Re: Outdated Love Canal reference from Weiner - Dapra is..

[BLHamrick@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 3/31/2004 11:59:33 AM Pacific Standard Time, 

RuthWeiner@AOL.COM writes:

Can someone point me to a PEER-REVIEWED study in a reputable scientific 

journal that refutes the 1981 study I cited?

I would like the citation to those articles as well, if they exist.  As of 

now, the most comprehensive and reliable compilation of health effects 

information on the Love Canal site that I have found is provided by the NY DOH at:



http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/lcanal/lcanal.htm



This site includes a list of all published health studies regarding the site.



NY DOH's conclusions remain, as I quoted earlier:



"What are my long-term risks? 

Based on information so far, Love Canal residents have the same life 

expectancy and cancer incidence rates as upstate New York and Niagara County 

residents. We do have enough statistical power in the overall findings to feel 

confident in them."

As Clayton Bradt pointed out, if you cannot detect an effect, it is exactly 

like the case where there is NO effect.  When making decisions about how to 

spend your public health and safety dollars, it is really more prudent to put 

your money where the real, detectable effects are - e.g., into accessible 

preventive healthcare, keeping emergency room and trauma center doors open, and 

providing an adequate number of properly trained fire, police and paramedic squads. 

 Do the math.  This is where we can have a real impact on body counts.

The difference between being a bleeding heart liberal and simply a bloody 

fool is in recognizing that our resources are limited.  We cannot protect 

everybody from everything.  We will all die of something, whether we like to 

acknowledge that or not.  We especially cannot afford to try and protect people from, 

or recompense people for, risks that are not discernable from the general risk 

of death we all face.  The responsible action is to use our limited resources 

to address problems that result in real, preventable, premature deaths, here 

and now.  There is no dearth of such real problems by the way.

Brockovich-style epidemiology is not persuasive, so I am with Ruth and 

others, please provide a list of the peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate an 

increased incidence of cancer among former Love Canal residents.  Even then, I will 

consider the evidence, but must frankly say that a statistically significant 

increased risk is a long, long ways from the "epidemic" of health effects the 

press-of-the-time seemed to imply.  The panic about the situation, and the 

hundreds of billions we have collectively spent since then (across the nation) 

trying to address these (so far) mythical epidemics will probably never be 

justified in my opinion.  We have quite possibly killed more people with the "cure" 

than the "disease."

Barbara L. Hamrick