Are You a Victim of Environmental Cancer Hype?
By Carl Close • Wednesday March 20, 2013 1:37 PM PDT • 6 Comments
When is a cancer cluster the result of environmental contamination—and when is it a misleading statistical artifact? Science journalist George Johnson deals with this question in his latest article for Slate, “Cancer Cluster or Chance?”
Johnson’s skill in explaining why we often misinterpret epidemiological data can be seen in his opening paragraphs:
Lay a chessboard on a table. Then grab a handful of rice and let the grains fall and scatter where they may. They won’t spread out uniformly with the same number occupying each square. Instead there will be clusters. Now suppose that the chessboard is a map of the United States and the grains are cases of cancer.
Each year about 1.6 million cases of cancer are diagnosed in the United States, and epidemiologists regularly hear from people worried that their town has been plagued with an unusually large visitation. Time after time, the clusters have turned out to be statistical illusions—artifacts of chance.
The Erin Brockovich incident, one of the most famous, is among the many that have been debunked. Hexavalent chromium in the water supply of a small California town was blamed for causing cancer, resulting in a $333 million legal settlement and a movie starring Julia Roberts. But an epidemiological study ultimately showed that the cancer rate was no greater than that of the general population. The rate was actually slightly less.
Johnson is not the first to argue that cases of residential cancer clusters (as distinct from industrial clusters among, say, asbestos workers) appear to be wildly exaggerated. (For a skeptical look at the somewhat related issue of “environmental racism” in Mississippi, see this 2003 study from The Independent Review.) But he does not dismiss such claims out of hand: He discusses two possible examples of environmental contaminants leading to higher residential cancer rates—one in Woburn, Mass., in the 1980s and another in Toms River, N.J., in the 1990s—although he remains unconvinced about the latter.
Johnson closes with these words of wisdom about the tricky art of statistical inference:
The tools of statistics, so powerful when applied to large populations, break down with small numbers. As so often in life, we’re left wondering how to distinguish between randomness and patterns too subtle to see.
His piece is worth reading in its entirety.
Tags: Environment, Health 
The most ridiculous environmental cancer scare was the claim that children who lived “near” high voltage electric lines were more likely to get leukemia. The “study” noted the locations of such lines and then said that children in the same zip code as a line were “near” it. Then they mucked up the statistics and got a positive correlation. There is no known pathophysiologic mechanism for the magnetic fields generated by the electric to cause cancer, but that didn’t stop those brave researchers for publishing their junk science.
Later, we had the equally idiotic claim that cellular phones cause brain cancer, a claim started by a football player.
There have been claims that arsenic and mercury cause cancers. Those are no better than the debunked chromium claim.
I have concluded that the “scientists” who conduct such studies have no understanding of carcinogenesis. Magnetic fields cannot alter cellular DNA (or everyone who had an MRI would be riddled with cancers). Metallic elements, even heavy metals, cannot cause cancers. Neither can silicon, which was confirmed AFTER Dow Corning went bankrupt from breast implant-related lawsuits.
MingoV | Mar 20, 2013 | Reply
The German biophysicist Roland Glaser, for example, has argued that there are several thermoreceptor molecules in cells, and that they activate a cascade of second and third messenger systems, gene expression mechanisms and production of heat shock proteins in order to defend the cell against metabolic cell stress caused by heat.
gholton | Mar 20, 2013 | Reply
Sometimes statistics misguide. Sometimes with honest scientific rigor they confirm an event or define an issue. However whether or not statistics do show a correlation to an effect from a presumed cause, it is irrelevant in my mind. When it comes to environmental degradation and its harmful effects we don’t need iron clad statistics to confirm what we can see & feel. I’m not anti-science but whether the scientific & statistical scrutiny is sufficient to make a legal case is of minor import to me and I would say for millions of other people too. Stats for a small sample may not be valid but at the end of the day we know that “something” caused an uptick in cancer in a given neighborhood. Industrial pollutants are not good and if these things are in our air or water then they must be cleaned up by the polluter. Additionally it must be assumed that these things did cause harm wheter it’s “proven” statistically or not. As for whether Dow Corning should be blamed for silicon causing breast cancer and then suffered bankruptcy as a result I say so what? They should have been taken out for creating their Agent Orange long before the silicon breast fiasco. Karma is a bitch. Lawsuits, legal standing and rule of law , like statistics, have all been manipulated by the lawyering class to protect their nefarious corporate clients to line their pockets. So when some “scientist” debunks another scientist and plays the statistics game I will gladly serve them a glass of water from my fawcet which catches on fire because of the “water” it emits.
John | Mar 20, 2013 | Reply
Well as to silicon or rather the silicone implants, the culprit was not the silicone itself but the platinum salts used to condition the silicone. Heavy metals can and do bind to DNA/RNA thus preventing or altering expression, some are cancer causing like arsenic which has no safe level.
Hexavalent chromium is a powerful oxidant so a potential carcinogen. Even if the community had a below average cancer rate, the very randomness argument renders moot this as a defense and one has to look at the individual types of cancers, the unusual pattern. In short randomness cuts both ways. All statistical methods require close scrutiny. As Disreali said, ” There are lies, damned lies,and statistics.” Sadly the greatest product of corporations,in quantity, are lies. As Dr. Hare said when viewed from the DSM these “virtual” persons are psychopaths, he is a leading FBI consultant on psychopaths!
There is causing the cancer and there is immunosuppression which allows those cancer cells to grow into a tumor. The average human sprouts and destroys some 100,000 cancer cells a day. So it doesn’t matter in the case of liability, how a substance leads to cancer only that it does.
The 60 cycle radiation from transmission lines is simply to low an energy to cause cancer, agreed. Cell phones operate in the microwave region, maybe not ionizing yet but too close for comfort. One should always make contact with the system holding the phone away from you to minimize any effect from the higher power initial hook up pulse.
This article has the look of the many McDees spammed out to make the woman with a rock solid case, appear a frivolous filing over a spilled cup of coffee. Happily for justice sake the woman still won though the court and jury were far too lenient on McDees.
Larry Daigneault | Mar 21, 2013 | Reply
Larry, you don’t understand carcinogenesis. I’m not arguing from authority, but I’m a clinical pathologist who taught at medical schools, and I know the subject.
First, the properly performed epidemiology studies on breast cancer in women with silicon implants showed that their rate of breast cancer was no higher than in women without implants. There also was no difference in the distribution of the main types of breast cancers. Platinum conditioning was irrelevant: the women weren’t exposed to implant-related ionizing radiation.
Second, non-radioactive heavy metals do not cause cancer. Period. They do not alter DNA. They do not turn off genes that make proteins that protect against cancer. Arsenic does not cause cancer, and there definitely are safe levels because arsenic is in soil and in the plants we eat.
Third, chromium is a less powerful oxidant than iron, and our body is packed with iron. Is iron a carcinogen? By the way, chromium is an essential metal along with zinc, magnesium, selenium, copper, and molybdenum.
Fourth, the claim that in scientific studies statistics don’t matter is the resort of people who believe what they wish and disbelieve what they wish.
Fifth, none of the chemicals you mention cause immunosuppression, so why bring it up? Also, if those chemicals caused immunosuppression, why aren’t exposed people dying of infections before cancers have a chance to grow? Most AIDS patients die of infections.
Sixth, you agree that microwave radiation isn’t ionizing, but then you claim that the “initial hook up pulse” can be dangerous. Right. Well, I hope I don’t nuke my ear the next time I call someone.
MingoV | Mar 21, 2013 | Reply
Let’s not forget the Environmental Tobacco Smoke fraud, which is mostly about marketing ineffective and dangerous smoking cessation products. Most of the data for these studies was cherry picked.
Mark Volovar | Mar 25, 2013 | Reply