World Trade Center 9 11 Cancer rates

World Trade Center 9 11 Cancer rates 
We also estimated statistically significant increases over expected registry-based incidence rates for thyroid cancer (SIR = 2.39; 95% CI: 1.70, 3.27; 39 observed, 16.3 expected), prostate cancer (SIR = 1.21; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.44; 129 observed, 106.8 expected), combined hematopoietic and lymphoid cancers (SIR = 1.36; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.71; 74 observed, 54.5 expected), and soft tissue cancers (SIR = 2.26; 95% CI: 1.13, 4.05; 11 observed, 4.9 expected).
In addition, nonsignificant positive associations were estimated for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (SIR = 1.36; 95% CI: 0.96, 1.87; 8 observed, 6.6 expected) and kidney cancer (SIR = 1.39; 95% CI: 0.95, 1.98; 31 observed, 22.2 expected). Fewer than six cases of several cancer types were observed, including mesothelioma and cancers of the pancreas; nose, nasal cavity, and middle ear; larynx; and corpus uteri.

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1205894/

Dear World Trade Center Cancer researchers, at
http://www.cdc.gov/wtc/researchprojects.html

EMT Indria Singh, who was present at the WTC site shortly after 9/11, confirms first responders symptoms included hair loss & tooth loss. Perhaps the best known early signs of radiation exposure.

To	Bromet, Evelyn J.
From	Dan Plesse <dan.plesse@gmail.com> CcBcc

Would you say World Trade Center 911 Asbestos cancers are nonexistent or 
just very low? 

Thanks 

On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Bromet, Evelyn J.
 <Evelyn.Bromet@stonybrookmedicine.edu> wrote:

Email #2

Email to CDC,

   
        Have you found any amphibole asbestos related mesothelioma cancer patients in your study? Dust studies so far say amphibole is missing from the samples.  Are they telling the truth?  This is good news however the Towers were filled with asbestos.  Were did the asbestos go? 

 Thanks  

Also How much of the lung cancer "72" is mesothelioma?

​

Bromet, Evelyn J. <Evelyn.Bromet@stonybrookmedicine.edu>

	Jan 1
to me

It means the risk of thyroid cancer in WTC responders treated in one of the CDC funded Health Programs is three times higher than, I’m guessing, the rate for the populations of the 4 states where they accessed tumor registries (PA, NJ, CT, NY).

You’d need to write to Dr. Boffetta to verify the comparison but probably I’m right.

At that same meeting, there was another presentation from the WTC Health Registry. There is overlap in responders attending the WTC Health Programs and responders enrolled in the Registry – but lots of non-overlap as well.

Interestingly, the Registry scoured 11 states and reported a 2-fold increase in thyroid cancer (see abstract below).

Hard to know if it’s because of the differences in the samples – or the number of states where they hunted down cases.

One last comment. Neither presentation had data on exposure per se. Boffetta mentions his exposure index at the end but I don’t know if they’ve yet run the analysis.  The Health Programs were established in July 2002 – so even the first enrollees were reporting on what they did almost 2 years earlier. The exposure questionnaire is very detailed. But there’s no getting around the fact that self-reported exposure contains lots of recall bias.

Association between WTC Exposure and Excess Cancer Risk: Initial Findings from the WTC Health Registry

Abstract 

Objective To evaluate cancer incidence among persons enrolled in the World Trade Center Health Registry (WTCHR). 

Methods Observational study of 55 778 New York State residents enrolled in the WTCHR in 2003-2004, followed from enrollment through December 31, 2008. Cases were identified through linkage with 11 statecancer registries. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, and sex were computed with 2003-2008 New York State reference rates. Agreement between cancers self-reported on WTCHR surveys and cancer registry cases was assessed by sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values. Correlates associated with under- or over-reporting were examined using logistic regression. 

Results 1187 incident cancers were diagnosed, with an accumulated 253 269 person-years. The SIR for all cancer sites combined in 2007-2008 was not significantly elevated (SIR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.99 to 1.30] among responders vs SIR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.83 to 1.03] among survivors). Among rescue/recovery workers, cancers with significantly increased SIRs by 2007-2008 included prostate cancer (1.43, 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.82), thyroid cancer (2.02, 95% CI, 1.07 to 3.45), and multiple myeloma (2.85, 95% CI, 1.15 to 5.88). Overall sensitivity and specificity of self-reported cancer were 83.9% (95% CI=81.9-85.9) and 98.5% (95% CI=98.4-98.6), respectively. Underreporting was greatest among non-Hispanic blacks and Asians. 

Conclusions Among persons enrolled in the WTCHR, there was an excess risk for prostate cancer, thyroid cancer, and myeloma in 2007- 2008 compared with that for New York State residents. Sensitivity and specificity of self-reported cancer were relatively high. 

Impact

The WTCHR cancer incidence study suggests that overall cancer rates do not appear to be elevated, up to the end of 2008, among survivor or responder populations. However, there appears to be a significantly increased incidence of specific cancers, including prostate cancer, thyroid cancer and multiple myeloma, among responders. Increased medical screening cannot be ruled out as a potential cause for prostate orthyroid cancer. 

Many types of cancer in addition to the three types found to be increased in this study are currently recognized by the World Trade Center Health Program as potentially World Trade Center exposure-related. Survivors and responders are encouraged to contact the WTCHP (1-888-982-4748 orhttp://www.cdc.gov/wtc/index.html) if they have questions about accessing available resources for cancerevaluation or treatment. 

From: Dan Plesse [mailto:dan.plesse@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 1:32 PM
Subject: Fwd: 9/11 thyroid cancer was 3.12 (95% CI 2.04-4.57)

" that for thyroid cancer was 3.12 (95% CI 2.04-4.57)"

http://s1222.photobucket.com/user/danp5648/media/thyroidCancerEmail.jpg.html

Could the thyroid cancer be caused by this little device ? 

http://www.cdc.gov/wtc/proceedings.html

9/11 Cancer is fundamentally different Prostate cancer, Multiple Myeloma, Thyroid Cancer 

http://media.jamanetwork.com/releases/jama12182012/

 for all cancers combined was 1.06 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94-1.18), that for thyroid cancer was 3.12 (95% CI 2.04-4.57) and that of lung cancer was 0.62 (95% CI 0.37-0.98).

http://www.cdc.gov/wtc/proceedings.html

Ground zero Asbestos Cancers None existent, The Cause low yield nuclear device

Best details were released by Russia, when the USA pissed them off in the Ukraine It wasn't asbestos that is killing the ground zero rescue workers. Just a low yield nuclear device, but this subject isn't part of MidEast politics. It is just about power and profit, Mid East is personal, and as long as it stays that way it will continue to be a lose/lose game

asbestos cancers are nonexistent 

World Trade Center 9 11 Missing Asbestos and Mesothelioma

source

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKeud_Ren0E

World Trade Center collapse. Asbestos was detected in only 2 of the 48 samples
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/libbyasbestos_ambientairlitsearch5-20-2013.pdf

"Results of the SEM/EDS analysis indicates that amphibole asbestos is not present in these dusts."
http://speclab.cr.usgs.gov/wtc/sem1/index.html

differences between chrysotile and amphibole asbestos
http://www.chrysotile.com/data/encart_an_final.pdf

CHRYSOTILE is safe and gets cleared away, amphibole asbestos

Barry Jennings stony brook hospital leukemia
https://www.facebook.com/notes/dan-plesse/barry-jennings-stony-brook-hospital-leukemia/10152600053249146

Increased level multiple myeloma report.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0pxVbXyB9OLNnlMLU43MDRtSk0/edit?usp=sharing

9 11 nuclear fallout Evidence and Cover up with EMT Indira Singh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMYW0Vbe0N8&noredirect=1&hd=1

Mary Ann Owens Pentagon Witness 9 11 Nuke Scars and Disfigurementhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYZp97LLL4o&noredirect=1&hd=1

Radiation Expert Claims High Radiation ReadingsNear Pentagon After 9/11 Indicates Depleted Uranium Used by Leuren Moret

http://www.rense.com/general67/radfdf.htm

Dan Plesse Norma Rae Jeffrey Harr 
A few scientific papers ruled out paint and new scientific papers are still being written today. I am not sure what Frederic henry-couannier found or did not find. 

I can see why Norma and Jeffrey can find common ground here.... I not sure why both are not updated. 

Mark Basile project status august 2014
http://citizenfor911truth.files.wordpress.com/.../mark...

Eric Lawyer Firefighter for 9/11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADygllD35t0&noredirect=1...

14 mins · Edited · Like

Dan Plesse USGS Found microspheres of pure iron or was that 

Trade Center air laden with
very fine particles, DELTA scientists find
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/evidence/ucop_tradecenerair.html

"The air from Ground Zero was laden with extremely high amounts of very small particles, probably associated with high temperatures in the underground debris pile," says Thomas Cahill, UC Davis professor emeritus of physics and atmospheric sciences."

Frederic Study of Micro Spheres finds Aluminum and Iron together 
http://www.darksideofgravity.com/marseille_gb.pdf

9/11 Dr. Cahill find Iron in air samples months later!
http://investigatesandyhook.blogspot.com/.../the-infamous...

5 mins · Edited · Like

Jeffrey Harr And iron-rich microspheres, which also is evidence of nothing. The USGS didn't seem to find them suspicious:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html

OF 2005-1165: Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust

pubs.usgs.gov

Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust