NJ Unveils Cancer Plan – but leaves out chemicals?

Posted on May 10, 2008 by

According to today’s Bergen Record:
“New Jersey officials released a second five-year plan for “controlling” cancer on Friday, saying that much has been accomplished but much remains to be done in a state with one of the highest rates of cancer in the nation.”
N.J. unveils 5-year plan for combating cancer
http://www.northjersey.com/news/18824564.html
I find it extremely curious that this coverage failed to mention environmental and occupational exposure to industrial chemicals – does the State’s Plan share this deficiency?
Compare that coverage to the Houston Chronicle’s investigative series on chemical pollution “In Harm’s Way”
http://blog.nj.com/njv_bill_wolfe/2008/01/what_they_dont_want_you_to_see.html
Or this statement by DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson, based upon expert testimony last month to the NJ Clean Air Council “Experts and Advocates: Pollution from Ports A High Cancer Risk to Urban NJ
http://blog.nj.com/njv_bill_wolfe/2008/04/experts_and_advocates_pollutio.html
Here are some incovenient truths I hope ther State’s Cancer Prevention plan considered:
NJ residents are bombarded – on a daily basis while at home, work and outdoors – by multiple exposures to known human chemical carcinogens in air, water, soil, and food:
1) NJ has statewide ambient air pollution levels for hazardous air pollutants that exceed EPA cancer benchmarks by hundreds or thousands of times (this data has been on the front page of the Record).
2) NJ drinking water across the state has been found to be contaminated with carcinogens, and hundreds of municipal and private wells have been shut down due to chemical contamination.
3) Soil and groundwater are tainted by carcinogens at 18,000 toxic waste sites; 114 Superfund sites (the most in the nation); hundreds of uncontrolled leaky landfills and dumps; and over 6,000 know groundwater pollution sites.
4) NJ has an industrial legacy, a large active petro-chemical industry sector, and is the nation’s most densely populated state. Occupational exposure to carcinogens is widespread in NJ workplaces.
5) A joint federal/state cancer cluster study in Tom’s River found that rare forms of childhood cancers in girls was both statistically and causally related to a toxic air pollutant released by a local industry.
I could go on, so I assume you get my drift.
But I see nothing in the story about the environment/toxic chemicals as a contributing cause of cancer (other than naturally occurring radon and sunlight).
What’s up with that?
Are environmental carcinogens addressed in the DoH’s 5 year plan?
Reader input welcome – I could not find a link to the State’s 5 Year Cancer Prevention Plan.

This entry was posted in Family & kids, Hot topics, Policy watch, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to NJ Unveils Cancer Plan – but leaves out chemicals?

  1. ferdek says:
    May 11, 2008 at 7:24 AM

    Not surprised. Chemical Companies and Corporate Power is a very toxic combination when it come to accountability. Deny deny deny is the mantra that drowns out the evidence and now even the mention of the role of chemicals in our lives. Until we have political leaders that are not reliant on corporate contributions from these companies we will not have full disclosure. And the Corzine administration doesn’t seem anxious to change those relationships. Big employers+big contributors+big taxpayers=Political Power. And the courts are used to stifle investigations and appropriate compensation for the victims of negligence. Time and money are used by these companies to wear down anyone who dares to seek remediation and reparations. Arrogance rules the corner offices of these companies. The captured regulators are potent enablers and should be viewed as culpable when the chemicals hit the fan!

  2. princeosirus says:
    May 13, 2008 at 8:38 AM

    I find this to be a very important subject, considering that I have had cancer, and some of the people in my neighborhood have recently been diagnosed and/or are being treated.

  3. nohesitation says:
    May 13, 2008 at 8:48 AM

    princeosirus – sorry to hear about that – hope you get well soon, I agree that much more needs to be done on cancer prevention, especially regarding environmental causes.
    ferdek – you speak truth – Jackson is just a caretaker. But, recall that she was touted as an engineer with expertise that had risen through the ranks, not a political type. I even praised her appointment in this newspaper when it was announced.
    I work on empowering scientists, agency capture, and corproate accountability every day – there’s lots we can do to open up the bureaucracy, limit the influence of special interests, and improve decsions – see our website for some tools – calling all “anonymous activists” out there – drop me a line – absolutely confidential.
    http://www.peer.org

  4. nohesitation says:
    May 13, 2008 at 8:58 AM

    This excellent comment was sent to me via email –
    Here was my comment ….
    200 New Jersey health professionals are blaming diet and exercise for our high rate of cancer in New Jersey. Where have they been? Recently a panel of experts at Mt. Sinai Hospital concluded that genetics is responsible for only 20% of all childhood cancers and that the environmental exposures including toxic substances in our environment, food, water and consumer products could be responsible for between 5% and 90%, depending on the type of cancer. When childhood cancer is the second largest cause of death to children ages 0-15 in the United States (second only to accidents), it is cruel to know that a large number of these childhood cancers is preventable in New Jersey.
    Epidemiologic studies have found when parents or children are exposured to toxic chemicals (pesticides, petrochemicals, dioxins and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) there is a higher rate of childhood cancer.
    We have the evidence in our own backyard – Dover Township, New Jersey. Children having leukemia in Dover Township were 5.4 times as likely as children without leukemia to have drunk water from private wells in groundwater areas known to be contaminated with industrial waste.
    The connection between exposure to toxics and childhood cancer is strongest for leukemia, brain and central nervous system cancers. How does the state compare with the national average for these cancers?
    I would hate to think our health professionals care more about treating cancer for the sake of profits for the pharmaceutical industry than to prevent the pain of childhood cancers.

Leave a Reply