9/11 Responders Show Increased Risk of Rare Blood Cancer

[babylonsister]

9/11 Responders May Be At Raised Myeloma Risk
Cases are appearing at a younger age than is normal, researchers note

By Amanda Gardner
HealthDay Reporter


MONDAY, Aug. 10 (HealthDay News) -- Preliminary findings suggest that responders to the attacks on the Twin Towers on 9/11 may be at higher risk for multiple myeloma, a cancer of the blood.

Notably, half of the cases identified among law enforcement officers were under the age of 45. Multiple myeloma is usually a disease of the elderly.

"This is very preliminary," cautioned Dr. Mitchell Smith, director of the Lymphoma Service at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. "It could turn out to be a statistical fluke and means nothing or it could be the tip of the iceberg and we'll see an increase in the next 10 years," he said.

"The concerning thing," he added, "is it makes biological sense. There is certain data that multiple myeloma is associated with an increased exposure to certain chemicals. It has never been shown with inhaled chemicals but this amount of exposure probably did get into the blood." Smith was not involved in the study.

"Practitioners should be on the lookout for unusual disease patterns," added Dr. Jacqueline Moline, lead author of the report, which appears in the August issue of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. "Multiple myeloma is usually a disease that occurs in the seventh or eighth decade of life. A person is 10 times more likely to get myeloma when they're 70 than when they're 45 or 48. Clinicians should be sensitized to patients coming in with unusual symptoms. They should think broadly."

more...

http://www.healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=629841

[hack89]

1. 110 different chemicals were detected in WTC firefighters

Biomonitoring is the measurement of the internal dose of a chemical or its metabolite in body matrices (e.g., blood or urine) and provides critical information about the amount of a chemical that actually enters the body from any source--for example, air, water, dust, soil, food, and other environmental sources (Sampson et al. 1994). Biomonitoring is ideally used in conjunction with measurements of external exposure, however, because in this case personal sampling of firefighter external exposures was not possible initially and often is impractical. The purpose of this study was to characterize internal dose levels of fire-related chemicals (including ancillary exposures to petroleum-powered equipment chemicals and their exhaust products) in New York City firefighters and the relationship of those levels with firefighter activities, including firefighter job task, time of arrival at the site, and number of work days at the site.

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

[pipi_k]

2. You know, after that happened and the cleanup was going on...

I just sat in openmouthed amazement to hear some "authority" (forget who it was) state something to the effect that the site was perfectly safe...and that there were no toxic fumes, either there, or in the areas surrounding it.

Jet fuel...plastics...all sorts of chemicals...all of it burning and smouldering...

but there was "no danger".

uh, yeah. :eyes:


They lied.

I don't know what the official responders knew about the possibility, but it is really sad that they're now paying the price for doing their jobs... :(

[babylonsister]

3. Christie Todd Whitman...

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

September 11 attacks

Whitman appeared twice in New York City after the September 11 attacks to inform New Yorkers that the toxins released by the attacks posed no threat to their health.<21> On September 18, the EPA released a report in which Whitman said, "Given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C. that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink." She also said, "The concentrations are such that they don't pose a health hazard...We're going to make sure everybody is safe."<22> Later, a 2003 report by the EPA's inspector general determined that such assurances were misleading, because the EPA "did not have sufficient data and analyses" to justify the assertions when they were made.<23> A report in July 2003 from the EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response gave extensive documentation supporting many of the inspector general's conclusions, and carried some of them still further.<24> Further, the report found that the White House had "convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones" by having the National Security Council control EPA communications after the September 11 attacks.<25>

In February 2006, U.S. District Court Judge Deborah A. Batts issued a ruling that rejected Whitman's request for immunity in a 2004 class action lawsuit brought by a group who claimed exposure to hazardous debris from the collapse of the World Trade Center. The judge stated that "No reasonable person would have thought that telling thousands of people that it was safe to return to lower Manhattan, while knowing that such return could pose long-term health risks and other dire consequences, was conduct sanctioned by our laws," and called Whitman's actions "conscience-shocking."<26><27>

In June 2007, Whitman testified in front of Congress about the Agency's culpability in telling rescue workers that the air was safe. She was repeatedly booed by rescue workers and activists who attended the hearing. She defended herself by saying her statements about the air being safe were to people living or working near the area, not to rescue workers. She also said terrorists, not the EPA, were responsible for the tragedies that befell people after September 11.<28> In December 2007, legal proceedings began in a case on the question of responsibility of government officials in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Whitman is among the defendants in the suit; plaintiffs in the suit allege that Whitman is at fault for saying that the downtown New York air was safe in the aftermath of the attacks.<29>

In April 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overruled the district court, holding that as EPA head Whitman could not be held liable for saying to World Trade Center area residents that the air was safe for breathing after the buildings collapse. The court said that Whitman had based her information on contradictory information and statements from President Bush. The U.S. Department of Justice had argued that holding the agency liable would establish a risky legal precedent because future public officials would be afraid to make public statements.