????
There are 300 million Americans - alot more than 300 die of cancer every year.
The odds refer to the concentration of cancer cases. The argument is that you would not expect to see 283 cases and 33 deaths in a relatively small group of 50,000 unless there was something linking thim. In this case, that MAY be the fact they worked at ground zero together.
However, if you translate the number of cases out to the general population, you would see 1.7 million cases and 200k deaths over the same period. Thats a higher rate of cancer but lower fatality rate than what we've seen. The problem is that doesn't account for future cases in the ground zero worker population. Should they continue to suffer from cancer, you could reach a point where the total number is way out of proportion in comparison to what the general population would see. But then determining which would have occurred anyway is difficult.
They have the same problem in assessing the impact of Chernobyl. It can be MANY years before you can truly determine the impact of an event that may raise cancer rates and deaths. Heck, the highest risk period for Chernobyl victims for thyroid cancer is actually 15 to 19 years AFTER exposure, according to the US national cancer institute, meaning that they are just now beginning to get a handle on the cancer and death rates.
About 556,000 each year of all cancers or 1 of 5 diagnosed over 6 years; using Worby's number, 1/3 of all those would be of the type he describes rather than the current 1/100,000 figure he portrays as the norm absent this exposure.
The truth is somewhere in between.
"There are 300 million Americans - alot more than 300 die of cancer every year."
True, but how many worked in the WTC?
They are talking about having that many people from that small a group die of that rare of a cancer type, hence the one in hundreds of millions odds.