Posted on 06/13/2006 7:45:56 AM PDT by Grig
Since 9/11, 283 World Trade Center rescue and recovery workers have been diagnosed with cancer, and 33 of them have died of cancer, says a lawyer for the ailing responders...
Doctors say the cancers can strike three to five years after exposure to toxins such as benzene, a cancer-causing chemical that permeated the WTC site from burning jet fuel...
"We have nearly 35 of these cancers in the family of 50,000 Ground Zero workers. The odds of that occurring are one in hundreds of millions," Worby said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
????
There are 300 million Americans - alot more than 300 die of cancer every year.
If these numbers are accurate, it's hard to argue against a connection.
Bless their souls, Heavenly Father. Give them rest and peace. And their families also.
A suit has to allege negligence, doesn't it? What would the basis for a lawsuit be?
So who are they suing? The World Trade Center? The Airlines? The jet fuel manufacturer? Osama? All of the above?
Worby wouldn't lie now would he?
Not if they're suing under Strict/Statutory Liability.
Neighbor is FDNY. He now has asthma, didn't pre-9/11. His wife says many still have the odd cough that developed after working at the pile.
Numbers cited may not accurately reflect true problems; she says many firefighters are not going to dept drs because they don't want these things on their records yet.
I dunno, the numbers don't seem all that off (I am not saying there isn't a link, just not saying based on this limited story and what the families lawyer claims it has to remain suspect)
50,000 workers, <300 have developed cancer. The 35 cases they are trying to tie to Benzine from jet fuel have to be at least suspect... it was 2 planes.. while fires raged and smoldered for days... the Jet Fuel was burned off before the towers fell.
But anyway about .5% of the 50,000 workers have developed some sort of cancer in the 4.5 years since the event.. is this beyond the norm? I don't know. Some cancers are rare, but cancer itself is not that uncommon.
Any doctors or researchers know the general incident rate for cancer over a 5 year span of the general population? What would the number of cases be applied to a 50,000 random sampling?
LMBO!!!
I smell some "jackpot justice" (40% for the scumbag lawyers) coming up out of the sewer pipes!
"Paging John Edwards.... paging John Edwards.... "
Against whom and for what?
Firefighters have a higher rate of cancer than the general population. Where we live to document the numbers of cancers re: firefighters, years ago they implemented a requirement that everytime a firefighter is exposed to a toxin they have to file an exposure report.
Of course the rule was implemented for insurance purposes, disability claims, etc.
Most firefighter unions keep stats on it.
(hubby was a firefighter for 33 yrs)
Just look for the deepest pockets - - that's who the scumbag lawyers ALWAYS go after.
From the benzene in the airplane fuel. I'll bet that burned very quickly and most were not exposed to it at all. Try again.
The annual death rate in the US from cancer is about 200 per 100,000 population, and the cancer incidence rate is about 475 per 100,000. So the cancer incidence rate seems to be rather higher than expected among the 50,000 rescuers. The death rate may be lower (66 vs. 200) but in the general population that includes a lot of old people who die of cancer (22% of all deaths are from cancer) and people who suffer from cancer for years before succumbing to it...here we had a fairly young population, so the number of cases may be a lot more than expected in that group.
Worby, of Worby, Groner, Edelman, & Napoli, Bern, which filed the class-action suit.
susan.edelman@nypost.com
They were also annoyed that the cops/military guarding the perimeter of the site had better breathing apparatus than the rescue workers working in the pile.
They also worked for months at Fresh Kills land fill where much debris went. Don't know if any carcinogens were still present there, but my impression was that they were not well protected there either.
Don't know whether there is any point in suing to assess blame, but there will definitely be line of duty injuries developing for YEARS. Hope they are well covered by insurance. (Remember, these emergency workers, who were not immediately injured got no hefty settlements as did the families of those fatally injured.)
At the very least I hope these illnesses are studied in depth so that we are better prepared for handling this in the future. Also, most of these folks knew they were breathing in crap; they did the job anyway.
Well then if that's the case is the cancer rate of first responders at WTC any higher than the general rate for first responders elsewhere?
I am not trying to say there is no link, just not seeing it based on this small amount of info in this article.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.