers.
  • For comparison sake, the study looked at 923 firefighters were who not exposed to ground zero; they found the exposed responders were 19 percent more likely to have cancer. But, this number is considered not statistically significant.
  • A second study looked at more than 42,000 people exposed to dust from the World Trade Center. It found that there was no increase in fatality compared to the average person. In fact, the study group’s mortality rate was 43 percent lower than the average New Yorker.
  • Contrary to what would be expected according to earlier studies (LINK), the second study found that there was no increase in fatality associated with respiratory ailments.
  • It is important to note,  both the mortality study and the cancer study are limited, in part because of the difficulty of finding a proper comparison group. Drawing conclusions could also be difficult because researchers don’t know the full medical history of the subjects.

Here’s what experts are saying:

  • New York City Health Commissioner Thomas Farley says of the two bullet points above on the second study that he believes this portion of the population could be healthier than the general public to begin with, potentially skewing the results of the study.
  • Donald Berry, a professor of biostatistics at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, said the two studies “provide no evidence that living or working in the former shadow of the World Trade Center increases one’s risk of anything . . . With the exception of a nuclear explosion or meltdown, it’s difficult for any single event to cause an increase in cancer or in mortality.”
  • Dr. David Prezant, the fire department’s chief medical officer, said he believed the firefighters study indicated “a moderately strong correlation” between World Trade Center dust and cancer. He said he did not agree with other experts who said the study failed certain key tests of statistical significance.
  • Dr. Michael Thun, vice president emeritus of epidemiological research for the American Cancer Society, said it isn’t surprising that the study would fail to detect any major trends so soon after attacks.

Clearly the jury is still out on the health effects from 9/11. So why are some media outlets writing and talking about how first responders have an increased risk of cancer when the study‘s findings say the increase isn’t statistically significant?

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Comments (31)

  • LulzSecurity
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 1:47pm

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/08/18/infographic-record-judicial-diversity-record-judicial-delays

    Report Post »  
    • GroundZero is Nuclear Demolition x3
      Posted on September 5, 2011 at 2:31pm

      Take notice to the fact RADIATION FALLOUT CAUSES CANCER!!!

      Official count 1684, and the responders exceed 900. Don’t believe the MYTH of 3000!

      Report Post »  
    • Ruler4You
      Posted on September 5, 2011 at 4:08pm

      I don’t think people want the truth. The truth is that, generally speaking, New Yorkers are socialists. A hand out will do nicely as an adjunct income.

      Report Post » Ruler4You  
  • HTuttle
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 12:35pm

    Most attackers were Saudi citizens, why isn’t Saudi Arabia paying for all of this?

    Report Post »  
    • GroundZero is Nuclear Demolition x3
      Posted on September 5, 2011 at 4:01pm

      They are well aware to the FACT this was an insurance scam. In addition they can produce the alleged people accused falsely by the federal crooks.
      Get your head out the sand, its been ten years the information is out there. LOOK!!

      Report Post »  
  • briten821
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 12:05pm

    I say- WHO CARES! IEvery NYC firefighter, policeman, emergancy worker or anyone else who spent a significant amount of days risking their lives to save others and clean up that sight should have their health care paid for just to THANK them for being heroes. Why nitpick about what should be covered? Take ten minutes of the annual US budget and cover it all… give me a break!

    Report Post »  
    • rose-ellen
      Posted on September 5, 2011 at 5:03pm

      Gimme ,gimme gimme-these “heroes” ceased being heroes when 10 years later they’re still demanding more.What ever happenned to vitrue is it’s own reward.They keep wanting more-more money,more recognition, more names added to victims’ memorials etc. Nothing heroic about their greed for money,glory and anything else they can get attitude.Like the whole reaction to 9-11[where you got a taste of your own medicine considering all the bombs you dropped on civilians throughtout the last century] a nation of greedy whiners!

      Report Post »  
  • rockstone
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 12:03pm

    Hold the fort. I always take grief for this observation but, what the hell…….

    Firefighters are very well compensated for the dangerous work they do. The pay and benefits are very, very good. Where else can you retire in your 50′s with a 6 figure pension and full health benefits for the rest of your life with, spousal beneift when you die? The disablity benefits alone are way above those in the private sector and guess what? They should be!

    Point being… this money is ALREADY THERE!! If a firefighter gets cancer for whatever reason HE/SHE IS ALREADY COVERED!!!! Hell….. in a lot of cases, their Viagra is already covered. If they are disabled due to any condition caused, be it at ground zero, or in The Bronx…. THEY ARE ALREADY COVERED!!

    This is a good old fashioned shake down folks. Nothing more.

    Report Post » rockstone  
    • Trance
      Posted on September 5, 2011 at 2:26pm

      The same thing I was thinking. Firefighters and Police already have better health and death benefits than most people. They are already covered for cancer treatment, and if they die, their spouses continue to receive pay. So is the bill to take the burden off of the insurance companies that already cover them? Is there something more to this? Even if they only got the same coverage as everybody else, why should the taxpayer pay for them? At least they got to directly help with the 9/11 aftermath. Most people just donated blood and hung American flags in our front yard.

      Report Post » Trance  
  • CleanUpAisle2013
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 11:39am

    @CAT Your comment about eating carrots really shook me up so I did some further research. It turns out that even if you do not eat carrots you will die. Damn you, George Bush, Al Gore, Mother Teresa, Jupiter’s third moon, the guy down the street who farts too much and my older brother who trickle-fought me 5 decades ago and made me piss in my Roy Rogers underwear!!
    Thanks to all fire rescue folks. Your job is one of the most dangerous on earth but you knew that when you chose it. Those at Ground Zero risked their lives before and after the Towers fell for their fellow world’s citizens as well as their fellow Fire Fighters. It is their job and they do it damn well. Thanks!

    Report Post » CleanUpAisle2013  
  • anotherproudamerican
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 11:22am

    It would be interesting to see the statistical correlation between who wrote the negative sided stat. articles in comparison to money and gifts received or relations to class action firms and or doctors.
    That would be an article of interest.

    Report Post »  
  • tankyjo
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 11:13am

    Divide us, it’s working.

    Report Post » tankyjo  
  • TJexcite
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 11:13am

    Misleading headlines are just another way to blame Bush and the GOP. They in the media can’t blame them for the attack but can blame them for not protection the first responders after it. Even years after it and from any of a hundred conic illness that show up in only a few so it might not even be related to the work.

    Just like Katrina. Do we really want a president to be the sole person who is to respond to a disaster and sole person to blame. That is if they are a republican. How Bush got any blame on the response to Katrina is still a mystery.

    Report Post » TJexcite  
  • Classical Liberal
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 11:09am

    Did they hire the same researchers used by the tobacco companies to prove smoking cigarettes will not negatively affect your health?

    Report Post » Classical Liberal  
  • vinnymac46
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:45am

    …people this type of stuff goes on in all disaster claims. Let’s not pretend, Katrina, Hugo, now Irene. There will be those that just have to “get theirs”. So please address the actions of these people not just the people themselves.

    Report Post » vinnymac46  
  • freeweever
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:01am

    Yeh like a nuclear plant leak or asbestos in a work area what a bafoon.

    Report Post » freeweever  
  • EP46
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:42am

    “With the exception of a nuclear explosion or meltdown, it’s difficult for any single event to cause an increase in cancer or in mortality.” This is a CYA statement

    How can a statement like that be made? This type of event has never happened before …and individuals respond to ‘toxins’ differently. Go back decades and read about the number of Japanese who died or the resulting generations who suffered birth defects from the atomic bomb blasts. That info was incorrect due to limited knowledge and studies. This will probably prove to be the same. I do not understand ‘facts’ when there are no true ‘facts’ to base upon. Time will tell…and it has.

    Report Post »  
  • marybethelizabeth
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:42am

    May I?
    I don’t know what started Mr. Beck’s vendetta against the victims of the World Trade Center disaster, but he is keeping it alive.

    Report Post » marybethelizabeth  
    • shazam3
      Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:27am

      I don’t believe anybody has a vendetta. In my estimation is that no one will just say in life and with sickness that some will have the genes to survive where others become sick. The same reason the 80 year old still smokes/drinks/works in a coal mine/ subjects himself to asbestos and is relatively healthy for his age. In the 60′s there was a class action suit started against the oil companies for the smog generated in Los Angeles. My information says that it was transferred to the cigarette companies for some mysterious political reason. The question was about young people who were dying with lung cancer and associated illnesses. The medical educators were stumped until one brought up the premise that the majority of these people were immigrants from other states that had no history of airborne air problems. Somehow native SoCal people were basically free from the calamity as were the immigrants from the big cities from the East and from the desert communities. Politically what would you say to immigrants, don’t come you may suffer from disease? Not hardly. This premise was buried by the politicians.
      What we have here is medical educators and doctors elliminating poor genes or suseptability of some areas of the country and trying to put a one size fits all blanket over all people involved with 9-11. Much the same as several generations of a family that has heart problems or cancer. Should they be covered, No

      Report Post »  
  • Cat
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 7:31am

    Granted there was a lot of ‘dust’ during the collapse of the towers.

    Considering the amount of shattered glass alone must have some affect on people’s lungs.
    If the glass in the WTC towers were extruded into a 20” thick rectangle, the shape would cover 65 miles.
    (Believe it was tempered glass, but not sure)
    However, the materials used in the construction of the WTC towers were heavy materials.
    All the construction materials would have come to rest in relatively short time.

    There is the gruesome reality of human remains entwined in the debris.

    Debris materials from furniture, paint, wall coverings, artwork, paper goods, electronic devices, porcelain, copper, aluminum, wood, plastic etc, were piled in a huge stack.
    Each floor was nearly an acre, so there were plenty of materials around.

    Then there are the components from the airliners.

    If you think about it, there were so many materials crammed into the debris space it’s no wonder people got ill.
    The fact that the disaster even happened, makes me ill.

    Report Post » Cat  
    • Secessionista
      Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:22am

      I do not think your math on the glass is accurate. The towers were 1500 feet tall, square in cross section, Enough glass to cover 60 square miles at 20 inches thick probably requires more volume than the entire building. The combined building volumes were 9.6 trillion cubic inches. Divide that by 20 inches thick yields 480 billion square inches. That is about 120 square miles. That is if both towers were made of solid glass. There was probably enough glass in the towers to cover about an acre, about a foot thick. And besides, concrete is basically made of glass, so the entire pulverized building would be just as dangerous as the glass. At any rate, the studies show no medical effect on the first responders. This is not to take away from their heroic and valorous efforts at all, but they are not likely ill due to the WTC event, just ill from normal aging processes. We do owe them greatly, but not for getting cancer or asbestosis – their exposure wasn’t great enough.

      Report Post » Secessionista  
    • tower7femacamp
      Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:34am

      what is the health effect of breathing Nano-Thermite ?

      Report Post » tower7femacamp  
    • Cat
      Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:44am

      @SECESSIONISTA

      That’s extruded, not blanketed.
      Or approximately 572,000 cubic feet, both towers.

      The amount of silica in the concrete would be near 3 million cubic feet, both towers.
      Unless the old HP needs new batteries.

      Report Post » Cat  
    • Sheepdog911
      Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:33am

      Yeah, and when I mow my lawn after it’s had fertilizer and insecticides spread on it and the dried dog, rabbit and bird feces, not to mention bugs and stuff, I am breathing in all the chemicals and crap that is pulverized in that dust. And I have done that on a weekly basis for years. Please, explain the increased risks to me for that. Every once in awhile … Life causes death … so, don’t sweat the small stuff. Oh, and I‘d like a Lawn Mower’s Health Bill passed … I think I earned it braving the heat of the California desert all those years..

      Report Post » Sheepdog911  
    • Cat
      Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:40am

      @TOWER7FEMACAMP

      Extremem heat, UV light, ignition sensitivity and ESD … That’s about it.

      Report Post » Cat  
    • Cat
      Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:55am

      @SHEEPDOG

      Buy a submarine, smoke cigars, drink a lot, enjoy fresh fish and sleep well.
      There’s probably something in that list, that will kill you.

      The point being, everyone who eats carrots, dies.

      Report Post » Cat  
  • PoliticalJunkieToo
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 6:35am

    Don’t shoot the messenger but EVERYONE KNEW the reason firemen from ALL OVER THE COUNTRY and even inside New York kept coming even AFTER they were NOT needed and STAYED LONGER than was needed – FIRE OUT FOLKS – GO HOME – ….. was to put their toe on Ground Zero to file a “claims” later. A lot of people were talking about it at the time – knew the tax payer would get screwed – and they were.

    The fire department should be PRIVATIZED. Lots of cities have done it – it works. Police cannot be privatized (too creepy) but firemen, librarians, DMV personnel, California lifeguards (who knew they made $100,000?) etc. can easily be.

    Report Post »  
    • BehindBlueEyes
      Posted on September 5, 2011 at 7:44am

      I’ve known a few firemen in my days and every one of them were masters at milking the system.

      Report Post » BehindBlueEyes  
    • ddg7
      Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:21am

      Remember how the illegal immigrant families were also compensated with our tax dollars.

      Report Post »  
    • katenga
      Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:19am

      A little over-generalizing aren’t we?

      Report Post » katenga  

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love