Posted on 08/28/2003 11:54:01 AM PDT by LibWhacker
NEW YORK Aug. 28 — Nearly two years after the World Trade Center attack, a medical screening program continues to reveal a surprisingly high rate of physical and mental problems among cleanup and rescue workers.
About 48 percent of workers screened had ear, nose and throat problems such as nasal congestion, hoarseness, headaches and throat irritation, according to the latest figures. Thirty percent had pulmonary problems, including shortness of breath, persistent cough and wheezing.
The data reflect patients screened between July 2002 and April 2003. But the director of the program's medical component said patients have continued to report symptoms at about the same rate since then.
"It is surprising that it's lasted this long," said Dr. Jacqueline Moline of Mount Sinai Medical Center, which is conducting the screening in with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
The researchers, who issued preliminary findings in January, updated their work in interviews this week with The Associated Press. The updated findings come a week after the inspector general of the Environmental Protection Agency criticized that agency for downplaying air quality risks in public statements after the attack.
"It was such a massive irritant exposure," Moline said. "Some people will be left with permanent respiratory symptoms."
Soot from the collapse of the towers contained asbestos, lead, glass fibers and concrete.
On the mental health side of the study, about 19 percent of patients have been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder at least double the rate seen in the general population, said Dr. Craig Katz, supervisor of the program's psychological component.
He said the percentage has remained surprisingly constant throughout the program. Typically, people with PTSD have an immediate peak in symptoms, followed by a decline and then a second peak one to two years later.
"You'd expect that it would wane with time," he said. "But it's been the same kind of problems, the same kind of reporting from the beginning of the program to now."
In addition, 56 percent of those screened have reported psychological problems that warrant additional counseling, including insomnia, trouble focusing and irritability.
Those symptoms are all potential signs of depression. But major depression has been diagnosed in only 5 percent to 8 percent of patients about the same as in the general population, Katz said.
The Mount Sinai figures are for site workers who have visited the hospital and regional centers nationwide between July 2002 when the program began and April 2003. To date, about 7,500 workers have been examined, Moline said, with the results of about 1,100 quantified.
"What they're doing is so important, because it's the only way we're going to find out what will happen to people who were down there," said Dr. Robin Gershon, a professor of sociomedical sciences at Columbia University who is not affiliated with the program. "It's like following the canary in the coal mine."
Medical screening is scheduled to run through next March; psychological screening will continue until June. By that time, about 12,000 of the estimated 30,000 people who worked at the site will have been screened, at a total cost of $12 million, Moline said. Most of the funding has come from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The program evaluates each subject only once. Those who need further medical or psychological treatment are referred to specialists.
A joint study by Mount Sinai and Columbia, preliminary results of which were released earlier this month, found that air pollution from the attacks may have resulted in smaller babies among pregnant mothers who were in or near the towers.
There are no plans for a long-term study to gauge health problems such as cancer and chronic mental illness that may not surface until later in workers' lives. Such a study would be crucial to understanding the full health impact of the attacks, doctors said.
"You won't see all the effects of asbestos, for example, for 20 or 30 years," Moline said. "There were some other carcinogenic agents there, too. It's so hard to predict what will happen."
There are no plans for a long-term study to gauge health problems such as cancer and chronic mental illness that may not surface until later in workers' lives. Such a study would be crucial to understanding the full health impact of the attacks, doctors said.
"You won't see all the effects of asbestos, for example, for 20 or 30 years," Moline said. "There were some other carcinogenic agents there, too. It's so hard to predict what will happen."
I predict thousands of multi-million dollar lawsuits
I could probably walk around my workplace with this questionnaire and get AT LEAST the same percentages for "cough, sore throat, wheezing" and rather vague and subjective "mental problems" as they did with these WTC workers.
The same bias is seen in a lot of compensation-related studies (witness the Agent Orange scam, among many).
Look for Dan Rather on CBS to do a one-hour special on it.
Against who? I don't see lawsuits going anwhere. Any of these conditions coule be attributed to normal exposure to suct and particulates at demolition sites. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that demolition is a dirty dusty messy and nasty job.
Well, the correct question would be when did these symptoms start? If most of the 48% say they started after Sptember 11, 2001, then you really can't ignore this and dismissing it as "Hillary's talking points" is unwise and partisan.
I am saying that this sort of subjective screening is prone to error- and the error is essentially ALWAYS in the direction that the investigators (consciously or not) wish it to go.
Specifically, if you ask folks about common ailments (like headaches or runny noses- that are generally quickly over and forgotten) AFTER a very traumatic event, you are guaranteed to get a lot of positive responses- because the minor ailment now is associated with something very memorable and troubling.
That is one reason why combat veterans report multitudes of somatic complaints when they are enrolled in some VA study- it's probably not that they didn't have these problems before, but now they are being specifically asked about them IN THE CONTEXT OF A TRAUMATIC EVENT. It is fiendishly difficult to sort this all out, even with the best of intentions. I don't propose to delve deeply into the design of this study, but I am sure I see where it is heading- jobs and grants for the investigators, juicy lawsuits for the trial lawyers, and political benefits to the party out of power...
Ok, I see where you are coming from. I didn't think about it that way. I actually have no idea what Hillary even said, but assume its along the lines that its Bush's fault people are sick and not simply that people are sick due to being exposed to the materials in the rubble. What I mean is that if people are in deed sick, then acknowledge it, but blame no one, and not simply dismiss the sickness as pre-existing conditions or bogus studies. I guess only time will tell if the symptons were there before September 11.
Bush is mentioned nowhere in the story. I could care less about Hillary's blatherings. I didn't hear what she said, but suppose its "Bush caused people to get sick" or something along those lines. Nothing like that is even hinted at in this article. So I can't see how anyone can say that ABC received Hillary's talking points.
And this is a classic one: A Hitlery, or a Dasshole darts out from a rathole somewhere in the sewer and slings an unfounded accusation at Republicans and the next day the lamestream media pick up the refrain in myriad cacophonous variations so as to thoroughly penetrate the scrambled brains of their dumbed-down constituents. It's happened a thousand times.
Some will blame Bush outright. Others will imply it. Still others will imply blame without placing it, leaving that to a follow-up article or earlier commentary. But nowhere will Republicans ever be cleared of any false charge, no matter how outrageous. ABC could have done that here -- and should have since the charge was made on their show -- but chose not to say anything about it.
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.