Love Canal info incorrect Weiner and Dapra foist 1981 study-Cancerabounds

[NiagaraNet@aol.com]

    Dear Ms. Weiner and Mr. Dapra:



    Your Science article is outdated and incorrect.

    Cancer abounds, like it or not Ms. Weiner. Apologies to your delicate 

sensibilities.



    Why would you foist upon us this 23 year old document (and your comments, 

including thanking Mr. Dapra for this garbage) when the most recent New York 

State Cancer Zip Code Registry shows significant increases in at least 

four-forms of cancer throughout Niagara County (including the Love Canal postal zip 

code)? Hello in there.



    I have provided links to the NYS Zip Code Cancer Initiative in the past. 

Go look.



    And I get hammered around this board for my statements--SHAME on you 

both!



    Some cancers being found around Niagara County are 100% GREATER than 

nationally expected averages, such as lung cancer in this general area (14304, 

14305 zip codes). In an area due up wind of Love Canal, at a dump called CECOS 

(now BFI/Allied), 25 years ago concerns were expressed because of Pu, U and Th 

"slag" and other materials being buried directly to soil, 25 years later the 

down wind side of this dump shows a 100% increase in lung cancers. Go figure Dr. 

Weiner and Mr. Dapra. No, of course, you can't find a correlation--where's 

your guide dogs? 



    Please tell me you two are not medical doctors.



> See SCIENCE, 19 jUNE 1981, V. 212, pp1404-1407 (and I want to thank Steve 

> Dapra for digging this paper out).  Of the nin specific cancers and the 

"all 

> other category,  the ratio of observed to expected cancers, age 

standardized, was 

> ....



    Please don't cite documents that are nearly 25 years old as being 

primary. I don't think that that is very good science or very responsible. Please 

seek the current NYS Cancer Registry for citations. Where do you guys 

work--NIOSH? LOL!



    If I didn't know better I would think that your positions are 

intentionally and purposefully misleading. Is this the case? Is this a purposeful down 

playing of the facts or just out right deception?  Is this the kind of 

"protection" we can expect?



   I guess the reader can make that call. 



    Sincerely,

    Louis Ricciuti



NEXT.