It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hundreds of 9/11 first responders die of cancer...

page: 2
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo-V™
 


NEO-V, here is a link to Alex Jones' story, which uses the same title as your link. LINK His claims are that hundreds of first responders have died of cancer, and 600 more diagnosed.

I'd very much like to find some support for this claim, and IMO, this link is not much more credible than yours. Still looking




posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Related story about 9/1 1 Responders Show Increased Risk of Rare Blood Cancers

It goes on to say

Eight cases of the blood cancer were diagnosed in 28,000 emergency personnel followed between 2001 and 2007; statistically, that number should be closer to six. And four of the eight men diagnosed, all law enforcement officers, were under 45, very young to have developed the disease, HealthDay News reports


Very sad, particularly if those afflicted have to battle for disability/health care benefits after doing their jobs.

Still not finding the huge numbers reported in the OP, but using more general search strings than I did before my first reply. Maybe this is information that wasn't released.......... to me, if true, your OP might well make a good case for a huge number of NY residents being exposed, in addition to the first responders. I'll be back if I find any credible sources.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Excellent point, I hadn't really thought of that. And thank you
Argentus for your informative post. I too know some people who
used to work for the EPA - they were committed, intelligent and
thorough researchers, i.e. - they kicked ass. But just because the
the people doing the grunt work of sampling are responsible doesn't
mean that the folks at the top who are appointees are necessarily
of the same cloth.
After some research into Christine Todd Whitman I found out that
she actually resigned due to pressure from Cheney to relax air
quality standards for industries. I find that very commendable.
However, she has no science background and there was pressure
from the white house to reassure the public that the air in Manhattan
was safe to breathe. She did in fact only make that claim for the
area OUTSIDE of the WTC site. My bad. I'll take the rope comment back.
This is why ATS is so great - I can find out when I'm wrong without
feeling like an idiot. The people on this site are great. Thanks for
being here and helping me to stay informed. you're all awesome!



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 

If jet fuel made it more dangerous, then why don't most first responders to other airliner crashes suffer such problems? This doesn't really make sense anyway, because the majority of the jet fuel would have burnt off after the initial impacts. Plastics... Maybe, but you definitely can't say you know that for sure.

Obviously, there were no old fashioned thermo-nuclear devices set off in Lower Manhattan. But to completely write off a theory you clearly know nothing about because it sounds "crazy" to you is simply breeding ignorance.

I'm sorry if introducing alternate theories to the conventional wisdom, offends you, or you find it embarrassing, but that's how knowledge comes about. If you want to only accept the easily acceptable that's fine, but you can at least argue specific points without childish remarks. I'll post again what I said before.

I'm not saying I fully endorse this theory, but I think it warrants investigation without ridicule from those who think they already know what happened.

So are you one of those people who think they already know what happened, and closed your mind to any other possibilities? Hey, I don't blame you. It's much easier to dismiss something because you don't know anything about it, but you won't know what happened, until you have looked at all the possibilities.

Because by the looks of it, I don't think anyone really knows why the dust at WTC was so toxic. The OP source may not be completely accurate, but it is without doubt, that the first responders were exposed to conditions which endangered their health. It was certainly unlike any other demolition, with varying factors. Was it so toxic because the dust was made up of such small particles?



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


To me, you exemplify what I really enjoy about ATS. We had a conversation, and worked out some ideas. You weren't wrong; we just were looking at things from different perspectives. I hope I didn't come off as a knowitall..... obviously, I've had some experience in this field, but you were spot on when you pointed out that the people in the field doing the job aren't always backed up by the higher powers within a system. I was a bit on the muscle and not meaning to be. Thank you for your post.


I'm still looking for verification of the OP. I want to have my ducks in a row before I make this my newest project.

I've thought for a long time that the residents of NYC were possibly subjected to a cornucopia of contaminants after the towers fell. It's a very difficult thing to quantify, though, not knowing what things were present and measurable in the buildings.

I've been on-site as the lead in many hazmat situations. There is always pressure that is somewhat diametrically opposed -- one one hand the pressure to quantify the perceived problem......... on the other the pressure to get responders into the situation. Particularly when victims might still be alive, this is a pressure that drives a person to drink, or worse. Needless to say, my stomach is a whole lot healthier since we moved out of the U.S. and the regulatory atmosphere in general.

People in this situation have to make hard decisions. My experience is, there is rarely a "right" decision to make, if one defines that as pleasing all concerned parties. In the end, a person in control of a site has to make a decision(s) that they believe is just and right. I wish that responsibility on no one.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Well it's obvious to me that it wasn't nuclear, simply because of the lack of EMP.

I think we can safely say there were powdered metals, asbestos, plastics and a dearth of other substances suspended in the air; including cremated human remains.

We also don't have solid information on how much damage a mixture like that would cause to the human body.

M.



new topics

top topics
 
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join