The Alliance For A Clean Environment
ACE has analyzed the $290,000 epidemiological cancer study proposed by Senator Gerlach and Representative Dailey. We have found the following serious problems:
b. It has banished evidence and used the biases of the scientists who conduct them.
c. Communities are not exposed to one chemical but thousands over a long period of time.
d. Symptomology can vary as widely as the individuals exposed and are determined by the body weight, gender, age and genetics of the individual, as well as the proximity to the source of the pollution, type of pollution, and body dose and conversion chemicals.
b. When challenged about our extremely carcinogenic air which is obviously linked with state and federal alarming cancer statistics, area residents have reported that Dailey used blame the victim tactics, our industrial past, and people moving into the area with cancer.
c. Baum has consistently shown he correlates disease with psychosomatic stressors.
b. Dr. Baum has NOT done “…large scale studies which examine cancer related to environmental hazards…” as stated by Representative Dailey.
c. His studies examine stress and disease.
b. So why is Baum wasting $290,000 of taxpayer money counting only 1500 people in this heavily populated region when he knows the 1500 people will not allow him to draw conclusions about cancer rates?
b. This suggests that the 1,500 people interviewed will be the only ones qualified for this study. 1,500 people is not a large enough population to determine cancer statistics in even one county.
c. Environmental risks factors appear to be ignored by Dailey, even though studies shows environmental exposures are the major factor for cancer risks.
d. Therefore, it will not be possible to determine our environmental risks from the air we breathe, using Dailey and Baum’s approach.
9. Looking at adults in epidemiological studies allows researchers to eliminate the elderly, smokers, and those who have questionable lifestyles. However, children do not have these confounding problems and could be used in any study as a purer group. Montgomery County, by CDC statistics, shows that its childhood cancer rate has risen by 71%. So if Dailey insists on using our money to do a cancer study, why aren’t children the target population for this study?
10. Berks and Chester Counties show a decrease in childhood cancers when compared to Montgomery County. Why are these counties being used to look at cancers in Montgomery County? Watering down statistics by averaging or adding populations that may not be directly affected by the source of pollution can design a study that is “inconclusive.”
11. Looking at cancer as the only outcome of a study is definitely an exercise in making an “inconclusive” study.
12. There are many more diseases that manifest long before cancer.
b. Cancer deaths are not reported consistently to registries or on death certificates. Therefore, the numbers could be far higher than any study would reveal.
To determine people’s health risks in our area, all environmentally related illnesses and diseases caused by the hazardous pollutants spewed into our air need to be included in any evaluation. Dailey and Gerlach’s cancer study can not be used to determine health risks.
Is it wise to spend $290,000 on a cancer study, which after 2 years, will not be able to determine our health risks from exposure to Pottstown Landfill’s extremely hazardous gas, Occidental’s vinyl chloride, dioxin and other carcinogens, or the Limerick Nuclear Power Plant’s radiation releases?
ACE believes that given a choice, people in our community would choose to reduce or eliminate their cancer causing exposure risks from the Pottstown Landfill and Occidental over the next two years. We believe most people who fully understand the issues would choose to spend their tax dollars on a proactive approach which will begin to help victims of toxic exposure.
Dailey and Gerlach’s cancer study will not help one person in this community after two years and spending $290,000. In fact, we have reason to believe it will hurt more than help. We believe Gerlach and Dailey will try to use this cancer study to continue to deny there is a problem or to fail to find a link between the polluters and disease. Why? To keep the public from asking for protection and allow business as usual to benefit the polluters. Can we afford this cancer study? ACE thinks not! ACE believes we have a responsibility to inform the public of our findings of fact about this cancer study and the motives behind it, before it begins, not after the predetermined inconclusive outcome is announced.
P.O. Box 3063
Stowe, PA 19464
| donate online | contents | contact us | join | contact web master |