| |
| |
Medical
News Online |
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Questions persist about the connection between health problems and the toxic 9/11 cloud
|
|
As another anniversary of the September 11th attacks passes, 9/11 responders—firefighters, police officers, emergency medicine specialists, recovery and clean-up workers—continue to search for answers about the links between health problems and exposure to the dust that hung in the air following the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings.
© 2001 FDNY Photo Unit - All Rights Reserved
Joining the responders in this quest for information are researchers at various clinics and research institutions. Samet et al. (2007) write that "[Y]ears after the World Trade Center disaster on September 11, 2001, uncertainty and controversy remain about the health risks posed by inhaling the dust from the collapse of the twin towers, the subsequent fires, and the cleanup effort."
Still, many in the public are convinced that exposure to the dust has been the cause of respiratory ailments. An article in the Village Voice states that "At least 12 deaths from lung ailments and cancer have been blamed on the dust cloud in press reports" (Rayman 2007).
While some in the medical and scientific community question the data of researchers who link health problems of WTC workers to the dust cloud (see Anthony De Palma and Serge F. Kovaleski, "Accuracy of 9/11 Health Reports is Questioned," New York Times, September 7, 2007), at least one study involving the city’s firefighters provides support for the public’s view.
A study published in Chest in March 2007 concludes that the incidence of sarcoidosis among FDNY World Trade Center rescue workers "was significantly increased when compared to the years before WTC exposure" (Izbicki et al. 2007).
Workers and health advocate groups continue to call for accountability on this issue. In June Christine Todd Whitman, former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, was asked to testify about whether the EPA knowingly misled the public when it declared that the air was "safe to breathe" in the days after the attacks (Democracy Now 2007). Whitman is the first high-level federal official to address questions related to possible health consequences of working near the debris pile.
By Elena Landriscina
September 11, 2007
"Ex-EPA Head Christine Todd Whitman Denies Misleading Public Over Environmental Dangers After 9/11," Democracy Now, June 26, 2007.
Izbicki Gabriel, Robert Chavko, Gisela I. Banauch, Michael D. Weiden, Kenneth I. Berger, Thomas K. Aldrich, Charles Hall, Kerry J. Kelly, and David J. Prezant. "World Trade Center 'Sarcoid-Like' Granulomatous Pulmonary Disease in New York City Fire Department Rescue Workers," Chest, 2007, 131: 1414-1423.
Rayman, Graham. "Clearing the Air," Village Voice, September 5-11, 2007.
Samet, Jonathan M., Alison S. Geyh, and Mark J. Utell. "The Legacy of World Trade Center Dust," New England Journal of Medicine, May 2007, 356: 2233.
Related clinical references:
|
| |
Downward trend in the use of mammograms in the United States is a "great concern"
|
|
Last week, research published in the online edition of Cancer reported a decline in the annual use of mammograms in the United States. Researchers from the National Cancer Institute noted that "After robust, rapid increases in reported use of mammography by women in the US since 1987, estimates from the 2005 National Health Interview Survey showed a decline compared with 2000 (from 70% to 66%)."
The researchers explained that "Changes in screening rates have an immediate impact on the reported incidence of breast cancer and, ultimately, mortality." The article thus suggests that a decline in the incidence rate for breast cancer may not necessarily indicate decreased mortality rates; rather, the decline may only reflect a correlative decline in screening rates.
Such research provides important context for understanding news that the rates of breast cancer have dropped sharply in recent years. ("Sharp Drop in Rates of Breast Cancer Holds," New York Times, April 19, 2007)
Researchers at the National Cancer Institute suggest that there are a number of factors that may explain the decline in mammography, including an increased number of women without health insurance, the increased cost of copayments for office visits, perceptions about the effectiveness of preventive screening, and reduced perceived risk due to reports about decreasing breast cancer death.
In a letter to the editor published by the New York Times on May 17, 2007, Peter B. Dean, M.D., formerly Visiting Professor at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, wrote that this trend "should be of great concern." He emphasized that regular mammograms, while not perfect, are "still the most effective method currently available to prevent early breast cancer death."
By Elena Landriscina
May 22, 2007
"Reported drop in mammography. Is this a cause for concern?"
Nancy Breen, Kathleen A Cronin, Helen I. Meissner, Stephen H. Taplin, Florence K. Tangka, Jasmin A. Tiro, and Timothy S. McNeel. Cancer, Published online, May 14, 2007.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/114262763/HTMLSTART
Related clinical references:
|
| |
|
|
