news-record.com

Skip to the site menu
Skip to search

NEWS

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Cancer cases higher near landfill

Friday, November 13, 2009
(Updated 2:53 pm)
By Amanda Lehmert
Staff Writer

GREENSBORO — Researchers found more cases of pancreatic cancer than expected in residents who have lived near the White Street Landfill and a former dump site nearby, a state Department of Health and Human Services analysis shows.

The findings, released to the city this week, do not imply that the landfills caused the disease.

The city wants to bring state officials to Greensboro to explain the cancer analysis research.

“The facts are what they are, but you don’t know the cause and effect,” Deputy City Manager Bob Morgan said of the cancer analysis. “We really need to have the state come and explain the study to the council and to the community.”

The Guilford County Department of Public Health, which launched the research effort on behalf of the city, also studied birth weights and cancer-death data for people who lived immediately around the former dump site, called the E.H. Glass Landfill. They found no health risks to residents and said no further research was needed.

“Our conclusion is there is no increased risk to anybody living in proximity to that landfill,” said Mark Smith, staff epidemiologist for Guilford County.

The White Street Landfill, which is closed to household trash, has been the source of intense public debate over the last few months, after City Council members discussed whether it would be more cost-effective to reopen it.

Residents around the landfill have fought that suggestion.

The research was completed at the urging of City Councilwoman Trudy Wade, who asked whether there was evidence to support the residents’ concerns that exposure to landfills caused health problems.

Wade asked whether the Glass Landfill, located west of the White Street Landfill on Nealtown Road, might be contributing to cancer in the area.

The Glass Landfill was operated in the 1960s and ’70s, according to state records. What kind of garbage was dumped there is not well-known, although some records indicate the Vicks Co. used the landfill to dispose of NyQuil and other returned products.

The state researchers looked at cancer registry data since 1990 from residents who lived in the area around both landfills, primarily to the northeast, where residents could potentially come into contact with contaminated water or air.

Researchers found 27 incidences of pancreatic cancer, about twice as many cases as they expected.

They also found 13 cases — more than they expected — of multiple myeloma, a cancer of the blood plasma cells. But the number of cases was so small that researches did not draw any conclusion from them.

The researchers point out that the study does not prove exposure to the landfill caused any health problems.

“It’s easy to blame the environment, but the environment is really the cause of a very small number of cancers,” said Douglas Campbell, head of the Occupational & Environmental Epidemiology Branch of he N.C. Division of Public Health.

State and county investigators have not found any toxin that residents in the area are drinking or inhaling from the landfills. Further research would be needed to prove such a link, according to the cancer analysis.

And other things — like genetic risk factors for certain diseases or lifestyle choices such as smoking — can affect whether a person develops a disease, the experts said.

The higher number of pancreatic cancer cases could be explained by the demographics of the study area, said Smith, who did some of the county’s research on the Glass Landfill.

Pancreatic cancer is more prevalent in African Americans, and African Americans make up about half the residents included in the study area.

“That in itself could explain the higher level,” Smith said.

Contact Amanda Lehmert at 373-7075 or amanda.lehmert@news-record.com

Accompanying Photos

File photo (News & Record)

Photo Caption: The White Street Landfill, seen in this 2001 photo, was closed to all but construction and yard waste in 2006.

Comments

Confirmed myNR members may comment on this article. Memberships are free, and it only takes a few minutes to create your profile. Click "Submit Comment" to sign in or register for a new account. New members must validate their email addresses in order to comment.

Inappropriate content? Please notify us.

Submit Comment

brian444

November 13, 2009 - 3:51 am EST

Headline selectively misrepresents article.

Norm*

November 13, 2009 - 7:14 am EST

I think that the headline is correct and we are just used to the implied causality. It served the purpose of hooking you into reading. In the article, they dismiss the dump(s) as a cause but the don't cite the statistic(s) that support the claim of no causality. So, we only have half the story and most of us don't have the background in statistics required to make use of the report. I wonder if somewhere on somebodies website is the actual report with the raw data, stats, and conclusions?

brian444

November 14, 2009 - 2:27 am EST

True enough, but we're used to the implied causality because the causality implied is usually borne out by the article. That's not true here.

dmoore

November 13, 2009 - 8:05 am EST

Doesn't that headline break some sort of ethics code? Good article. Why compromise it's integrity with such a misleading, subjective title. (?)

Andrew Brod

November 13, 2009 - 4:35 pm EST

Of course it violates no "ethics code." That's silly. The sub-head could have been clearer, I'll admit. But if lack of clarity were an ethics violation, most of us would be unethical on a regular basis.

It's worth noting, however, that Amanda didn't write the headline. Reporters don't do that; editors do.

brian444

November 14, 2009 - 2:28 am EST

The single stupidest rule in journalism. Why not let the author write it? Or if headline space is still an issue in an age of easy font manipulation, let the author supply a short and long headline for the editor to choose. She wrote the article and is the best judge of how to adumbrate its content.

Brandon Burgess

November 13, 2009 - 8:21 am EST

"The researchers point out that the study does not prove exposure to the landfill caused any health problems."

--I am curious as to what exposure is thought to have occured. Did this study research cancer rates among landfill workers also? Have higher cancer rates been found around other landfills?

Again, what exposure is thought to have occured? Surely not through drinking water or air pollution. If I'm not mistaken, the neighborhood gets city water and the air is constantly monitored per federal regulations. If I am wrong, someone correct me.

Amanda Lehmert

November 13, 2009 - 1:16 pm EST

The study did not look any particular exposure, only cancer incidences around the landfills. Which is why it was limited and could not show cause.

fisher

November 13, 2009 - 10:36 am EST

The headline could have been "No connection between cancer and landfill", as the lack of evidence shows. But that's not how the N&R chose to write it.

"We really need to have the state come and explain the study to the council and to the community." Get your filthy hands off of my wallet.

RandolphBloke

November 13, 2009 - 7:13 pm EST

That's because "No connection between cancer and landfill" would be a completely untrue headline. The correlation/causation isn't proven here and requires more research. Your choice of headline would be misleading.

The current headline is 100% true. The reasons for that are explored in the article.

buzzman

November 13, 2009 - 10:49 am EST

This is typical of the N&R's so-called "reporting." And they wonder why readership is declining!
Apparently, they are 'carpetbaggers' who just want to keep the folks that live around the landfill stirred-up.

RandolphBloke

November 13, 2009 - 7:21 pm EST

IF you lived in the area, you would appreciate seeing the results and ongoing research about the area. If it wasn't in the newspaper, you'd probably complain about that.

If you dislike the N&R so much, don't read it. You people with your conspiracy theories are just out of control. Carpetbaggers now, who is next? Martians?

jeffjet

November 13, 2009 - 11:09 am EST

The story reported by the N&R is inflammatory in the context that there are no facts being reported at all. How many cancers were there? What type of cancers were there? When did these supposed cancers occur? What other factors are involved in the reporting of this issue? Were the people that have supposedly developed the cancers living in this development all of their lives? What other health issues have they or are they currently having? Do they have family histories of cancer of the types supposedly being reported? That just starts the discussion. Then there is the discussion of risk assessments: Have scientific studies been conducted that have analyzed the potential sources for exposure to these people? What are the contaminants of concern? Were the exposures estimated or were the exposures quantified from test results? Who did this supposed study? Who paid for it? Is the study complete or ongoing? Did the City Manager know about this study? Did the City Council and Mayor know about this study? Has there been any public meetings to review the finidings and has the public been allowed to comment on the findings?

I think you get the gist of this story. There is no story other than the Managing Editors trying to inflame a non-issue.

HDR has done extensive studies at the landfill over the years regarding leachate or leakage of water out of the landfill into the surrounding groundwater table. That is required by federal law to monitor and manage any leachate at the landfill. Had there been issues with the groundwater it has to be reported to the State of NC. If there were any potentialities for exposure they too would require reporting. The same type of requirements occur for airborne contaminants.

Really, N&R if you have news to report, please share it with the citizens. But please don't use competent staffwriters to do your dirty work of trying to make news where none exists to build your shallow case to keep the landfill closed. It should've never been closed in the first place. It is an excellently operated facility and has many good years of service left in it.

histrion

November 13, 2009 - 12:43 pm EST

Are we reading the same story? Or did you just stop reading after the headline and first paragraph?

* They state the types of cancer (pancreatic and multiple myeloma) and the number of cases of each (27 and 13, respectively). The number of pancreatic cancer cases was twice as high as they'd expect for the sample size.

* They say no hard conclusions can be drawn from the data thus far. No one's really sure what hazardous chemicals could be present in the landfill because the city doesn't have records detailing what was dumped there.

Many of your questions are answered. Many aren't, but that's one of the thrusts of the article: This is very preliminary and more research needs to be done. The article is really just saying there's potential cause for concern and that it deserves further study.

What I gather from your comment is that you simply don't want anyone to raise any questions that might derail your agenda. Or is that an unfair conclusion? ;-)

jeffjet

November 13, 2009 - 4:59 pm EST

Histrion,
No I wasn't trying to quell a discussion by my comments only to say that there is much more necessary information needed to make such statements. If they are going to write about the cancer rates in a particular area there is much more information that should be shared than a few paragraphs in an article. No offense intended, however it is stories like this can get way out of hand very easily. There are rather stict rules that dictate how this process is supposed to work. I did read what they have shared, but there is much more necessary before an answer could be applied. I do think though that the landfill should be reopened. Thanks for your comments. I'll try and do a better job explaining myself next time. I get sensitive when I read these type of stories because it is extremely easy to inject items that have no business being there. This is truly a scientific study that is required and a short-term report often has a negative impact on valid science. I could give several examples, but it isn't relevant to this topic and I would rather we discuss this issue about the landfill.

Amanda Lehmert

November 13, 2009 - 1:25 pm EST

Hi Jeffjet,

The city staff asked the county to do this study at the request of a city council member. It was the city management who released it to me and city council members earlier this week. It might be best for you to read the research yourself, since that will answer more of your indepth questions. I will be glad to provide you a copy if you email me.

I have to disagree with you that this inflames the issues around the landfill. We have our local epidemiologist saying quite clearly that there is no risk to residents around the landfill and that the increase cases of the one type of cancer could be purely coincidental. I'd say it does just the opposite of what you are saying -- it is the first real evidence for people who live around the landfills that there does not yet appear to be evidence to match their concerns that the landfill may cause health problems.

-Amanda Lehmert

jnimmer

November 13, 2009 - 11:13 am EST

I've never read an article who's headline was misleading. How do take a study that found, "no health risks to residents and said no further research was needed," and twist it to imply the landfill causes higher cancer rates?

Just plain awful. Someone should be embarrassed.

Laura

November 13, 2009 - 11:25 am EST

If you all would just stop and read the headline, you would realize that it is you who are jumping to conclusions -- not the headline writer, who has to sum up the story in five words. Start thinking critically about your own inability to ... well ... think critically.

The headline is absolutely correct. Cancer rates ARE higher near the landfill, (regardless of how much you want to reopen.) Nothing the reporter wrote says otherwise. It would be irresponsible for the headline to mislead you into thinking there is no cause for concern. You want the media to tell lies -- "everything is ok folks, nothing to worry about," Well, as any careful reader can see, we don't know the exact cause, but the fact remains that we DO have something to worry about. So it was perfectly proper and responsible to write a headline that emphasizes concern.

fisher

November 13, 2009 - 2:12 pm EST

Since no connection has been established between the cancer and the landfill, the headline might as well have been "Cancer cases higher near a tree on Nealtown Road". But the N&R chose "landfill" for a reason. There's more of a political shade to the reporting than anything scientific.

Andrew Brod

November 13, 2009 - 4:31 pm EST

It's not true that no connection has been found. The first step in a process like this is to see if there's a correlation. This study shows that. If there'd been no correlation, there'd be no reason to keep studying it. But because there is a correlation, the next step is to investigate the causal factors. This study didn't do that, nor was it designed to do that. Some other study will do that.

All in all, there's nothing particularly political about this article, nor is it lacking professionally. What's interesting is that the people who complain about the newspaper adding spin are actually themselves the ones spinning.

brian444

November 14, 2009 - 3:28 am EST

Mark Smith's scenario at the end of the article is clearly based on the premise that the state's "expected" number of cancer cases does not correct for race. Could this possibly be true? Could a state agency charged with researching such things be so stupid? If you know that African Americans get pancreatic cancer at a higher rate and that the subject group is about half African American, can you not do simple math to determine if that risk factor alone eliminates the correlation?

If the state did correct for race, then yes, there's an argument for more investigation.

RandolphBloke

November 13, 2009 - 7:16 pm EST

I honestly can't believe you bring some kind of political agenda to this "fisher." The headline is 100% correct. YOU are the one reading into it.

Laura

November 13, 2009 - 11:17 am EST

Oh my gosh, you people have been so brainwashed by a lifetime in this consumerist, corporatized, bureacratized culture of public relations and marketing lies. Don't you realize that no government official who any reporter ever talks to will ever go on the record saying that any product or products cause cancer. None of them speak the whole truth. Stop being so quick to accept these "official" disclaimers, and these over-cautious reporters and editors! The first rule of public relations is to "assure the public that it is safe," regardless of the facts. Reporters and editors all have corporate public relations permanently embedded in their brains. They don't even know how to think independently anymore!

Genetics account for about 3 percent of all cancers. The rest are due to lifestyle and environment. While it is true that at this stage of science, you can never show a direct cause and effect for and SPECIFIC case of cancer, the fact is that we are poisoning ourselves with our unnatural industrialized lifestyle, which includes too many chemicals, too little access to healthy options, and bad choices due to poor access.

Brandon Burgess

November 13, 2009 - 12:05 pm EST

Laura, all I am asking is if the higher cancer rates are present among landfill workers and residents near other landfills. Aren't you the one calling for skepticism? I think the last line in the article warrants just a little bit of that.

Brandon Burgess

November 13, 2009 - 12:39 pm EST

I also think that it is important to understand the method of exposure. Is it from the air? water? From what I understand, these can not be the sources of exposure for various reasons.

RandolphBloke

November 13, 2009 - 7:17 pm EST

Where do you get your "3%" facts from, Laura?

theroadrunner

November 14, 2009 - 10:18 pm EST

Who cares....You can't question anyone who state a statistic with such certainty. It HAS to be true.

Dogwood

November 13, 2009 - 3:05 pm EST

I know that I may be wrong. I know Hospice and Beacon Place are bull-eye in the statistical area. Pancreatic and other cancers are bedded at end stage in northeast Greensboro. Died at Beacon is a statistic researchers find. 19 years with 40 cancers in one area is not compared to thousands that had cancers in our county.

oh good grief

November 13, 2009 - 6:54 pm EST

Surely, surely, a statistical anomaly such as the location of Hospice and Beacon Place in the geographical area under study has been/would be dealt with according to standard statistical practices. The presence of such facilities would merit much more than a mere footnote in a study, in my opinion.

DivineMindPower

November 15, 2009 - 11:00 pm EST

There are other factors to calculate in for possible causes if this is true. Cone Mills is in the area also you can smell the toxic smell in the area. Are there any other News Papers in the area.. N and R is sucking real bad

Submit Comment

eMail Updates

Learn More
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

Triad Weather

  • Current Condition: FAIR
  • Current Temperature: 43°
  • UV Idx: 0
  • Forecast High/Low: H: 0° L: 37°

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search