This editorial by the Advocate totally exonerates DENKA from cancer causing as the LSU study did not state DENKA caused the cancer also alleging that the number of cases is not over the national average. The Advocate has proven through that they always favor and support the oil-chemical industries
Cancer in all its manifestations is a deadly disease and rightly feared. While medical science has made great strides against it, fear of the disease continues. But if the causes of cancer are becoming clearer with time, it remains difficult to justify criticisms of careful scientific studies that do not prove activists’ assertions about the impact of industrial emissions. A new example: LSU found that its Louisiana Tumor Registry has accurately reported cancer cases around a chemical plant much-criticized by environmentalists. But the cautious statements of statisticians amount to a “not proven” verdict about whether the emissions caused cancers, or that the Denka plant’s production of chloroprene has caused elevated levels of cancer in St. John the Baptist Parish. ”This report in no way implies that there are no health effects from long-term exposure to chloroprene,” the report carefully notes. While the substance in sufficient doses over sufficient time may be cancer-causing, there is no evidence that there are specific cancers arising from the emissions from the plant.
NOLA.com
The editorial then says that the number of cancer cases does not exceed the normal limits of areas in the United States. What LSU did say was:
“The LTR is an exceptional resource for learning about types of cancer, their frequency, the rates at which they occur, the distribution of cases, information on cancer stage and pathology, cancer treatment, and cancer survival, but it does not contain information on what may have caused the cancers,” he said in a statement. “The registry does not collect data on possible contributing factors or environmental conditions to which persons with cancer may have been exposed. That is the purview of other entities and scientists.”
nola.com
In other words, this was not the right agency to proive what the citizens say is happening. If the EPA sets particulate standards and the facility grossly exceeds them then I feel a case can be made. What LSU did was count cases and the geographic area was not noted. You cant make a definitive statement from insufficient data. In closing, the editorial did admit maybe there is a problem.
We don’t buy that industrial emissions are surely not causing health problems. That’s why we need environmental regulations. We want to see emissions reduced, even as the benefits of the petrochemical industry are reaped by parishes like St. John, in jobs and taxes. It is common sense that people living near a smokestack might get more exposure, and that poor residents — maybe even without air-conditioning in Louisiana’s brutal summers — may be much more at risk. Poverty is a cruel carcinogen in society. It’s probably worse than a dozen Denkas. Parsing out what’s caused a specific case of a specific cancer may be proven one day by science. But not yet.
I only note that in fact science has proven this case in other areas firmly linking emissions to cancer. As was noted, you need to get the right agency.
