Cancer Clusters- Solo Blog

I read about the rising rate of cancer in Staten Island, New York, which has consistently had the
highest amount out of any other borough in New York City. Staten Island had 2,781
cases reported out of 38,838 in New York City, which accounted for 7.16 percent of all New York
City cancer incidences even though only account for 5.5 percent of the city’s population. For both
males and females rates were high above New York City’s average, males 13.48 percent higher and
females 18.53 percent higher. The article then went into describing the different types of cancer present
in that area which included: breast, pancreatic, and thyroid, which were all found to be over 10 percent
higher than New York City as a whole. They ended the article by discussing various possible causes of
these cancer rates, which included high smoking rates, New Jersey pollution, and landfill contamination.
A comprehensive third-party study was called upon the landfill to find out what effects the dump may
have had and the health implications of them. Overall, the article never mentioned cancer
clusters specifically but they discussed the rising rate of cancer, but not enough to consider it a cancer
cluster.

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