If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   1,140 WTC first responders have cancer   (nydailynews.com) divider line 112
    More: Sad, World Trade Center, Mount Sinai Medical Center, Stony Brook, NYPD Detective Amadeo Pulley, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, occupational safety, first responders, cancer mortality rates  
•       •       •

7276 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Sep 2013 at 7:18 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



112 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-10 01:37:08 AM
My cousin was there (FDNY), and died of if a few years ago at the age of 42.
 
2013-09-10 01:42:45 AM
Before this conversation even begins, let's see data comparing prevalence of cancer within the WTC first responder community vs the general public and other first responders.
 
2013-09-10 01:47:26 AM

CPT Ethanolic: Before this conversation even begins, let's see data comparing prevalence of cancer within the WTC first responder community vs the general public and other first responders.


Get to work then.
 
2013-09-10 01:47:35 AM
www.whitelung.org
 
2013-09-10 02:23:48 AM
 
2013-09-10 02:41:30 AM

CPT Ethanolic: Before this conversation even begins, let's see data comparing prevalence of cancer within the WTC first responder community vs the general public and other first responders.


I wonder if people that worked in the WTC buildings have recorded higher rates of cancer through the years as opposed to the general population?

/I'm certain the data you requested exists and has been published.
 
2013-09-10 02:52:38 AM

Frederick: CPT Ethanolic: Before this conversation even begins, let's see data comparing prevalence of cancer within the WTC first responder community vs the general public and other first responders.

I wonder if people that worked in the WTC buildings have recorded higher rates of cancer through the years as opposed to the general population?


Asbestos is completely harmless unless it aerosolizes. With all that crap in the air, it wouldn't be at all surprising to find a higher incidence of cancer after 9/11.
 
2013-09-10 03:10:12 AM
It seems sick to me that we have to argue over the medical expenses of the people who were at the forefront, digging through the rubble, after an event that so changed us and everything we do.

"yeah that musta sucked but we got wars to pay for and unnecessary expenditures to curtail, so sorry, your treatment is kinda pricey."
 
2013-09-10 06:51:44 AM

violentsalvation: It seems sick to me that we have to argue over the medical expenses of the people who were at the forefront, digging through the rubble, after an event that so changed us and everything we do.

"yeah that musta sucked but we got wars to pay for and unnecessary expenditures to curtail, so sorry, your treatment is kinda pricey."


its more important that we give rich people tax breaks.  oh, and pointing out how demented and sick that is makes you a commie librul traitor to your country.  or something something Jesus, whichever works best for you.
 
2013-09-10 07:20:50 AM
Guess they should have used respirators?
 
2013-09-10 07:26:30 AM

violentsalvation: It seems sick to me that we have to argue over the medical expenses of the people who were at the forefront, digging through the rubble, after an event that so changed us and everything we do.

"yeah that musta sucked but we got wars to pay for and unnecessary expenditures to curtail, so sorry, your treatment is kinda pricey."


Pift, they need more bootstraps is all!
 
2013-09-10 07:26:38 AM
My friend's brother was a first responder and died of cancer earlier this year- he was 37 and had 2 kids.

But you know, Christie Todd 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. The concentrations are such that they don't pose a health hazard...We're going to make sure everybody is safe."
 
2013-09-10 07:26:53 AM

CPT Ethanolic: Before this conversation even begins, let's see data comparing prevalence of cancer within the WTC first responder community vs the general public and other first responders.


TommyymmoT: Get to work then.


Frederick: I wonder if people that worked in the WTC buildings have recorded higher rates of cancer through the years as opposed to the general population?

/I'm certain the data you requested exists and has been published.



FTFA:
"As New York and the nation approach the 12th anniversary of the terrorist attack, a Mount Sinai Medical Center study found a 15% higher cancer rate among 9/11 responders than among people not exposed to the Ground Zero toxins."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/1-140-wtc-9-11-responders-cancer- a rticle-1.1449499#ixzz2eUKWXHfC

 
2013-09-10 07:29:48 AM

sweetmelissa31: My friend's brother was a first responder and died of cancer earlier this year- he was 37 and had 2 kids.

But you know, Christie Todd 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. The concentrations are such that they don't pose a health hazard...We're going to make sure everybody is safe."


and out of all of the incompetence that our government foisted upon us from 9/11, not one person was fired or brought up on charges.
 
2013-09-10 07:31:28 AM
Wasn't George Bush a first responder?
 
2013-09-10 07:32:38 AM
assets.nydailynews.com

These cancers run the entire cancer spectrum.  Thyroid, lung and leukemia are the only ones that are related to chemical exposures.  If, say, 90% of the 1140 had thyroid I'd say there is a relationship to WTC.
 
2013-09-10 07:37:00 AM
I'm a little curious what the relative cancer rate is amongst demolition and construction people on the east coast not involved with WTC demolition.

Yes, they found a 15% higher cancer rate, including skin cancers presumably associated with sun exposure. So, our population sample must be narrowed down to people with similar work environs. I suspect that demolition crews, even with respirators and whatnot, have a higher rate of cancer than the general population simply due to exposure.
 
2013-09-10 07:37:49 AM
Is there some way we can sue them, or generally fark them over smore?
 
2013-09-10 07:40:50 AM
I had a relative die of leukemia from regularly transporting jet fuel, and with all of the fuel that poured down the elevator shafts , etc of the WTC, I would say that's a contributing factor...

//not a doctor, but I play one on the interwebs
 
2013-09-10 07:41:11 AM

bbfreak: violentsalvation: It seems sick to me that we have to argue over the medical expenses of the people who were at the forefront, digging through the rubble, after an event that so changed us and everything we do.

"yeah that musta sucked but we got wars to pay for and unnecessary expenditures to curtail, so sorry, your treatment is kinda pricey."

Pift, they need more bootstraps is all!


FTFA  "Tina Engel, an oncology nurse at North Shore Hospital's WTC clinic in Queens, said: "Sadly enough, I am here just two months, and I have identified a dozen new cancer cases, and I have another 25 patients whose diagnostic test results are pending.
"The good news is that with the new [Zadroga] federal funding, I get what I need when I need it for our patients. Their biopsies and scans are turned around in a week. Cancer trumps everything."

As many as 65,000 people, including first responders, who got sick from 9/11 exposure are part of a WTC medical monitoring and treatment program in the New York metro area and in clinics around the country. To enroll or find out if you are eligible for free medical and mental health care, call 888-982-4748 or visit
 
2013-09-10 07:41:39 AM

stuhayes2010: These cancers run the entire cancer spectrum.  Thyroid, lung and leukemia are the only ones that are related to chemical exposures.  If, say, 90% of the 1140 had thyroid I'd say there is a relationship to WTC.


Kidney can be related to smoking, which definitely involves chemical exposure. Why rule out WTC chemical exposure as an underlying cause? Surely there's some carcinogenic overlap...
 
2013-09-10 07:42:16 AM
They're from the government. They're here to help.
 
2013-09-10 07:42:47 AM
... Also, regular exposure to asbestos in the work environment, along with smoking, increases cancer rate to "yeah, you're farked" levels...

//I know a guy...
 
2013-09-10 07:42:57 AM

Abacus9: Frederick: CPT Ethanolic: Before this conversation even begins, let's see data comparing prevalence of cancer within the WTC first responder community vs the general public and other first responders.

I wonder if people that worked in the WTC buildings have recorded higher rates of cancer through the years as opposed to the general population?

Asbestos is completely harmless unless it aerosolizes. With all that crap in the air, it wouldn't be at all surprising to find a higher incidence of cancer after 9/11.


I thought asbestos caused asbestosis, not cancer.

What about, oh, all the millions of pounds of burning plastics and crap?
 
2013-09-10 07:45:13 AM
I blame unions and Obama.
 
2013-09-10 07:46:04 AM

TommyymmoT: My cousin was there (FDNY), and died of if a few years ago at the age of 42.


So sorry to hear that.

I'm glad this article was posted because I hadn't heard anything in a long time.  I know a slew of illnesses were being reported due to the WTC attack, but didn't realize it was this bad.

Can anyone tell me...have the lazy farks in Congress done anything, passed any bills, freed up any funds, to help these people with their medical bills?  I know there were bills running through Congress a few years ago, but I can't remember the outcome.
 
2013-09-10 07:47:03 AM

Canton: stuhayes2010: These cancers run the entire cancer spectrum.  Thyroid, lung and leukemia are the only ones that are related to chemical exposures.  If, say, 90% of the 1140 had thyroid I'd say there is a relationship to WTC.

Kidney can be related to smoking, which definitely involves chemical exposure. Why rule out WTC chemical exposure as an underlying cause? Surely there's some carcinogenic overlap...


Just saying that chemical X is typically related to cancer Y.  Smoking is related to almost every cancer.  If there was some chemical at WTC I would think you'd see a spike in a particular cancer.
 
2013-09-10 07:47:06 AM

Mister Peejay: Abacus9: Frederick: CPT Ethanolic: Before this conversation even begins, let's see data comparing prevalence of cancer within the WTC first responder community vs the general public and other first responders.

I wonder if people that worked in the WTC buildings have recorded higher rates of cancer through the years as opposed to the general population?

Asbestos is completely harmless unless it aerosolizes. With all that crap in the air, it wouldn't be at all surprising to find a higher incidence of cancer after 9/11.

I thought asbestos caused asbestosis, not cancer.

What about, oh, all the millions of pounds of burning plastics and crap?


Asbestos does indeed cause asbestosis, not cancer.  It also normally takes about 30-40 years to show up.
 
2013-09-10 07:48:18 AM

ladyfortuna: Good thing they got on that quickly... oh wait.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-4-2010/i-give-up---9-11 -r esponders-bill

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-16-2010/worst-respond er s

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-16-2010/9-11-first-re sp onders-react-to-the-senate-filibuster

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-july-28-2011/i-thought-we-alre ad y-took-care-of-this-s--t

But at least we have a 'happy' ending. http://gothamist.com/2012/09/10/cancer_officially_covered_under_zad.p h p



I for one am shocked to find that government is an inefficient  mechanism for providing health care


www.watchfreeks.com

/My shocked face
 
2013-09-10 07:48:26 AM

Mister Peejay: I thought asbestos caused asbestosis, not cancer.

What about, oh, all the millions of pounds of burning plastics and crap?


Asbestos can definitely cause a type of lung cancer.  My uncle (who worked in house building for many, many years) died mysothelioma (not sure on the spelling) a couple of years ago.  He only lasted a couple of months after diagnosis, too, so it worked quickly and spread aggressively.

I'm sure the millions of pounds of burning plastics and crap didn't help the situation, though.
 
2013-09-10 07:49:09 AM

hasty ambush: To enroll or find out if you are eligible for free medical and mental health care, call 888-982-4748 or visit


Not everyone who was at the site is eligible. It mostly limited the Police and Fire. My father was a city electrician. He was down at the site for days right afterward building the infrastructure for the rescue teams. He's on the Health Registry, and so far he doesn't have anything wrong with him, but if he got some rare cancer he wouldn't be eligible for the govt. to cover it.
 
2013-09-10 07:49:17 AM

stuhayes2010: [assets.nydailynews.com image 635x390]

These cancers run the entire cancer spectrum.  Thyroid, lung and leukemia are the only ones that are related to chemical exposures.  If, say, 90% of the 1140 had thyroid I'd say there is a relationship to WTC.


No... pretty much every cancer can come from "chemical exposures."
 
2013-09-10 07:52:48 AM

sweetmelissa31: My friend's brother was a first responder and died of cancer earlier this year- he was 37 and had 2 kids.

But you know, Christie Todd 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. The concentrations are such that they don't pose a health hazard...We're going to make sure everybody is safe."


Not that it helps your friend's brother's family any, is it possible that what Christie Todd Whitman said was true for residents of New York a week after the tragedy?  First responders on the scene immediately after the attack faced much worse conditions than residents of the rest of the city a week later.
 
2013-09-10 07:52:50 AM
What an amazing coincidence they all just happened to have the same genes that caused the cancer.
 
2013-09-10 07:54:48 AM

stuhayes2010: Thyroid, lung and leukemia are the only ones that are related to chemical exposures.


Well that's patently false.

Non-melanoma skin cancer and asbestos

Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and asbestos

Kidney cancer and asbestos

So... yeah, go fark yourself buddy.
=Smidge=
 
2013-09-10 07:56:17 AM

CPT Ethanolic: Before this conversation even begins, let's see data comparing prevalence of cancer within the WTC first responder community vs the general public and other first responders.


If first responders aren't covered for health hazards they are exposed to on the job, that is criminal--irregardless of any terrorist attack.
 
2013-09-10 07:59:10 AM
At this point I'd like to remind everyone that before the 80s asbestos was used everywhere. The mastic for your tile floor? Insulation? Yup. Don't do any non permitted demo without a hazmat report.

Still doing remediation on about 4 projects a year. I've actually worked on a building done by the same architect of the WTCs. Guess what we found in the floor? That was two years ago.
 
2013-09-10 08:00:40 AM

Abacus9: Frederick: CPT Ethanolic: Before this conversation even begins, let's see data comparing prevalence of cancer within the WTC first responder community vs the general public and other first responders.

I wonder if people that worked in the WTC buildings have recorded higher rates of cancer through the years as opposed to the general population?

Asbestos is completely harmless unless it aerosolizes. With all that crap in the air, it wouldn't be at all surprising to find a higher incidence of cancer after 9/11.


The article says there is a 15% higher rate of cancer among 9/11 first responders and "others exposed".

That means that of the 1,140 cases they point to, you would expect that only about 148 of those cases wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the 9/11 attacks.   in a normal, non-exposed population, you'd see about 992 cancer cases.

Also, I have a hard time understanding how something like exposure to asbestos can cause thyroid cancer, or breast cancer.  I'd expect it to manifest itself as a lung cancer.
 
2013-09-10 08:02:55 AM

hasty ambush: I for one am shocked to find that government is an inefficient mechanism for providing health care


Good luck finding any private insurance company that will sell individual health insurance to first responders.  "Nope, we can't sell you a policy--the actuarial tables suggest that you might file claims."

While you're at it, perhaps we can do away with survivor benefits for military personell and just have them buy life insurance policies on their own dime.
 
2013-09-10 08:03:13 AM

proteus_b: a Mount Sinai Medical Center study


Now let's see a study commissioned by an organization without a financial interest in treating 9/11 responders.

It sucks to put the Ground Zero guys in the middle of this, but New York hospitals and politicians would be a lot more trustworthy on health care cost matters had they not just been found to have ripped off Medicaid to the tune of $15 billion for starters. If they were capable of pulling that shiat using the most profoundly disabled as props, they'll really make hay off the 9/11 responders.

And the firefighters themselves have been known to bend the rules to get fat disability pensions.
 
2013-09-10 08:03:39 AM

stuhayes2010: Smoking is related to almost every cancer.


You inhale worse crap walking down the sidewalk of a busy street than you could from cigarettes. Cigarettes are just a convenient scapegoat.
 
2013-09-10 08:04:00 AM

CPT Ethanolic: Before this conversation even begins, let's see data comparing prevalence of cancer within the WTC first responder community vs the general public and other first responders.


Compare to other police and fire-fighters in major metropolitan areas.   Guys who spend a lot of time in city air and work near flaming buildings.  Lower-Manhattan air is farking disgusting.
 
2013-09-10 08:09:28 AM
Thanks Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld.
 
2013-09-10 08:09:37 AM

Dog Welder: Can anyone tell me...have the lazy farks in Congress done anything, passed any bills, freed up any funds, to help these people with their medical bills? I know there were bills running through Congress a few years ago, but I can't remember the outcome.


They passed it back in 2010, held a bunch of press conferences to pat themselves on the back...and then after all that drama, the money just sat there for a good long while because without a vogon behemoth of a federal government it'd be Somalia all up in here.
 
2013-09-10 08:10:46 AM

CPT Ethanolic: Before this conversation even begins, let's see data comparing prevalence of cancer within the WTC first responder community vs the general public and other first responders.


It's buried a whole four paragraphs into TFA.
 
2013-09-10 08:11:05 AM

stuhayes2010: [assets.nydailynews.com image 635x390]

These cancers run the entire cancer spectrum.  Thyroid, lung and leukemia are the only ones that are related to chemical exposures.  If, say, 90% of the 1140 had thyroid I'd say there is a relationship to WTC.


How about this: fark whether or not WTC stuff caused their cancer or any health problems--these people deserve free, excellent healthcare for the rest of their lives, regardless.
 
2013-09-10 08:12:11 AM
Oddly enough if you take a group of people, age them ten years, you're gonna see that many of them got sick and died.
 
2013-09-10 08:12:51 AM

flondrix: hasty ambush: I for one am shocked to find that government is an inefficient mechanism for providing health care

Good luck finding any private insurance company that will sell individual health insurance to first responders.  "Nope, we can't sell you a policy--the actuarial tables suggest that you might file claims."

While you're at it, perhaps we can do away with survivor benefits for military personell and just have them buy life insurance policies on their own dime.


So you are arguing that government is not inefficient?

These first responders  were government employees who should have already been covered by government health care.  If expanded coverage was needed government should have, had it been efficient, within existing programs fairly quickly
 
2013-09-10 08:14:33 AM

ChuckRoddy: Oddly enough if you take a group of people, age them ten years, you're gonna see that many of them got sick and died.


And what about all the children and babies with cancer?
 
2013-09-10 08:18:56 AM

foo monkey: Compare to other police and fire-fighters in major metropolitan areas.


Even before 9/11, NYC firefighters were getting disability pensions 62% of the time compared to 25% for that shining citadel of honest public service we call Chicago. (citation in one of my other links upthread)
 
Displayed 50 of 112 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report