Biggest Cancer Clusters in History

I found this article on the internet that shows the highest ranking cancer clusters found in the world throughout history. It spoke about the cancer outbreak in St. Louis, Missouri where a chemical company that would process Uranium started dumping radioactive waste into a creek in the mid-1940s. Eventually this began to cause contamination in the soil and groundwater in St. Louis by the 60s, which lead to about 544 cases of people getting cancer. Similar to the other cases of cancer clusters rank in this article, it talks about how there was still no true discovery of how these people actually developed cancer and if the cause was really from these chemical. I find this interesting because I would think the repetition in the type of cancer developed, how it was discovered in the person, and the region in which this substance is found would help solve the issue; however, the research being done is not as conclusive and all these people continue to suffer.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Group 2

Ocean acidification is important because it impacts biodiversity. A falling ph level has detrimental impacts on species that build shells or skeleton based on carbonate. For example, tropical corals. Hence ocean acidification destroys ecosystems, resulting in the ultimate disappearance of certain species. The computer generated evidence predicts that if the carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise exponentially, this will result in the drastic increase in the ocean ph level. The levels of PH are predicted to rise as much as they have in the past 300 million years in the next 1000 years. The computer models used past historical and geographical evidence to see what the natural rise would be and compared it to the rate at which ph levels are rising today. It would be difficult for nature to compensate for these damages. Consequently, resulting in further reduction on the marine biodiversity, specifically, coral reefs. Aidan Coco Grace Miske Jingyi Li Ling Zheng
Read more
Group 5: We misidentified the metal as Iron, when it is in fact Zinc. This occurred because we calculated the volume incorrectly which thereby translated to the wrong density. In addition, we observed that the metal did not melt. Our metal also fell apart onto the table which could have been a sign of possible meltage. As for our mineral, we believed that it was quartz, when it was actually Fluorite. We did not believe it had dissolved into the test tube; however, it in fact was slightly soluble. The largest error we made, which would have helped us determine correctly what the quartz and the metal were, was incorrectly calculating the density. If we would have done this part correctly, we likely would have determined the correct mystery materials.
Read more