Cancer Cluster Blog


Instead of focusing on a particular city in a foreign nation, I decided to research the prevalence of cancer clusters in various U.S. states. The way states conduct their studies of cancer clusters as well as what they choose to do with the data differs greatly. I located a scientific journal article which investigates how effectively health agencies have tracked cancer clusters. Recognizing that data is often insignificant, the article determines which studies from the past 20 years (published in 2012) successfully confirmed the presence of a cancer cluster. The study’s findings greatly contribute to the question of whether or not there is enough evidence to positively link certain exposure to a specific cancer. With so many factors, proving that individual traits of a defined geographic area are the direct cause of cancer diagnoses.
            The study detailed the observations and results of 428 investigations that were completed by 38 different states. The article noted that some states do not publish reports, conduct cluster evaluations due to low population density, or simply conduct evaluations at all. My assumption is that regardless of the many obstacles making cluster investigations difficult, some states might not want to make such reports public knowledge for the fear of creating a panic among the community. It is hard to have high levels of confidence in these studies since data collection is so complex. Some state governments may not want to enter into any situation that requires major policy implementation and regulation of whatever industry is perpetuating the exposure.
            The journal article revealed that, “Of the 567 cancer sites or categories, a perceived increase in incidence was confirmed for 72 (13%) cancer types.” Only three reports matched the cancer of concern to a hypothesized exposure. A report in the Charleston, South Carolina area determined that 12 of 19 pleural cancer victims worked in the naval shipyard which exposed them to asbestos. A pediatric leukemia cluster in Woburn Massachusetts was confirmed as water from contaminated wells in the area was blamed as the cause of this cancer. The third report dealt with the Toms River, New Jersey case which we discussed in class. Water and air contamination from local industrial sites was considered the catalyst of this cancer cluster.
            Overall, it appears challenging to truly draw any meaningful conclusions from the cancer cluster reports conducted by many states in America. Most of the studies present insignificant statistics. It is difficult to ask governments to revamp policies and overhaul the infrastructure of an area based on these minute findings. In the three areas mentioned above, there was enough data to justify change. In the other cases, more research is necessary to bring about concrete evidence.

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