New Study of 9/11 Responders with Immune Cancer/Multiple Myeloma Implies Radiation at the WTC

[spooked911]

See:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/10/health/main5228710.shtml?tag=stack

A new study, in the “Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine,” found that an abnormally high percentage of 9/11 responders fell ill to a specific immune system cancer called Multiple Myeloma (MM). The Journal Abstract is here:
http://journals.lww.com/joem/Abstract/2009/08000/Multiple_Myeloma_in_World_Trade_Center_Responders_.7.aspx
Note that the cut off date for finding these MM sufferers was Sept. 10, 2007.

Now the article states, “The researchers looked at 28,252 emergency responders who spent time amid ground zero dust and found eight cases of multiple myeloma.” But there is a form of a cover-up, in the Journal article, as they try to cut the number of 9/11 MM sufferers in half. Further, note that some 28,000 responders were looked at, while other sources have stated that there were over 40,000 responders in total. So some 30% of responders may be being excluded here.

Overall, eight cases of MM were found in the 28,000.

The CBS piece states, “However, four of the people who fell ill were under age 45, and multiple myeloma is thought to be more rare among people of that age. Under normal circumstances, researchers would have expected to find only one case of the disease in that age group. Those four young multiple myeloma patients included one officer who was caught in the dust cloud on 9/11 and then spent months working long hours at the site. Another spent 111 days at the Staten Island landfill where the rubble was sifted. Two others had less exposure, working 12 and 14 days each in the pit and rubble pile.”

Note that the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation states that “more than 75% occur in people over the age of 70.”
http://www.multiplemyeloma.org/about_myeloma/index.php

And we can safely conclude that almost all of the 9/11 responders were under 70. So it appears that the authors and subsequently the media may speciously be focusing on a split at the age of 45 when all eight--not four--cases are under age 70, and all eight should be focused upon. Note also that at least one responder who worked at the Staten Island landfill contracted MM.

The MMRF website also has this on the causes of Multiple Myeloma. “The search for a cause has suggested possible associations between myeloma and a decline in the immune system, genetic factors, certain occupations, certain viruses, exposure to certain chemicals including Agent Orange, and exposure to radiation.”

It is not likely that any Agent Orange was in the rubble pile of the WTC. This leaves us with unspecificed chemicals and radiation. This is another piece of evidence of what the "China Syndrome Aftermath" (CSA) in the WTC rubble from the micro-nukes, used by the American regime, to destroy the WTC.

Here it is detailed how the trucks were washed down in strange ways that lead to the conclusion that the entire matter was one of desperately trying to lower radiation levels. See here: http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2008/10/has-standard-operating-procedure-for.html

There is much in the literature about radiation exposure and cancer, including Multiple Myeloma. This article, on survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, concluded that “it is biologically reasonable that MM occurs as a result of exposure to radiation.”
http://www.journalarchive.jst.go.jp/jnlpdf.php?cdjournal=jrr1960&cdvol=32&noissue=SUPPLEMENT&startpage=168&lang=en&from=jnlabstract

This ongoing study is attempting to link Multiple Myeloma to radiation exposure among Chernobyl responders.
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00558974

And here we see that a study has linked Multiple Myeloma to radiation exposure among workers at the Hanford, Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, and Savannah River nuclear facilities.
http://news.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-2/New-study-finds-multiple-myeloma-linked-to-radiation-exposures-of-nuclear-workers-9863-1/

So it appears well established that nuclear (ionizing) radiation causes Multiple Myeloma. The thing to be aware of is that the data from Hiroshima and Nagasaki (http://www.ehponline.org/members/2006/9113/9113.html) showed that the majority of cancer, and other immune diseases, took 20-50 years to reveal itself in studies.

As the current study, just released, has a cut-off date of just 6 years after 9/11/01, we may be seeing just the tip of the iceberg.

Note finally, this article says: "Most research on multiple myeloma indicates that it usually takes 10 to 20 years for someone to develop that cancer after an environmental exposure to a carcinogen. In these cases, the cancers were diagnosed in as little as three to four years after the attacks, suggesting that something else caused the disease."


Please individually get this crucial information--on the likely radiation-induced exposure to all 9/11 responders, from the small nuclear bombs used to destroy the WTC, by the American Gestapo regime--out to all surviving responders. Perhaps they, and their families, will be among the first to awaken and lead the revolution that the United States of America so desperately needs to save itself.

[SDuderstadt]

1. "American Gestapo regime"

More hyperbole, Spooked?

[hack89]

2. Exposure to chemicals is much more likely

Benzine in particular

In general, causal associations for multiple myeloma have been reported in workers exposed to petrochemicals, especially those occupationally exposed to benzene, a known human carcinogen and leukemogen.

http://www.toxictorts.com/benzene_info_benzene_and_multiple_myeloma.shtml

Chemical exposure: Occupational exposure to certain chemicals, such as herbicides, rubber, textiles, petroleum products, or heavy metals, may raise a person's risk of getting multiple myeloma.

http://www.novartisoncology.us/education/diseases-conditions/oncology/multiple-myeloma.jsp

Firefighters are recognized as a known risk group

Other workers who may be exposed to benzene because of their occupations include steel workers, printers, rubber workers, shoe makers, laboratory technicians, firefighters, and gas station employees.

http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/benzene/evaluation.html

The fact that firefighters have a higher than normal rate of cancer is also well known:

There is sufficient scientific evidence that demonstrates Firefighters, by occupation have a higher mortality rate and shortened life expectancy for cancers compared to other occupational illnesses and injuries. These studies clearly indicate that cancer is linked to the occupational employment of a Firefighter due to the exposure of smoke, fumes, carcinogens, poisonous, toxic or chemical substances which occur on the job. Scientists don't define cancer as a single disease, but as a broad term encompassing 200 diseases found in distinct body sites. Studies have shown that Firefighters have an excess cancer rate compared to the general population.

http://www.pbcfr.org/pdfs/TrainingAndSafety/COPD/FireFighter/QS_FireFightersAndCancer.pdf

[spooked911]

5. don't know why you say "more likely"

granted, there were significant amounts of those chemicals in the rubble pile, but there simply is no hard evidence to say that the chemicals caused the MM, and typical chemical exposure to benzene takes much longer to cause MM. Radiation, on the other hand, is known to cause cancer much more quickly.

[spooked911]

6. while there were no doubt lots of nasty chemicals in the ground zero air

it's a bit hard to believe that it was something that no other worker has ever been exposed to in large doses-- and yet exposure to benzene for instance, is not linked to rapid cancer development. A high concentration of nasty chemicals are going to affect all your systems and make you obviously sick and make you get out of there before you get cancer.

[SDuderstadt]

7. Let us know when you find that smoking gun, Spooked n/t

[spooked911]

8. more on radiation versus toxins

While one could argue that the toxin level at Ground Zero was so extreme that it caused cancer much more rapidly than normal. However, this really doesn't hold up for the following reasons:
i) high levels of toxins getting into someone's system are more likely to cause immediate acute systemic illness-- that should have been noted for these cancer victims if it occurred
ii) there must be many other cases of people being exposed to high levels of aerosol carcinogens, yet there is no clear connection of these toxins and rapid cancer development
iii) people who worked at ground zero for any extended period wore protective breathing equipment, which would have limited toxin exposure but would have done nothing for radiation exposure

Importantly, multiple myeloma is NOT the only suspicious cancer showing up in Ground Zero workers-- there is also
thyroid cancer, which is strongly linked to radiation exposure. There are also many blood cancers showing up in the workers.

Finally, note that even the toxins ultimately can be explained by the nuking. First, the power of the nuclear demolition fragmented and fried interior contents of the towers-- leading to immediate toxin production. Second, the China Syndrome of unextinguishable fires in the WTC rubble is due to the nukes-- and was also the source of toxin production.


Dude, there are so many smoking guns you can't even count them.

[SDuderstadt]

9. So, tell me something, Spooked...

Why aren't any of the doctors treating these people supporting your claims? Wouldn't that be expected if your claim was, indeed, a smoking gun?

[Realityhack]

10. Oh my...

"i) high levels of toxins getting into someone's system are more likely to cause immediate acute systemic illness-- that should have been noted for these cancer victims if it occurred"
I see you are not a doctor. That would depend entirely on what specific toxin you were talking about and what specific dosage.

"ii) there must be many other cases of people being exposed to high levels of aerosol carcinogens, yet there is no clear connection of these toxins and rapid cancer development" - Emphasis Added
Seriously, look up what a carcinogen means Spooked. And don't give me some crap about 'rapid' unless you have specific time tables on specific dosages of specific carcinogens to discuss.

"iii) people who worked at ground zero for any extended period wore protective breathing equipment, which would have limited toxin exposure but would have done nothing for radiation exposure"
See Reply #3. Seems unlikely that the breathing equipment protected them if the chemicals were in fact found in their bodies.

"Dude, there are so many smoking guns you can't even count them."
I count three 'guns' and not one is even rational much less smoking.

[spooked911]

13. rock and roll will never die...

I stand by my claim that abnormally high levels of toxins getting into someone's system are likely to cause immediate acute systemic illness that would have been diagnosed.

I know what "carcinogen" means and I also stand by my claim-- feel free to find a study that shows otherwise.

WERE the chemicals in fact found in their bodies? Is there any data on this? I bet not.

As far as "smoking guns", I meant in general about 9/11. However I think this abnormal development of multiple myeloma is a smoking gun for radiation-- which fits with much other evidence of nukes at the WTC.

[SDuderstadt]

14. No, dude...

You made the initial claim. We don't need to disprove it. You need to prove it. You pull this shit all the time. It's why you and others have become an inside joke here.

[spooked911]

18. No, dude

If you want to show I am wrong, disprove my point. It's called debate.

My claim is perfectly logical.

As far as jokes, I could care less what you and your pals here think is funny.

[SDuderstadt]

21. Dude...study logic....

look up "shifting the burden of proof". It's YOUR claim. YOU have to prove it. It's not our burden to disprove it. I don't know why this has to be explained to you over and over.

[spooked911]

24. the problem is that

you will never be convinced of anything except for the official story. There's no point trying to "prove" anything to you.

You can't even fucking comprehend anything except for the official story.

Your "logic" is just a crutch you use to rationalize everything except for the official story.

[SDuderstadt]

26. Really, Spooked?

Or, is it just that you get your ass kicked by "debunkers" using mere Logic time and again? The reason there's "no point trying to prove anything to me" is because you really don't have concrete evidence. Most of what you consider to be "evidence" is laughable conjecture on your part. You get about 15-20% of what you'd need to conclusively prove your claim, then "declare victory" and hope feverishly that no one notices you're missing the other 75-80%.

The "truth movement" will continue to be marginalized (at least here) unless they can find a more believable frontman than people like you. As I have said countless times, after being subjected to your goofy claims ad nauseum ("mini-nukes", "no-planes", etc.), you've evolved into an inside joke here. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings.

You still need one of these:



So far, all you seem to have produced is one of these:

[spooked911]

28. There are hundreds of smoking guns regarding 9/11.

Maybe-- just maybe-- you would see some of them if you stopped playing your self-infatuated, cutesy little "logic" games and cut out the derision.

But probably you will never see it, as I suspect you really have no interest in ever admitting 9/11 was an inside job.

[Realityhack]

29. You have not posted any smoking guns.

Just conjecture and a lot of silly easily disproved arguments.

[SDuderstadt]

30. I have an interest in you proving that 9/11 was an inside job...

Spooked. I'd be your biggest convert, as I despised the Bush administration. But, if there are "thousands of smoking guns" regarding 9/11, why can't you produce just one?

Also, I find it interesting that you apparently believe I am "playing Logic games". Can you point to a specific game I am playing, Spooked? That should be easy.

[hack89]

15. Wtf - "WERE the chemicals in fact found in their bodies?"

Did you even bother to read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x260542#260617

It explains exactly how the chemicals were found in their bodies.

[spooked911]

17. the article doesn't refer to ground zero workers

but rather firefighters who were there on 9/11. The article makes no mention of whether these people used protective breathing apparati or not-- which was my original point.

[hack89]

12. Science doesn't seem to back you up. Wrong type of cancers too.

Ionizing radiation has been shown to induce (cause) cancer in many different species of animals and in almost all parts of the body. It is one of the few scientifically proven carcinogens (cancer-causing agents) in human beings, although it appears to be a relatively weak carcinogen compared to many chemical agents. Many years may elapse between the radiation exposure and the appearance of the cancer.

Studies of the survivors of the atomic blasts have demonstrated that high-dose radiation (at least 100cGy) increases the risk of developing several types of cancer.

* For these survivors, the risk of developing leukemia is five and a half times greater than in the general public. Children appear to be twice as sensitive as adults to the leukemia-causing effects of radiation, and unborn children exposed to radiation in the uterus are even more sensitive.

* The risk for developing any type of cancer in those highly exposed to an atomic blast is about 50% higher than the risk in those not exposed.

* Female breast cancer risk is more than twice as high as normal, and women who are exposed when under the age of 20 are found to be at higher risk than older women.

* The risk of developing lung cancer is 50% higher, and the risk for multiple myeloma is more than twice as high as in the general population.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ped/content/ped_1_3x_radiation_exposure_and_cancer.asp

Can you show an increase in the most likely radiation induced cancers? Didn't think so.

[spooked911]

16. dude-- this study shows an increase in multiple myeloma, which they

say goes up with radiation exposure.

I've also posted before how thyroid cancer is greatly elevated in these people.

There is also an increase in luekemia.

The fact is, a priori, with these rates of cancer, one should consider radiation as a cause. That is simple logic.

[SDuderstadt]

22. Too bad you don't have actual proof of nukes...

at the WTC, Spooked.

[hack89]

3. 110 Chemicals detected in WTC firefighters

We analyzed samples from 370 firefighters. Because of insufficient volume collection, shortage of some precertified collection tubes, failure to pass strict chromatographic quality criteria, or overly dilute urine samples, complete analyses were not available for all participants. Specifically, volatile organic compound measurements were available for about 67% of the firefighters, and dioxin, furan, and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) measurements were available for about 90% of the firefighters. All analytic methods have been validated and published (Bernert et al. 1997; Calafat and Stanfill 2002; Cardinali et al. 2000; Chen et al. 1998; Miller et al. 1987; Paschal et al. 1998; Smith et al. 2002; Turner et al. 1997) and are subject to ongoing quality assurance programs. Cotinine, a nicotine metabolite, was used to assess the contribution of tobacco smoke to levels of selected volatile organic compounds (VOCs), cyanide, selected polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and selected metals. Urinary creatinine was measured to correct or exclude samples for urinary dilution by standard methods and used as a covariate for chemicals measured in urine.

http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/6315/6315.html


Appendix 1. 110 Chemicals Measured in the WTC Firefighters

Polyaromatic hydrocarbon
metabolites in urine (14)

1-Hydroxybenzoanthracene

1-Hydroxybenzophenanthrene

1-Hydroxyphenanthrene

1-Hydroxypyrene

2-Hydroxybenzophenanthrene

2-Hydroxyfluorene

2-Hydroxyphenanthrene

3-Hydroxybenzoanthracene

3-Hydroxybenzophenanthrene

3-Hydoxychrysene

3-Hydroxyfluoranthrene

3-Hydroxyfluorene

3-Hydroxyphenanthrene

6-Hydoxychrysene

Volatile organics in blood (29)

Dibromochloromethane

Dibromomethane

Bromodichloromethane

Bromoform

Carbon tetrachloride

1,1-Dichloroethane

1,2-Dichloroethane

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

Hexachloroethane

trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene

1,1-Dichloroethylene

Trichloroethylene

Tetrachloroethylene

1,2-Dichloropropane

Chlorobenzene

1,2-Dichlorobenzene

1,3-Dichlorobenzene

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

Benzene

Ethylbenzene

meta/para-Xylene

ortho-Xylene

Styrene

Toluene

2,5-Dimethyfuran

Methyl tert butyl ether

Coplanar polychlorinated biphenyls in serum (3)

3,3,4,4´,5,5´-Hexachlorobiphenyl

3,3,4,4´,5-Pentachlorobiphenyl

3,4,4´,5-Tetrachlorobiphenyl

Polychlorinated biphenyls in serum (31; International Union for Pure and Applied Chemistry nomenclature)

PCB-101

PCB-105

PCB-110

PCB-118

PCB-128

PCB-138-158

PCB-146

PCB-149

PCB-151

PCB-153

PCB-156

PCB-157

PCB-167

PCB-170

PCB-74

PCB-99

PCB-172

PCB-177

PCB-178

PCB-180

PCB-183

PCB-187

PCB-189

PCB-196-203

PCB-201

PCB-28

PCB-44

PCB-49

PCB-52

PCB-66

PCB-87

Chlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans in serum (15)

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-Octachlorodibenzodioxin

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-Octachlorodibenzofuran

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzodioxin

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran

1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzodioxin

1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzodioxin

1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran

1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzofuran

2,3,4,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran

1,2,3,6,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran

1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzodioxin

1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran

2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran

2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin

2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran

Metals in urine (13)

Total mercury

Antimony

Barium

Beryllium

Cadmium

Cesium

Cobalt

Lead

Molybdenum

Platinum

Thallium

Tungsten

Uranium

Metals in blood (4)

Cadmium

Inorganic mercury

Total mercury

Lead

Blood cyanide

[ryan_cats]

4. What about that date

This bothers me:
Note that the cut off date for finding these MM sufferers was Sept. 10, 2007..

Does this mean if they find more Myeloma sufferers, they're SOL????

The unfortunate thing with statistics is that while they might expect one out of all the responders, getting four, my mistake, the four are under 45, they actually found eight! While eight instead of one is not earth shattering; forty Myeloma suffers would be crying out for justice and could not be swept under the rubble pile! It reminds me of cancer clusters that no one can explain. Who knows though, if they include the excluded 30% of the responders, then there may be more.

They also mention that getting this disease under 45 is rare, there were four that they know of, as more than 75% occur in people over the age of 70. Interesting.

I sure hope these victims are getting the best medical care available!

[undeterred]

11. MM is a horrible disease.

The death toll from 911 keeps rising.

[rollingrock]

19. I don't buy it

there are many carcinogens in the building materials that people would have been exposed to when they came down and the contents of the buildings rained down all over Manhattan. radiation isn't the only source of skin and lung cancer. a nuclear blast would have wiped all of lower Manhattan, not just the towers.

[AZCat]

20. To be fair to spooked911, he doesn't claim a blast of that magnitude.

He has devised a scenario involving "mini-nukes" which he claims wouldn't have widespread damage. Though in my opinion, his hypothesis is quite unlikely if not impossible, nor has he provided sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation.

[rollingrock]

23. That's what I figured

except that a mini-nuke is also known as a tactical nuke, which is the smallest known type of nuclear weapon. It still does a lot of damage. Unless they're talking about some kind of top secret, micro nuclear weapon unknown to the public.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon

[spooked911]

25. yes, technically I am referring to micro-nukes

which do exist

see here for more:
http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/

[Realityhack]

27. Yeah he kept going into super-micro-nuke land.

Until he imagined one that would 'vaporize' the core of the building without being visible from the outside.
Quite silly. Though he is not the only one here who believes it.

[AZCat]

31. Basically, yes.

He keeps referring to some advanced-type weapon that he has no evidence has actually been developed. The smallest nuke I know to have been developed is the SADM (which used the same warhead as the Davey Crocket), but it's still extremely messy, something spooked911 hasn't quite grasped.

[chrisa]

33. There's no such thing.

Why would you create a small nuke and set it off just to demolish a building? That makes absolutely no sense. You can't possibly make a nuke that small, and stuff it into a vent or something, unless if you're watching a bad action movie.

[AZCat]

34. The SADM wasn't very big.

It's minimum yield was reportedly equivalent to ten tons of TNT. It would have been, however, unmistakable as anything but a nuclear explosion.

[DU GrovelBot]

## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[chrisa]

32. Ridiculous post that murders facts and common sense.

Even the smallest tactical nuke would not only take out the entire World Trade Center complex, but would take out a couple of blocks as well. If a nuclear bomb went off, electronic equipment would be fried from the blast nearby. Notice people using cellphones in 9/11 videos. A tactical nuke exploding would cause the building to collapse instantly, killing everybody inside. Also, birth defects would be sky high, and the area around WTC, for blocks and blocks, would be unworkable, similar to Chernobyl.

Finally, this post makes the assumption that only nuclear radiation can cause cancer. So ridiculous. Rescue workers and firefighters got cancer from breathing in materials of the building, not some supposed nuclear material.

[spooked911]

35. kick

[anigbrowl]

36. I think you're really failing on the smoking gun here, but:

If you are so convinced that nukes are involved, then rather than trying to extrapolate it from cancer rates - which could have multiple possible causes, and where statistical expectations are inadequate to deal with obvious exceptional events - why not try instead to find some artifacts of 9/11 within a few few blocks of where the WTC was? You should be able to detect with reasonable accuracy whether irradiation occurred, by estimating both the minimum required yield and by modelling the known half-lives of likely isotopes.