Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thank you.
This does not say that studies do not show a higher incidence of cancer, they just try to give reasons why the studies may be flawed, like, the studies do not take into consideration that people in the area found with cancer cases may have moved from a different area which precipitated the cancer. In other words, a bogus argument, because people with pre existing conditions move, equally, to control areas.
Also, it does not site federal EPA testing, but tests actually made in the corrupt state of New Jersey? Really!
I read this quickly, but see nothing in it that offers substantial material refuting the high cancer rate, it just appears to be a lot of double talk to confuse the issue.
Last edited by goldengrain; 12-08-2011 at 06:52 PM..
Thank you.
This does not say that studies do not show a higher incidence of cancer, they just try to give reasons why the studies may be flawed, like, the studies do not take into consideration that people in the area found with cancer cases may have moved from a different area which precipitated the cancer. In other words, a bogus argument, because people with pre existing conditions move, equally, to control areas.
Also, it does not site federal EPA testing, but tests actually made in the corrupt state of New Jersey? Really!
I read this quickly, but see nothing in it that offers substantial material refuting the high cancer rate, it just appears to be a lot of double talk to confuse the issue.
What do you mean by control areas?
Anyway yes, other corroborating factors are frequently at play in these things. The most common one SES. And yes, if you think people move to areas IGNORING SES you are off your rocker.
Look there is clearly a correlation between location and cancer rate, but that does not remotely mean it is causal. Basic science 101 "correlation does not equal causation". Just because there is a damn near perfect correlation between the decrease in number of pirates and increase in global temperature does not mean one caused the other. Get it?
Anyway yes, other corroborating factors are frequently at play in these things. The most common one SES. And yes, if you think people move to areas IGNORING SES you are off your rocker.
Look there is clearly a correlation between location and cancer rate, but that does not remotely mean it is causal. Basic science 101 "correlation does not equal causation". Just because there is a damn near perfect correlation between the decrease in number of pirates and increase in global temperature does not mean one caused the other. Get it?
Jersey has a lot of concentrated industry. THere was a lot of uncontrolled dumping going on. Some of the substances that were dumped are causative factors for cancer. It does not take high intelligence to understand this.
Jersey has a lot of concentrated industry. THere was a lot of uncontrolled dumping going on. Some of the substances that were dumped are causative factors for cancer. It does not take high intelligence to understand this.
Apparently it does take high intelligence to understand that socioeconomic status is a better predictor of developing cancer than where you live, even here.
Most of the dumping of the truly cancer causing agents, like benzene, happened in South Jersey, not in the so called "cancer alley". Additionally, if there was a local agent you would expect it to be along watersheds, and not roads since that is the most likely way to be exposed to large enough quantities of these chemicals.
Apparently it does take high intelligence to understand that socioeconomic status is a better predictor of developing cancer than where you live, even here.
Most of the dumping of the truly cancer causing agents, like benzene, happened in South Jersey, not in the so called "cancer alley". Additionally, if there was a local agent you would expect it to be along watersheds, and not roads since that is the most likely way to be exposed to large enough quantities of these chemicals.
Jersey City, not too long ago, had a huge area cordoned off, which I saw on the news. If my memory serves me, when it rained the puddles would actually be green. It was the chemical dumping that did that. JC is a heavily populated area. There was a grammar school there.
The Passaic River, to this day(well at least to last year), had businesses dumping into it. The EPA seems to be there on a sporadic but fairly regular basis.
If you look at the info given, including the map, it appears that most of the state is affected by this, not just South Jersey.
There's no reason to get insulting here. We are all just average citizens here, with no profit being made from covering up the dumping, right?
Has anyone heard of or know anything about the Kin-Buc site in Edison, NJ? A SuperFund cleanup site that was used to dump 70 Million Gallons of Toxic waste from the 1940's through 1976 when it was shut down? I've been reading online that it went into the waterways and they have been cleaning it up since the late 70's with still 20 years to go on clean up.
It seems like it had PCB chemicals in it which are of concern, effecting the wildlife in the waterways.
No one has replied to my other post inquiring if anyone knows anything good or bad about the air quality/ water quality and soil quality in the area. I'd appreciate if anyone has any input about possible dangers or if I'm just being "too concerned".
Has anyone heard of or know anything about the Kin-Buc site in Edison, NJ? A SuperFund cleanup site that was used to dump 70 Million Gallons of Toxic waste from the 1940's through 1976 when it was shut down? I've been reading online that it went into the waterways and they have been cleaning it up since the late 70's with still 20 years to go on clean up.
It seems like it had PCB chemicals in it which are of concern, effecting the wildlife in the waterways.
No one has replied to my other post inquiring if anyone knows anything good or bad about the air quality/ water quality and soil quality in the area. I'd appreciate if anyone has any input about possible dangers or if I'm just being "too concerned".
I don't know if the EPA has anyone who can answer these questions. I would not (personally) trust a New Jersey source to tell of their possibly criminal behavior in allowing this stuff.
I don't know if the EPA has anyone who can answer these questions. I would not (personally) trust a New Jersey source to tell of their possibly criminal behavior in allowing this stuff.
The EPA is federal, at state level its the DEP. And the data on superfund sites is sunshine information.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
