Re: cancer rates

[Guest guest]

You might check the CDC website for stats, Pat. Cancer is a reportable disease.

They keep a cancer registry, and perform national surveys each year. Or the

National Cancer Institute. (These two groups duplicate one another's efforts in

some areas. Don't ask me why, cuz I'm not even gonna go there!)

Of the people I worked with, I only know of one - a brain tumor. AFAIK, he

doesn't think he has a problem with the building. Last we spoke, he was back at

work and sitting in the same chair he got sick in. But then I don't know

everybody, people don't always know or share that kind of info, and this was

only last year.

Problem is, unless you can pin down all the people exposed, and there were

enough of them to be " significant " (which must, as far as I can tell, exceed the

value of 14 infants bleeding from their lungs in Cincinnati), and then follow

them long enough, you have zero chance of " proving " anything...but then, you

always know what you know, right?

KAREN DEAN <kdeanstudios@...> wrote:

I have gotten cancer stats for my area from the dept of health. But I was never

very good at convincing everyday people of the statistical correlation between

certain cancer and toxins in the environment- but keep trying girl=

From: Patilla DaHun

Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 8:16 PM

Subject: Re[2]: [] Re: How Cholestyramine Works

Yes, they do, . My former workplace has a history of too many

cancer victims - mostly young women. The ACS refused to give me stats

on the local cancer rates in Kingston. I'll never donate or work for

them again. In all these decades, they haven't found a cure anyway.

You never see them advocate proper diet, exercise, and herbal

remedies.

[Guest guest]

Was the Cincinnati incident recent?

--- In , SERENA EDWARDS <pushcrash@y...>

wrote:

>

> Problem is, unless you can pin down all the people exposed, and

there were enough of them to be " significant " (which must, as far as I

can tell, exceed the value of 14 infants bleeding from their lungs in

Cincinnati), and then follow them long enough, you have zero chance

of " proving " anything...but then, you always know what you know,

right?

[Guest guest]

Barb,

You may be referring to the case in 1994 when a Dr. Dearborn of Children's

Hospital treated three children in a single day for bleeding lungs.. He decided

if one more case turned up he'd call the CDC and report a mysterious epidemic.

The The The next day another case arrived. He called and the next day public

health doctors arrived and started an investigation that sometime later became a

feature story on one of the evening TV news shows.. The children were all from

poor families were the housing was below standard... with a lot of mold... I

believe all the children were less than a year old. I'm believing the total

number of infant deaths was over 12.

Ken

[] Re: cancer rates

Was the Cincinnati incident recent?

>

> Problem is, unless you can pin down all the people exposed, and

there were enough of them to be " significant " (which must, as far as I

can tell, exceed the value of 14 infants bleeding from their lungs in

Cincinnati), and then follow them long enough, you have zero chance

of " proving " anything...but then, you always know what you know,

right?

FAIR USE NOTICE:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

No. Sorry. That was a reference to a well-known case where CDC decided 14

infants with stachy in their homes wasn't significant enough.

barb1283 <barb1283@...> wrote:Was the Cincinnati incident recent?

--- In , SERENA EDWARDS <pushcrash@y...>

wrote:

>

> Problem is, unless you can pin down all the people exposed, and

there were enough of them to be " significant " (which must, as far as I

can tell, exceed the value of 14 infants bleeding from their lungs in

Cincinnati), and then follow them long enough, you have zero chance

of " proving " anything...but then, you always know what you know,

right?

FAIR USE NOTICE:

---------------------------------

[Guest guest]

My bad. Guess it was only 10 of them.

SERENA EDWARDS <pushcrash@...> wrote:No. Sorry. That was a reference to a

well-known case where CDC decided 14 infants with stachy in their homes wasn't

significant enough.

barb1283 <barb1283@...> wrote:Was the Cincinnati incident recent?

--- In , SERENA EDWARDS <pushcrash@y...>

wrote:

>

> Problem is, unless you can pin down all the people exposed, and

there were enough of them to be " significant " (which must, as far as I

can tell, exceed the value of 14 infants bleeding from their lungs in

Cincinnati), and then follow them long enough, you have zero chance

of " proving " anything...but then, you always know what you know,

right?

FAIR USE NOTICE:

---------------------------------

[Guest guest]

My local dept. probably knew I'd use the stats publicly. I'm sure

they've been told to keep them private around here.

Barth

TOXIC MOLD SURVEY: www.presenting.net/sbs/sbssurvey.html

---

KD> I have gotten cancer stats for my area from the dept of health. But I was

never very good at convincing everyday people of the statistical correlation

between certain cancer and toxins in the

KD> environment- but keep trying girl=

KD>

KD> From: Patilla DaHun

KD>

KD> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 8:16 PM

KD> Subject: Re[2]: [] Re: How Cholestyramine Works

KD> Yes, they do, . My former workplace has a history of too many

KD> cancer victims - mostly young women. The ACS refused to give me stats

KD> on the local cancer rates in Kingston. I'll never donate or work for

KD> them again. In all these decades, they haven't found a cure anyway.

KD> You never see them advocate proper diet, exercise, and herbal

KD> remedies.

KD>

[Guest guest]

According to Ken's post, there may be some numbers we didn't know about. I

haven't read in detail just yet.

By law, public agencies cannot publish anything that might be traced back to an

individual. For example: If a low-population area gets surveyed, and there is a

very low incidence of whatever was being asked about, say HIV/AIDS, they have to

scramble around it in order stay within the laws and still publish the data. So

sometimes is actually is next to impossible to get your hands on data about very

small geographic areas or low-incidence events. Next issue is publication,

because it often takes a very long time to finish the work, pass an IRB and be

allowed to get the work in front of the public.

Not that I'd ever make excuses for a failure to honor the public's right to know

- just a couple of thoughts as to why you might not have gotten the cooperation

you wanted.

Patilla DaHun <glypella@...> wrote:

My local dept. probably knew I'd use the stats publicly. I'm sure

they've been told to keep them private around here.

Barth

TOXIC MOLD SURVEY: www.presenting.net/sbs/sbssurvey.html

---

KD> I have gotten cancer stats for my area from the dept of health. But I was

never very good at convincing everyday people of the statistical correlation

between certain cancer and toxins in the

KD> environment- but keep trying girl=

KD>

KD> From: Patilla DaHun

KD>

KD> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 8:16 PM

KD> Subject: Re[2]: [] Re: How Cholestyramine Works

KD> Yes, they do, . My former workplace has a history of too many

KD> cancer victims - mostly young women. The ACS refused to give me stats

KD> on the local cancer rates in Kingston. I'll never donate or work for

KD> them again. In all these decades, they haven't found a cure anyway.

KD> You never see them advocate proper diet, exercise, and herbal

KD> remedies.

KD>